102

SANCTIFIED BY THE WIFE.

[I. COR 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife,

heathen. He declares that, so far as he knows (for he has had no special revelation respecting it), there is no ground for such scruples, and he gives a remarkable reason.

14. "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving," &c. This sanctification is not, of course, to be taken in the sense of being internally and spiritually holy, but relatively holy in so far as this, that their matrimony is holy matri. mony; their intercourse is not sinful, and if they have children, the holiness of one parent saves the children from being considered or treated as heathen children; they are entitled to Baptism just as if both the parents were baptized Christians. We mistake altogether St. Paul's religious position, so to speak, if we conceive him to be a precursor of Luther or Calvin, much less of Zwingle or Knox. If ever man did, he believed in the Holy Catholic Church. He believed that the outward visible Church of Christ took the place of the Jewish body, and much more. Though its members might be very deficient in heart-sanctification or self-dedication, they were still in a real sense holy, and they were to believe this and act upon the belief, in order that they might attain to a higher sanctification. They were to hold not only their souls but their very bodies to be holy, because those bodies were the members of Christ. This Church is sanctified not merely by the preaching of the Word, but by the washing of water by the Word (Ephes. v. 26). The Church is one, not only because it is one in Christian opinion, or one in knowledge, or one in the possession of the Scriptures, but because it partakes of one Eucharistic Bread (1 Cor. x. 16, 17). Even what Christians eat is "sanctified by the word of God and prayer" (1 Tim. iv. 5). Angels are in their assemblies (xi. 10; Heb. xii. 22). Even whilst on earth they belong to the heavenly Jerusalem, they are in communion not only with one another, but with the general assembly and Church of the first-born, and with the spirits of just men made perfect (Heb. xii. 23). Such is St. Paul's idea of the Church, even of such a branch of it so imperfect as the Corinthian part of it; and we must carry with us all this in the reading of every verse of his Epistles. If we commit the folly of measuring him by Luther or Calvin, or the Puritans, or even by our best English Reformers, we mistake him and his teaching.

CHAP. VII.]

NOW ARE THEY HOLY.

103

and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else

0

were your children unclean; but now are they Mal. ii. 15. holy.

14. "By the husband." N, A., B., C., D., E., F., G., P., 17, 19, 46, d, e, f, g, Copt., Basm., read, "by the brother;" K., L., most Cursives, Vulg., Syriac, Arm., Æth., Goth., read, "husband,"

Now let us apply these ideas of the Apostle of a great mixed body, being holy because of its profession and dedication, to the elucidation of the question: Has the Apostle the Baptism of Infants in his mind when he writes, "Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy"?

It has been said that the passage is against the practice of Infant Baptism in the Apostle's time, for he would have hardly founded an argument on the derivation of the children's holiness from their Christian parent or parents, if there had been a distinct act by which the children had themselves been admitted into the Christian Society. (Stanley.) Now to this it may be answered, that the Apostle knows of no holiness (among heathens, at least), apart from the Christian Church, and he asserts very distinctly, that that holiness comes not on the first act of belief, but through Baptism. (Ephes. v. 26; 1 Corinth. xii. 13; Titus iii. 5.) But those who thus lay down that this place is against the practice, assert equally strongly that the passage asserts the principle on which Infant Baptism is founded; thus (from the same commentator), "The children of Christian parents may therefore be considered as among the people of God, and from this would follow the natural consequence, that the whole family would participate in the same rites as belonged properly, and in the highest sense, only to those members, or that member of it who was strictly a believer."

But here we are asked to assume, that there was no practice of Infant Baptism, and yet that the words of St. Paul contain the whole principle of it. Surely he was a man who would understand the principles which underlay what he wrote, and would carry them out. If we bear in mind our Lord's treatment of infants, and what He said about them, as in some spiritual respects superior to adults -if we bear in mind the analogy of circumcision, and such a prophecy as that cited by St. Peter in Acts ii. 39-if we bear in mind that the Baptism not only of individuals, but of whole households, is expressly mentioned, and that children are addressed in

104

LET HIM DEPART.

[I. COR. 15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A

the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians, as members of the Christian Church just as much as their baptized elders (Ephes. vi. 1, Colos. iii. 20), then we see that the assertion by St. Paul that certain children of a Christian parent or parents were holy, postulates their Baptism. Of course, if we believe that St. Paul's views of the Church and its ordinances were those of Zwingle, then this assertion of his does not assume Baptism; but if his views respecting the Church and its ordinances were those which the Catholic Church has ever held, then it does.

This place, if taken simply and barely by itself, without reference to anything which St. Paul had written or our Lord had said, does not assume the practice of Infant Baptism; but if it be taken in connection with what St. Paul writes elsewhere respecting the holiness of the whole body of the Church and the sanctity of the several members of their bodies, and all this depending upon or assuming Baptism, then it does.

66

15. 'But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not," &c. This means, apparently, If the unbelieving depart, you are under no obligation to attempt to live with him against his will, or to compel the unbeliever to live with you. You are not under such bondage in such cases. But the question further arises (and it is doubtful to me whether it is contemplated by the Apostle), do the words, " not under bondage," mean that they are at libertyif finally deserted—to contract another marriage? Commentators of decided Catholic opinions have pronounced that they may. Thus Bishop Wordsworth: "Although a Christian may not put away his wife, being an unbeliever, yet, if the wife desert her husband, he may contract a second marriage." And Estius: "ut sensus sit. Christianum et Christianam cum infidelibus matrimonio copulatos, in hujusmodi rebus seu casibus, cujusmodi videlicet sermo proxime præcedens comprehendit, non esse subjectos servitute; ut vel inupti manere, vel cum conjugibus remanere, eisve digressis reconciliari debeant." Also Cornelius à Lapide: "Nota Apostolum permittere hoc casu non tantum thori devortium sed etiam matrimonii: ita ut possit conjux fidelis aliud matrimonium inire."

Chrysostom (here, at least), does not contemplate the Apostle referring to the Christian party who is deserted being permitted to marry again. "But what is the meaning of let the unbelieving

CHAP. VII.] GOD HATH CALLED TO PEACE.

105

brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but

P

God hath called us to peace.

16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or † how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? 17 But as God hath distributed to every man,

p Rom. xii. 18. & xiv. 19.

ch. xiv. 33.

Heb. xii. 14. † Gr. in peace. q 1 Pet. iii. 1. † Gr. what.

15. "Called us." So B., D., E., F., G., L., most Cursives, Ital, Vulg., Syriac, &c.; but N, C., K., read, “you."

depart? For instance, if he bid thee sacrifice and take part in his ungodliness on account of thy marriage, or part company, it were better the marriage were annulled, and no breach made in godliness. If day by day he buffet thee, and keep up combats on this account, it is better to separate. For this is what he glances at, saying, 'But God hath called us unto peace.'

"God hath called us to peace," or, "in peace." This must be taken in conjunction with "let him depart," i.e., rather than by his presence and idolatrous practices be the constant occasion of wrangling and division. Or it may mean, if taken in connection with the usual meaning assigned to the next verse, Do what you can, consistent with your duty to God, to maintain peace, even when the husband or wife is unbelieving.

16. "For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband?" There is a remarkable difference among commentators respecting the meaning of this verse; some asserting that it means, Do all you can to preserve union, in order that you may convert your unbelieving yoke-fellow, as St. Peter says, "If any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives" (1 Pet. iii. 1). Others, on the contrary, interpret as meaning, Let the unbeliever depart: hazard not for an uncertainty the peace in which you ought to be living as Christians, for what assurance have you that you will convert your unbelieving partners? it is most unlikely. So Alford. I need hardly say that the former way of taking the passage sounds the more Christian.

it

17. "But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called," &c. The connection of the verse with what precedes is difficult and uncertain. Something of this sort seems to be the meaning. I have (in verse 15) asserted your liberty, that you are not in bondage, and so may change your state as regards your

106

SO LET HIM WALK.

[I. COR

as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.

r ch. iv. 17,

2 Cor. xi. 28.

8 Acts xv. 1, 5, 19, 24, 28. Gal, v. 2.

t Gal. v. 6. &

18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.

t

19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but "the keeping of the comu John xv. 14. mandments of God.

vi. 15.

1 John ii. 3.

& iii. 24.

heathen partner; but this is to be held with this reservation-that God does not intend His religion to alter the social state of those whom He calls. For instance, the military life had connected with it much that seemed contrary to the Gospel, and yet it was quite possible that Christian soldiers might continue loyal servants both of God and of Cæsar. And so, if a person was called being married, he or she was not to seek occasion to change that condition, rather the contrary.

“And so ordain I in all churches." I do not merely recommend this as a Christian brother, but I ordain it as an Apostle, and would have men observe the rule which I lay down, that Christian liberty is not to make men loose to social bonds or relations. And now he gives two instances in point.

66

18. Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become," &c. Let him not become so as to appear uncircumcised. Josephus alludes to this as undergone by apostate Jews, who desired to live as Gentiles: this happened in the time of Antiochus. (Ant. xii. v. sec. 1. See also 1 Mac. i. 11.)

18. "Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised." That is, under the influence of Judaizing teachers. Let him not put himself under a law from the bondage of which Christ by His own obedience to the law has delivered him.

19. "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing," &c. This, of course, is said with reference to the new standing of Christians in Christ. Before the coming of Christ it could not have been said without contravening the express words of God in Gen. xvii. 14: "The uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant." But now that Christ was revealed and preached, "neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncir