(ver. 1.) They were perplexed to know whether the Christian husband should continue to live with an unconverted wife; to which Paul answered, "Let not the husband put away his wife," (ver. 11.) To a Christian wife having a heathen husband, he says, "Let not the wife depart from her husband," (ver. 10;) "let her not leave him," (ver. 13.) There seems likewise to have been a doubt whether the promise was made to children, unless both father and mother were Christians; to which the apostle answers, "The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy," (ver. 14.) Now, everybody knows that the Jews considered all other nations unclean; and there is little doubt that there was enough of Jewish influence at Corinth to produce all this difficulty about the uncleanness of children who had but one Christian parent. The very existence of the difficulty proves much. How could there be any serious difficulty about the children unless there had been objections to their being baptized on account of one of their parents being in unbelief? This accounts for the whole difficulty; while on any other supposition it is wholly unaccountable. This view is further strengthened from Paul's calling the children "holy." He must have intended to teach that they were ceremonially holy, and so there was nothing in the way of their receiving baptism. He could not have meant they were personally holy; for such a state is noway connected with the moral character of the parent. It could be of no consequence whether the parents believed or not; they were by nature the children of wrath. But when we consider them holy, in reference to their parents, it must be considered in view of the promise which is made to the children of pious parents: Acts ii. 39, xvi. 31; Gal. iii. 16, 17; Gen. xvii. 7. If they were thus holy, they had a right to be partakers of the promise in the ordinance of baptism: Acts xvi. 33. Once more: "Moreover, brethren, I would not have you ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them: and that rock was Christ." 1 Cor. x. 1-4. "Now these things were our examples," (ver. 6.) But who were they that were baptized for "our examples"? "Six hundred thousand on foot that were men, besides children." Ex. xii. 37. This army of Israelites who were "all baptized unto Moses for an example" to the Christian church had many "children." Here we not only have the proof that the children were baptized, but, likewise, that it was done as an example to us. We have seen that baptism came in the stead of circumcision, and that God's church had children in it from the days of Abraham, upon divine authority, and that, instead of depriving them of this divine right, our blessed Lord expressly declares them to be the subjects of his kingdom, and also sanctions the reception of them in his name. that when the Christian church was fully organized under the new dispensation, the promise to children was distinctly renewed. We have also seen that whole families were baptized without any evidence that any but the parents were converted or consulted. How can we escape the conclusion that infants were baptized by the apostles in the name of Christ and upon his authority? We have likewise seen, As we flatter ourselves that we have established our point, we shall close this part of our subject with this remark:-God never has had a church since the days of Abraham, in heaven above or on earth below, that had no infants in it; nor do we believe he ever will. When we speak of God's church, we do not mean a sect. We are aware that several sects not only exclude children from their pale and from the church, but also make a great deal of sectarian noise because others suffer the little children to come. ESSAY V. OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. We propose in this Essay to state and answer some of the objections most commonly urged against infant baptism. 1. Infants cannot believe; therefore, they should not be baptized. Let us put this in the form of a syllogism, thus: Baptism has reference to faith; But infants cannot exercise faith; Therefore, infants should not be baptized. This argument takes for granted what is not true;—that is, that baptism can be of no benefit till the subject can act faith. It is an advantage to a child to be raised up under church discipline, and should be esteemed a very high privilege. We therefore answer: Baptism entitles us to church privileges; Therefore, they should be baptized. But let us try this objection on a kindred subject. Circumcision is a seal of the righteousness of faith; Infants cannot believe; Therefore, they should not be circumcised. But if we do not take care, we will make void the commandments of God by our reasoning. Again : He that believeth shall be saved; Infants cannot believe; Therefore, they cannot be saved. Again: He that will not work should not eat; Therefore, they should not eat. This shows the force of all such objections, and need not be pursued. 2. It is objected that infant baptism deprives our children of the right of choosing what denomination they will join. To this we reply, that those who have been baptized can make as judicious and as free a choice as those who have not. Baptism does not take away their understanding, nor does it deprive them of Christian liberty. It is very |