woman, and rejected by her husband; or believed by a man, and rejected by his wife. One of the invariable effects of Christianity being a tender concern in parents for the welfare of their offspring; a question was naturally suggested by such a disparity of religious condition, as to the light in which the children were to be viewed. Considering the one parent, they were to be accounted " holy;" but considering the other, they were to be accounted" unclean." Did the character of the former place them within the church of God; or the character of the latter without it? or did they belong partly to the church and partly to the world, but wholly to neither? The difficulty was a real one; and calculated to excite much distress in the minds of parents who, like the primitive Christians, did not treat the relation of their little ones to the church of God, as a slight and uninteresting affair.

Paul obviates it by telling his Corinthian friends, that in this case where the argument for the children appears to be perfectly balanced by the argument against them, God has graciously inclined the scale in favour of his people: so that for the purpose of conveying to their infants the privilege of being within his covenant and church, the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife by the husband. If it were not so, it must be the reverse; because it is impossible that

sepa

a child should be born in two contrary moral states then, the believing husband being rendered" unclean" by his wife; and the believing wife "unclean" by her husband, their children would also be "unclean,” i. e. would be born, not in a state of separation to God; but in a state of ration from him; like those who are without the bond of his covenant, and, not being appropriated to him, are "common" or "unclean." But now, saith the apostle, God has determined that the parental influence shall go the other way. That instead of the interest which a child has in his covenant, by virtue of the faith of one parent, being made void by the infidelity of the other ; the very fact of being married to a believer, shall so far control the effect of unbelief-shall so far consecrate the infidel party, as that the children of such a marriage shall be accounted of the covenanted seed; shall be members of the churchNow, saith Paul, they are HOLY.

The passage which we have explained, establishes the church membership of infants in another form. For it assumes the principle that when both parents are reputed believers, their children belong to the church of God as a matter of course. The whole difficulty proposed by the Corinthians to Paul grows out of this principle. Had he taught, or they understood, that no children, be their parents believers or unbelievers, are to be

accounted members of the church, the difficulty could not have existed. For if the faith of both parents could not confer upon a child the privilege of membership, the faith of only one of them certainly could not. The point was decided. It would have been mere impertinence to teaze the apostle with queries which carried their own answer along with them. But on the supposition that when both parents were members, their children, also, were members; the difficulty is very natural and serious. "I see," would a Corinthian convert exclaim, "I see the children of my Christian neighbours, owned as members of the church of God; and I see the children of others, who are unbelievers, rejected with themselves. I believe in Christ myself; but my husband, my wife, believes not. "What is to become of my children? Are they to be admitted with myself? or are they to be cast off with my partner ?"

"Let not your heart be troubled," replies the apostle: "God reckons them to the believing, not to the unbelieving, parent. It is enough that they are yours. The infidelity of your partner shall never frustrate their interest in the covenant of your God. They are 'holy' because you are so."

This decision put the subject at rest. And it lets us know that one of the reasons, if not the chief reason of the doubt, whether a married person should continue, after conversion, in the con

jugal society of an infidel partner, arose from a fear lest such continuance should exclude the children from the church of God. Otherwise it is hard to comprehend why the apostle should dissuade them from separating, by such an argument as he has employed in the text. And it is utterly inconceivable how such a doubt could have entered their minds, had not the membership of infants, born of believing parents, been undisputed, and esteemed a high privilege; so high a privilege, as that the apprehension of losing it made conscientious parents at a stand whether they ought not rather to break the ties of wedlock, by withdrawing from an unbelieving husband or wife. Thus, the origin of this difficulty on the one hand, and the solution of it, on the other, concur in establishing our doctrine, that, by the appointment of God himself, the infants of believing parents are BORN members of his church.

We shall close this number, already too long, though but an outline, with another decision on the same general question, from the pen of the same apostle.

Treating of the future restoration of the Jews, he says, They also, if they bide not still in unbelief, shall be GRAFFED in; for God is able to graff them in For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature; and wert graffed, contrary to nature, into a good olive tree; how much more shall

AGAIN.

these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their OWN OLIVE TREE. Rom. xi. 23, 24.

66

That the olive tree signifies, and can signify nothing else than the visible church with the privileges dispensed in it, we abundantly proved in our second number.* The Jews never did belong, nationally, to any but the external church; and from no other could they be cut off. But, saith Paul, these Jews, "the natural branches," have been "broken off," and thou the Gentile, " graffed in." Graffed into what? The same tree from which the others were cut away. Then, not only is there a visible church; but it is the very same from which the Jews have been excommunicated. Or else the apostle has asserted a falsehood. For if the New Testament church be not the same, in substance, with the church to which the Jews belonged, it is not true that the Gentiles have been "graffed into the olive tree," from which the Jews have been broken off; but a new tree has been planted: a flat and formal contradiction to the word of God! which says, that the old tree stands, and that other branches are graffed in. Well, then, the Gentiles occupy in the church the place which the Jews did before their expulsion. The new branch with its buds is transferred to the good olive tree, and grows in its fatness. Whatever privileges, therefore, the Jews had formerly,

* 45-47.