Appendix 1: On Baptism 63
that the apostle does by it determine not only the lawfulness, but the expedience also, of
a believer’s cohabitation with an unbeliever in the state of marriage.
And we do think that—although the apostle’s asserting of the unbelieving yokefellow
to be sanctified by the believer should carry in it somewhat more than is in the bare
marriage of two infidels, because although the marriage covenant has a divine sanction
so as to make the wedlock of two unbelievers a lawful action, and their conjunction and
cohabitation in that respect undefiled, yet there might be no ground to suppose from
thence that both or either of their persons are thereby sanctified; and the apostle urges
the cohabitation of a believer with an infidel in the state of wedlock from this ground:
that the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife—nevertheless, here you
have the influence of a believer’s faith ascending from an inferior to a superior relation;
from the wife to the husband who is her head, before it can descend to their offspring.
And therefore we say, whatever be the nature or extent of the holiness here intended, we
conceive it cannot convey to the children an immediate right to baptism, because it
would then be of another nature, and of a larger extent, than the root and original from
whence it is derived—for it is clear by the apostle’s argument that holiness cannot be
derived to the child from the sanctity of one parent only. If either father or mother be (in
the sense intended by the apostle) unholy or unclean, so will the child be also. Therefore,
for the production of an holy seed it is necessary that both the parents be sanctified; and
this the apostle positively asserts, in the first place, to be done by the believing parent,
although the other be an unbeliever—and then, consequentially from thence, argues the
holiness of their children. Hence it follows that, as the children have no other holiness
than what they derive from both their parents, so neither can they have any right by this
holiness to any spiritual privilege but such as both their parents did also partake of: and
therefore, if the unbelieving parent (though sanctified by the believing parent) have not
thereby a right to baptism, neither can we conceive that there is any such privilege de-
rived to the children by their birth holiness.
Besides, if it had been the usual practice in the apostles’ days for the father or mother
that did believe to bring all their children with them to be baptised, then the holiness of
the believing Corinthians’ children would not at all have been in question when this
epistle was written; but might have been argued from their passing under that ordinance
which represented their new birth, although they had derived no holiness from their
parents by their first birth; and would have laid as an exception against the apostle’s in-
ference, “else were your children unclean,” etc. But of the sanctification of all the chil-
dren of every believer by this ordinance, or any other way than what is before mentioned,
the Scripture is altogether silent.
This may also be added: that if this birth holiness do qualify all the children of every
believer for the ordinance of baptism, why not for all other ordinances—for the Lord’s
Supper as was practiced for a long time together? For if recourse be had to what the
Scriptures speak generally of this subject, it will be found that the same qualities which
do entitle any person to baptism, do so also for the participation of all the ordinances
and privileges of the house of God that are common to all believers.