lieving husband is sanctified by the belie^g wife, and the unbelieving wife by the believing husband, the meaning is, not that they are rendered inwardly holy, nor that they are brought under a sanctifying influence, but that they were sanctified by their intimate union with a believer, just as the temple sanctified the gold connected with it ; or the altar the gift laid upon it. Matt. 23, 17. 19. The sacrifice in itself was merely a part of the body of a lamb, laid upon the altar, though its internal nature remained the same, it became some- thing sacred. Thus, the pagan husband, in virtue of his union with a Christian wife, although he remained a pagan, was sanctified ; he assumed a new relation ; he was set apart to the service of God, as the guardian of one of his chosen ones, and as the parent of children who, in virtue of their believing mother, were children of the covenant.
That this is so, the apostle proves from the fact, that if the parents are holy, the children are holy; if the parents are un- clean, the children are unclean. This is saying literally what is expressed figuratively in Rom. 11, 16. "If the root be holy, so are the branches." It will be remembered that the words holy and unclean^ do not in this connection express moral character, but are equivalent to sacred and profane. Those within the covenant are sacred, those without are pro- fane, i. e. not consecrated to God. There are two views which may be taken of the apostle's argument in this verse. The most natural, and hence the most generally adopted view is this : ' The children of these mixed marriages are universally recognised as holy, that is, as belonging to the church. If this be correct, which no one disputes, the marriages them- selves must be consistent with the laws of God. The unbe- lieving must be sanctified by the beUeving partner. Other- wise, your children would be unclean, i. e. born out of the pale of the church.' To this it is indeed objected by several modern commentators, that it takes for granted that the Corinthians had no scruples about the church-standing of the children of these mixed marriages. But this, it is said, is very improbable so soon after the establishment of the church, when cases of the kind must have been comparatively few. The principle in question, however, was not a new one, to be then first determined by Christian usage. It was, at least, as old as the Jewish economy ; and familiar wherever Jewish laws and the facts of the Jewish history, were known. Paul circumcised Timothy, whose father was a Greek, while his