Of the older commentators Barnes, so far from seeing any reference to Baptism in the text, produces a long argument against such an interpretation. Ellicot refrains from using the passage in support of infant Baptism. But, on the other hand, Doddridge, Conybeare and Howson, and Alford find in it support for their practice.

      Amongst scholars of our own day, who argue for infant Baptism in the Apostolic age and who find cover for their argument in this passage, are to be named Dr. Bartlet and Dr. Armitage Robinson. But, on the other hand, Mr. Nathaniel Micklem, in his little book on Corinthians,¹ claims that the passage has no reference to Baptism; Williston Walker, in his Church History, maintains that there [268] was no infant Baptism until late in the second century; and Gwatkin, making special reference to this passage, that there is no trace of it in the New Testament.

      That the passage can have no reference to infant Baptism is clear for the following reasons. (1) If it has, then children must be baptised because they are holy, and in the primitive Church Baptism was administered to make people holy. Gwatkin warns those who use the passage that it is a "two-edged sword." (2) If it proves infant Baptism, it proves too much, for on the same grounds the unbelieving husband or wife must be baptised. (3) The idea of being "federally holy" is unknown in the New Testament. It has often been urged that Baptism took the place of circumcision, and Colossians ii. 11 is quoted in support. But Colossians ii. 11 can have no reference to Baptism, for it is a "circumcision made without hands." Then it is clear that circumcised Jews were baptised, and baptised Hellenists were circumcised (Timothy) when occasion demanded. But, after all, circumcision did not make Jews "federally holy." They were born, not circumcised, into the holy race. (4) The word akatharta denotes that which is impure, defiled, idolatrous, in a Levitical sense or in a moral sense, and here properly expresses illegitimacy. The subject under discussion by St. Paul is not Baptism, but moral relations. Marriage with heathens was sharply forbidden.² St. Paul's language is very strong, and Tertullian shows that in his day it was regarded as equal to fornication. But St. Paul here [269] allows that where the marriage already exists it is clean, and not to be dissolved, unless the unbelieving party deserts. Uncleanness and holiness are regarded as infectious. He clinches the argument by referring to a fact which was known to the Corinthians, i.e., the children were regarded as the result of a clean union--otherwise they would have been illegitimate.

[EOCU 268-270]