THE ENTAIL OF THE
COVENANT
OR
THE
SAVIOUR’S “LITTLE ONES”
BY
SIR
ROBERT ANDERSON, K.C.B., LL.D.
that one
of these little ones should perish.”
MATTHEW xviii. 14.
|
|
Sir Robert Anderson (1841-1918) |
|
|
|
PREFACE TO THE ELECTRONIC VERSION
Alfred Corduan, 2003
“The Entail of the Covenant” was published by Sir Robert Anderson sometime during the first world war – a library copy that I found listed on the Internet was published in 1914, a scant 4 years before his death. The source for this out of print document, which does not give the original date, is found in Volume 10 of the “Assembly Writers Library” published March 1984 by Gospel Tract Publications, 7 Beech Ave, Glasgow G41 5BY. The original document has lost its copyright – the publisher of the reprint was happy to see me convert the text to electronic form and make it freely available. My request to any seeking to make further use of this document is to give credit to Gospel Tract Publications for the reprint and include their address.
The Author
Sir
Robert Anderson (1841-1918) is a singular individual in many respects. He is highly esteemed by believers for his
many excellent works, all characterized by clear, penetrating logic. Several of his books are still in print,
regarded as definitive and unsurpassed in their spheres, which is a testimony
to the greatness of this man. Perhaps
his most well known work is “The Coming Prince” which is considered by
many to provide one of the best treatments available of Daniel's
prophecy of the 70 weeks. “Daniel in
the Critics Den” addresses the ways those that pseudo-intellectuals have
sought to discredit the book of Daniel.
Also well known is “The Gospel and its Ministry”, regarded by
many as the definitive treatment of the Gospel and the fundamental doctrines
associated with it. Volume 10 of the
“Assembly Writers Library” contains two other works: “Human Destiny”, which deals with various “wider
hope/universal salvation” doctrines (and which C. H. Spurgeon describes
as "the most valuable contribution on the subject I have seen"), and
“Misunderstood Texts of the New Testament”, addressing many scriptures
that have caused confusion and controversy among believers.
He was well known
in public life in his day as an outstanding lawyer and government servant. As a secret agent for the British government
he was very effective in gathering intelligence on the Irish Fenian
movement, a precursor to the modern IRA.
When this role was discovered the British government relocated him to London and gave him an
honored appointment in Scotland Yard as Assistant Commissioner of Metropolitan
Police and Chief of the Criminal Investigation Department. In this position he played a key role in the
“Jack the Ripper” investigation (1888) and his works and conclusions on the
subject are integral to any consideration of the matter. Interestingly enough, this is the time when
the popular “Sherlock Holmes” mysteries were being written - Sir Robert and his
staff were the true “Sherlocks”. The
records show that crime decreased in London during that period. He directed this work till 1901, when he was
knighted upon retiring.
The Topic
I have known of a number of obedient children
that have sought over many years to be saved . . . to no seeming avail. A father said of his respectful, obedient
teenage son: “He would love to be
saved”. I wanted to cry . . . this
cannot be! The Lord who loves such so
much that He sent His Son to die for them, that longs for their salvation more
than all our emotions combined cannot make salvation so difficult that those
that would come cannot. If the Lord has
not hindered them, who has? Could it be
we ourselves who have put unscriptural roadblocks and doubts as stumbling
blocks in their way, discouraging them, and sending them down a lifelong path
of doubt at best, and of rebellion and hell at worst? Are we perhaps at times like the scribes, laying heavy burdens on
our children which we will not lift even a finger to help move for them? Hear the following most solemn words of the
Savior: “Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones” (Matthew
18:10), and
“Whoso shall offend (stumble)
one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a
millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of
the sea.” (verse 6). These “little
ones”, as Anderson points out, are simply children, such as the one on His lap,
that have a heart toward the Savior. Of
these He says in verse 14. “Even so it is not the will of your Father which is
in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.” This, coupled with many other solemn words,
warns us that the Lord holds us personally accountable if we stumble a little
one through our carelessness.
Perhaps we have
not been as clear and, perhaps, urgent with our children when it comes to this,
the greatest of matters. We have no
problem commanding our children on far lesser matters with no room for
negotiation. We do not say, “I hope you
will choose to not play in the street” or “I am praying that you will not drink
this poison”. We do not even say, “If
you choose to tell the truth”, or, “I hope that you will obey me”. We say, “Do not play in the street”, “Do not
drink this poison”, “You will not lie, you must obey”. Yet, somehow, we have come to believe that
the best approach with children regarding their soul’s salvation is a distant
praying, hoping, suggesting.
Are God’s
commandments to us options or expected requirements? The answer is absolutely clear:
The Lord never gives us the option to not obey His commandments. I remember reading that the use of “shalt”
by the Lord in the 10 commandments and elsewhere is a unique use of language
syntax: He is God and He fully expects
that we “shall” do it.
Interesting it is
that the characteristic that God focuses on when explaining His pleasure with
Abraham, the father of faith and of the faithful, is this: “For I know him, that he will command
his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of
the Lord, to do justice and judgment” (Genesis 18:19) These are the kinds of fathers and mothers that God is looking
for today.
Now we know that,
unlike the other dangers mentioned previously, salvation involves the depths of
the heart rather than an outward act.
We also know that genuine salvation is an act of God, begun, carried
out, and culminated by Him. Yet, I
ask: Is faith in Christ an option or a
commandment to our child? Scripture makes
it clear: It is a commandment; it is a
matter of simple obedience. “And this
is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus
Christ” (1 John 3:23) “But God be thanked, that ye were the
servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine
which was delivered you.” (Romans 6:17)
“But they have not all obeyed the gospel.” (Romans 10:16) The two (faith and obedience) go hand in
hand – one cannot be separated from the other.
Are we commanding
our children to trust Christ with the same urgency that we command them to obey
any other of God’s commands? The degree
of our focus, our urgency in this matter to our children is directly
proportional to our perception of the danger that they are in . . . as well as
our own sense of personal accountability in the matter. And accountable we are. There is no other way to explain the clear
requirement of an elder (Titus 1:6) that he have “faithful children”, which is
more correctly translated, “children of faith”, saved children. Proverbs 22:6 says, “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is
old, he will not depart from it.” Note
that this does not say, “When he is old, he will return to it”. God lays the responsibility to see that our
children are saved squarely on our poor, weak, trembling shoulders – and with
this gives us the great hope that He will enable us to do what He has commanded
and will save every one of our little ones as we look to Him. Do we have the faith to believe Him?
“Election” = Eli’s Excuse
No believing parent would deliberately push his child away from
salvation. No, this happens by default,
a result of accepting doctrines and practices “by tradition” from our fathers
which we, unlike the Bereans, have never searched out for ourselves. Chief at the root of this is the
“Calvinistic” – properly Augustinian – doctrine known as “election”. A parent who accepts this position believes
that, no matter how hard he may pray for his child, no matter how diligently he
instructs and nurtures, or, conversely, how awfully he neglects and abuses, his
son or daughter has already been predestined to heaven or hell. Thus parents are wholly absolved of all
responsibility regarding the eternal destiny of their little ones. We talk around this obvious conclusion
because it is so condemning, but it cannot be avoided.
Perhaps, when confronted with the destruction of their offspring, some
“election”-believing parents would say with Eli: “It is the Lord: let Him do what seemeth him good.” (1 Samuel
3:18) However these are not words of
godly submission but rather an inexcusable expression of the careless, lazy
indifference that marked this failing leader of God’s people, and which got him
and his sons into this trouble in the first place. God clearly laid the matter solidly at his feet. He never loved his sons enough to demand
that they trust and follow the Lord with all their hearts, to “restrain” and
discipline when they didn’t, and to cry out to the Lord for undeserved mercy
for them when destruction was near. He
was content to accept the decree concerning his sons as predetermined by an
Almighty God, thus absolving him of all responsibility.
Consider how genuine men of God - and I
reverently include the Savior - responded when facing the “election” or choice
of a God who has stated that He will not repent (Numbers 23:19):
·
David could cry
out to the Lord day and night over his child which the Lord had clearly stated
would die (2 Samuel 12:22) . . . through which, although he had to surrender
the child for a time, he gained a Solomon.
·
Moses could cry
out for – and secure – the Lord’s “repentance” and the deliverance of the
people after the Lord had commanded him to “let me alone” to destroy them (Exodus 32:10) . . .
and if anyone understood “predestination”, Moses did (Romans 9:17).
·
Paul could cry
out with unparalleled earnestness for the salvation of all Jews, even to the
point of death. (Romans 9:1-4; Romans 10:1)
If anyone understood “election”, Paul did.
·
The Savior
could cry out with the most intense agony to His Heavenly Father for
deliverance from the cross even while He knew that there was no other way,
simply because “all things are possible unto Thee” (Mark 14:36) . . . and, the
Scriptures make it clear, He was delivered (Hebrews 5:7)
These are the expressions from the intense depths of the most godly of
hearts: How can we believe any less for
our little ones, theology or no theology?
Even the great Charles Spurgeon, a staunch “Calvinist”, loved souls so
much that he is known to have prayed publicly:
“Lord, save the elect – and then elect some more!” This is the heart of love that, although in contradistinction
to his received theology, was so in tune with the heart and mind of the Lord
that he did not allow these doctrines to color his actions and faith where it
really mattered.
No parent is perfect, and the best of parents can have an erring child. The Lord says: “All souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul
of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die”(Ezekiel 18:4). We understand that every parent and every
child stands on his own feet of responsibility before the Lord. Yet the blind bowing to such doctrines as
are widely held amongst us – and the corresponding slackness of purpose –
cannot be justified by any believer who genuinely loves both the Lord and his
own children, even if such doctrines are promoted by some of the greatest of
men.
Without faith it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6), and we
know that whatsoever we pray for, believing we shall receive it, it will be
ours (Matthew 21:22). The reality is
that we cannot believe anything of God that cannot be grounded in His word and
promises. Thus a parent believing this
evil doctrine cannot pray for his child in faith. His spiritual strength to lay hold on the Lord, the
confidence to pray earnestly, with full assurance, for the salvation of his
children, is sapped.[2] What a masterstroke of Satan to give him an
awesome advantage in the battle to gain their little souls for himself.
Endless controversy has surrounded the understanding of certain
scriptures relating to “election” with wise men holding many different
positions – Sir Robert Anderson gives a very clear explanation of this
scriptural term in the book. Yet there
are certain matters which may not be debated and which must form the basis of any
acceptance of doctrines such as these.
Hear the crystal clear word in our primary section: “Even so it is not the will of your Father
which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.”
(Matt 18:14) Sir Robert Anderson points
out that the Greek makes this emphatic, that the will of the Father is the
complete opposite of this. This,
coupled with other completely clear sections (1 Timothy 2:3; 2 Peter 3:9 as
examples), would force us to choose between some commonly accepted traditional
doctrines and the clear spoken Word of God.
With the souls of our children in the balance, we must hasten to clear
our thinking, cease to be “wise and prudent” and return to our own status as
“babes” so that we may have God’s incomprehensible truths revealed to us
(Matthew 11:25).
Can Those Who Cannot Remember be Saved?
In the “Gospel Halls” where we gather, and where Sir Robert Anderson also preached and gathered, there is a strong emphasis on the preaching of the Gospel and it is refreshing to hear it preached each Lord’s Day as well as at many other times. Because of our interest in genuineness we have insisted on a certain pattern of salvation that is applied indiscriminately to children as well as to adults. Because of certain error that allows for “covenant” or “household” salvation, i.e. you are saved because your parents are saved, or for a gradual, undefined salvation, we have demanded a known “time when, place where, and manner how” for each one professing Christ as Savior. The zeal is right, the errors are real, but the universal application is wrong.
That the “new birth” happens at least as instantaneously and deliberately – and miraculously – as natural birth cannot be argued. But I cannot find any scripture that demands any level of personal knowledge of the moment or details of salvation as the proof of it. If one were to further stretch the birth analogy, the only recollection I have of my own birth is through the accounts of others. The proof of it, however, is in my present life.
It is interesting that scripture places the onus of remembering on the Lord, not on the believer. Matthew 7:23 says “I never knew you”, not, “You never knew Me”. Note the careful language of Galatians 4:9: “But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, . . .”. 2 Timothy 2:13 says: “If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.” Salvation is defined, ultimately, by what God thinks and sees and does, by a name that He writes in a book, not by what is going on at our end at any given time.
Matthew 18:3 states clearly that it is adults, not children, that need a “conversion” experience, as Sir Robert Anderson points out. Steps of repentance from “idols” and “dead works” are reserved for those who have them to turn from. The little children, on the other hand, need largely but to be brought to the Savior . . . preferably by their parents, as Scripture illustrates.
There are those who received Christ at such a young age that as adults they have no recollection of it. Sir Robert Anderson makes this point strongly, and if there is a point to cause controversy it is this (read his footnote at the end of chapter 3). This should, however, not be regarded as abnormal if “of such is the Kingdom of Heaven” refers to young children (and he notes that the Greek in several of the Gospel accounts clearly points to very, very young children).
I know of some saved at 2 and 3 years of age that have minimal recollection of it and yet have over many years as adults borne out the genuineness of salvation. I dare say that it would be difficult to separate their personal memory from that built upon the account of others. I personally know of some who have no personal recollection at all who have borne out the fruit of reality in their lives. The ones I know well speak of a distinct commitment to the Lordship of Christ as adults, but it is certain they were saved previously. Others have a story of the calling of the Savior and a seeking after him, but cannot pinpoint the exact event beyond a period of time[3]. Some of these have been wracked with doubts once coming amongst us – and who could blame them. To one such, near and dear to me, our late and highly esteemed servant of the Lord Fisher Hunter said, “Salvation is a matter of Who you are trusting . . . now!” Or, as Sir Robert Anderson states it at the end of chapter 3: “Looking back for tokens or proofs that we have been born of God, or converted, may take our eyes off the Lord Jesus Christ and plunge us into darkness. Moreover the remembrance of a change experienced at some past epoch of life is no safe anchorage for faith. Indeed it may prove as perilous and false as would dependence on the fact of having been subjected to a religious ordinance or rite in infancy. The Christian is one who believes in the Lord Jesus Christ. He has a present faith in Christ, and not in Christ as Saviour only, but as Saviour and Lord”
“Entail”: God’s Desire as the Basis of Believing Prayer and Action
The word “entail” is a legal term meaning: “A predetermined order of succession, as to an estate or to an office”, or “something transmitted as if by unalterable inheritance.” Sir Robert Anderson makes his case that it is, emphatically, God’s will to save every child of believing parents. This does not exclude the others by any means, but it is with our own house that we are immediately concerned. How can we “make disciples of all nations” if we cannot make disciples of our own children? Interestingly, the term “discipline” means, “to make a disciple of”.[4] Interesting, too, that the Lord always looks to the household of one professing Christ with the immediate intention of saving each there as well.[5]
So it is here, with our little ones, that our soul winning must begin, and we may do it with the full assurance of God’s intentions and blessing. May the Lord bless each parent with much grace and wisdom to accomplish this one task, if nothing else, in our lifetime. If we can win our own for Him, our lives will have been successful – if we can’t, not much else really matters.
Conclusion of the
Preface
With this lengthy monologue I commend the book
to the reader. May the Lord guide and
bless each one as these words of Sir Robert Anderson are considered. I would enjoy hearing from those who have
benefited from this book, as well as who wish to sharpen my thinking.
I have taken the liberty of electronically
linking page references in the book.
Those given in the GTP version are misaligned to the printed pages, with
the Appendix especially far off, so I did my best to correctly link them up. With that difference and the exception of
this “Preface to the Electronic Version” the entire document is as it was
written by Bro. Anderson and given in the published version mentioned.
With much love in the Savior,
![]()
Alfred Corduan, June 4, 2003
http://users.characterlink.net/acorduan
P.S.
The web site has pictures of our family, including our 8 children. As I write this our oldest is 16, the
youngest almost 1. So, although the
above is presented with some boldness, we are still in the trenches with
everyone else, proceeding with great need and reliance on the Lord. May He bless and have mercy on His people .
. . and save and preserve each and every one of our little children.
PREFATORY NOTE
THE
lawyer will understand the title of this book, and the sub-title will indicate
its meaning to the layman. “The Entail of the Covenant” is a phrase which
enshrines a great truth; and the author of it, whoever he be, deserves our
gratitude.
The
question may suggest itself to some, why the important matter of the Appendix
was not incorporated in the text. It is due to the fact that the publication of
the book has been delayed on account of the war; and in the interval during
which these pages were in type it was pressed upon me that a somewhat fuller
treatment of their secondary subject was desirable. And having to choose
between recasting several chapters, or relegating the new matter to an
Appendix, I adopted the latter alternative.
R.A.
THE ENTAIL OF THE
CHAPTER
I
“SUFFER the
little children to come unto Me, and forbid them not.” No incident recorded in
the Gospels is more widely known than that to which these words pertain. For it
appeals to the better side of human nature, and sacred art has made even the
most ignorant familiar with it. Can we not picture the scene? The women
crowding round the Lord Jesus, with their children clinging to their skirts;
and the Saviour rebuking the disciples for trying to keep them back, while with
gracious looks and words He encourages the little ones to come to Him. A
delightful picture, truly. And yet in one respect of principal importance it is
altogether false to fact; for the children of the narrative were new-born
babes that lay nestled in their mothers’ arms.
This
Gospel narrative throws new light upon one of the most popular of Old Testament
promises and precepts: . “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he
is old he will not depart from it.”[6] The Hebrew word here rendered “child” has no
such narrow meaning as the Greek term used by the Evangelist Luke in the above
cited passage from his Gospel.[7] But the initial word of the
precept claims attention. For “train up” fails to convey a thought that is
latent in the Hebrew. In the other passages where the word occurs it is
rendered “dedicate” in our English Bible.[8]
It is used of the dedication of the
Temple, and also of houses for human habitation. And from this we may learn that the dedication of a child
implies not only a definite setting apart, but also a purpose as deliberate and
continuing as the dedication of a building—a surrender as unreserved as that
of Hannah’s vow, “I will give him to the Lord all the days of his life.”[9] And we may learn from it also that a
dedication is by no means necessarily to religious uses; for “religion” is not a synonym for piety.[10] It is our privilege thus to dedicate
our children to the Lord, but it does not rest with us to decide in what life
path they are to serve Him.
The case of Eunice and her son Timothy
illustrates the training of a child in a godly Jewish home. It was indeed a case of wholly exceptional
interest; for Lystra was a heathen city, without a synagogue, and destitute
apparently even of “a place of prayer “—a proof that Jewish residents were few.
Strange, it seems, that Eunice should have come to live there. Stranger still
that she should have been married to a heathen.[11]
And yet though reared amid surroundings so uncongenial and untoward, Timothy inherited
the unfeigned faith that had dwelt in his grandmother Lois and in his mother
Eunice. But grace does not run in the blood, as sin does, and the Apostle Paul
reveals the secret of his blessedness: From a babe thou hast known the Holy Scriptures.[12]
The passage is linked in my mind with an incident of long ago, that occurred during a visit to a certain country rectory. When passing the drawing-room on the morning after my arrival, I heard my hostess’ voice, and on entering the room I found her standing by the window with her infant in her arms; and bending over it she was repeating the hallowed words of the twenty-third Psalm. And I could hear the baby chuckling at the music of its mother’s voice. We are used to hear women talking to their infants in language both trivial and silly, and this was to me a pleasant experience; and as I withdrew unobserved I thought of Eunice and her home at Lystra. At what age an infant’s brain begins to put a meaning upon spoken words, we cannot tell; but from the earliest dawn of his intelligence the mind of Eunice’s child was stored with words of Holy Scripture.
Dr. Edersheim cites an Old Testament instance of this, which is so
interesting, and yet so little known, that I quote it here in his own words. There
can be no question, he says, that the word translated “prophecy” in our
Authorised Version of Proverbs xxx. 1 and xxxi. 1 (and “oracle” in the Revised)
is simply Massa, the name of a district mentioned in Genesis xxv. 14, and 1
Chronicles i. 30. And he writes:
“Whether Massa was occupied by a Jewish
colony which there established the service of the Lord; or whether through the
influence of Hebrew immigrants such a religious change had been brought about,
certain it is that the two last chapters of the book of Proverbs introduce the
royal family of Massa as deeply imbued with the spiritual religion of the Old
Testament, and the queen mother as training the heir to the throne in the
knowledge and fear of the Lord. Indeed so much so is this the case that the
instruction of the queen of Massa, and the words of her two royal sons, are
inserted in the book of Proverbs as part of the inspired records of the Old
Testament. According to the best criticism, Proverbs xxx. 1 should be thus rendered:
‘The words of Agur, the son of her whom Massa obeys. Spake the man to
God-with-me, God with me, and I was strong.’ Then Proverbs xxxi. embodies the
words of Agur’s royal brother, even ‘the words of Lemuel, king of Massa, with
which his mother taught him.’ If the very names of these two princes—Agur,
‘exile,’ and Lemuel, ‘for God’ or ‘dedicated to God’ —are significant of her convictions, the teaching of that royal
mother, as recorded in Proverbs xxxi. 2—9, is worthy of a ‘mother in Israel.’
No wonder that the record of her teaching is followed by an enthusiastic
description of a godly woman’s worth and work (Proverbs xxxi. 10—31), each
verse beginning with a successive letter of the Hebrew alphabet, like the
various sections of Psalm cxix.—as it were, to let her praises ring through
every letter of speech.”[13]
In this connection the case of King Josiah is of intensest interest.
The Divine response accorded to Hezekiah’s supplication illustrates both the
reality of prayer and its extreme solemnity; for one outcome of his fifteen
added years of life was the birth of Manasseh, the wickedest king of Bible
story. But “the entail of the covenant” is a Divine truth; and it often happens
that the child of a godly home, though he may wander far away in sin, is at
last restored; and in the bitterness of his imprisonment in Babylon, Manasseh
was brought back to God. But his son Amon had been already trained in his evil
ways, and Amon was Josiah’s father. What hope could there be for the child of
such a parent! And yet that child’s story portrays him as the most godly king
who ever sat upon the throne of David.
What then can have been the influence that was used of God to achieve such a miracle of grace? The commentaries here will tell us nothing; so we must trust to our knowledge of human nature, and of the heart of a penitent who has been Divinely rescued from a sinful life. And can we doubt that as the poor old king surveyed his dreadful past, and the evil he had brought upon his people, and as he realised that his son was rushing headlong down the evil path from which he himself had been so lately turned, he would bethink him of that son’s child who was yet to rule the land? Can we doubt that Manasseh took his baby grandson to his heart, and sought with unceasing prayer to guide his infant steps in the way of life! And God “remembered His covenant,” and Josiah became a second Samuel.
But to revert to the Gospel narrative, these
mothers were women of the Eunice type. And their action illustrates the fact so
often noticed, that in the days of the Lord’s earthly ministry spiritual women
were spiritually nearer to Him even than His specially chosen disciples. So
full and simple was their faith, so unreserved their devotion, that “they
brought even their babies to Him.”[14] This it was, indeed, that roused the
indignation of the disciples. No devout Jew would have barred the approach of
children of an intelligent age; but to bring newly born infants to the Lord
seemed an intrusion quite unwarrantable.
And
the Lord’s response to their appeal illustrates the truth that faith and
devotion such as theirs bring abounding blessing. For what they asked was that
He would touch their infants, and He not only put His hands upon them, but
“took them up in His arms and blessed them.”
If only He were now on earth, as in those
wonderful days long past, what Christian mother is there who would not emulate
their faith and follow their example! But He is gone to heaven, far, far away
beyond the stars, and that makes all the difference. He said, no doubt, that it
was expedient for His people that He should go away; but who among us really
believes it? We dare not frame the thought in words, but it lurks in many a
heart, that His heavenly glory separates us from Him. It has in truth made a
difference of the greatest import; but the import of it is that, whereas in the
time of His humiliation grace was restrained, it is now enthroned. HE is not
changed, and He now wields all power in heaven and on earth.
The
Pentateuchal records, we are told, were written for our admonition; is this not
quite as true of the Gospel narratives? And surely they are given us not only
to stimulate, but to guide our faith. What the Lord did for those godly Jewish
mothers, He will do for Christian mothers now. This is no mystic theory of
pious visionaries, but a truth of Holy Writ; and a truth that is abundantly
attested by Christian experience. For “the ‘entail
of the covenant’ is largely borne out by religious biography, and our Churches
are mainly composed of the pious children of Christian parents.”
If statements such as these should appear to be out of date today, it is not because the faithful Word has failed, but because the teaching of our Churches is now so leavened with German scepticism that Christians are losing faith in Scripture, and, as a natural result, they are losing hold on God. And the effects of the change are far-reaching, for they influence not only our Christian life but our national character.
The
following pregnant words upon this subject are quoted from an address delivered
not long since at the University of London by one who has earned fame in
several spheres of public life:
“The
kind of teaching that was at one time imparted at the mother’s knee, or from
the lips of the father of the family, is largely a fast fading memory. ‘Back to
the Bible’ should be a patriotic, as well as a religious cry; for the
preservation of our liberties, and of our cherished institutions, depends much
upon the maintenance of the Bibletaught heart-principles and stout convictions
of our fathers.”
Sad to say, the average Christian of today
has lower thoughts of God than the Hebrew saints of the olden time. For they
knew Him as “the faithful God who keepeth covenant and mercy with them that
love Him and keep His commandments, to a thousand generations”[15]
—a God “whose righteousness is unto children’s children.”[16] The essential thought in righteousness is
compliance with a standard of right; and when the word is thus used of God it
can only mean consistency with Himself. “The Same” is one of His self-chosen
titles.[17]
He is the unchanging God with whom is no variableness, neither shadow cast by
turning. Therefore, while with men the use of absolute power is often
arbitrary, it is never so with God. No element of caprice ever marks the exercise
of sovereign grace. “The entail of the covenant” is a phrase that enshrines a
glorious truth.
Hannah made unreserved surrender of her
child to God, and the life of Samuel was His answer to that mother’s vow—a life
of which the record is one of the brightest passages in Israel’s chequered
history. And what God did for Hannah and Elkanah, He will do for His people
still. To finish the quotation of which a part has been already cited,[18]
“Where there is faithfulness to God, as well as affection to one’s children;
where there are earnest prayer and a corresponding pattern; and especially
where both parents are of one mind as touching this thing, God will do it for
them, and the promise will still hold true, ‘to you and to your seed after.’”[19]
A PRECEDING page
records a pleasing incident of many years ago. An episode of a very different
character still rankles in my memory. The sons of the 1860 revival, like the
early converts of Pentecostal times, were zealous in making known to others the
gospel which brought blessing to themselves. Not a few, however, were
embarrassed and restrained by the doctrine of Election. One of my friends in
particular was greatly troubled on that score; and after a brief correspondence
with him I arranged to visit him at his house in the country.
On my arrival I found he had another
visitor, a famous preacher of those days; and on the Saturday evening we had an
earnest discussion, during which I sought to unfold the clear distinction
between the Scriptural truth, and the theological doctrine, of election; and I
told how my own difficulties on the subject had been removed by the teaching
and counsel of Dr. Horatius Bonar. His book, God’s Way of Peace, had helped me much. He there warns his readers
against “the awful thought” that “the sovereignty of God” could ever be a
hindrance to a sinner, or a restraint upon the Spirit’s work on his behalf;
“The whole Bible (he declares) takes for granted that this is absolutely
impossible.”
These and other kindred statements in his most
helpful book seemed unequivocal; and yet they failed to satisfy me, for I was
aware of the treatment accorded by Christian teachers to some of the plainest
statements in Scripture on this subject. Just at this time, however, Dr. Bonar
came to stay with us at my father’s house, and I thus found ample opportunities
for unreserved conversation with him. And I was relieved to find that he was
utterly opposed to “handling the Word of God deceitfully.” When I pressed the
question how we could reconcile certain seemingly conflicting statements of
Scripture, his answer was honest and clear:
truths, he said, may seem to us irreconcilable only because our finite
minds cannot view them from the standpoint of the Infinite. Never therefore
should we allow our faulty apprehension of the counsels of God to hinder
unreserved acceptance of the plain words of the gospel of grace.
Great
was my surprise and distress to find that all this was vehemently opposed by my
fellow-guest. Taking his stand upon the teaching of the Latin Fathers, he
boldly repudiated the great basal truth of the Christian revelation — the sovereignty of Divine grace. And in his sermon to the villagers on the Sunday
morning he took “election” as his subject, and his exposition of it reached a
climax in the following words: “I have a little child of my own: if he is elect
he will be converted, he will be saved; if he is not elect, he will be damned,
he will be damned, he will be damned!” Three times, and with dramatic emphasis,
he repeated these awful and evil words.
To
record them here save for a useful purpose would be an offence against good
taste. But the blackest of clouds makes the rainbow shine all the brighter; and
I use them as a dark background for the Saviour’s words of grace. Seated in the
living room of a house in Capernaum — presumably
the Apostle Peter’s home—He called a little child to Him, and setting him in
the midst of His twelve disciples, He used him as an object-lesson to teach
them some much-needed truth. And then, taking the child in His arms—a proof
that it was but a little one, perhaps about the age of the preacher’s child of
my story— He spoke those words of infinite tenderness and grace:- “It is not
the will of your Father which is in heaven that one of these little ones should
perish.”[20]
Words such as those of that village sermon leave us benumbed and crushed
by the hard and inscrutable decrees of a far-off God, immutable and stern; but
here we are at peace in the presence of “our Father which is in heaven,” whose
heart-thoughts about our little ones are thus revealed to us. For as we listen
to the Saviour’s words we remember the voice that fell from the cloud which
overshadowed the disciples on the Transfiguration Mount, “This is My beloved
Son in whom I am well pleased, hear ye Him.”
“It is
not the will of your Father which is in heaven that one of these little ones
should perish.” What a text to display in the nursery of every Christian home!
What a text to cheer the heart and stimulate the faith of every Christian
parent! And we might bracket with it, not indeed on the nursery wall, but in
memory and heart, the Apostolic precept, “Bring them up in the nurture and
admonition of the Lord.”
The language of the English Bible is a national inheritance; but it
sometimes fails us, and this hard, stiff phrase, “bring them up,” is a poor
rendering of the Apostle’s word. He uses it again in the verse, “No one ever
yet hated his own flesh but nourisheth and
cherisheth it.” The thought is not of a disciplinarian’s duty task, but of the
care of a loving parent. And losing sight of this, the passage is sometimes
made an excuse for the very evil which the Apostle’s precept is designed to
warn against.
The
Revised Version reading is better, “Nurture them in the chastening and admonition
of the Lord.” Yet even here we must be on our guard, lest we should put a
one-sided meaning upon chastening.[21]
We need ever to keep in mind that it is “the chastening and admonition of the Lord,” and that grace is the
ruling principle of all His dealings with us. The barriers and bolts by which
we protect our houses are intended to keep out thieves and other law-breakers,
not to restrain, nor even to guide, the law-abiding citizen as he passes on his
way. And so here, “The law is not made for the righteous man, but for the
lawless and disobedient.” “The grace of God has been manifested training us . .
. to live soberly, righteously, and godly.” It is not law but grace that
characterises the Divine discipline of the Christian life. And yet it is a
deplorable fact that in the nursery of many a Christian home these Divine
principles are ignored, and the children are ruled by law.
Another aspect of the contrast between law and grace is given us in the 32nd Psalm. “I will counsel thee, with mine eye upon thee “—that is grace.—” Be not as the horse, or the mule, which have no understanding; whose trappings must be bit and bridle to hold them in.” “Brute force” is needed with the brute creation. But it is not thus that God deals with His people; and yet it is on that principle that many Christian parents control their children. Obedience enforced on the bit-and-bridle system will last only while the child is within reach of the parent’s arm; for law is impotent beyond the sphere in which its sanctions prevail. But to the grace-taught child the influence of an absent parent is what the eye of an unseen God is to the Christian.
The
late Mr. Justice Wills, who combined the heart of a philanthropist with the
brain of a lawyer, used to deplore the ill-advised legislation which so
multiplies petty offences that high-spirited lads, without any criminal
intention, are caught in the meshes of the criminal law. But the traps laid by
modern bye-law legislation are few as compared with the “don’ts” which confront
the children of many a home during all their waking hours. And against this it
is that the Apostle’s “Don’ts” aimed “You fathers, don’t irritate[22]
your children.”
For the children his only precept is “Obey your parents”; let parents see
to it then that they deserve obedience; and more than this, that they make
obedience easy. The law, which for the Christian is summed up in the word
“love,” is formulated in “thou shalt not” for the lawless and disobedient. And
the “thou-shalt-nots” of Sinai have their counterpart in the “don’ts” of the
nursery. Grace teaches us to keep His commandments, law warns us not to break
them. And it is on this latter principle that children are generally trained.
“Don’t be naughty” is the nursery version of it.
The
story is told of William Carey, that pioneer and prince of missionaries to the
heathen, that when sitting as an honoured guest at the Viceroy’s table in
Calcutta, he overheard a fellow-guest’s inquiry whether it was really true that
he had been a shoemaker. And he intervened by replying, “No, it is not true, I
was a journeyman cobbler.” This was the man who wrote to his son, “Remember, a
gentleman is the next best character to a Christian, and the Christian includes
the gentleman.” And if a little of the effort used to teach the children not to
be naughty were devoted to training them to be gentlemen and ladies, parents
would come nearer to fulfilling the Apostolic precept
The
words “good” and “naughty,” like disciplinary punishments, should be reserved
for very exceptional occasions. Moreover, they are often unintelligent; for the
“good” child may be a heavy-headed creature with a sound digestion, who takes
life placidly and gives little trouble; whereas the “naughty” child is one who
has high spirits, and wants to know things and to do things. And it is the
“naughty” children that will make a mark in life, and prove a blessing to their
generation—unless indeed they are crushed or soured by ill-advised efforts to
make them “good.” Here comes in a warning which the Apostle adds, when giving
the Christian parents of Colosse the precept above quoted from his Epistle to
the Ephesians: “You fathers, don’t irritate your children lest they be disheartened”[23] Children are never made really good by
enforcing bye-law “don’ts,” but by constantly appealing to their better
nature, and keeping ever before them a worthy standard and a right motive.
A book
that won a well deserved popularity half a century ago records a father’s
parting admonition to his boy when sending him to school. “Remember (said he)
that you are the son of a gentleman, and don’t disgrace your father.” What a
charming illustration of William Carey’s admirable dictum! Indeed it displays,
though on a lower plane, the system and the spirit in which a Christian’s
children should be trained.
For a gentleman is not a person who has learned by the study of a Book of Manners to avoid vulgarities; he is one whose bearing and conduct are governed by consideration for others. “Don’t be looking each of you to his own interests, but each of you also to those of other people.” Anyone who acts in the spirit of these words is in the best sense a gentleman. And yet these are the very words in which the Apostle exhorted the Philippian Christians to cultivate the mind that was in Christ Jesus.[24] William Carey was right!
“Now,
children, remember that Uncle and Auntie are coming to-day on a visit, and
while they are here you’re not to and you’re not to— and you mustn’t be
naughty.” This is law. And any poor little brat who succeeds in fulfilling it
will develop into a prig, which is the nursery phase of being a Pharisee. The
other method is, “Now, children, you must all do what you can to make Uncle and
Auntie’s visit a pleasant one: we must find out what they like and what they
don’t like, and do our best to make them happy.” Such is the teaching of grace;
and whatever the uncle and aunt may think of the result, their visit will prove
a blessing to the children.
“Lest
they be discouraged.” Here is the unfortunate Lady Jane Grey’s account of her
home life: “When I am in presence either of father or mother, whether I speak,
keep silence, sit, stand, or go, eat, drink, be merry or sad, be sewing,
playing, dancing, or doing anything else, I must do it even so perfectly as God
made the world, or else I am so sharply taunted or cruelly threatened . . .”[25] A peculiarly flagrant illustration this, of
the evil warned against by the Apostle’s words, “Don’t irritate your children.”
The present generation is fast forgetting the great Lord Shaftesbury; and few there are who know anything of the story of his childhood. His parents, we are told, were content as long as he kept out of their way; and the sort of teaching and of sympathy that most of us associate with a mother’s love, the lonely child received from a devout and faithful servant maid, who used to take him on her knee, to read the Bible to him and tell him about Christ. And in the day when all things shall be brought to light, her humble ministry, ignored and forgotten now,[26] will be openly rewarded by Him who immortalised the poor widow’s farthing gift to the Temple Treasury; and the name of Maria Milhis will be for ever associated with all that made Lord Shaftesbury’s life such a signal blessing to this nation and to the world.
What an incentive her story ought to be to any Christian servant who is
entrusted with the care of children! And has it no voice for Christian parents?
Many a mother takes less care in engaging a nursemaid than the owner of a stud
devotes to the choice of his grooms. And yet just as a high-spirited colt may
be ruined by an ill-tempered groom, permanent harm may be done to a
high-spirited child by an ill-tempered servant. And many a Christian mother
leaves her children for hours every day in the charge of a servant who is not
herself a Christian. I do not mean who is not “religious”; for no one is more
religious” than a Jesuit; and religion without Christ is generally
anti-Christian. To plead that in the case of very young children, considerations
of this kind may be neglected displays ignorance of human nature and indifference
to the will of God.
Another
element of much practical importance claims a passing notice here. Most of us
are intelligent enough to recognise that not only our temper but our conduct
may be influenced by purely physical causes. In a vastly greater degree is this
the case with little children; and when thus thrown off their balance they are
apt “to run amuck” in any home that is bristling with “don’ts.” Many a child,
moreover, is injured by nagging discipline at a time when its real need is a
dose of medicine, or careful doctoring. But this is a digression. For these
pages are not meant to be a vade mecum on
the general subject of training the young. Their aim is to elucidate the
precepts and principles which Scripture gives us for our guidance.
“TRAIN up a
child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will be converted.” This
strange perversion of Scripture represents the settled belief of
multitudes. “Being converted” is a
cumbersome synonym for “being turned”; and the Revisers have done well in
adopting the simpler phrase.
If one is walking in the right way, from
what is he to be turned? That conversion is essential to salvation is indeed a
popular belief. And it is a belief that is the bane of many a Christian home.
Christians who in early childhood were “nurtured in the chastening and
admonition of the Lord” may be able to specify a time when first they
intelligently grasped “the word of the truth of the Gospel.” But that is not
what Scripture means by conversion. And in the case many the dawning of the
light was so gradual that they are unable to say when the sun actually appeared
above the horizon. But they know with certainty that it has risen, and that it
is shining on them. And that is the essential thing.
But does not the Lord Himself declare that
conversion is essential to salvation? The question is based on a misreading of
a gospel narrative already noticed on a preceding page.[27] On his way to Capernaum, after His
rejection by the Jewish authorities, He said to His disciples, “The Son of Man
is delivered up into the hands of men, and they shall kill Him.” And with these
tragically solemn words still ringing in their ears, they fell to disputing
which of them would be greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And to them it was,
and in these circumstances, He said, pointing to a little child who was
standing in their midst, “Except ye be converted and become as little
children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” —that earthly
Messianic kingdom upon which, at that time, their hopes were set. And on the
only other occasion on which the Lord is reported to have used the word, He
said to Peter, “When thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.”
But the Apostles were not unregenerate
sinners in need of eternal life: they were unfaithful disciples who had fallen
out of communion with the Lord. What a lesson is here for the Christian! For we
are ever prone to stray into some wrong path; and when we wander thus, and
cease to follow Him, we need to be “turned round about.” For this is what being
converted signifies in Scripture.[28]
Indeed the technical theological term, as popularly used, has no
counterpart in the language of the New Testament. Therefore is it that in the
Revised Version it has disappeared, save in James v. 19, 20, where its meaning
is unequivocal; for it is certain that, in the theological sense, no man can
“convert” his fellow.
It is important to keep in view the
distinction between the saved and the unsaved in their relations with God; but
we must not shut off Divine truths in water-tight compartments. For the saved
are apt to go astray “like lost sheep”; and on the other hand, some who are
really lost may be seeking the Lord, “if haply they might feel after Him and
find Him.” And He is not far from such. But though the prodigal was turned
about while in the far country amid the swine troughs, he was not saved till he
reached his father’s house. It is the walls of the City of God, not the roads
which lead to it that typify salvation.[29]
There
is one Scripture which ought to make an end of controversy here. And it is a
passage not only of principal importance, but of extreme solemnity. In the
earlier period of the Lord’s ministry there was no element whatever of reserve.
His teaching was plain and clear, and His mighty deeds of mercy were as free to
all as were His words of grace.[30]
But what was the response of that impenitent and guilty people? The Hebrew
Gospel records the terrible and shameful story: His destruction was decreed by
the great Council of the nation.[31] From that time His ministry assumed a
new phase. He charged the disciples to tell no one that He was the Christ.[32] His beneficent acts of mercy became less
frequent, and He desired to conceal them from the Jewish leaders; and His
teaching became veiled in parables.
And
when the disciples sought an explanation of the change, Isaiah’s prophetic
word supplied the answer. Those evil men had had their day of visitation. But
they had wilfully closed their eyes to His works of power, and dulled their
ears against His words of grace. And now a sentence of judicial blindness and
deafness had been Divinely passed upon them. In future they were to see without
perceiving, and to hear without understanding—mark the Saviour’s words—“lest they
should be converted (lest they should turn again) and I should heal them.”[33] For
He could neither hide Himself, nor yet be silent. And to refuse a sinner who
turned to Him was impossible, for that would be to deny Himself.
These awfully solemn words are entirely in keeping with the great
principle enunciated in the preceding verse. It is a principle which Bible
story abundantly exemplifies; a principle moreover which explains the mystery
of many a life. Appeals that used to move the heart no longer reach it: appeals
that used to rouse the conscience now fall upon the ear unheeded. It is not
that God is changed. He is the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering
and abundant in goodness. But “God is not mocked”: and no one may treat Him as
he would not dare to treat a fellow-man. For
“There is a time, we know not when,
A
point, we know not where,
That marks the destiny of men
To
glory or despair.
“There is a line, by us unseen,
That
crosses every path,
The
hidden boundary between
God’s
patience and His wrath.
“Oh, where is that mysterious bourne,
By
which man’s path is crossed,
Beyond which God Himself hath sworn
That he
who goes is lost?
“How long may I go on in sin?
How long will God forbear?
Where does hope end, and where begin
The confines of despair?
“An answer from the skies is sent—
Ye who
from God depart,
While it is called to-day, repent
And
harden not your heart.”
To these same proud religious Jews it was that the Lord addressed the
words, “No man can come to me except the Father which hath sent me draw him.”
We miss their significance because we have forgotten that it is in the spiritual sphere that the ruin of our
race is absolute and hopeless. Therefore is it that religion blinds men to the
truth of God, and shuts them out from Christ. Therefore was it that publicans
and harlots entered the Kingdom, and men of blameless life, like Saul the
Pharisee, became persecutors and blasphemers. “The common people heard Him
gladly,” because they knew that they were blind, and therefore they welcomed
the light; but to Priests and Pharisees the light was an offence. So the blind
received their sight, and those that claimed to see were blinded.[34]
How different His words to the abandoned Samaritan woman at the well of
Sychar! “If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee,
Give me to drink, thou wouldest have asked of Him, and He would have given thee
living water.” Thou wouldest have asked, and He would have given. Is it
possible that blessing could be made more free? Yes, indeed, for Divine grace
is infinite; and on the very last page of Holy Writ we have a final
proclamation: “Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.” And
entirely in keeping with this are the charter words He uttered upon the eve of
His passion: “I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto Me.”
For “before the glorification of Christ, the Father drew men to the Son; but
now the Son Himself draws all to
Himself.”[35]
Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Therefore the new
birth is as essential for the infant as for the adult. If then it depends on an
intelligent receiving of Christ, no
infant can possibly be saved. But the new birth must not be confounded with
conversion, which, being a conscious turning to God, is experienced only by
those who have reached an age at which they can realise the need of it. And, as
already noticed, there are many Christians who have known and loved the Lord
from such a tender age, that they cannot recollect passing through any such
experience as conviction of sin and subsequent conversion. But all Who are born
of the Spirit are children of God. Such is the subtilty of error in these days
that this seemingly obvious truth needs to be plainly stated.
Looking back for tokens or proofs that we have been born of God, or converted, may take our eyes off the Lord Jesus Christ and plunge us into darkness. Moreover the remembrance of a change experienced at some past epoch of life is no safe anchorage for faith. Indeed it may prove as perilous and false as would dependence on the fact of having been subjected to a religious ordinance or rite in infancy. The Christian is one who believes in the Lord Jesus Christ. He has a present faith in Christ, and not in Christ as Saviour only, but as Saviour and Lord.