THE ENTAIL OF THE

COVENANT

 

OR

 

 

 

THE SAVIOUR’S “LITTLE ONES”

 

 

 

BY

 

 

SIR ROBERT ANDERSON, K.C.B., LL.D.

 

 

 

 

 

“It is not the will of your Father which is in heaven

 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

 

“The Entail of the Covenant” deals with the salvation of children and, because the Calvanistic doctrine of election plays largely on this, specifically challenges the scriptural basic of this teaching.  The subtitle of the book, “The Savior’s Little Ones”, is taken from Matthew 18:14: “It is not the will of your Father which is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.”   The verse expresses much of the burden of the book:  God loves the children and would save them, every one, yet we confuse and hinder them because of carelessness and unscriptural doctrines.  We take truths meant for adults and apply them to children with terrible results.  He specifically addresses the need to have a known “time when, place where, and manner how” of conversion, establishing that “conversion”, per se, is only for adults, and that young children who trust Christ may well not remember the specific event. 

 

Doubting the Little Ones

 

My concerns in this area have grown over the years as I have compared our practice with Scripture.  We do not expect the little ones to get saved – if they take steps toward the Savior we are afraid to encourage or believe them because, as I have heard over and over, “You have to be careful with children.”  Yet the clear words of the Savior stand in stark opposition to this, for He said, “Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven”.  If this is true we must expect that children easily come into the blessing of genuine salvation.  It is the adults who need extra scrutiny and with whom we must be careful.

 

Adults can pressure a little child into saying or doing most anything.  If we are too anxious to bolster our own reputation as parents and soul-winners that we are unwilling to discern the heart of the child and work with the Holy Spirit as He leads them to the Savior, we are guilty of spiritual “malpractice”.  Yet parents who fear the Lord and love and know their little ones are well aware of this danger and are given the grace and insight by God to avoid it.  The greater danger is that we, in our fear of “false professions”,[1] commit the opposite evil and demand details of understanding and steps of “repentance” and “conversion” that the Lord in His word never demanded, at least not of children.  In this we are delving into concerns that are not ours.  It is never our job to “inspect the root” but clearly, always, consistently to “inspect the fruit” – “By their fruit ye shall know them” (Matthew 7:20).  We are to “receive one such little one” in His name, seek to nurture and nourish.  With those who would endlessly doubt the faith of little ones for their lack of terminology and experience the Savior would be “much displeased”.  He would sternly say, “Let the little children come unto me and forbid them not”.  Don’t trouble, doubt them – Let them come! 

 

Of Millstones and Stumblingblocks

 

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”

 

Often a child that has early professed Christ later discovers that a further response of faith is required as adulthood is entered; he may feel that he was never saved.  This is actually common since the adult mind and thinking is quite different from that of a child.  In this case nothing has been lost.  A child that sincerely believes that he is saved, that fears the Lord and seeks to please Him will be preserved from much evil and hardening of the heart.  Sometimes a second touch is necessary and unavoidable, even as with the blind man who required two “touches” from the omnipotent Savior to be healed (Mark 8:22-24).  In such instances I am often hard pressed to discern between salvation and the “filling of the Spirit” – we might well ask ourselves at what point the blind man could actually see, albeit dimly.  We leave that with the Lord.  But, again, we must accept them and their profession where they are and move vigorously forward.

 

“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

ACorduan@characterlink.net

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

COVENANT

 

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]
CHAPTER II

 

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.

CHAPTER III

 

“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.