By Rev. B. B. WARFIELD, D. D., LL. D.,
Professor in the Theological Seminary at Princeton.
[Originally published in vol. xvii of the Union Seminary Magazine, 1904]
Prof. Charles W. Rishell, of Boston University, has written a very interesting
little book on the relation of little children to Christianity and to the
Christian Church.* The object he has set before him
is the very laudable one of pleading for the religious education of children.
In order to give force to his pleading he argues the possibility of religion
in children of the tenderest years. He insists on the importance for them
of religious instruction and example. He demands of the church recognition
of their church membership and provision for their care and development
as children of God with the same right to the privileges of God's Church
as other members. As he expresses it, he pleads with the Church "to count
the children in, not out."
The significance of the book is that it emanates from Arminian
circles and reasons from Arminian postulates. This is its significance;
and this is its weakness. There is no other system of belief of widespread
influence in the churches to which it is not a commonplace and mere matter
of course that children are capable of religious life from their very earliest
years, and ought to be recognized from their infancy as members of Christ's
Church and brought up in its fold and under its fostering care. There is
no other system of belief of widespread influence in the churches to
which these principles are logically so unconformable. Professor
Rishell has undertaken a most important task in pleading for them in Arminian
circles. He has undertaken a task difficult to the verge of impossibility
in pleading for them on Arminian principles.
The children certainly must be a source of gravest concern to a consistently
Arminian reasoner. The fundamental principle of Arminianism is that salvation
hangs upon a free, intelligent choice of the individual will; that salvation
is, in fact, the result of the acceptance of God by man, rather than of
the acceptance of man by God. The logic of this principle involves in hopeless
ruin all who, by reason of tenderness of years, are incapable of making
such a choice. On this teaching, all those who die in infancy should perish,
while those who survive the years of immaturity might just as well be left
to themselves until they arrive at the age of intelligent option. Let no
one suppose that we are insinuating that our Arminian brethren live on
these principles. They are far from doing this. They people heaven with
infants who die in infancy; infants who are saved by the sovereign grace
of God operating quite independently of co-operation on their own
part. Infants dying in infancy certainly cannot "improve grace." And that
is to say, those who die in infancy, if they are saved at all, must
be saved on the Calvinistic principle of monergistic grace. And it is not
to be believed that our Arminian brethren neglect the religious training
of their children more than other Christians. It must be confessed, however,
that Professor Rishell brings grievous charges against what, from his representations,
may be a considerable party in his church. He charges that they prosecute
the religious training of their children with some degree of listlessness,
on wrong presuppositions, and, in wide circles, with no firmly-grounded
expectation that it will bear particularly rich fruit.
This much, at least, must he allowed: that in no other than Arminian
circles could such indifference to the religion of childhood, or to the
recognition by the church of the membership of Children in it, as is here
charged, intrench itself in the recognized principles of the system. The
sacerdotalist holds that in baptism God has placed in his hands
the instrument by which the child of the tenderest years may be incorporated
into the church and into Christ. Failure to baptize any child to whom he
could obtain proper access would be to him a crime against humanity and
against the love of God. Failure to recognize all baptized children as
members of the mystical body of Christ would be to him blasphemy against
the holy ordinance and the power of the Spirit of God which works through
it. The Reformed Christian, suspending salvation for all alike upon the
sovereign grace of God alone, operating in accordance with God's covenanted
purposes of mercy, points with confidence to the terms of the promise,
"To you and to your children." He enjoins parents who trust in the covenanted
mercy of God, therefore, to present their children, on the credit of this
promise, to the Lord in baptism, and to bring them up in His nurture and
admonition. And he enjoins the Church to recognize them by means of this
holy ordinance as God's children, heirs of all the promises; and to take
order for their training as such, that they may adorn in life and conduct
the Gospel by which they are saved. Failure to recognize them as the children
of God would be to him treason against that very covenant in whose terms
he finds all his own warrant for hope and peace. The Arminian, on the other
hand, strenuously contends that all that God has done, or does, looking
to the salvation of man has been done with reference to the mass; and that
the salvation of the individual absolutely depends, therefore, on his own
improvement of the universal provision. He is under constant temptation,
therefore, to look upon the individual as outside the Church - the company
of God's people - until by his own act of choice of Christ as his portion
he has incorporated himself into it. This means, of course, an inherent
tendency in the logic of the system "to count the children out." If the
incorporation of the individual into Christ and therefore into His Church
depends on his own voluntary act of intelligent choice, how, indeed, can
children as yet incapable of choice be "counted in"? One would think it
tolerably clear that they would be "counted out" until they arrive at such
years that they may intelligently and voluntarily "count themselves in."
Dr. Rishell's effort to correct this sad state of things among
our Arminian brethren must, of course, meet with the deepest sympathy of
every Christian heart. Only we cannot say that he goes about his task in
a very hopeful way. Obviously, the root of the difficulty lies in the Arminian
doctrine of the function of the human will in salvation. But Dr. Rishell
does not attack the problem by seeking to correct this error. From all
that appears he is himself firmly holden in it, and would think of nothing
so little as commending to his brethren a frank abandonment of their fundamental
postulate of autosoteric [Greek: self-saving] Christianity. He elects
to approach the problem, therefore, from another angle, and seeks to meet
the difficulty by bringing into prominence another doctrine of at least
Evangelical Arminianism. This is a doctrine which, as Dr. Rishell suggests,
has fallen somewhat into the background in the mind of the average Arminian
- as well, indeed, it might, seeing that it clearly stands in direct contradiction
to the fundamental Arminian postulate that in the salvation of the individual
everything depends upon his exercise of his own power of free choice. This
doctrine is that postulate by which the Wesleyans have sought to cure the
pelagianizing tendencies of original Arminianism by declaring, to put it
somewhat roughly, that all men come into the world already saved. That
at least is the way the old Evangelical Arminianism put it, though no doubt
a new Arminianism - which is much the same as the old Rationalism - may
prefer to phrase it that all men come into the world "safe." This doctrine,
it seems, has, in its more evangelical form, stood in the thought of Arminianism
heretofore rather as a theoretical postulate saving its theoretical evangelicalism,
than as a practical principle of thought and action. Dr. Rishell proposes
to bring it out of its position of "innocuous desuetude." and to make it
the basis of recognizing children as the children of God, demanding recognition
and treatment appropriate to that condition.
The fundamental proposition of Dr. Rishell's book becomes thus
the hitherto, as it seems, somewhat neglected Arminian doctrine that all
children are born into the world in a state Of salvation. His contention
is that, this being the case, children are not to be looked upon as subjects
who are to be saved. They must not be dealt with therefore as subjects
who are to be trained for salvation. They are rather to be thought of as
already saved; and are to be treated as needing to be trained only to preserve
intact the salvation of which they are already possessors. He spares no
emphasis or reiteration to make this fundamental proposition plain. And
he omits no effort to give it validity - in his entire conception of the
work of the parent and child in child-training. Children, having no guilt
of original sin, need no forgiveness. Being already in a state of grace,
they need no conversion. They are at least as free from corruption and
as well-placed in every respect as adult converts (see e.g., pp.34, 37,
38, 41, 43, etc.). They ought not to be taught, therefore, that they require
a Savior. They ought not to be told that they are to repent of their sins,
and to rest on the Savior in faith, and faith only. They ought rather to
be instructed that they are in a state of grace, and that they need only
to preserve intact that good thing that has been committed to them.
As one reads on, from page to page, he is appalled by the extremity
to which Dr. Rishell pushes these contentions. What he says, it is to be
observed, is not that the children of believing parents are to be presumed,
on the strength of the covenant promise, to be the children of God, and
are to be treated accordingly. This is a Reformed doctrine; and we could
only wish that Dr. Rishell and all our Arminian brethren were not only
almost but altogether such as we are, in it. What he says, he says of all
children that come into the world, without exception. He formally bases
a doctrine of universal baptism of children upon this postulate. Since
all children are born saved, they all without exception have an indefensible
right to the temporal as well as to the eternal gifts of God to His people.
Nor does he say that we should treat children as presumably the objects
of God's mercy, present them to God in faith, and seek the gifts of grace
for them. He says that they are already - all of them - the possessors
of God's saving grace; that they have, a1l of them, already
been born anew, as truly and as effectively as any adult convert; that
they, all of them without exception, begin life on this high plane, and
that their only concern is to preserve the salvation they already, all
of them, enjoy, and to keep the grace they, all of them, possess.
One is dismayed as he thinks of the vigor of the doctrine of "falling
from grace" which is here involved. Every mother's son of the children
of the heathen throughout the world; the large majority of the children
born in Christendom; even a considerable portion of the children of Christian
parents - forthwith "fall from grace" on the first motions of conscious
life! And so serious is this fall that, as Dr. Rishell tells us, only sixty
per cent. of the "Christian children" who attend Sabbath school, for example,
ever find their way even into the Church as an external organization, to
say nothing now of finding their way to Christ! In this state of the facts,
surely, whatever may be its theoretical value in evangelicalizing the Arminian
system, the practical value of the postulate that all children are born
in a state of grace is as nothing; and we cannot wonder that our Arminian
brethren have neglected it and have diligently sought to save their children.
Born saved or not, they are no longer saved when they come under our observation;
and every Christian heart will be zealous to secure or recover, as we choose
to call it, salvation for them. In recommending parents and the Church
to reverse their methods, to cease to seek the salvation of their little
ones, and to treat them consistently as all already by virtue of their
very nature saved, or at least safe, we fear that Dr. Rishell has "pressed
beyond the mark"; and if his teaching were universally adopted, we very
greatly fear we should soon find that the quotation would need to be filled
out to its bitter end. We shall not benefit the children by teaching them
- or by teaching those who have their spiritual good in charge - that their
part in salvation is so of nature that the "faithful saying" that "Christ
Jesus came into the world to save sinners" has but a modified application
to them.
There is much in Dr. Rishell's hook about the duty of Christian
parents and of the Christian Church to their children which it is well
to say, and which is well said. Perhaps the whole of it might be read with
profit by an Arminian parent who is imbued with the terrible notion - Dr.
Rishell is our authority for fearing it may exist among our Arminian brethren
- that children must be left untrammeled to exercise their own free choice
as to salvation when the choosing time comes. As against such a dreadful
idea he rightly pleads the duty and profit of Christian nurture, and seeks
to put on the hearts of his readers the Biblical precept, Train up a child
in the way he should go. We have heard of a Mr. Rufus Hood, who sought
to put this shocking principle into practice, and met with results which
scarcely commended themselves even to his genial biographer. What would
the world be if all were Constance Trescotts [popular 1904 Novel by S.
Weir Mitchell]? But the whole of Dr. Rishell's counsel is so vitiated by
his fundamentally false postulate that its universal adoption would be
as noxious as, perhaps more noxious than, the abuse which he seeks to correct.
We have spoken of the postulate as finding its best expression in popular
speech in the assumption that all children are born saved. But we have
also spoken of it as, perhaps; more accurately expressed by declaring that
they are all born safe. The difference of expression marks the difference
between the Evangelical Arminian and the Pelagianizing, or, to use a more
modern term, the Rationalizing Arminian. The difference is a purely theoretical
one; it has no practical significance. In either case every child is presumed
to come into the world in no need of saving. In either ease the problem
with the whole human race is not to save it, but to keep it from getting
lost. So to state the problem is, to a believer in the Scriptural revelation,
already to dismiss it. Surely the Bible does not think of the world as
a saved world, which needs only to be kept saved; but as a lost world,
which needs saving. To say that this lost estate in which the world is
found is for every generation purely post-natal may be an easy rejoinder
for those who are determined to support a theory and are careless of the
props used. But it can convince nobody. Everybody knows in his heart of
hearts that the world is by nature a lost world, and that he himself has
been born a child of wrath, even as the others. To tell him that this is
not true is to him the prime absurdity; and it will matter little whether
he is told he is born saved or safe. The difference between the two answers
is, in fact, a difference of tone rather than of principle. The one reveals
a deeper sense of dependence on Christ for all the goods of this life and
the next: the other reveals a stronger feeling of self-dependence. Arminianism
and Rationalism - how close they lie together! The human soul is too much
of a unit, and its "faculties" too little separable entities, for a strong
feeling of autonomy in the one sphere of its operations to fail to work
its way through all. Say that Arminianism is formally Thelematism [from
the Greek for "will" - Thelema] rather than Rationalism. It is certain
that Thelematism will never escape the dangers of Emotionalism or of Rationalism,
according as the temperament (or the temperature) of the individual opens
this or the other channel for its extension. Professor Rishell's temperament
appears to be that which is more inclined to the rationalistic side, and
there is accordingly a very unpleasant tone of rationalism running through
the whole volume. He makes visible efforts to keep true to current Methodist
conceptions. The efforts are indeed too visible; too obviously needed.
And the leaven of Rationalism is working throughout the whole discussion.
The very ideal of the Christian life as well as of Christian training
suffers in consequence. Dr. Rishell sums up his appeal at the close of
his volume, in some very beautiful words. "So to train a human being from
infancy to maturity," he says, "as that he will never fall into the evils
of an unbridled appetite; that he will lead a clean, pure, helpful life;
that he will find in the service of God and the service of his fellow-man
his chief joy; that he will gladly take his place by the side of Christ
in the saving of other human beings - this is worth while." It certainly
would be worth while. Can it be done? That is, not indeed the question,
but a very important question. The question is whether, when it
is done, all is done; or, indeed, in the deepest sense of the word, anything
is done. We have been told of one for whom as nearly, probably, as in the
case of any one who has lived on the earth, all this was done. The note
of his character was expressed in the great declaration, "All these things"
- all the things commanded by the law of God - "have I obeyed from my youth
up." When he saw Jesus, with the natural impulse of one so trained and
so richly endowed, he wished to take his place by His side: "Good Master,"
he called Him, and fell on his knees at His feet. "And Jesus, looking upon
him, loved him." Surely here, if anywhere, may be found Dr. Rishell's well-trained
youth. Was there nothing lacking in his case? According to the judgment
of our Lord, everything was lacking. Seeing him, and seeing his lack, seeing
how difficult it was for him to perceive what he lacked and how impossible
for him to supply it, our Lord was moved to deliver His great discourse
on the human impossibility of salvation. And by this example we may see
that Dr. Rishell's program of training for youth lacks everything to this
point.
What is lacking in it is the whole evangelical note. There is
lacking all sense of the joy of redemption from sin. What will Dr. Rishell
make of the great declaration, "Verily I say unto you, there is more joy
in heaven over one sinner that repenteth than over ninety and nine just
persons who need no repentance?" Where in his whole scheme is there place
for the joy of believing? Where for the fervour of love? Where for the
inextinguishable bliss of redemption? Worth while so to train a child that
he will "never fall into the evils of unbridled appetite"? Worth while
to teach a child to live a clean life? Worth while to train a child to
zeal in religious and humanitarian activity? Of course it is worth while.
But there are some things that are much more worth while than these, great
things as these are. It is much more worth while to train a child to recognize
the sinfulness of his heart and the amazing deceit and subtlety of its
sinful movements. It is much more worth while to teach him to contemplate
with ceaseless wonder the unspeakable love of God in the gift of his only
begotten Son as a sacrifice for the sin of the world. It is much more worth
while to lead him to this Savior's feet in humble trust in His blood and
righteousness. It is much more worth while to implant within his soul a
longing for the gift of the Spirit by whom, being born anew, he is led
onward in the holy walk with God his Savior. Oh, certainly it is worth
while to teach a child that he ought to be good; and to train him in good
thoughts and good words and good deeds. But it is infinitely better worth
while to teach him how he can become good. And no more now than at any
other period of the world's life is there any other dynamic for goodness
than just Jesus Christ. Now, too, as ever the great principle holds good,
"Not out of works, but unto good works which God has afore-prepared that
we should walk in them." "The frozen reason's colder part" - there may
be some mild pleasure in that, surely; but "the joy of salvation" - nothing
can take the place of that in any heart, young or old. Of course, if children
do not need saving, there can be no need of bringing them to Jesus; or
of teaching them to trust humbly in Jesus. Jesus in that case is not "Jesus"
to them: for "they called His name Jesus because He should save His people
from their sins." Only, we wonder then, why He took the little children
in His arms and said, "Of such is the kingdom of heaven." And, then, these
little children grow up; and did any one ever see one who had grown up
and had no need of Jesus - not as one to whose side he might come to help
Him save the world, but as One to whose feet he might flee to receive from
Him the salvation of the soul? It is a sad thing if there are any Christian
parents anywhere who fail in their duty to give their children a full and
rich religious training; we have to learn religion as we have to learn
anything else It would be an infinitely sadder thing if any Christian parents
anywhere should teach their children that they do not need salvation, and
do not need to seek it diligently, and when they have found it to sell
all that they have and purchase it.
*The Child as God's Child. By Rev.
Charles W. Rishell, Ph. D., Professor of Historical Theology in Boston
University School of Theology. New York: Eaton & Mains. Cincinnati:
Jennings & Graham (1904). Small 8vo. Pp.181
