Ryle on Mark 10:13-16

Imported boundary: J. C. Ryle's Expository Thoughts on Mark from the Internet Archive DjVu OCR for the 1858 Robert Carter St. Mark volume. Title pages, preface, contents, running heads, page numbers, OCR boilerplate, and indexes are not mirrored. The source includes Ryle's printed Scripture text and exposition; this scan-derived text remains needs-verification.

Primary passage: Mark 10:13-16.

Source Text

not ; for of such is the kingdom of God. 15 Verily I say unto you, Whoso- ever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not en- ter therein. 16 And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them. The scene brought before us in these four verses is deeply interesting. -

We see young children brought to Christ, " that He should touch them/' and the disciples rebuking those that brought them. We are told that when Jesus saw this He was " much displeased," and rebuked His disciples in words of a very remarkable tenor. And finally we are told, that " He took them up in His arms, put His hands upon them, and blessed them." the people were able to bear it. The possession of it was undoubt- edly a great privilege, and one of which the Jews might justly glory. Yet in glorying they were to remember also, that their law contained some grounds for humiliation. Its very permission to obtain di- vorce on light grounds, was a standing witness of the hardness and cruelty of the people. It was thought better to tolerate such divor- ces, than to have the nation filled with murder, adultery, cruelty, and desertion. In short, the very law of which the Jew boasted, was shown by our Lord to contain permissive statutes, which were in reality written to his shame. The expression throws light on the position of God's people in this world of sin. It shows us that there may be things tolerated and permitted by God, both in churches and states, not because they are the best things, but because they are the things best suited to the church or state in which they are found. It is vain to expect per- fection in any government or in any church. If we have the essen- tials of justice in the one, and of truth in the other, we may be content. God tolerated many things in the government of Israel, until the time of reformation. Surely we may tolerate many things too. To spend our lives in searching after an imaginary state of per- fection, either civil or ecclesiastical, is, at best, a waste of time. If God was pleased to suffer some things in Israel " for the hardness of their hearts," we may well endure some things in churches and states

Let us learn, for one thing, from this passage, how much attention the souls of children should receive from the Church of Christ. The Great Head of the Church found time to take special notice of children. Al- though His time on earth was precious, and grown-up men and women were perishing on every side for lack of knowledge, He did not think little boys and girls of small importance. He had room in His mighty heart even for them. He declared by His outward gesture and deed, His good will toward them. And not least, He has left on record words concerning them, which His Church should never forget, " Of such is the kingdom of God."

We must never allow ourselves to suppose that little children's souls may be safely let alone. Their charac- ters for life depend exceedingly on what they see and hear daring their first seven years. They are never too young to learn evil and sin. They are never too young to receive religious impressions. They think in their childish way about God, and their souls, and a world to come, far sooner and far more deeply than most people are aware. They are far more ready to respond to appeals to their feeling of right and wrong than many suppose. They have each a conscience. God has mercifully not left Himself without a witness in their hearts, fallen and corrupt as their natures are. They have each a soul which will live for ever in heaven or in hell. We cannot begin too soon to endeavor to bring them to Christ. These truths ought to be diligently considered by every branch of the Church of Christ. It is the bounden duty •which we do not quite like. There is a balance of evil in every po- sition in the world. There are imperfections everywhere. The state of perfection is yet to come. 203 of every Christian congregation to make provision for the spiritual training of its children. The boys and girls of every family should he taught as soon as they can learn- - should be brought to public worship as soon as they can behave with propriety - should be regarded with affection- ate interest as the future congregation, which will fill out- places when we are dead.

We may confidently expect Christ's blessing on all attempts to do good to children. No church can be regarded as being in a healthy state which neglects its younger members, and lazily excuses itself on the plea, that " young people will be young/' and that it is useless to try to do them good. Such a church shows plainly that it has not the mind of Christ. A congregation which consists of none but grown up people, whose children are idling at home or running wild in the streets or fields, is a most deplorable and un- satisfactory sight. The members of such a congregation may pride themselves on their numbers, and on the soundness of their own views. They may content them- selves with loud assertions that they cannot change their children's hearts, and that God will convert them some day if he thinks fit. But they have yet to learn that Christ regards them as neglecting a solemn duty, and that Christians who do not use every means to bring children to Christ are committing a great sin.

Let us learn, for another thing, from this passage, hoiv much encouragement there is to bring young children to be baptized. Of course it is not pretended that there is any mention of baptism, or even any reference to it in the verses before us. All we mean to say is that the ex- pressions and gestures of our Lord in this passage, are a strong indirect argument in favor of infant baptism. It is on this account that the passage occupies a prominent place in the baptismal service of the Church of England. The subject of infant baptism is undoubtedly a delicate and difficult one. Holy and praying men are unable to see alike upon it. Although they read the same Bible, and profess to be led by the same Spirit, they arrive at different conclusions about this sacrament. The great majority of Christians hold that infant baptism is scrip- tural and right. A comparatively small section of the Protestant Church, but one containing many eminent saints among its members, regards infant baptism as unscriptural and wrong. The difference is a melancholy proof of the blindness and infirmity which remain even in the saints of God. But the difference now referred to must not make members of the Church of England shrink from holding decided opinions on the subject. That church has de- clared plainly, in its Articles, that " the baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ." To this opin- ion we need not be afraid to adhere. It is allowed on all sides that infants may be elect and chosen of God unto salvation - may be washed in Christ's blood, born again of the Spirit, have grace, be justified, sanctified, and enter heaven. If these things be so, it is hard to see why they may not receive the outward sign of baptism. It is allowed furthermore that infants are members of Christ's visible church, by virtue of their parents' Chris- tianity. What else can we make of St. Paul's words, " now are they holy " (1 Cor. vii. 14.) If this be so, it is difficult to understand why an infant may not receive the outward sign of admission into the church, just as the Jewish child received the outward sign of circumcision. The objection that baptism ought only to be given to those who are old enough to repent and believe, does not appear a convincing one.

We read in the New Testa- ment that the " houses" of Lydia and Stephanus were baptized, and that the jailer of Philippi and " all his" were baptized. It is very difficult to suppose that in no one of these three cases were there any children. (Acts xvi. 15, 33. 1 Cor. i. 16.) The objection that our Lord Jesus Christ Himself never directly commanded infants to be baptized is not a weighty one. The church of the Jews, to which He came, had always been accustomed to admit children into the church by the sign of circumcision. The very fact that Jesus says nothing about the age for baptizing, goes far to prove that He intended no change to be made.*

In considering the arguments in favor of infant baptism, there are two facts which ought to be duly pondered. They are extra- soriptural facts, and I have therefore purposely omitted them in the Expository Thoughts on this passage. But they are weighty facts, and may help some minds in coming to a conclusion. 1. One fact is the testimony of history to the almost universal practice of infant baptism in the early church. The proof of this is to be found in Wall's History of Infant Baptism. If infant baptism is so entirely opposed to the mind of Christ, as some say that it is, it is least a curious circumstance, that the early church should have been so ignorant on the subject. 2. The other fact is the notorious practice of baptizing the infant children of proselytes in the Jewish Church. The proof of this is to be found in Lightfoot's HoraB Hebraicae on St Matthew iii. 6. He says, for instance, " The Anabaptists object, ' it is not commanded to baptize infants - therefore they are not to be baptized.' To whom I answer, ' it is not forbidden to baptize infanta - therefore they are to The subject may be safely left here. Few controversies have done so much harm, and led to so little spiritual fruit as the controversy about baptism. On none has so much been said and written without producing conviction. On none does experience seem to show that Christians had better leave each other alone, and agree to differ. The baptism that it concerns us all to know, is not so much the baptism of water as the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Thousands are washed in baptismal waters who are never renewed by the Spirit. Have we been born again ? Have we received the Holy Spirit, and been made new creatures in Jesus Christ ? If not, it matters little when, and where, and how we have been baptized ; we are yet in our sins. Without a new birth there can be no salvation. May we never rest till we know and feel that we have passed from death to life, and are in- deed born of God ! be baptized.' And the reason is plain. For when Ptedobaptism in the Jewish Church was so known, usual, and frequent in the admission of proselytes, there was no need to strengthen it with any precept, when baptism passed into an evangelical sacrament. For Christ took baptism into His own hands, and into evangelical use as He found it ; this only added, that He might promote it to a worthier end, and larger use. The whole nation knew well enough that little children used to be baptized : there was no need of a precept for that which had ever, by common use, prevailed." " On the other hand, there was need of a plain and open prohibi- tion, that infants and little children should not be baptized, if our Saviour would not have had them baptized. For since it was most common, in all ages foregoing, that little children should be baptized, if Christ had minded to abolish the custom He would have openly forbidden it. Therefore His silence, and the silence of Scripture, confirm Psedobaptism, and continue it unto all ages." - Light/oofs WorTcs. Vol. xi. p. 59. Pitman 's edition.