1. Introductory

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTORY No doctrine of the relationship of God to men has assumed such prominence during the last half-century as that of His Fatherhood. It has been set forth in theological treatises, has formed the most persuasive ground of appeal for the preacher, and has been offered as the chief source of confidence and comfort in regard both to the individual and to the collective issues of human life. It has wrought a theological transformation in many quarters. With regard, for example, to the Atonement, it has brought to general recognition the truth that the sacrifice of Christ was the outcome, and not the cause, of the love of God to mankind. The doctrine has gradually become established in the popular mind as a rough test of all that claims to be Christian teaching; so that the question generally asked with regard to any alleged dealing of God with men is, whether it is compatible or incompatible with what we can believe of God regarded as the universal Father of mankind. It has been the inspiring motive of a philanthropic service, ever widening in its range, becoming profounder in its ultimate principles, and more strenuous in its methods. And yet. despite all this, it cannot be said that the doctrine has up to the present obtained complete command of the whole field of Christian theology, to say nothing of its acceptance beyond. Without taking account of those diffi culties as to the order and happenings of the world which occasion doubt in sensitive and sympathetic minds, there are certain reasons entirely within the realm of Christian theology and life why this is at present the case.

1. In the first place, the doctrine of the New Testament upon the subject is by no means simple. The off-hand statement that God is the universal Father, does no justice to the complex teaching both of the Gospels and the Epistles. In both and throughout, the doctrine is bound up in the closest way with Christ; so that, on the one hand, the Fatherhood of God towards Him is unique; and, on the other, the Fatherhood of God towards all men is determined in various ways by their relationship to Christ. As might naturally, therefore, be expected, while it is possible to quote passages from the New Testament which set forth the universal Fatherhood in the largest and most explicit way, it is equally possible to set against them passages in which the doctrine is closely connected with our Lord’s unique relation ship to the Father, or appears, at first sight at least, to be limited to believers in Christ, on the ground of their living relationship to Him, and of the spiritual characteristics which are bound up with that relationship. Any doctrine of the universal Fatherhood of God, adequately understood, must do full justice to these apparent limitations, if it is to win universal acceptance within the Christian Church.

2. In the second place, the Old Testament does not contain in any full sense the doctrine of the Fatherhood of God. The explicit foreshadowings of it are scarce; and although it may be said, with some reservations, that fatherliness is the characteristic of Jehovah, yet the universality of that fatherliness is by no means universally displayed, while the relationship explicitly set forth is that of sovereignty and not of Fatherhood. The Old Testament has exercised, and will continue to exercise, immense influence both upon the theology and upon the experience of the Christian Church.

Moreover, it is obviously the root from which the doctrine of the New Testament has grown, and it spreads its influence throughout the theology of the New Testament especially in the writings of St. Paul and St. Peter. Hence, if the Fatherhood of God be the distinctive revelation of the New Testament, the full significance of that fact will be obscured in many ways and for many minds, unless and until a more careful examination of the Old Testament makes it clear that the predominance of the doctrine of the Divine Sovereignty in the Old Testament is no bar to the final predominance of the doctrine of the Fatherhood as founded upon the teaching of the New.

3. And this is not all. Various spiritual, moral, and intellectual causes have operated in the history of Christian thought to give the primacy to the doctrine of the Sovereignty of God, conceived in various forms according to both the higher tendencies and the political associations that have from time to time prevailed. Around these different conceptions there have grown great systems of theological thought

Greek, Latin, Mediaeval, and Reformed. These leading conceptions, and the doctrines which have grown around them and have been moulded by them, have in each case reflected the temper of those who created them, and the general environment in which that temper lived. Under their influence the theological teaching of great sections of the Christian Church has been developed from age to age. They are naturally absorbed, even if somewhat modified, by the mind of the succeeding generations. Indeed it is a first principle with great branches of the Christian Church deliberately to perpetuate them. Men carry the influence of such systems of thought with them when they go to the New Testament itself. Thus, for the most part, it is rather the conceptions inherited from dogmatic theology which shape our interpretation of the New Testament, than the New Testament which subjects our dogmatic theology to inner criticism and revision. Seeing, therefore, that in these varying types of theology the doctrine of the Fatherhood of God has not been supreme, while from some of them it has been almost entirely absent, it follows that for many men it is almost impossible to give full effect in their presentation of Christian doctrine to the supremacy of the Fatherhood of God.

4. Fourthly, another difficulty has been caused by the very depth of the experience of the Fatherhood of God which belongs to the most spiritual followers of Christ. Its graciousness, tenderness, and all-constraining power are some thing so new, even in their own lives, that the relationship of God to them before they experienced it seems altogether different from what it has since become. To suppose that this most sacred relationship, the maintenance of which is the object of their ceaseless prayer and effort, is common to the thoughtless and sinful crowd, seems to them to be almost a desecration of it. In this view they find support from all those teachings of the New Testament which set forth the life of sonship as due to a “ rebirth,” and the experience of sonship as the most peculiar possession of Christians.

5. Lastly, the doctrine of the Fatherhood of God, as frequently presented, has been too obviously one-sided to satisfy either the statements of Holy Scripture, the facts of the world and life, or the moral needs of the more strenuous natures. It has taken too frequently the character of a sentimental rejoinder to undue severity elsewhere. It has been the utterance of tender and sympathetic rather than of strong men, craving to know and anxious to set forth the tenderness, the compassion, and even the homeliness of God.

It follows that such teaching has rarely had great intellectual grasp, and has seldom had the courage to face aspects of reality which cannot easily be reconciled with it. Still less has it had the power to appropriate and restate the elements of truth contained in those systems of thought against which it has uttered the protest of feeling rather than of thought.

Hence a counter-exclusiveness has been created by such teaching. It has been intellectually unsatisfactory, because clearly the whole has not been thought out. In addition, it has created added difficulty in the way of Christian faith, because the plain facts of the world show that no key to the meaning of the universe and to the life of man is contained in human sympathy or even in Divine tenderness. Most serious of all, such sentimental teaching alienates the stronger minds and hearts, because they know it to be not only untrue to the facts of life, but inadequate to their own spiritual needs and to the demands of righteousness, which cannot be satisfied by mere sympathy, as ordinarily understood. The inevitable result, therefore, of such a presentation of the Fatherhood of God is divisive, and the controversy that results generally hardens still further, instead of softening, the doctrines and persons that were unduly hard before. In spite of all these hindrances, the doctrine of the Fatherhood of God is so plainly taught in the New Testament, and evokes so unfailing a response in the mind and heart of men, that it maintains its position in a way in average theological thought. But it is just the way in which this is effected that is often the most unsatisfactory. For the doctrine tends to become little more than the equivalent of what may be termed benevolent creatorship. As such it evades all the difficulties which have just been set forth, because it never rises to their level. It is philosophical rather than religious, if indeed philosophical be not too great a name to give to it. It is natural rather than spiritual or moral. Indeed its spiritual content is so small that no one is concerned to deny its universality.

Thus, for example, in his work on The Fatherhood of God, which in many respects rises far above the description just given, Dr. Crawford in his controversy with Dr. Candlish seems inclined to accept as sufficient the following definition, which he puts into the mouth of those who have “ hitherto affirmed the Divine paternity as a natural relation.” “ Had anyone disputed their doctrine,” he says, “ and asked them to define fatherhood, they might probably have said that fatherhood implies the origination by one intelligent person of another intelligent person like in nature to himself, and the continued support, protection, and nourishment of the person thus originated by him to whom he owes his being.” l Whether Dr. Crawford would have been ultimately satisfied with this suggested definition or not, it certainly fairly represents the sense in which many theologians, especially of the Deistic type, have understood the Fatherhood of God. And its shortcomings are, that while it yields a measure of homage to the affinity between God and men, that homage is incomplete, for its view of Divine origination may fairly be 1 Crawford, The Fatherhood of God, pp. 9, 10. said to be mechanical rather than vital. Further, it finds the manifestation of the Fatherhood of God rather in His natural bounty than in the dealings of His Spirit. It maintains man philosophically in isolation from God, and conceives him as endowed with special avenues for the occasional approach of God, instead of realising that human nature is interpenetrated by the Divine, despite the fact of sin. And thus it does no justice to that Divine immanence which must be recognised if any true account of the relations between God and man is to be reached. The general controversy between Dr. Candlish and Dr. Crawford turned on the propriety of limiting the Fatherhood of God to the Divine Son, and to believers as entering into His Sonship. But Dr. Candlish endeavoured to make good his position by denying “ the existence of a certain positively real and actual relation of Fatherhood and sonship between the Creator and His intelligent creatures.” l And he contends that “ whatever the Creator makes He must rule,” 2 and that therefore sovereignty and not Fatherhood is the relation in which He stands to His creatures. On the other hand, Dr. Crawford concedes that when we maintain “ that God is in some sense truly and properly the Father of all His intelligent creatures, we are not bound to show that the relation which He bears to them is literally and exactly a relation of paternity, strictly the same with that of an earthly parent to his offspring, but only that it is a really subsisting relation, of which that of paternity is the most appropriate type. 3 Thus, as must necessarily be the case in discussing this doctrine, the whole philosophical question is raised as to how far human relations are a valid guide to the relationship of God to men and to the world, which, strictly speaking, is sui generis. The inconclusiveness of such general discussions as the one to which reference has been made results largely from the fact that the parties to them attempt to discuss the question whether God is Father, or not, in the abstract, instead of in the light of that revelation of the relations in which He stands to men, which is contained in the living concrete 1 Candlish on The Fatherhood of God, p. 23.

2 Sec p. 17.

3 Crawford, The Fatherhood of God, p. 11. reality of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is by that reality, and the relationships to God and mankind involved in it, that the Fatherhood of God must be defined, explained, and made good. An examination conducted on these lines, if sufficiently careful and complete, will furnish material for deciding wherein the relation of Fatherhood in its ideal completeness is the highest and, so far as it goes, the most valid conception of the relationship of God to men, and wherein it must necessarily come short of the full Divine reality, without thereby being set aside.

Enough has been said to show that the whole subject needs further investigation, and an attempt will be made in the following pages to furnish a humble contribution towards this end. An endeavour will be made, in the first place, to set forth the doctrine of the New Testament as to the Father hood of God, and to show what influence the doctrine has in New Testament theology. The Old Testament will then be examined in order that we may see how its doctrine stands related to that of the Fatherhood of God, and also the place which its teaching must occupy in any final doctrine of the relationships of God to men. A careful inquiry will then be made into the history of the doctrine in the Christian Church, showing the causes which were at work from the first to modify it and eventually to supersede it. The steps must then be traced by which the recognition of the doctrine has been at last regained. This account must needs be lengthy, and must deal even more fully with the causes that have obscured, than with those that have given prominence to, the doctrine. We must then consider what is meant by the doctrine, how far and in what sense it is a valid guide to thought, and what is its spiritual content. Finally, a review must be made of the dealings of God with the world, in its creation, redemption, and perfecting, in order to show the way in which they are based upon, and give effect to, the Father hood of God as revealed in the New Testament. This last survey must of course be brief and imperfect, if only from considerations of space. The utmost that can be hoped is that it may serve as an indication rather than as an exhaustive account.

It may be well to forestall one or two objections wbich may be made against this method of treatment. In the first place, it may be objected that it is completely abstract, being concerned simply with the interpretation of texts, and with the philosophical explanations of the world which attempt to give effect to them. It may be felt that all this is too far from the region of that direct spiritual testimony of the heart which verifies and rejoices in the promises of Christ. To utter the fulness of such experience is indeed a gracious and edifying task. To exhibit the perfect spiritual satisfaction contained in it, is probably its highest and certainly its most persuasive recommendation; yet such an experience, by the very fact that it satisfies the heart, contains within itself the materials for a consistent account of the character of God, and of His purposes towards and His dealings with mankind. And it is necessary from time to time, even in the interests of experimental religion itself, to use the data of such religious consciousness as the means of arriving at such a consistent statement. The account given in these pages will show how the inner experience of Christians and their theoretic exposition of it have acted and reacted upon one another. So long as man is forced to think, to look above him and around, the experiences of his heart must find their last expression in propositions which, while they are formulated by the intellect, gain whatever measure of insight and conviction belong to them from the inmost experiences of the heart. To refuse such experiences their ultimate expression, is not only to endanger the integrity of their form, but also to refuse to thoughtful men the guidance which they afford for coining to know the ways of God. It is hoped, therefore, that what ever in the present inquiry may seem to be abstract is based upon the testimony of simple Christian experience of what Christ is to those who believe in Him, and what God is in Christ. So far as this is the case, a comparatively abstract treatment may indirectly serve the purposes of the heart by satisfying those inquiries of the intellect which question the deliverances of the heart. A slightly different form of this objection may be urged by those who insist that Christianity is, above all, a temper and not a philosophy. The Fatherhood of God may be held by such to be a truth belonging particularly to this temper, and not to the realm of dogmatic considerations. It is indeed the truth which particularly appeals to those who withdraw from the intellectual problems and the keen struggles of life to enjoy the spiritual fellowship open to a trustful heart. In furtherance of this view we may be pointed to the spiritual poetry of our Lord’s teaching, and be told that He came not to give dogmas or a philosophy, but to bring about the child like spirit without which men cannot enter into the kingdom of God. The typical Christian becomes, in such a view, the man who, like Francis of Assisi, drinks in this Divine poetry by faith, and lives his life in rapture without attempting to systematise his experiences or to think out their bearings upon the ordinary life of men, much less upon the ultimate purposes of God and the way in which they are to be accomplished. But it is, after all, in the long-run impossible to regard Christianity as a self-contained spirit or as a mere means of spiritual satisfaction. The permanence of the satisfaction and the truthfulness of the spirit depend upon whether they are in conformity with the supreme realities of the world to which men belong, considered as a whole. If the Christian temper carry within it the evidences of truth, it will throw light upon the constitution of the world in which it can naturally and rightfully be displayed. If, led on from the deliverances made in and through this temper, we pass to the world of reality beyond and are able to find there great and dominant facts which explain and justify the temper, our confidence is complete. If such confirmation fail, if it is impossible to show that the presuppositions of the Christian temper form a more reasonable whole, a more sufficient foundation of life and a completer guide to action than any others, then it must be feared that, beautiful as the temper may be, it belongs to hearts strangely out of keeping with the world in which they are placed, for the unity of the whole world of nature and spirit is a truth which can less and less be denied. And thus the prevalence of the Christian temper will ever suggest to the intellect the question of what is involved in it, and how far what is involved in it accords with the constitution of the world and the facts of its history. From yet another side it may be objected that such an inquiry as the present, while it may lead to satisfactory results so far as biblical exposition or consistency of dogmatism is concerned, does not investigate those hard facts of the world’s life which dispose many men to question the Fatherhood of God. The investigation of such facts is undoubtedly an important task. For many reasons, it cannot even be entered into here. But the answer to this objection is as follows.

We are here concerned with the interpretation of facts, and of facts which have been and are so influential in that spiritual life of man by which he is what he is, that they must be considered, according to our view, the governing facts both of the evolution of the universe and of the revelation of what it means. If that broad truth be established, hard cases and apparently incongruous facts may be brought to it, and may be shown to be not ultimately incompatible with it. But, first of all, the foundation must be made secure by giving an exposition of the facts of spiritual history and of the spiritual consciousness, and by showing the light which they throw upon that which is supreme and inmost in the nature of things.

After all, the spiritual experience of Christian men their thoughts, feelings, hopes and strivings, above all, the faith which includes them all is a fact which cannot be dismissed or made to take a second place in any true investigation of the meaning of the world. In spite of all the apparent contradictions of life, it is in this world that the Christian faith has appeared, has lived, and has prevailed. The forces which make for its permanence and prevalence are unabated. If ever they have seemed to be temporarily in abeyance, such a decline has been followed, without fail, by periods of glorious resurrection, and such resurrection ever revivifies the life of men in its whole range and in all its powers. Thus what seems an abstract exposition, seeing that it is concerned with the greatest fact of the world, has the greatest apologetic importance.

One word more must be said. It is impossible within the scope of this work to consider the relation between the Christian revelation and the conceptions of God and of His relationships to men contained in non-Christian religions. It must suffice for us here to treat Christianity as the absolute religion in which the unfolding of the idea of God and of religion has its perfect expression. To trace the connexion between the absolute religion and those which are more or less relative to it is not necessary for our work, althoughundoubtedly such an inquiry would, in some respects, tend to establish the conclusions of this book upon a wider basis. With these opening remarks we may pass at once to consider the doctrine of the New Testament as to the Fatherhood of God.