. : -

¦;.t- <

x'": le">*

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD

THE

FATHERHOOD OF GOD

In Christian Truth and Life

J. SCOTT LIDGETT, M.A.
WARDEN OF THE BERMONDSEY SETTLEMENT
AUTHOR OF "THE SPIRITUAL PRINCIPLE OF THE ATONEMENT"

EDINBURGH
T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET
1902

PRINTED BY
MORRISON AND GII1U LIMITED,
FOR
T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH.
LONDON : 8IMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, AND CO. LIMITED.
NEW YORK : CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS.

TO
THE MEMORY OF MY FATHER
AND TO
MY MOTHER
THIS BOOK IS DEDICATED
IN FILIAL GRATITUDE
FOE INFLUENCES AND ASSOCIATIONS
WITHOUT WHICH
IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN WEITTEN

PREFACE

This book embodies tbe substance of a series of lectures
delivered at the Bermondsey Settlement to a small class of
theological students during the last three years. It has been
prepared by snatches in the short intervals of leisure left by
almost unceasing public engagements. I fear that the con
ditions under which it has been produced have left their
marks upon it, not only in defects of style, but possibly in
undetected slips, and still more in imperfections of exposition.
In addition to all this, I feel how inadequate any treat
ment of so great a subject must be, and especially my own.
Yet, such as it is, I send this volume forth, in the hope
that it may throw some light upon the ways of God with
men, and may help some who are seeking a view of Christian
theology comprehensive enough to include and harmonise
many elements of truth, which, seen in isolation, become
distorted and misleading.
Especially, as one whose time is given to social and
administrative work, I feel it to be a duty resting upon me
to give expression to that conception of God's relationship to,
and dealings with, mankind in Christ which supplies, to me
at least, the principles upon which social work should be
based. Only the doctrine of the Fatherhood of God, seen in
its full significance, can unite men's efforts in every sphere
of life in a consistent whole. For the lack of this, many are
greatly perplexed and distracted by the seemingly rival
claims of spiritual work and of the motives of natural and
generous sympathy. It is of great importance to seek a
reconciliation between the two.

Vlll PREFACE
I may add that this book is closely related to my former
work on The Spiritual Principle of the Atonement. While
written from the same point of view, it attempts to establish
the supremacy of the Fatherhood of God more systematically,
and to set forth its consequences on a broader scale than
simply in relation to the Atonement.
My grateful thanks are due to my friend the Rev. William
F. Lofthouse, M.A., who read the greater part of the manu
script and made many valuable suggestions ; and also to
several friends, connected with the Settlement, who, at the
cost of great labour to themselves, have relieved me of much
of the mechanical work of preparing the book for the press.
The translations given in the historical chapter are largely
my own ; but for the first period I have generally adopted
the rendering given in Messrs. T. & T. Clark's Ante-Nicene
Christian Library.
And now I conclude, in humble trust that God will use
this book, notwithstanding its imperfections, for His glory.

J. SOOTT LIDGETT.

Bermondsey Settlement,
1st November 1902.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I
Introductory page
The growing influence in recent years of the doctrine of the Fatherhood of
God  1
Yet it has not become completely supreme in Christian Theology . . 1
Reasons for this ........ 2
1. The doctrine of the New Testament on the subject is by no means
simple . . . . . . . . .2
2. The doctrine of the Old Testament is that of sovereignty, not of
Fatherhood ........ 2
3. Great systems of theology have grown up in which the doctrine
holds, at most, a subordinate place .... 3
i. Christian experience finds the realisation of the Fatherhood of God
its most sacred and exclusive possession . ... 3
5. As frequently stated, the doctrine has been wanting in virility and
comprehensiveness ....... 4
Notwithstanding these difficulties, the doctrine maintains its ground,
though often only in the sense of benevolent Creatorship . 5
Dr. Crawford's suggested definition ... 5
The controversy between him and Dr. Candlish .... 6
Inconclusiveness of abstract discussions on the subject . . .6
Further investigation necessary. The course of the present inquiry . 7
It may be objected that this inquiry is abstract .... 8
The relations of experience and theory . . . . .8
The Fatherhood of God may be held to belong to the Christian temper,
and not to dogmatic discussion ...... 9
But the Christian temper must correspond to, and may throw light upon,
the realities of the universe ...... 9
The evidential value of such an inquiry as is proposed . . .10
Christianity treated throughout as the Absolnte Religion . . 11

CONTENTS

CHAPTER II
The New Testament Doctrine of the Fatherhood of God

The revelation of the Fatherhood of God came through our Lord
I. The Fatherhood of God towards Christ
Our Lord speaks out of His own consciousness as the Son
This consciousness unique, original, and all-pervading
The Synoptic Gospels exhibit its spiritual and moral glory
The peculiar teaching of the Fourth Gospel .
II. The Fatherhood of God towards believers in Christ .
Believers in Christ have personal experience of God as Father
But their consciousness of sonship is derived
St. Paul treats this as due to " adoption "
St. John attributes it to regeneration .
Equivalent teaching of St. Paul
III. The Father ....
The significance ofthe name "the Father" variously understood
The name, originally personal, becomes qualitative and hence uni
versal ......
Significance of the Baptismal Formula (Matt, xxviii. 19)
The Father as the object of worship (John iv. 23, 24)
Coming unto the Father (John xiv. 6)
Access unto the Father (Eph. ii. 18) .
The Father as the source of blessings (Eph. v. 18-20)
The use of the name by St. James (Jas. iii. 9, i. 17) .
St. Peter treats calling on God "as Father" as distinctive of Chris
tians (1 Pet. i. 17) .
St. John on "the love ofthe Father" (1 John ii. 15-17)
IV. Distinct teaching of the universal Fatherhood of God
This may be divided under three heads
1. Teaching as to the Fatherhood of God explicitly or implicitly
affirming its universality .....
The Sermon on the Mount (Matt. v. -vii.)
The Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke xv. 11-32) .
Acts xvii. 29 .
1 Cor. viii. 6 .
Eph. iii. 14, 15
Heb. xii. 9
1 Pet. i. 17
Jas. i. 17, 18 .
2. Teaching as to the nature of salvation, which shows that it
rests upon universal Fatherhood ....
(1) Salvation as apprehension of, and conformity to, the
Fatherhood of God
(2) Salvation as entrance into the life of sonship
3. Teaching as to human nature, which implies its essentially
filial constitution ....
(1) The great Temptation

PAGE 12
1212
13 14
1618
181920
21 22
2223 2425
26 27
282929
29303232 333336 37383841
41 41

4142 4243 44

CONTENTS XI
PAGE
(2) The Son of Man ...... 45
Our Lord's apparent contradiction of the universal Fatherhood
of God (John viii. 42-44) . . . . .47
Summing up . . . . . .48
CHAPTER III
The Place of the Doctrine of the Fatherhood of god
in the Theology of the New Testament
The place of the Fatherhood of God must be determined not by proof-
texts, but by its influence upon His universal action, and upon the
interpretation of it . . . . . . .49
The teaching of the New Testament must be examined, therefore, as a
whole ..... ... 50
I. Our Lord's teaching . . . . . . .50
He commonly spoke of God as Father . . . .50
Exceptions to this . . . . . . .50
Fatherhood the key to all the purposes and acts of God . . 51
Sonship, in and through the Son, the meaning of salvation . . 53
Salvation wrought out by the perfect filial obedience of the Son . 56
Thus our Lord's whole teaching falls within the sphere of the Fatherly
and filial relationship . . . . . .56
II. St. John . .  56
His First Epistle ....... 56
1. He constantly emphasises the Fatherhood of God . . 57
2. The true life of men consists in becoming " children of God " . 58
3. How men become " children of God " . . . .58
4. His emphasis on the Incarnation explained by this . . 59
5. The "love ofthe Father" the prevailing affection of believers . 60
• 6. The Fatherhood of God antecedent to, and the cause of, our
sonship . . . . . • .60
III. St. Paul  60
The Epistles of the Imprisonment . . . ¦ .61
The Epistle to the Colossians ..... 62
1. The Fatherhood of God the source of "grace and peace" . 63
2. Men realise His Fatherhood through " the Son of His love " . 64
3. Our Lord's Mediatorship in Redemption grows out of His re
lation to creation . . . . . .66
4. The original constitution of mankind in the Son the explanation
of Redemption ...... 67
5. A filial act the means of our Redemption . . .68
The Epistle to the Ephesians . . ... 68
1. The " eternal purpose " of the Father to bestow upon believers
" adoption as sons " . . . • • .69
2. His Fatherhood the source of all spiritual blessings . . 70
3. The Catholic community ... .71
The Epistle to the Philippians . . . ¦ .72
References to the Fatherhood of God . . .72

xii CONTENTS

Bearing upon this of —
(1) The Humiliation, Obedience, and Exaltation of Christ . 72
(2) The apostle's spiritual aspiration and pursuit . .73
The main group of Epistles . . . . . .73
The Epistle to the Romans .... .74
Its contents . . . . . . . . / 4
The supremacy of the Fatherly purpose . . . .74
The doctrine of foreordination in relation to this purpose . . 75
1 and 2 Corinthians . . . . . .76
These Epistles present the same general view . . .76
The Epistle to the Galatians ...... 77
Reveals throughout the influence of the Fatherhood of God upon
the apostle's thought . . . . • .77
The difficulties raised in the main group of the Epistles . . 77
The Covenant ...... .78
Consideration of Gal. iii. — iv. 7 . . . . .78
1. St. Paul's theology must connect itself with that of the Old
Testament, and through the conception of the Covenant 79
2. The piedagogic purpose of the law involved the sinking of
certain distinctive elements of the New Dispensation by
God Himself ...... 81
But— (1) St. Paul's treatment of the subject shows the supremacy
of the Fatherly and filial relationship throughout . 82
(2) An important truth is set forth by making Abraham and
the Covenant the starting-point . . .83
(3) The Fatherhood of God is clearly shown to be universal 83
The so-called forensic elements of St. Paul's teaching . . 84
Wherein these consist . . . . . .84
1 . The Divine dealing with mankind is sui generis, and may well
contain forensic elements though the whole is not forensic 85
2. There are judicial and kingly aspects of all true fatherhood,
even human . . . . . .85
3. Justification is Fatherly rather than forensic or kingly . 85
4. The association between justification and the reception of
the " Spirit of adoption " . . . . .86
5. The sovereignty of the Divine Fatherhood . . .87
Especially iu relation to sinners . . . .88
Yet the Fatherhood supreme . . . .88
The glory of God and the vastness of His dealings need the
figures of sovereignty and citizenship to set them forth 88
IV. The Epistle to the Hebrews ...... 89
Hebrew types transformed by the Fatherly and filial
V. St. Peter . . . .
The new " elect race " and their distinctive mark
VI. The Apocalypse ......
The Kingship of God set forth, and not His Fatherhood
The reason ... ...
Summing up .

9191 92
92 92 92

CONTENTS xiii

CHAPTER IV
The Doctrine of the Old Testament in relation to the
Fatherhood of God PAGE
The doctrine of the Old Testament has created a difficulty in recognising
the supremacy of the Fatherhood of God . . . . .94
This is the first generation which has the means of a sound decision within
reach ......... 95
The relation of the Old Testament to the New . . . .96
Course of the present inquiry .....
I. The development of the doctrine of the relationship of God to men in
the Old Testament ....... 97
The source of Old Testament revelation is in personal experience . 97
Its gradual unfolding . . . . . . .98
The Call of Abraham . . .... 99
The relative nature of the revelation made to him
The same characteristic of the revelation by Moses . . . 100
The claim of God made good by redemption .... 101
The Creatorship and world-sovereignty of Jehovah as set forth in
Deuteronomy ....... 101
Deuteronomy as illustrating the development of Old Testament
revelation . . . . . . . .102
The universalism of the Prophets the culmination of Old Testament
religion ........ 103
Resemblance between the development of the Old Testament doctrine
and that of the New ...... 104
II. The Covenant ........ 105
The dominating conception of the religious bond in the Old Testament 105105 106106 107107107108109 109
110 111
111 112113113
114 114117
118

The Covenant of God with Abraham
The Covenant of God with Noah ....
Recognises a measure of independence in man
The assumption of obligations by God
The Covenant of Sinai .....
A claim to sovereignty .....
But also a manifestation of Grace
A gospel in the law ......
This the prophetic view .....
The name Jehovah in relation to the Covenant
The revelation of the Covenant provisional
Its Divine purpose ......
But it is inherently incomplete, and tends to be superseded .
III. The Kingship of God .
Jehovah as King, Husband, Redeemer, and Father of His people
His Kingship is predominant .....
The doctrine of His Kingship corresponds to the stage of revelation
and religion reached in the Old Testament
Comparison with Aryan religions
Growing universalism of the doctrine .

xiv CONTENTS PAGE
Jehovah as Redeemer . . . . . . .118
Prophecies and Psalms illustrate the development . . . 118
The Prophets ........ 120
Amos .....••' 120
Gives ideal expression to the ethical aspect of the Kingship . 120
The man and his training ..... 120
His message to his age ...... 121
Hosea  122
A contrast to Amos ...... 122
The prophet of the Divine pity . . . . .123
God as Husband and Father . . . . .123
Isaiah  124
Isaiah i.-xxxix. ....... 125
1. The key to it in the vision of Isa. vi. ... 125
2. The ethical meaning of the Divine Kingship . . . 126
3. Jehovah as the Protector of His people . . . 126
4. The militant aspect of His Kingship .... 126
5. The Divine Kingship over all nations set forth in a threefold
way ........ 127
6. The Kingship of Jehovah over nature .... 127
7. And over the unseeii world ..... 128
8. His redemptive purpose the glory of Jehovah's Kingship . 128
9. His Kingship in relation to the Holy City and the Messianic
King . . . . . . .128
Isaiah xl.-lxvi. ....... 129
The more tenderly gracious aspect of the Divine Kingship . 129
The power, the grace, and the righteousness of the Divine
Redeemer ....... 129
The corresponding revelation of the Servant of Jehovah . . 131
The Fatherliness of God . . . . . .131
Jeremiah ........ 131
Re-echoes the teaching of Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah . . 132
The graciousness of Jehovah in making the New Covenant, and
in establishing the Messianic King . . . .133
Jehovah as King the source of spiritual satisfaction . .133
The remaining prophets . . . . . .134
Proverbs ........ 135
The law of Jehovah the life of men .... 136
The Psalms ........ 136
The Psalms exhibit all the features of the Kingship of Jehovah
set forth by the Prophets ..... 136
But there are many Psalms of individual experience . . 137
The individual and the community . . . .137
The Fatherliness of God set forth, but not His Fatherhood . 138
The reasons for this . . . , . .138
Yet the Psalms prepare the way for the New Testament
doctrine •¦•.... 140
Thus in all respects the Old Testament prepares the way for the
revelation of the Fatherhood of God in the New . . 140

CONTENTS XV
CHAPTER V
The Fatherhood of God in Church History page
The history of Christian doctrine shows the gradual disappearance and the
slow and partial recovery of the apprehension of the Divine Father
hood . . . . . . . . .142
The interaction of spiritual life and formal theology . .145
The sections into which the present survey is divided . .146
First Section. — The transformation of the doctrine of the Fatherhood
of God, and the substitution of the doctrine of the Divine Sovereignty
for it . . . . . . . .147
I. The teaching of the primitive Church to the end of the Gnostic con
troversies ........ 147
The conditions of the first age of Christianity unfavourable to com
plete systematic theology ...... 147
Yet great prominence given to the Fatherhood of God as supreme and
universal ........ 149
Clement of Rome . . . . . . .149
The Epistle of Barnabas ...... 150
The Epistle to Diognetus . . . . . .150
The First Apology of Justin Martyr ..... 151
His Second Apology . . . . . . .151
Tatian's Address to the GreeJcs ...... 152
Irenaeus ...... . 152
His unique importance for our doctrine .... 153
The task set to him by the Gnostic heresies .... 153
The system of Valentinus ...... 154
The counter-positions taken by Irenseus in his work Against Heresies 155
These made good, above all, by the Fatherhood of God . . 156
Circumstances which enabled Irenseus to make full use of it . . 156
Quotations in illustration ...... 157
In his account of Fatherhood, however, Irenseus laid chief stress on
Creatorship ........ 160
And his treatment of the Sonship, corresponding to the Divine
Fatherhood, was imperfect ...... 160
This imperfection bound up with the defects of his Christology . 161
Adequate realisation of Sonship the safeguard of the doctrine of the
Fatherhood ........ 162
II. The modifications introduced by the Christology of the great teachers
of Alexandria, and particularly by Athanasius . . .162
1. The distinctive features of Alexandrian Christianity . . 163
2. The influence of Greek, and especially of Platonic, philosophy
upon the Alexandrian Fathers . . . .164
Its serviceableness to the Christian doctrine of God . . 167
Expressed in terms of either Fatherhood or Sovereignty . . 167
Plato's doctrine of eternity and time . . . . .167
And of the negativity of evil ..... 168
The importance assigned to knowledge . 169

XVI

CONTENTS

an to the Father, unfolded by

The influence of Stoicism on Christian thought
Clement of Alexandria .....
The doctrine of the Fatherhood of God pervades his writings
The Logos as the Instructor of mankind
The universalism of Clement
His doctrine of salvation
Spiritual illumination and sonship
Intellectualism of this view .
Relationship to the Logos, rather tl
Clement .
Salvation as " deification " .
Origen ....
Did disservice to the doctrine of the Fatherhood of God rather than
service .......
By an account of the relationship of the Son to the Father, and of
mankind to the Son, in terms of reason and not of love .
Lack of real significance, in Origen's doctrine, of the humanity of
Christ ........
Athanasius ........
1. His investigation of the relation of Fatherhood and Sonship as
between the First and Second Persons in the Trinity .
2. But the metaphysical aspects dealt with rather than the
spiritual and moral ......
3. Stress laid on the sonship of Christians ....
4. But the Creatorship of God treated as preceding His Fatherhood
5. The human nature of our Lord not seen in its full importance .
6. Sonship invariably considered in terms not of fellowship with
the Father, but of " deification " ....
This conception became characteristic of Eastern Theology
General result
III. The transformation in the West brought about by Augustine, and
the preparation for it in Latin Christianity .
The East and the West meet in Augustine
Characteristics of Western Christianity
Religion and law ....
Causes at work to substitute the doctrine of Sovereignty for that of
Fatherhood .....
The personality and spiritual history of Augustine
The controversies in which he was engaged
1. Augustine's doctrine of God
Wrought out in opposition to Manichasism
God as Summum Ens .
The ontological argument
The beauty of God
His love ....
Creaturely existence comes from participation in the Supreme
Existence, and is therefore good
God as Creator and Orderer of the universe
The end of the creatures

PAGE 169
169
169
170171
171
172 172
172173173
173
173
176176
177177
178178
179179179180180
180
181 181
182 183185
185
185186187
187187
188 189
189

CONTENTS

XVII

page
2. This general view strengthened by Augustine's experience of
Redemption ....... 190
The Pelagian Controversy ...... 190
Augustine's doctrine of Sin . . . . . 191
And of Grace ....... 192
God in relation to the lost . , . . .192
The Divine Will the only real force .... 193
Augustine's conception of sin and holiness shaped by his
doctrine of Divine Sovereignty .... 193
3. Augustine's theological politics ..... 194
The Donatist Controversy and The City of God . . 194
The Catholic Church and ecclesiastical authority . .194
The Church the temporal manifestation of the eternal order . 195
The conflict between the City of God and the City of the world 196
Influences shaping this conception . . . .196
It produces an imperial conception of God's relationship to men 197
God as Judge ....... 197
4. Augustine's doctrine of the Trinity obscures the Fatherhood of God 197
5. Influence on his Theology of those portions of Scripture which
were most congenial to his experience of Redemption . .199
Effect upon his Theology of Augustine's lack of full assurance of
salvation . . . . . . .199
Second Section. — The Mediaeval Doctrine of Divine Sovereignty . . 200
For a thousand years the only conception of God's relationship to
mankind that of Sovereignty ..... 200
1. The influence of Politics and Law ..... 201
The growth of the Papal power . . . . .201
The holy Roman Empire ..... 202
Its effect on religious thought ..... 203
Dante's De Monarchia ...... 203
Dante and Papal aggression ..... 205
The mutual influences of the theological and political conception 206
Effect of the legal spirit and of the formation of Canon Law . 207
The Church militant . . . . . .207
All these influences developed the conception of the Divine
Monarchy . . . . . . .208
2. Scholasticism . . . . . . .208
The influence of the Schoolmen intellectual . . . 208
The general problem which they set themselves . . . 209
The earlier Schoolmen Platonist ; the later, Aristotelian . 209
(1) The earlier Schoolmen— Anselm . . . .210
Scholastic Realism and the doctrine of the Trinity . 210
A danger to Christian Theism .... 210
Avoided by Anselm at the cost of consistency . . 211
The Theism of the Monologion and the Froslogion in
relation to the Divine Sovereignty . . .211
The contrasted doctrine of the Cur Deus Homo . . 213
(2) The later or Aristotelian Schoolmen— Thomas Aquinas . 213
The rediscovery of Aristotle .... 213
b

xviii CONTENTS PAGE
Its theological results, especially in the system of Aquinas 215
Natural and revealed Theology ... . . 215
Human nature and the donum superadditum . .216
The relationship of God to the world . . . 218
God as First and Sufficient cause of an external and
quasi-independent universe .... 218
General theological result ..... 220
(3) Duns Scotus— The Nominalists . . . .220
Duns Scotus and the exaltation of the Will of God . 220
The same view taken by the Nominalists . . . 221
Religious and ecclesiastical consequences . . . 222
3. The Theology of Mediaeval Piety . . . . .222
Bernard of Clairvaux ...... 223
Devotion to the human Jesus ..... 223
His tract De diligendo Deo ..... 224
Francis of Assisi ....... 225
The Mystics  226
The Reformers before the Reformation .... 227
4. The Divina Commedia of Dante ..... 227
The genius of Dante . . . . . .227
The theological teaching of the Divina Commedia . . 229
(1) God as the "Emperor ofthe Universe" . . . 229
(2) His Sovereignty based upon His perfections ; therefore
spiritual and immanent ..... 231
(3) Love the supreme perfection of God . . . 233
(4) Hence love the supreme and mightiest principle in man . 234
Unity of law, life, and love .... 236
(5) Therefore man's destiny and the forces by which it is
wrought out are spiritual .... 236
The supremacy of Love, witnessed to by Heaven, Pur
gatory, and Hell ..... 236
Dante's theology needs for its explanation a return to the
doctrine of the Fatherhood of God . . . 238
Third Section. — The Recovery of the Doctrine of the Fatherhood of God.
The Reformation and Modern Protestant Theology . . . 240
The general theological conditions of the Reformation . . . 241
The new sense of acceptance with God must needs bring into promi
nence once more the Fatherhood and the Fatherliness of God . 241
Yet incompletely ....... 242
Because of —
1. The influence of Augustine's theology .... 243
2. The emphasis on the forensic aspects of justification . . 243
3. Lack of proportion, for the most part, in the interpretation of
Scripture ....... 243
Hence undue prominence given to Old Testament conceptions . 244
4. Political influences affecting theological thought . . 244
5. Old Testament analogies suggested by Puritan warfare . . 245
6. The selectness of the experience of justification, which was
evidence of a sovereign election .... 246

CONTENTS

Xix

7. The adoption of the Thomist distinction between natural and
revealed religion ......
Personal influences in the development of the Theology
Luther .....
The sources of his theology
His spiritual experience
Luther and Augustine .
The foundations of his theology Augustinian
God indispensable for Luther .
But God as manifested and known in Jesus Christ the Redeemer
Hence —
1 . The Fatherliness of God, in Christ, set forth rather than His
Fatherhood .....
2. Salvation conceived rather as freedom than as sonship
3. The Fatherhood not seen to be universal
4. Nor as supplying the ground, and fixing the method, of Re
demption ....
Calvin ......
Prominence with him of the Fatherhood of God
The Institutes .....
Calvin's doctrine of God
Of Redemption ....
The relation of Christ to Redemption .
The realisation of Fatherhood and Sonship supreme within Christian
experience ......
But outside sovereign Will determines all
Socinianism ......
Socinianism and humanism ....
Its theological spirit .....
1. The doctrine of God that of His Sovereignty
2. In virtue of this He forgives sins unconditionally
3. Hence the saving office of Christ is prophetic
Neglect of the doctrine of the Fatherhood of God
The change, respecting this, in modern Unitarianism, how brought
about ......
Arminianism ......
Occupies a middle place between Calvinism and Socinianism
Seeks to protect the freedom of man, as the condition of responsibility 263

247 247
247 247247248249249249

251251252253253253253253254255255257259259260260261 261
261262263263

And to set forth the claim of human well-being on the Creator
Its governmental view ......
Effect of Arminianism on the doctrine of the Fatherhood of God
Leibnitz .
His Thiodieie .
God and Creation
The best of possible worlds
Finitude and evil
The results to the Divine Sovereignty .
The Monadology
Beneficent Creatorship and Fatherhood

264264265
265 265
265266266266267267

XX CONTENTS PAGE
Methodism ........ 267
The influences which affected Wesley ..... 268
The leading characteristic of Methodism its doctrine ofthe Holy Spirit 268
Set forth as scriptural ....... 268
Hence stress upon Adoption and Regeneration . . . 269
The "direct witness "of the Holy Spirit . . . .269
The universality of the saving love of God .... 269
The filial nature of Christian experience .... 270
All bring into sight the supremacy and universality ofthe Fatherhood
of God  . .270
The Nineteenth Century . . . . . . .271
New prominence of the doctrine of the Fatherhood of God . . 271
Due in part to personal causes, but still more to general tendencies . 271
Reaction against Calvinism ...... 271
M'Leod Campbell and the Atonement. .... 272
Frederick Denison Maurice ...... 272
The influences under which he was brought .... 272
Effects upon his Theology . . . . . .274
The supremacy of love in God ...... 275
Manifested in a Fatherly will ...... 275
Revealed in the incarnate Son ...... 276
And apprehended by faith ...... 276
General influences tending to restore the doctrine of the Fatherhood of
God  .276
1. The new apprehension of the human in Christ . . . 277
2. Recognition of the principle of development as applied to Revela
tion ........ 277
3. More serious use of the doctrine of the Trinity . . . 277
4. The Creation, and not the Fall, seen to be the starting-point . 278
5. Fuller apprehension of the immanence of God . . . 279
6. The sense of the religious worth of the secular life . . 279
7. The humaner tone of social life ..... 279
The Oxford Movement a reaction against these tendencies . . 280
Went to restore the mediaeval doctrine of the Sovereignty of God . 280
Sentimentalism the danger of the new spirit .... 280
The task of the twentieth century in regard to the Fatherhood of God 281

CHAPTER VI
The Validity and Content of the Doctrine of the
Fatherhood of God
The doctrine of the Fatherhood of God must be inclusive of all truth
about Him, if it is to be supreme ..... 282
This must be examined into ...... 282
The religious importance of an adequate conception of the relation of
God to men and to the world ...... 283
Formal theology and religion ...... 285
Reason and Religion ....... 286

CONTENTS XXI
PAGE
The apologetic value of a satisfactory theological conception . . 287
What is meant by the Fatherhood of God . . . . .288
The doctrine of the Fatherhood compared with that of Makership . . 289
And with that of Sovereignty ...... 290
The revelation of the Fatherhood of God through experience . . 292
The translation of experience into doctrine . . . .292
The verification of the doctrine . . . . . .293
How far is the doctrine valid for thought ? . . . . . 294
This depends upon the reasonable assumption that human relationships
are grounded in and reveal the Divine ..... 294
Yet there are inherent defects in the representation of the Divine Father
hood by that of men ....... 296
In the first place, it fails to set forth the absoluteness of God . . 297
In the second, it cannot fully represent His immanence . . . 298
The Fatherhood of God towards mankind as a clue to His relationship to
the whole Creation ....... 298
What is the content of the doctrine ?..... 299
1. The supremacy of love in the character and activity of God . . 299
The relations between love, holiness, and righteousness in the char
acter of God . . . . . . .299
2. The Father, as the source and end of life, is sovereign . . 303
The Fatherhood explains the Sovereignty .... 304
And therefore determines the spirit of true religion . . 305
The Ritschlian contention that the "Kingdom of God" is the key
to the interpretation of Christianity .... 305
3. The regnant Fatherhood is the source of all other Divine functions . 308
It explains the revelation of God in and to man . . . 308
And also his law-giving completed in judgment . . .310
The virility and comprehensiveness of the doctrine . . 312
4. The doctrine of man contained in the doctrine of Fatherhood of God 313
The assurance of man's permanence .... 313
The condition of human brotherhood . . . .314
The guide to the inmost principle of human life . . . 314
The eternal relations of the Holy Trinity the condition of the Fatherhood
of God . .  315
The relations in which the Three Persons in the Godhead stand to the
Fatherhood . . . . . . . .316
The relativity of the Fatherly relationship no disparagement of the revela
tion contained in it . . . . . . .319
How is the universal Fatherhood of God affected by the fact that it is not
correlative to an equally universal realised Sonship ? . . . 321
1. As to its existence, it is towards mankind as grounded in the
Eternal Son  321
2. As to its manifestation where the filial response is incomplete,
the aspects under which God has been apprehended by men of
faith at different times are elements in His perfect Fatherhood,
and have their place in the progressive revelation of Himself . 323
3. The way in which the manifestation of the Fatherhood is affected
by the presence of sinful rebellion .... 326

xxii CONTENTS PAGE
The Fatherhood and the interpretation of life .... 328
1. It is the most effectual means of harmonising the various aspects of
the world and of human life in a consistent whole . 328
Nature and the supernatural .... 328
2. Nature and Grace ....... 330
Salvation as the perfect expression of nature . . . 336
This is the highest principle for Christian education and discipline 337
As shown by the life of our Lord, in which self-renunciation and
self-fulfilment are perfectly united .... 338
It is explained by the doctrine of Fatherhood and Sonship . 339
The relations of culture and of knowledge to the Christian life . 339
The occasional conflict between self-sacrifice and self-fulfilment,
how resolved . . . . . . .341
The Fatherhood of God as supplying the ideal for the regulation of the
community ........ 343
CHAPTER VII
The Spiritual Constitution of the World
The dealings of God with the world in relation to His Fatherhood to be
considered in three stages ...... 344
And, first, the spiritual constitution of the world .... 345
The determining facts of Christianity . . . . .345
Importance of the facts of the Trinity and the Incarnation in respect of
the nature of the world ....... 346
Damage done to later Christian theology by the neglect of this truth . 346
St. Paul's doctrine in Col. i. 16, 17 . . . . . 348
1/ Christ, the Son, is the culmination and the end of all things . . 349
^* If Christ be thus central, so is the Fatherhood of God . . 350
Christ as the supreme Personality of history .... 350
To affirm this involves an act of faith, but it is not unphilosophical . 351
The significance of Christ and the trustworthiness of spiritual con
sciousness ........ 351
The evolution of religious life the supreme fact of human history . 352
Christ, its Consummator, is therefore essential to the system of the
world ........ 353
II. But Christ is the culmination of a world which is a continuous whole,
and therefore He interprets the whole which He completes . . 354
Christ's consciousness verified by the experience of men . . 354
The world as a continuous whole ..... 354
Continuity and new departures ..... 355
The physical and the spiritual coherent and completed in the filial
life of man ........ 356
The higher interprets the lower, and Christ the whole . . 357
The testimony of our Lord's consciousness cannot be withheld from
world-interpretation ....... 357
III. All things are grounded in the Son, are related to Him, inhere and
cohere in him ....... 358

CONTENTS XXlll PAGE
The source of this truth experimental and not speculative . . 358
1. The universe is relative to spirit ..... 359
2. Spiritual existences are kindred ..... 360
3. As finite, their life is in God ; yet, in a measure, independent . 360
This twofold fact is explained by their relationship to the Son . 360
Who makes His Sonship the determining principle of Creation . 361
IV. All things have been created through the Son . . . 362
His position in Creation is determined by His Sonship in the Godhead 362
The possibility of the Incarnation is thus explained . . . 362
Christian experience in relation to this truth .... 362
What is involved in this relationship of Christ to the universe . . 365
1. The supremacy of the Fatherly motive and relationship in Crea
tion ........ 365
Provided our Lord's Sonship sets forth an eternal relationship . 365
It is sometimes contended that our Lord's relationship within the
Godhead is that of the Logos and not Sonship . . . 366
But— (1) Only St. John uses the name " the Logos " . . . 366
(2) The Son is a higher name ..... 367
(3) The idea of filiation is contained in the Logos . . 367
(4) And the Name is equally figurative as that of the Son . 368
(5) Only the Eternal Sonship can explain our Lord's incarnate
relationship ...... 368
The inner relationships of the, Godhead govern the outer . . 369
Hence the grace of the Divine Fatherhood is the foundation of
nature ........ 370
2. The filial constitution of human nature .... 370
(1) The Son of God is manifested in human nature . . 370
(2) As the ideal of what all man should become . . . 371
(3) And completes the development of the past . . . 371
Our Lord's Sonship determines the possibilities of the world . 372
To fall short of sonship the surest mark of limitation . . 371
3. The world serves the manifestation of the sons of God . . 374
The spiritual constitution of the world explains —
1. The nature of sin . . . ¦ • • 375
(1) Sin is an unnatural response to the Fatherhood of God . 376
(2) It violates the relationship to the Son as the ground and
law of human nature ..... 376
(3) Hence it involves a "missing the mark". . . 377
(4) And consequent disorder and corruption . . . 377
(5) It results in loss of spiritual lordship . . . 377
(6) And in disharmony with the whole of life . . 378
2. The reason why the Incarnation is the necessary means of
Redemption ....••¦ 378
(1) Our Lord the Eternal Self of the human race . . 379
(2) As incarnate He manifests a human life fulfilled in its
true relationship to God .... 379
(3) Hence He reaffirms that which sin denies

380

(4) And does this on our behalf .... 381

xxiv CONTENTS
CHAPTER VIII
The Redemption of Mankind page
Two aspects : the Atonement offered by our Lord, and the subjective re
conciliation of man ....... 382
1. The relationship of Fatherhood and Sonship governs the Atonement 383
2. The Atonement is a personal dealing ..... 384
3. The end of the Atonement must be Fatherly .... 387
4. Hence it can only be offered by the truly filial mind and will . 389
5. It must be consummated in, under, and through penal conditions . 390
6. There must be the co-operation of the Father in love and grace . 392
7. It must be representative, and so capable of appropriation by repro
duction in men ....... 392
The evidence of the New Testament that all these conditions were fulfilled
in the death of Christ . . . . . . .393
Two other points to be brought out —
1. The general doctrine outlined is in harmony with all the figures of
the New Testament . . . . . . .399
2. It includes the substance of the leading explanations given in the
Christian Church . . . . . . .400
The reconciliation of men to God, how brought about . . . 403
There is a redemptive significance in our Lord's work considered as
revelation ......,, 403
The beginning of Redemption is the reinforcement of the authority
of God ......... 404
This authority manifests itself in love ..... 404
Both in the words and deeds of Christ ..... 405
Above all, in His Cross ....... 405
And in the Dispensation of the glorified Christ and of the Spirit, in
augurated by the Cross ...... 405

CHAPTER' IX
The Consummation of all Things
The consummation of all things inaugurated by the Resurrection of our
Lord and the Dispensation of the Spirit .... 407
1. The Fatherhood of God in relation to our Lord's Resurrection . 407
2. And to His Exaltation and the Dispensation of the Spirit . .411
3. The individual aspects of salvation set forth the Fatherhood . . 413
4. The heirship of believers . . . . . .415
5. The Christian hope extends to the renovation of all things . .416
As the final manifestation of the Fatherhood of God . . 418
Its evidence spiritual . . . . . .418
The Fatherly and filial relationship is the principle both of inclu
sion and of exclusion , 420

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
IN CHRISTIAN TRUTH AND LIFE

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

2 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
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 fatherli
ness 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

INTRODUCTORY 3
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 concep
tions there have grown great systems of theological thought —
Greek, Latin, Mediaeval, and Eeformed. These leading con
ceptions, 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

i THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
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

INTRODUCTORY 5
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." *
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.

6 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
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." x 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 See p. 17.
3 Crawford, The Fatherhood of God, p. 11.

INTRODUCTORY 7
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 ex
haustive account.

8 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
It may be well to forestall one or two objections 'which
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 coming
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 ease, 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

INTRODUCTORY 9
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

10 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
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 im
portant 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 con
tradictions 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

INTRODUCTORY 1 1
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, although un
doubtedly 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 con
sider the doctrine of the New Testament as to the Fatherhood
of God.

CHAPTER II
THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE
FATHERHOOD OF GOD
The revelation of the Fatherhood of God came to mankind
through our Lord Jesus Christ. Undoubtedly there had been
a belief in the Divine Fatherhood among the Aryan races ;
there are foregleams of it, as we shall see hereafter, in the Old
Testament, and our Lord found in the religious language of
His contemporaries an extensive use of the name " Father "
which had grown up since the completion of the Old Testa
ment Scriptures. , But as He used the name it became so
spiritual, so profound and all-embracing, as to outshine all
other use of it, like the sun at noon outshines the morning-
star, and to become the foundation of a new idea of God and
of a new religion for men.
I. The Fatherhood of God towards Christ
The reason of this is that, when our Lord speaks of the
Father, He is uttering His own deepest experience; is de
claring the Father out of the fulness of His own consciousness
as the Son. Three things were necessary before the Father
hood of God could have either supreme spiritual significance
or certain authentication. Firstly, an adequate conception of
the spiritual and moral perfection of God ; secondly, a sense
of sinless and complete correspondence to Him ; thirdly, an
immediate, unbroken, and all-determining experience of com
plete fellowship with Him, revealing and resting' upon mutual
kinship. And all this was the characteristic consciousness of
our Lord Jesus Christ, and was His alone. Generally speak
ing, it may be said that the revelation of the Fatherhood of
12

THE N.T. DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD 13
God to and by our Lord was, in the first place, not universal,
but personal ; not theoretic, but experimental ; not natural,
but spiritual ; not accidental, but all-determinative ; not com
mon, but unique.
The great saying, " No one knoweth the Son, save the
Father ; neither doth any know the Father, save the Son "
(Matt. xi. 27), is, when we bear in mind the depth of meaning
contained in the Hebraic use of the word " knoweth," con
clusive proof of all these statements ; and, if it were needful,
abundant additional evidence could be given. Whatever else
may be bound up with it, according to the unbroken use both
of our Lord and of His apostles, " the Father " means originally,
and above all, " the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."
The Gospels show as clearly how fundamental this ex
perience of God's Fatherhood and of His own Sonship was for
our Lord. It was original and not acquired ; intuitive and
not reasoned. Our Lord's first recorded saying, " Wist ye
not that I must be in My Father's house," or, "about My
Father's business " (Luke ii. 49), shows that His earliest self-
consciousness was that of Sonship ; that already its light
illumined all the world for Him, and guided all His thoughts,
desires, and deeds. The history of His life is simply the
history of the influence and sufficiency of the consciousness of
this fatherly and filial relationship. His ministry opened
under the inspiration of the testimony, " Thou art My beloved
Son, in Thee I am well pleased" (Mark i. II). The story of
the great temptation which followed is in substance simply
the narrative of how our Lord guarded the integrity of this
relationship when assailed at every point.
As His ministry drew towards its close and the prospect
of death rose up before Him, the transfiguration and the
heavenly voice, " This is My beloved Son : hear ye Him "
(Mark ix. 7 ; Matt. xvii. 5 ; Luke ix. 35), gave Him a renewed
'assurance in terms which at once distinguished Him from
Moses and Elijah, the greatest servants of the past, and, in
so doing, declared His sole authority over His disciples. It
was in the light of this relationship that our Lord explained
His position in the world and His office for mankind. By it
He interpreted the meaning of human life, and transformed

14 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
the current ideal of the kingdom of God. This conscious
fellowship with the Father was His sole and all-sufficient
equipment for the work of His life. The guiding principle
and power of His life is thus described by Him : " I do
nothing of Myself ; but as the Father taught Me, I speak
these things" (John viii. 28 ; see also vers. 38 and 19, 20).
His unwavering confidence and satisfaction is, " I do always
those things that are pleasing to Him " (John viii. 2 9). When
the darkness of unutterable woe — of betrayal, desertion, suffer
ing, and death — gathered round Him — so strangely out of
keeping, at first sight, with the fatherly presence and pro
tection of God — He uttered the triumphant assurance, " Ye
shall leave Me alone : and yet I am not alone, because the
Father is with Me" (John xvi. 32).
That presence, thus guiding, refreshing, satisfying, and
strengthening Him, was never overshadowed save in the one
awful moment when He cried, " My God, My God, why hast
Thou forsaken Me ? " (Matt, xxvii. 46 ; Mark xv. 34). Even
then the cry of bewilderment shows that He had kept His
filial consciousness intact ; above all, uninjured by any sense
of sin. And thus, when the dreadful anguish passed, the con
sciousness of the overshadowing presence returned, and with
His cry, " Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit " (Luke
xxiii. 46), our Lord ended His earthly life as He began it ;
and, in so ending it, proclaimed that the consciousness which
had inspired His life, when tested by all the tempests which
earth and hell could rouse against it, had not even felt the
strain. In a sense higher than that of the centurion, and
with a different emphasis, we may well say, in presence of this
wondrous consciousness, " Truly this man was the Son of God "
(Mark xv. 39).
This characteristic and pervasive consciousness of our
Lord, imperfectly summarised in what has just been said,
must be more closely studied as it is presented to us, first, in
the synoptic Gospels, and in the next place by St. John.
The Synoptists report to us the words and deeds by
which our Lord unfolded the fulness of His filial consciousness
to His disciples. They exhibit that consciousness as original,
immediate, unfailing, and supreme in the Spirit of our Lord ¦

THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF 15
as the key to all His thoughts, words, and actions. But they
throw no light upon its metaphysical basis, and they are
silent as to our Lord's pre-existence before His human birth.
It is the splendour of a spiritual and moral Sonship which
their narratives reflect. The life of our Lord is a completely
realised fellowship of heart, mind, will, and character between
Him and His Father, in which the Father reveals, orders, and
upholds, and the Son perceives, trusts, and obeys with the
freedom and satisfaction which perfect filial consecration
implies. Without entering at large into discussions as to
the person of Christ and the biblical doctrine on the subject,
which are beyond the scope of our present inquiry, it may
be said that this emphasis on the spiritual and ethical nature
of the relationship between the Father and His Son is the
most important service the Synoptists could have rendered
to us. Foremost in fact and in spiritual importance was
the manifestation in human life and character of, to use
St. John's words, " glory as of an only-begotten from a
Father" (John i. 14). The world had been accustomed to
the thought of Divine Sonship, physical, national, or official ;
it had little difficulty in framing the creed of Sonship, meta
physical or even eternal. But the glory of a perfect spiritual
and moral Sonship, — this had never been either revealed or
conceived till it was revealed in our Lord. And if we should
be tempted to say this is only a spiritual and ethical Sonship,
we show that we have not yet reached the standpoint at
which the spiritual and ethical have the highest reality and
supreme importance, as they had for St. John when he said,
" God is love." It is the spiritual glory that requires as its
postulate, and has involved in it, the Divine, eternal, and
metaphysical relationship. Such a metaphysical relationship
were poor if it were not spiritually and ethically glorious ; ,
and it is the great office of the Synoptists so to present to
us the glory of the filial experience of our Lord as to make
the metaphysical basis seem to us natural and necessary, and
the reflexion on it not a mere speculation as to the nature of
God, but an act of worship.
But, while this is so, the spiritual and ethical Sonship of
our Lord, set forth by the Synoptists, is so unique that, while

16 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
uniting our Lord to mankind, it still more significantly sepaiv
ates Him from them. The way in which our Lord's Sonship
unites Him to mankind will become clearer as we proceed ;
but, in the meanwhile, it is important to note the way in
which it sets Him apart from and above men. His con
stantly and carefully used expression, "My Father," which
occurs too frequently in the synoptic Gospels for quotation,
is evidence of our Lord's own consciousness. Even the great
saying, " Whosoever shall do the will of My Father which is
in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother " (Matt.
xii. 50 ; but compare Mark iii. 35 and Luke viii. 21), while
expressing the closest union between Him and those who
share His spirit, yet on closer inspection seems to distinguish
between Him and them even more impressively, because He
is seeking to make the most emphatic declaration of asso
ciation. The " My " twice repeated asserts a primacy for
our Lord, both in relationship to the Father and in relation
ship towards those who do His Father's will, which is more
striking than the association.
And this impression of distinction between Christ and
His disciples, generally conveyed, is made final and unques
tionable by the great word, " All things have been delivered
unto Me of My Father : and no one knoweth the Son, save
the Father ; neither doth any know the Father, save the Son,
and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal Him " (Matt.
xi. 27). This last text may be said to complete the general
teaching contained in the synoptic Gospels, by founding on
our Lord's unique Sonship a revealing and redemptive office
which He alone can fulfil, and which He can fulfil only on
the ground of that relationship.
We may sum up the teaching contained in the synoptic
Gospels by saying that the Fatherhood of God is first revealed
in the filial consciousness of Christ; that it expresses His
prevailing sense of kinship and fellowship with, but of sub
ordination to, the Father; that it manifests a relationship
original and peculiar to Himself ; and that that relationship
is the foundation of His saving office for mankind.
The Fourth Gospel has all the same positive character
istics as have been noted in the other three. But there is

THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF 17
a development which may be said to make the meaning of
the others more definite, or to open out what is involved
in it. In the first place, the conception of our Lord's unique
Sonship is hardened and brought into higher relief by the
introduction of the adjective "only-begotten" (John i. 14, 18,
iii. 16, 18 ; see also 1 John iv. 9).
In the second place, our Lord's Sonship is clearly traced
back to a preincarnate existence and relationship to God.
This is, of course, the case so far as the prologue of the Gospel
is concerned ; but, in addition, there are the two great declara
tions ascribed by the evangelist to our Lord, namely, " Before
Abraham was, I am" (John viii. 58), and, "Now, 0 Father,
glorify Thou Me with Thine own self with the glory which I
had with Thee before the world was" (John xvii. 5). In
addition, there are many other sayings, as, for example, John
iii. 17, which, while they may undoubtedly receive a possible
explanation without the idea of pre-existence, yet are most
naturally explained by it, and are clearly ruled by the explicit
declarations which have been quoted.1
In the third place, the prologue assigns to our Lord a
preincarnate and creative relationship to the universe, " All
things were made by Him," etc. (John i. 3) ; though no such
declaration is said to have been made by our Lord Himself
And, finally, there is a great development in our Lord's
discourses recorded by St. John of teaching as to the bearing
of His unique Sonship on the salvation of mankind — an
amplification of the doctrine we have found in Matt. xi. 27.
The consideration of this last element of teaching will occupy
us in the next chapter.2 It is needless and beyond our scope
to pursue the teaching as to our Lord's unique Sonship
through the Epistles of the New Testament. It may suffice
to say that in them all His distinctive title is " the Son
of God " ; that His Sonship is treated as unique, preincarnate,
and Divine ; that the writers, with all their individual peculi
arities, are in substantial accord with the teaching of the
1 The question whether the preincarnate relationship of our Lord to the
Father is that of Sonship, is discussed in Chapter VII.
2 See pp. 53-56.
2

18 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
Fourth Gospel on the subject. St. Paul's conception of the
resurrection as declaring the Sonship of Christ may be noted
as an additional feature peculiar to himself (see Acts xiii. 3 3 ;
Bom. i. 4).
II. The Fatherhood of God towards Believers
in Christ
We pass from the New Testament doctrine of the
Fatherhood of God towards our Lord Jesus Christ to that
of His Fatherhood towards believers in Christ. The fact
of this doctrine is too obvious to need elaborate treatment.
Our Lord throughout teaches that God is the Father of the
disciples, and treats His Fatherhood as determining the whole
spirit, conduct, and conditions of their life. The Sermon on
the Mount is a leading example of this teaching, which is too
common throughout the New Testament either to need proof
or to bear detailed quotation.
And the knowledge of God as Father became the charac
teristic experience of the apostles. St. Paul speaks of the
sending of the Spirit of God's Son into our hearts, crying,
"Abba, Father" (Gal. iv. 6; see also Bom. viii. 15, 16).
St. John says, " Behold what manner of love the Father hath
bestowed upon us, that we should be called children of God ;
and such we are" (1 John iii. 1). St. Peter treats the calling
on God "as Father" as the distinctive mark of Christians
(1 Pet. i. 17). And St. James speaks of "our God and
Father" (Jas. i. 27, iii. 9).
But again, just as in the case of our Lord, this knowledge
of God as Father is a personal experience ; it is conditioned
by the corresponding consciousness of Sonship ; it is spiritual
and ethical in character, being brought about by the Spirit
of Christ. Indeed, what has been said in reference to our
Lord may be repeated in regard to His disciples, that any
real and adequate revelation of the Fatherhood of God
depends upon the answering consciousness of sonship, with
all its spiritual and moral characteristics. God can only
show in any fulness what He is as Father to those who know
themselves as His sons, and stand in that attitude towards

THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF 19
Him which agrees with and expresses sonship. And thus
it may be said that, throughout the New Testament, the
knowledge of God as Father, possessed by believers in Christ,
hinges upon their consciousness of sonship. It may be added,
that it is the vividness and influence of that consciousness
of personal sonship which distinguishes their ascription of
Fatherhood to God from any other that can be discovered
in apostolic times.
But this vital knowledge of God as Father, conditioned
by consciousness of sonship, was not, in the case of believers,
original, but derived. Our Lord claimed to be the only
imparter of it ; His disciples recognised that they had received
it only in and through Him, and by means of His Spirit.
Our Lord declared, " Neither doth any know the Father, save
the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal
Him" (Matt. xi. 27). It seems as though that gracious
revelation explained the evangelic invitation which our Lord
went on to give, " Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are
heavy laden, and I will give you rest " ; explained also the
ease of His yoke and the lightness of His burden. The
labour and the burden of the Pharisaic religion are exchanged
for rest .when the Father is found. The yoke of the Master,
who reveals the Father, is easy; the burden of His com
mandments, based upon the Fatherhood of God and addressed
to those who are inspired by the knowledge of it, is light.
The Fourth Gospel gives fuller and more definite teaching
to the same effect. It may be summed up in the great
declaration, " I am the way, and the truth, and the life :
no one cometh to the Father, but by Me " (John xiv. 6).
And the experience of the apostles conforms to this claim
of our Lord. Their sin and its consequent blindness kept
them from seeing the Father; still more their guilt made
them, left to themselves, incapable of entering into the
privileges of sonship. " God sent forth His Son . . . that
we might receive the adoption of sons," says St. Paul (Gal.
iv. 4, 5). " As many as received Him, to them gave He
the right to become children of God, even to them that believe
on His name," is the corresponding utterance of St. John
(Johni. 12).

20 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
Hence the experience of sonship is in the case of believers
not only derivative from Christ, but attained by a spiritual
transition. This transition is set forth in the New Testament under
two aspects. It is treated as a change of relationship, and as
a change of nature. The former is expressed by the term
adoption; the latter, by the term regeneration.
The use of the term "adoption" is St. Paul's. It is
found in the great passages, Gal. iv. 5 ; Bom. viii. 1 5 ; Eph.
i. 5. It is probable that the apostle had in mind the
analogy of adoption under Eoman law, which was elaborately
safeguarded and frequently practised. The immediate mean
ing is obvious. Adoption introduced to the status, the
privileges, the responsibilities of a particular sonship one who
had not enjoyed them before. And it did so under conditions
which provided for the universal recognition, the security, and
the permanence of the new relationship. So far, then, what
St. Paul means is simple and clear. By adoption, believers
have entered into a relationship to God which they knew not
before, and which others, without that adoption, cannot enjoy.
That relationship is recognised, valid, and secure. Perhaps
we may add, though St. Paul does not express the thought in
this connexion, that the new relationship is brought into
existence and is protected by the righteousness of God.
But to leave the matter here, while very simple and
common, does little justice to the complexity- of St. Paul's
teaching, and the presuppositions underlying it. The forensic
elements, while the most prominent superficially and of great
importance, are, in reality, the least part of the whole. The
experience is not external, but internal ; not legal, but vital.
The Spirit of the Son is " sent into our hearts, crying, Abba,
Father," according to Gal. iv. 6 ; believers have " received the
spirit of adoption, whereby ye cry, Abba, Father," according to
Eom. viii. 15.
And the experience is not of a declaration made to us,
" Thou art My son " ; but is the awakening of a filial recognition
and nature within us, crying to God, " Abba, Father." The
action of the Spirit and the response of our hearts cannot
reasonably be considered to be a creation out of nothing.

THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF 21
The nature which could find its own true life and liberty in
this recognition of the Father and response to the Spirit of
the Son, must be presupposed, and presupposed as a universal
datum, in mankind.
And this impression is confirmed by the context in Gal.
iv. Those who were to receive the adoption of sons had been
previously in bondage, like the heir who, so long as he " is a
child, differeth nothing from a bondservant, though he is lord
of all ; but is under guardians and stewards until the term
appointed of the father " (Gal. iv. 1). This shows that in the
apostle's mind there was, antecedent to the adoption, an
implicit sonship and capacity for heirship ; so that, in one
respect, the adoption was the coming into those full rights
and responsibilities which await maturity; although what
would otherwise have been a normal development was com
plicated by the fact of sin, and must needs be brought about
by an act of redemption.1 What is involved in this capacity
for and destination to sonship must be more closely considered
later on. But enough has been said to show clearly that by
adoption St. Paul does not mean any mere external trans
ference, under legal conditions, from one relationship towards
God to another ; and that the spiritual act of adoption has
reference to and crowns a precedent and innate potentiality.
St. John uses the phrase " begotten of God " to indicate
the way in which men become sons of God (John i. 13 ;
1 John iii. 9, iv. 7, v. 1, 4, 18).
The phrase carries us back to the saying of our Lord to
Nicodemus, " Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be
born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God " (John
iii. 5). And His further explanation was followed by the
declaration, " That which is born of the flesh is flesh : and
that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John iii. 6).
Here we are taught that a vital change wrought by the
Spirit " from above " is necessary before men can " enter into
the kingdom of God," or become His sons. The addition of
a heavenly nature and the transformation of the earthly must
be brought about. But, as in the case of adoption, the matter
is not so simple as at first sight it appears. The separation
1 See the next chapter.

22 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
between the natural and the spiritual, between the earth-born
and those "born from above," which is absolute in idea, is
modified in fact, according to our Lord's own teaching. Pre
paratory to rebirth, " he that doeth the truth cometh to the
light" (John iii. 21). The Good Shepherd had sheep before
He came, who refused to listen to "thieves and robbers,"
but knew His voice directly He called to them (John x. 8,
14). Even rebirth, therefore, is not an absolute miracle,
creating something of which no promise had been given before.
It is the calling into activity of a possibility latent or uncom
pleted hitherto. In any complete doctrine, both of these
complementary views must be preserved in perfect balance.
Leave out the necessity of being " begotten of God " in order
to sonship, and the result is unevangelical and unethical.
Leave this aspect unqualified by the rest of our Lord's
teaching, and the result is so irrational and arbitrary as to be
spiritually inconceivable.
St. Paul teaches a practically equivalent doctrine of the
necessity of a vital change in order to realise sonship, by his
insistence on death and resurrection with Christ as being the
only entrance to the Christian life.
III. The Father
So far as we have gone, the doctrine of the New Testament
is so clear that there can be little question or controversy.
And here, according to many, the clear teaching of the New
Testament ends ; any more extensive doctrine of the Father
hood of God, according to them, being founded on the pre
carious authority of a few passages which either do not really
extend it, or employ the term in a lower significance, or
are so metaphorical in character as to be unsuitable for any
precise dogmatic definition. To this part of the investigation
we must now advance.
And, in the first place, there is great difference of opinion
as to the meaning of the name, so frequently used both by our
Lord and by His apostles, " the Father."
On the one hand, it is laid down that this name is used
simply to set forth the universal Fatherhood of God. For

THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF 23
example, Beyschlag states : " So Jesus makes the relation
name a character name ; He not only says My Father and
your Father, but also simply the Father (Matt. xi. 27 ; Mark
xiii. 32, and still more frequently in the Fourth Gospel).
The character of God which this fatherliness implies, follows
of itself. Fatherhood is love, original and underived, antici
pating and undeserved, forgiving and educating, communicating
and drawing to its heart. Jesus felt, conceived, and revealed
God as this love which — itself personal — applies to every
child of man." x And, in dealing with the Johannine Christ
ology, the same writer says that the name Father " is nowhere
narrower in its extent than the name o 0eo?." 2 To the same
effect Wendt says of our Lord : " But yet He did not regard
God as being only His own Father. Eather it appeared
to Him self-evident that the fatherly love of God, whose
object He knew Himself to be, was not a limited condition
of the character and government of God, manifesting itself
merely to some, or only to a single individual, but that it was
universally and always present with God, and constituted the
highest principle of His will and working. Therefore, for
Jesus, God was above all else ' the Father ' (Mark xiii. 3 2 ;
Matt. xi. 27; Luke xi. 13)." 3
On the other hand, Professor Mead represents a considerable
body of opinion when he says in an article on " The Father
hood of God " : 4 " There are few cases in which the phrase
' the Father ' is not used in obvious reference to Christ as Son."
The truth seems to lie somewhere between these two
extreme positions.
In passing, two observations must be made on the opinion
last quoted. In the first place, it leaves the inquiry in an
indeterminate condition. To say " there are few cases," as to
a matter which demands scientific accuracy, is loose and
unsatisfactory. It suggests exceptions, and those exceptions
demand investigation.5 Until such investigation has taken
1 New Testament Theology (Eng. trans.), i. 82.
2 Ibid. ii. 427.
3 Wendt, The Teaching of Jesus (Eng. trans.), i. 192.
4 American Journal of Theology, July 1897, pp. 585-6. y
6 Professor Mead himself admits that the use of the name in John iv. 21-23
may plausibly be understood to have a universal reference (I.e. p. 586).

24 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
place, a statement like the above is practically worthless.
Moreover, in the second place, even if it should turn out to
be possible to establish this as the universal use, this would
not necessarily dispose of the contention that the truth of the
universal Fatherhood of God is conveyed in the name " the
Father." For, perhaps, it might subsequently be established
that our Lord knew Himself to be so related to mankind that
it was impossible for Him to call God " My Father " without
recognising that God was therefore, in a real sense, the Father
of mankind. Yet, after these criticisms have been made, it seems clear
that in all passages where the name " the Father " is used as
the correlative of " the Son," and in all other passages where,
though the Son is not expressly mentioned, this correlation is
clearly understood, the name "the Father" does primarily
simply set forth the relationship in which God stood to
Christ. Such passages are, of course, numerous.
But it must be borne well in mind that this relationship
between the Father and the Son is both spiritual and ideally
perfect ; that it manifests unspeakable love on the Father's
part, and, while calling forth supreme trust and consecration
on the Son's, bestows the highest blessedness ; that the
relationship is undeniably shared with believers on the Son ;
and that it not only waits to be extended, in its fulness, to all
others when they believe, but that all the Divine influences
revealed by the gospel are at work to bring about that
extension. It seems clear, therefore, that foremost in our Lord's
thought of the unique and ideal Fatherhood of God to Him
self was the sense of perfect fatherliness ; and that the
relationship of Fatherhood was transfigured by the qualities
and character which fulfilled it. With the transference of
that relationship to believers would necessarily come the
extension of that perfect fatherliness to them. And, once
more, both for our Lord and for those who, through Him,
realised their sonship, the qualities and character of the
Father would actually transfigure the relationship, and would
thus come to hold the mind rather than the abstract relation
ship, just as is the case in a loving earthly home. Thus to

THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF 25
those who knew the Father, by possessing the life of sonship,
the perfect fatherliness must of necessity have been the
dominant thought in the name " the Father."
But as the name became thus qualitative, there were
influences tending also to universalise its application. " God
so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have eternal
life" (John iii. 16). "The Father sent the Son to be the
Saviour of the world " (1 John iv. 14). Thus we should expect
that perfect fatherliness would come to be thought of as the
characteristic attribute of God, as the spring of all His purposes
and actions, and as going forth universally to all whom He
would admit to the privileges of sonship — that is, to all man
kind. Hence it would appear natural that the name .should
pass to represent an ideal character of fatherliness, a supreme,
all-embracing, and ever-active fatherly disposition ; and this,
while never losing the sense of the personal, unique, and
experiential relationship in which it was first and fully
manifested. And bence the name might be expected to
waver, in a way impossible strictly to define, between the
original, the universal, and the qualitative connotations, each
being connected with the others.
There seem to be clear cases of this preponderance of the
qualitative and universal meaning of the name, though always
carrying with them the suggestion of the original significance,
namely, " the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ "
(Eph. i. 3 ; 1 Pet. i. 3 ; 2 Cor. i. 3). These we will examine,
leaving undetermined how far in obscurer instances there may
be traces of similar conceptions in the more limited and
personal use of the name.
v. In the first place, let us consider the baptismal formula,
'' Baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost" (Matt, xxviii. 19). The name,
according to universal Hebrew usage, signifies the manifesta
tion of the person to whom it applies ; the revelation in
actuality of the qualities, not as abstract, but as subsisting in
real relationships, which make the person what he is. And
so it must be taken to be here.
But baptism is " into " the name. That is, it brings men

26 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
into fellowship with the Divine person, and into experience of
what is revealed in His name. Therefore, although the three
names, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are primarily
relative to one another, they also stand in relation to us, and
contain a threefold world of spiritual experience for us, into
which it is our salvation to enter.
And the name, with all that is included in it, is antecedent
to our baptism into it. It remains the same, whether we
experience it or not. The only question is, not of any change
in the name itself, but of our entrance through baptism into
its meaning, into communion with Him who is set forth by it.
And this seems to involve that " the name of the Father " is
the revelation of the supreme and perfect Fatherhood in God,
which is manifest towards the Son and waits to disclose itself
to us, till we come into true relationship with it.
We pass next to the great passage, John iv. 23, 24,
which describes worship after the mind of Christ. " The
hour cometh," our Lord says, " and now is, when the true
worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth : for
such doth the Father seek to be His worshippers. God is a
Spirit : and they that worship Him must worship Him in
spirit and in truth."
In the first place, the final explanatory sentence seems
conclusively to show that the equivalent of " the Father "
is God ; and that therefore there is here no special reference
to the personal distinctions internal in the holy Trinity.
If this be so, it is sufficient by itself to identify the name " the
Father" with the universal relationship and disposition of
God. But, further, the text describes the true worship by
reference to false, or at least imperfect, worship. It is " in
spirit " ; that is, it is spiritual, in contrast to the external and
local worship of Jews and Samaritans (John iv. 21). It is
" in truth " ; it corresponds to the character of God, now
perfectly revealed, and to the relationship between Him and
men. Hence it is in contrast with the ignorant, and there
fore inadequate, worship characteristic of the Samaritans :
" Ye worship that which ye know not " (John iv. 2 2). Once
more, it is personal, and therefore catholic ; in contrast to

THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF 27
either national worship or to its practical equivalent, namely,
worship in the crowd. Centralised worship, with its rivalries
and exclusiveness, is to pass away, and the true worshippers
shall worship the Father " in spirit and in truth."
Do not the conditions of this worship — its spirituality, its
truth, its personal yet catholic character — correspond to the
Fatherhood of God and to nothing else ? Is not the whole
description determined by the object of the worship — " the
Father " ? And is not His Fatherhood, understood as our Lord
understood it, what is meant by " Spirit," giving positive
content to what would otherwise be a merely abstract
determination ? Surely we have here a universalisation of
the doctrine as to worship — prayer, public and private, and
deeds of piety — contained in the Sermon on the Mount.
There our Lord's teaching takes the form of instruction and
commandment : " Thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy
closet," etc. (Matt. vi. 6) ; " When ye pray, say," etc. (Matt.
vi. 9). Here instruction has passed into prediction ; the per
sonal into the universal. And how has it so passed ? Has
it not been by the substitution in St. John of the name " the
Father" for the "thy Father" and "your Father" of the
Sermon on the Mount ? In other words, has not the Father
hood been expressly universalised, and the name " the Father "
chosen to set this forth ? The comparison between the two
contexts seems conclusively to confirm this interpretation of
the passage we are discussing. And thus the name " the
Father " has here taken a qualitative and universal meaning,
without, however, losing that relationship to the unique
personal experience of our Lord which is at its root. And
this perfect and universal Fatherhood is a fact, antecedent to
and independent of the conformity of our worship to it.
Substantially the same interpretation must be given of
the great declaration : " I am the way, and the truth, and
the life : no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me " (John
xiv. 6). " Coming unto " the Father is not, seeing that " God
is a Spirit," an external approach, but an apprehension of
Him as " the Father " in the spirit of sonship ; both the
apprehension and the spirit becoming ours only through our
Lord. But this involves that perfect Fatherhood — both the

28 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
relationship and the disposition constituting and fulfilling
it — is waiting for us to " come unto." The fact is above and
before our experience of it, is the cause and condition of our
experience. And this must surely be set forth by the name
" the Father."
It is true that our Lord goes on to say, "If ye had
known Me, ye would have known My Father also," and
hence it may be understood that "the Father" is exactly
equivalent to " My Father." But such an explanation is too
simple to be true in so complex a matter. Christ has just
said that He is " the way, and the truth, and the life."
And it is exactly this consciousness, and the reality under
lying it, which bridges the two names, showing a harmony
which includes both equivalence and difference. Such is our
Lord's relationship to and His office for mankind, that the
Fatherhood is universal, but personal to our Lord in its
source; and that "My Father" is personal, but potentially
universal, can therefore be " known " (the word having the
pregnant Hebrew sense) by those who " know," have living
experience of our Lord.
And the same explanation seems true in regard to St.
Paul's saying, " Through Him," that is, Christ, " we both have
access in one Spirit unto the Father " (Eph. ii. 18). No doubt
the word translated " access," irpoo-aycoytf, has the sense of a
formal approach or presentation of a subject to a sovereign ;
and the context, which speaks of citizenship and of the
household of God, shows that this metaphor was in the
apostle's mind. But access " in one Spirit " can be no
external or formal approach, but an experiencing of what
" the Father " essentially is towards us. He is " our Father "
when we have thus approached Him ; but, in order to His
becoming that, He must be " the Father," His Fatherhood
extending to and available for us, before, and in order to, our
experience of it.
It is true that we have in the passage the clearly marked
Trinitarian distinctions, but they are so stated as to make it
evident that the Father " unto whom " we have access, Christ
" through " whom we have access, and the Spirit " in " whom
we have access, are not only, so to speak, turned towards

THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF 29
themselves in the economy of the Godhead, but are also
turned towards us, so that we have a triune experience of
them, and of what is involved in the personal name of each.
It seems necessary similarly to understand the exhortation
that being " filled with the Spirit " we should give " thanks
always for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to
God, even the Father" (Eph. v. 18-20). It is natural to
suppose that St. Paul intends not merely to denote the
person of " the Father " as the source, but to connote His
perfect fatherliness and His universal Fatherhood as the
originating cause of the blessings in all things for which we
are to give thanks. The passage 1 Cor. viii. 6 is considered
later on.1
St. James says of the tongue, " Therewith bless we the
Lord and Father ; and therewith curse we men, which are
made after the likeness of God" (Jas. iii. 9). Here un
questionably " the Lord and Father " in the former half of the
verse is simply another name for God in the latter half.
There is no mention here or thought of Christ, and no special
reference to believers. The Lordship and the Fatherhood
of God must therefore be coextensive, and thus both are
universal. And this interpretation is confirmed by reference
to the saying, " Every good gift and every perfect boon is
from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with
whom can be no variation, neither shadow that is cast by
turning'' (Jas. i. 17). Here the qualification "of lights"
shows that the name " the Father " is not associated with the
thought either of our Lord or of believers in Him ; but that
it represents supreme and perfect Fatherhood, manifest in a
universal beneficence, and present in all that is good.
We pass to 1 Pet. i. 17: " And if ye call on Him as
Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to
each man's work, pass the time of your sojourning in fear."
Here, again, the name Father appears to be clearly universal.
Calling upon God "as Father" is the distinctive mark of a
Christian. But it is distinctive, apparently, in the sense that
it depends upon the apprehension of a Divine reality not
realised by others. And this apprehension of God is a motive
1 See p. 38.

30 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
for fear. It is not said "although ye call upon Him as
Father," but "if" ye do so, let the consequence be that "ye
pass the time of your sojourning in fear." And the reason is
that the perfect and universal Fatherhood of God is manifest
in the complete absence of injustice and partiality ; He,
" without respect of persons, judgeth according to each man's
work." And if it be asked why this even and complete
justice should be treated as a mark of Fatherhood, the answer
is that it is a reminiscence of, and an advance upon, the
ascription of the Psalmist, who, appreciating the merciful
ness — the fatherlikeness — of equity as contrasted with the
tyranny, tempered with favouritism, of Oriental rulers, says,
" Also unto Thee, 0 Lord, belongeth mercy : for Thou renderest
to every man according to his work" (Ps. lxii. 12).
The last passage to be considered is 1 John ii. 1 5—1 7 :
" Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world.
If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in
him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and
the lust of the eyes, and the vainglory of life, is not of the
Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away,
and the lust thereof : but he that doeth the will of God
abideth for ever." This must be taken in connexion with
1 John v. 4, 5 : " For whatsoever is begotten of God over
cometh the world : and this is the victory that hath overcome
the world, even our faith. And who is he that overcometh
the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of
God ? "
The world as spoken of here is, on the objective side, the
order of things experienced by man conceived as a secular
whole, without the apprehension of the Father as its source,
life, and end. On the subjective side, corresponding to this, it
is the use of what presents itself to experience, in order to
gratify selfish desires, higher or lower, and ambitions, apart
from and contrary to "the love of the Father." True life
therefore comes from the transformation which sees all things
springing forth from and ruled by the Father, and allows His
love entering the heart to displace sensual and earthly desires
by the spirit of obedience.
And this is, according to the second passage, to be

THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF 31
" begotten of God " ; which, again, is treated as equivalent to
having faith. And the object of this faith is said to be the
fact " that Jesus is the Son of God." That great proposition
lays stress alike on the humanity, the divinity, the incarna
tion, and the fihal relationship to God of our Lord. Hence
clearly " the Father " is, first of all, the Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ, whom we have learnt by faith to call the Son of
God. But the proposition, " Jesus is the Son of God," has,
when believed, saving power, not as a merely external dogma,
but by reason of the spiritual and universal meaning con
tained in it. To know the Son is to enter into His Sonship —
is therefore, to use our Lord's own saying, to " come unto the
Father." And just as believing on the Son brings us to the
life of sonship ; so coming through Him to the Father of
Jesus, is to experience His Fatherhood, and to receive the
" love of the Father," glorifying, vivifying, and spiritualising
the world, and changing it from being an incentive to sinful
desires and ambitions, to being the sphere in which the
believer " doeth the will of God." But this glory is a
universal light. The love which lives in the world, and
makes its entrance into the believer's heart, while first and
fully manifest in and through the Son, is the eternal truth of
all truths, giving life and meaning to the universe. Our
apprehension of it has come into recent being ; but not the
reality which we apprehend. And when we consider the
name " the Father," — the attribute mentioned — His love, and
its pervasive presence entering believers' hearts, to reveal to
them a cosmos where their selfish unbelief had made a
chaos, — we are driven to conclude that the name has
passed to represent the supreme Fatherhood, which, while
fully manifest in and towards Jesus the Son of God, is the
universal and ordering principle of the world of man's
spiritual life.
If this be a true interpretation, the last passage is an
exact verification of that which at the outset seemed probable
and even inevitable, namely, that the name "the Father"
having a primary reference to our Lord, representing a re
lationship into which believers enter in Him, should pass
on to set forth a perfect and universal Fatherhood, the

32 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
source and end of all things ; although, even in its greatest
extension, it has not lost hold upon the meaning which it
had at first.

IV. Distinct Teaching of the Universal Fatherhood
of God
Finally, the New Testament directly teaches the universal
Fatherhood of God. The certainty and importance of this
teaching must not be measured by the number of texts which
can 'be cited as absolute evidence of it. It may almost be
that the certainty of the doctrine is in inverse proportion to
the number of mere proof-texts of it ; that the further we
explore, the more we shall find the prevalence of a teaching as
to God, Christ, behevers, mankind, which would be deprived of
all spiritual coherence and reasonableness unless the universal
Fatherhood were at the base of it. But in that case such a
Fatherhood, vital to the whole life of the world, and re
cognised to be so by the New Testament writers, would be
rather assumed throughout than occasionally declared. And
this we shall find to be the case.
The New Testament teaching of the universal Fatherhood
of God may be divided under three heads—
1. Teaching as to the Fatherhood of God explicitly or
implicitly declaring its universality.
2. Teaching as to the nature of salvation, which shows
that it rests upon universal Fatherhood.
3. Teaching as to human nature, which implies its
essentially filial constitution.
The passages which we shall consider fall, broadly speak
ing, under one or other of these three heads. It is clearer
and more satisfactory to ' divide them thus, though in one or
two instances the line of demarcation may not be distinct.
And the full force of the three heads will not be manifest
until we reach the next stage of our inquiry and consider the
teaching of the various New Testament writers as a whole.
Meanwhile we are dealing with passages that can be im
mediately produced, and in separation from the general con
text in which they are found.

THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF 33
1. Teaching as to the Fatherhood of God explicitly or
implicitly affirming its universality.
Under this head are to be placed the Sermon on the
Mount (Matt, v.-vii.) ; the Parable of the Prodigal Son
(Luke xv. 11-32); Acts xvii. 28, 29 ; 1 Cor. viii. 6; Eph.
iii. 14, 15 ; Eph. iv. 6 ; Jas. i. 17, 18 ; 1 Pet. i. 17.
The Sermon on the Mount. — The Sermon on the Mount is
addressed to our Lord's disciples, and it has two aspects,
which may perhaps, though the nomenclature is not altogether
satisfactory, be called legislative and judicial. As the supreme
prophetic legislator, our Lord unfolds the Fatherhood of God,
as the key to all character, conduct, worship, and service in the
kingdom of heaven, and lays upon His disciples commands in
accordance with it. As the supreme prophetic judge, He
tests the false and the imperfect religious life of His time,
and condemns it.
Throughout the whole Sermon there is no distinct mention
of the universal Fatherhood of God. Indeed the recurring
" your Father," and " thy Father," when it is remembered
that our Lord is addressing His disciples, have been held to
exclude it. Even the " our Father " of the Lord's Prayer
may conceivably be interpreted in the same way, as referring
to the little family of disciples, though most would probably
feel that its glory was well-nigh lost by so restricting it.
The teaching of the Sermon on the subject must be
determined by wider than merely literal and textual con
siderations. The whole Sermon is addressed to our Lord's disciples.
The question is : In what relationship are they conceived as
standing to the rest of mankind ? By the answer to that
question the whole discussion must be decided. Are the
privileges of the kingdom of heaven extended to the dis
ciples, and its laws and its spirit incumbent upon them,
because they are exceptions to the rest of mankind, or because
they are types; representatives of what all men are ideally
ot potentially, of what, therefore, all men should become
really ?
The judicial aspect of the Sermon seems conclusively to
decide in favour of the latter alternative. The character,
3

34 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
spiritual ideals, and religious temper and observances of the
Pharisees are condemned because they are untrue to the
Fatherhood of God, as the object of worship, and to the filial
spirit, as the temper of true worship, revealed to and enjoined
upon His disciples by our Lord. Hence it may be concluded
that the disciples representatively experience a relationship of
God towards them, namely, Fatherhood, which holds good for
all men ; and enter into a corresponding relationship of son-
ship, which is the true life for all men. " The righteousness
of the scribes and Pharisees" excludes them from the
kingdom of heaven, because the external, unspiritual, and
unethical character of their religion and conduct does not
correspond to the true relationships of the spiritual world.
But those relationships could not have been set up as a
standard by which they are condemned, had they not been
real for them, as well as for the disciples.
It may be replied that this, indeed, is true as to the end
to which our Lord would bring all men ; but that certainly
the scribes and Pharisees do not possess sonship ; that they
have consequently neither the right nor the power to apprehend
God as Father, but are under His kingship until they become
spiritually regenerate. The assumptions underlying this view
must be discussed at a later stage and in a more general
way.1 But, in the meanwhile, the answer is as follows : — Firstly,
the degradation of the character and worship of the " scribes
and Pharisees" corresponds to a degraded conception of the
kingship of God. It indeed represents the inevitable corrup
tion of religion which will from time to time result when the
highest relationship of God to man is conceived of as king
ship. Kingship, unenlarged by the living sense of more
intimate and vital relationships, by necessity, tends to the
conception of externality of relationship ; and, by consequence,
to externality and ceremony of worship. The Pharisees had
received the Old Testament doctrine of the Divine kingship,
and had allowed its spiritual elements to perish. But our
Lord does not judge these men by asserting the obligations of
a worthier conception of Divine kingship, but by setting, side
1 See Chapters VI. and VII.

THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF 35
by side with their hypocritical worship and external morality,
the ideal of spiritual worship determined by the Fatherhood of
God. How could He have done so if that ideal, only so
determined, had for these men no present reality ?
The Fatherhood of God, therefore, must be pronounced
as being real even for the scribes and Pharisees ; although
it is quite true that they are without realised sonship, and
therefore without any true apprehension of the Fatherhood.
Indeed this inequality — the reality of Fatherhood without
the corresponding realisation of sonship — appears to be ex
pressly taught by our Lord. He commands His disciples :
" Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you,
that ye may be sons of your Father which is in heaven"
(Matt. v. 45) ; thus exhorting them to become sons of one
who is their Father.
Indeed, as we shall see more clearly later on, it is difficult,
if not impossible, to see how kingship can grow into Father
hood ; though it is quite easy to explain how Fatherhood
might be restricted for the time to the manifestation of king
ship,1 owing either to the stage of spiritual advancement or to
the condition of sinful alienation in men.
This general conclusion as to the meaning of the Sermon
on the Mount will be strengthened when we have before us
our Lord's teaching as to His relationship to mankind, and
have also investigated the place which the Fatherhood of God
occupies in the theology of the New Testament writers as
a whole. Speaking generally, the Sermon on the Mount can only
be understood if we conceive the kingdom of heaven to be
in such wise the crown and consummation of the order of
things as to stand in vital and spiritual relations to it. The
latter is preparatory to, and contains the promise of, the
kingdom of heaven. The distinction, therefore, between the
disciples and the rest of mankind is between those who
have entered into the consummated life of true and perfect
spiritual relationships, which are open to all men, and those
who, for vone reason or another, have not. But this repre
sentative character can only subsist on condition of the
1 See Chapter VI.

36 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
universal Fatherhood of God and the potential sonship of
all men. Here and elsewhere the difference between those
who affirm and those who deny the universal Fatherhood
can be harmonised, if sufficient distinction be drawn by the
former between the true life and entrance upon it, so that
it is admitted that, while the Fatherhood is real, the sonship
may be unfulfilled ; and, on the other hand, if it be conceded
by the latter that believers could not apprehend the Father
hood of God unless He were universally Father, and could
not become sons of God unless sonship represented the ideal
of human life, of which the possibilities are present in all
mankind. The Parable of the Prodigal Son. — The Parable of the
Prodigal Son is for all, with the exception of two classes of
objectors, absolutely conclusive as to the universal Fatherhood
of God; for the prodigal son stands as the type of all
spiritually outcast races, classes, or individuals ; and, in the
case of all such, the relations with God are treated as those
of Fatherhood and sonship.
The exceptions are the two extremes, composed of those,
on the one hand, who deny to parables any precise dogmatic
value in defining Divine relations, and instance the "Lost
Sheep " and the " Piece of Money," in support of this con
tention ; and of those, on the other hand, who insist, perhaps
with a view to establish the former contention, that spiritual
significance must be found for every detail of the parable,
and remind us of the " hired servants." The answer to the
first contention is twofold. Firstly, Fatherhood and sonship
are everywhere set forth as the relations between God and
men ; and not only in parables. And, secondly, man being
man, and neither a sheep nor a piece of money, relations
between God and man must be more adequately set forth in
terms of human relationships than in those of relationships
into which sheep or pieces of money can enter. There is, at
least, less of the full reality dropped in the use of the former
than in that of the latter ; for the capacity for and the nature
of relationships is fixed by the nature of the parties to them.1
1 The whole question of the adequacy of human relations to set forth Divine
is discussed in Chapter VI.

THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF 37
As to the other contention, if pressed, the answer is that
the object of the parable is to set forth the dealings of God
with the righteous and with sinners — a division which our
Lord constantly treated as covering the whole extent of
spiritual and moral life ; and He treats the relationship of
sinners who, according to ordinary standards and ex hypothesi,
are farthest from God, by the light of Fatherhood and son-
ship. Let alone, therefore, that no teaching is conveyed as
to the " hired servants," it is clear that they have no part in
the parables, except as part of its pictorial setting, upon
which its earthly lifelikeness depends.
The teaching of the parable as to the universality of the
Divine Fatherhood may therefore be considered self-evident
and conclusive.
Acts xvii. 28, 29: "As certain even of your own poets
have said, For we are also His offspring. Being then the
offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is
like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and device of
men." — In his discourse to the Areopagus, St. Paul avails
himself of and accommodates himself to the Stoic declaration :
" For we are also His offspring." As first used, the term
signified natural origination by, but also natural affinity with,
God. St. Paul accepts the premise of origination, and presses
the conclusion of affinity as the reductio ad absurdum of
idolatry. The originator of living, rational, and ethical
beings cannot be represented by lifeless matter ; nor can the
supreme and spiritual Creator be adequately represented by
human handicraft. Origination involves kinship — spiritual,
rational, and moral, — involves that the originator realises in
Himself supremely that which He originates in creation ; that
therefore the originated cannot adequately set forth the
originator, and, least of all, in terms of that which is inferior
to themselves. The relationship here is obviously universal,
and ,the name for it is Fatherhood. And the use is most
important for us, being complementary to that which we have
hitherto found. In the passages we have considered, Father
hood has, above all, a spiritual significance, and its metaphysical
foundation has to be traced out and inferred. Here, however,
the metaphysical is the starting-point, and the spiritual and

38 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
moral consequences of it are set forth and pressed home.
And thus we have important guidance, expressly justifying
us in pressing the Fatherhood of God back to its metaphysical
foundations, and in treating its universality as necessitated
by the universality of creation.
1 Corinthians viii. 6 : " Yet to us there is one God,
the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto Him ; and
one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we
through Him." — Tbe exposition of this text must follow that
of the preceding passage. It is true that the Father and
Jesus Christ are brought into relationship with one another
as to their distinct offices in regard to creation. But it is
impossible to regard the term " God, the Father," as limited
to Christ. The creation of all things is through the Son ; the
salvation of believers is also through Him. Lordship and
Christhood — the Messianic office — therefore express His
creative and redemptive mediation. But the source and end
of creation is '' one God, the Father, of whom are all things,
and we unto Him." His Godhead and Fatherhood make
Him the source of all things actually ; while the attainment
of His fatherly end is reached only inbelievers — His sons
— " we unto Him." But if God as Father is conceived as
being the source of all things — and the passage from Acts
justifies us in concluding this — then the Fatherhood is
treated as universal, though its ends are attained only in
the Church.
Ephesians iii. 14, 15 : ''I bow my knees unto the Father,
from whom every fatherhood in heaven and in earth is
named," i.e. from whose Fatherhood every other fatherhood
derives its essence.
The literal meaning of the passage is fairly obvious.
Each earthly clan had its historical, legendary, or mythical
head, and this among all nations. The clan was named from
the head. In some sense it is clear that St. Paul treats
"the Father" as the Head of all such clans, whether in
heaven or on earth. Of course, if the passage means that
the Headship of the Father is so supreme that it makes
impossible or supersedes all ancestral headship — real, or
imaginary — then the universal Fatherhood of God is at once

THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF 39
taught, and in the directest way. But the manner of stating
it, in that case, seems somewhat unimpressive, in addition
to the unlikelihood of the apostle thus suppressing human
fatherhood. Moreover, there is a difficulty about the word " named."
The apostle says that every Tva-rpid is named after 6 irarrip.
But surely he cannot be taken to mean that the thought of
the universal Fatherhood of God was either explicitly or
implicitly present in the framing of the word irarptd, to
represent the family bond as derived from fatherhood. If
he really meant to say this, then it could only be as the
imperfect and historically inaccurate expression of a profounder
thought struggling for utterance in his mind.
The absoluteness of the name " the Father," and the
petition " that He would grant you, according to the riches
of His glory," seem to point rather to the splendour and
munificence of the Divine Fatherhood as the archetype of
all fatherhood in heaven and in earth. In that case, the
archetypal rather than the universal Fatherhood of God is
immediately conveyed, though, as we shall subsequently see,
the universal Fatherhood results. So Dr. Dale says : " God
is the Father of all races in heaven and on earth ; and the
unity of a family, a tribe, a nation, in its common ancestor,
has its original and archetype in the unity of angels and
men in Him." 1 Hence the predicate " is named " would have
the pregnant meaning so familiar to a Hebrew, and the say
ing would substantially mean — " the Father, from whose per
fect Fatherhood every fatherly bond in heaven and on earth
derives the essential significance which it manifests."
Fatherhood is the supreme relationship on earth ; at once
most vital and most authoritative. And earthly fatherhood
is, according to St. Paul, not the reality from which the
Divine Fatherhood is metaphorically derived. The opposite
is the truth. God alone originally reahses the perfect ideal
of fatherhood ; and His Fatherhood is the archetype of which
every other fatherhood is a shadow, and from which it derives
its limited reality.
Fatherhood, then, is the supreme relation of which we
1 Dale, Lectures on the Epistle to the Ephesians, in loc.

40 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
know anything on earth, all other being comparatively
accidental ; it is vitally related to the Divine Fatherhood ;
the Divine being the original — the Ideal and Source — of the
human. What is implied by this ? That the relations
between God and creation are so immanent and vital that
creation must, according to its measure, reproduce what is
highest and most characteristic in God. Fatherhood could
not be supreme in the heaven and earth of created beings if
Fatherhood were not supreme in God ; and Fatherhood could
not be supreme in God without necessitating its reproduction
and supremacy throughout creation. The fundamental relation
ship in the one is of necessity the fundamental relationship
in the other. We may almost say that the whole texture of
life is woven out of the Fatherhood of God.
It matters nothing to this conclusion, whether we under
stand St. Paul to mean by " the Father " primarily the God
and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, or to set forth His
Fatherhood towards the whole creation. Probably the two
are combined, the latter being expressly present to his mind
as the consequence of the former. But, supposing that only
the former were expressly in the apostle's mind, the latter
would be inextricably bound up with it, according to St. Paul's
theology. For this teaching as to the vital relationship of
the Father to creation must be taken in connexion with the
doctrine in the Epistle to the Colossians of the vital relation
ship of the Son to the universe (Col. i. 16). In fact, the
reproduction in creation of what is essential in the Father
must be taken to be brought about, according to St. Paul's
theology, by the immanence of the Son in it.
And thus, though the universality of the Fatherhood of
God is not explicitly taught here, it is taught no less effectu
ally, whether the title itself convey it or not, and whether
the Fatherhood is conceived of as direct, or, as is more
probably true, as mediated through the Son. For Fatherhood
is represented as so supreme and characteristic in God, that,
throughout creation, it shadows itself forth in the supreme
and universal relationship among created things — a relation
ship which reflects that which is supreme in God, because
creation is of necessity the vital revelation of the Creator.

THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF 41
This view, again, will receive additional confirmation
when we have considered the evidence of St. Paul's theology
as a whole.
Hebrews xii. 9 : " Shall we not much rather be in sub
jection unto the Father of spirits, and live ? " — Here the
universal Fatherhood of God is clearly taught. For even if
we translate " of our spirits," yet we have spirits, just as we
have flesh, in common with all mankind, unless we find in
this passage a psychology which does not seem to belong to
it, and deny the possession of spirits to those who are not
Christian. The passage seems- to contrast the origination of
our spiritual with that of our bodily nature, and, while deriving
the latter from " fathers of our flesh," to attribute the former
to the " Father of our spirits." Each fatherhood is therefore,
primarily, of the limited class whom the writer is addressing ;
but that which is spoken of in them is universally human. The
Fatherhood of God, as in St. Paul's address to the Areopagus,
is taken to convey, first of all, creative origination. But the
context sets forth the obligations under which God, by His
Fatherhood, places Himself for our spiritual and moral educa
tion and discipline. His chastening is as necessary as that
of the " fathers of our flesh " ; but His is exercised with an
ampler authority, a more perfect wisdom, and a more com
plete- unselfishness than theirs. All this is, without doubt,
peculiarly true of believers, but it is clearly impossible, with
any due sense of the grace of God, to 'limit it to them, or to
suppose that the writer so limited it.
The only other passages to be mentioned under this head
may be dealt with in a word, for their universal teaching has
already been brought out in establishing their unrestricted
use of the name "the Father." They are 1 Pet. i. 17 and
Jas. i. 17, 18. The two fatherly attributes, the impartial
justice spoken of by St. Peter and the beneficence spoken of
by St. James, being clearly unlimited in their manifestation,
spring out of a relationship and disposition which, by conse
quence, is equally unlimited.
2. Teaching as to the nature of salvation, which shows
that it rests upon universal Fatherhood. This class of

42 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
passages may be dealt with summarily now, since it falls into
two divisions, the former of which has already been considered
with a somewhat different object ; while the latter will become
more impressive at the next stage of our inquiry.
(1) The first division consists of passages in which sal
vation is represented as the coming to apprehend and to be
conformed to the Fatherhood of God. The following passages,
which were considered in fixing the meaning of the name
"the Father," may be cited, namely, John* iv. 21-24, xiv. 6 ;
Eph. ii. 18; 1 John ii. 15, 16.
The characteristic feature about all these passages is that
" the Father " is apprehended and approached as such. He
does not become such. The eternal relation in which He stands
to the Son — which is at the foundation of each of these passages
— assures His eternal Fatherhood. And yet that Fatherhood
is for us when we come into fellowship with it through the
Son. Eestricted in manifestation it may and must be until our
apprehension brings us into correspondence with it. But the
Fatherhood must be stable and supreme if the name is truly
given. And the Fatherhood must be real and all-embracing,
if it is there for us, and any who will, to apprehend. We
do not make the Fatherhood, but recognise it and respond to
it. And in that recognition and response is our salvation.
(2) The second division consists of those passages, too
numerous and familiar to be instanced, wherein salvation is
set forth as the entrance into the life of sonship. This, then,
is the end which God has set Himself to realise "through
the redemption which is in Christ Jesus " ; and the purpose
of His love is to realise it in all men.
But in what way can we conceive of God's action " in
bringing many sons to glory," save as the motive of perfect
Fatherhood and fatherliness fulfilling itself in redemptive
grace ? It may be replied that the will to be Father — the
fatherly disposition — certainly precedes the existence of son-
ship, but that the Fatherhood and sonship come into existence
at the same moment.
But this, as we shall come to see more clearly later on, is
to do a double injustice to the meaning of the New Testament ;
owing to its twofold doctrine of the relationship of the Father

THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF 43
to the race in the Son, and of the race in the Son to the
Father, being overlooked.1 Without at present taking account
of this, there is certainly the will in God to be Father to all
men. And this carries with it more than appears. For
salvation is the completion of creation, the remedy for the
evil done to creation by sin. Salvation cannot, then, be
separated from creation, of which it is the crown, and from the
fall of which it is the remedy. And any completed develop
ment is in line with the preparatory stages, and does but
manifest what was implicit in them. The consummated
Fatherhood of salvation is therefore the completed manifesta
tion of the Fatherhood involved in creation, which of course
is universal. But, in addition to this, the doctrine of the New Testa
ment is of such a relationship of the Son of God to mankind
as to carry with it, on the one hand, a Fatherhood of God,
towards all men, founded in creation and realised in re
demption ; and, on the other, a potential sonship in man,
owing to his relationship to Christ, which is brought to
actuality by redemption, and is in itself the best proof of the
fatherly nature of the act and relationship contained in
creation. And therefore we may say that salvation, as it is
presented to us in the New Testament, can only be construed
by means of the universal Fatherhood of God.
This leads us naturally to the third class of passages.
3. Teaching as to human nature, which implies its
essentially filial constitution.
Much of this teaching can best be appreciated by studying
it as part of the apostolic teaching as a whole. It will be
well, therefore, to postpone it till that part of the inquiry is
reached.2 This, for example, is the case with the great
passage, Gal. iv. 1-7. At this stage the inquiry will be
limited to the view of our Lord's relationship to the human
race, given in the Gospels, leaving the apostolic doctrine,
founded on it, to be subsequently considered.
The consideration of the narrative of the great temptation,
and of our Lord's use of the title, " the Son of Man," will
1 See Chapter VII. 2 See Chapters III. and VII.

44 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
show what is His conception of human nature, and will
give the key to His view of His saving office for man
kind. (1) The Narrative of the great Temptation (Matt. iv.
1-11; Mark i. 12, 13; Luke iv. 1-13). — The whole
object of the threefold temptation is to test from every
side our Lord's filial spirit, by presenting to Him a course
of action, at first sight in accordance with it, in reality
destructive of it. According to the false ideal of the
tempter, sonship justifies the adoption of self-preservation,
self-assertion, self-advancement, as the highest ends of life.
Against these our Lord sets the true ideal of fihal obedience,
under its three aspects of trustfulness, of patient waiting upon
God, of worshipful self -surrender.
But something more is involved. The first temptation
rests upon the assumption that the Son of God has powers,
and the right to use them, beyond those of ordinary men, and
even contrary to the general conditions under which ordinary
men live. The conditions to which men must submit, the
Son of God can and may override. The law of life, then, for
the Son of God would be different from, or even opposed to,
the law of life for ordinary men. Against this perversion of
the truth our Lord strikes by His quotation, " Man shall not
live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of
the mouth of God." The law of life for the Son of God and
for man is one and the same. Whatever destroys perfect
manhood destroys likewise Divine Sonship. The law of true
and typical human life consists in trustful fellowship with
God, and in subordination of the physical appetites and needs
of life. In departing from that standard, man departs from
his manhood. And the obligations of manhood rest upon the
incarnate Son of God. How could there be this complete
harmony, securing at once the perfect expression of sonship
and manhood, if the constitution of human nature were not
originally and inherently filial ? Nay more, the Spirit por
trayed in the saying, " Man shall not live by bread alone, but
by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God," is
intrinsically fihal. Life in the fellowship of trustful obedience,
the temper of complete and confident dependence, — what are

THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF 45
these but the typical marks of the filial spirit, naturally
realised in that relationship as in no other ?
And all this may safely be generalised. There are two
indispensable conditions of the Incarnation which the whole
history of the Gospels, and the whole doctrine of the Epistles,
show to have been fulfilled. In the first place, the incarnate
Son must have complete solidarity with all mankind, must be
in perfect union of nature with all His brethren. In the
second, His Divine Sonship must have complete manifestation
in the typical but common human nature He has assumed,
for the end of the Incarnation is to reveal and not to obscure
the Son. Thus the revelation of Divine Sonship and the
realisation of perfect manhood must be — throughout the whole
range of His life and action— harmonious and inseparable.
The manhood must be the expression of the sonship ; the
sonship the crown and explanation of the manhood. And
the whole doctrine of the New Testament rests upon this
principle. But how could this be unless human nature were origin
ally and universally fihal in its constitution and possibilities,
although the constitution has been marred and the possibilities
have been unfulfilled by reason of sin ? And how could this
fihal constitution represent the original and universal truth
of manhood — as is revealed in the consummating Man,
who is Brother of all men — were not human nature
created by and for the all-perfect and universal Father in
heaven ?
(2) The Son of Man. — We have seen that our Lord, in
revealing the Fatherhood of God to His disciples, always dis
tinguishes between the Fatherhood as towards Himself and
towards His disciples, speaking invariably of "My Father"
and " your Father," and yet treats His own office for them as
being to reveal the Father to them, by bringing them to the
consciousness of sonship. We have seen further that He
treats the Fatherhood of God as universal, and the life of
sonship as being the true life for all men, being typically
realised in Himself and, through Him, in His disciples.
Something is required to bring all these elements, not
merely into external connexion, but into internal unity, and it

46 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
is found in the name by which our Lord commonly describes
Himself, the Son of Man.
It is neither possible nor necessary to enter into a
detailed discussion as to the meaning of this title. The
following results seem sufficiently established. Our Lord
adopts the title from Dan. vii. 13, and uses it with a
Messianic significance. His primary reason for so doing was
that, while the name was originally Messianic, it was not in
current use by the Jews, and our Lord's use of it was not
generally understood by them to be Messianic. This fact at
once enabled our Lord to found His ministry and the whole
interpretation of His ministry on the claim to Messiahship,
while both avoiding the use of a title so distorted by the
popular religion as to be entirely misleading, and gaining time
for the free unfolding of the truth, in word and deed, unpre
judiced by a misleading name.
But the name as used by Daniel emphasises the typical
humanity of the Messianic King. It does not denote a
person, but describes his characteristics. Daniel says, " one
like unto a Son of Man " ; and the Divine kingdom is con
trasted with the world-empires which, not being of God, are
not of man, but are the empires of wild beasts. The Messiah's
kingdom is the kingdom both of God and of man ; of each
because it is of the other. Thus the contrast in the picture
is between human weakness and bestial strength, on the one
side ; and between the might and permanence of human faith,
reason, and purpose, upheld by God, and earthly greed, am
bition, and lawless violence, on the other. The Messianic
kingdom, therefore, is that of representative humanity.
Our Lord must needs have selected this title on account
of this meaning conveyed by it ; and the whole spirit of His
life, as well as His use of the title, from time to time, in
special connexions, shows that He did so understand and
appropriate it. It appealed to and expressed that deep con
sciousness that He was the typical and representative Man,
that He had kinship with all men, which so clearly pervades
the whole of our Lord's life.
Thus, from time to time, the name so emphasises our
Lord's unprivileged humanity, and His brotherhood with the

THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF 47
poor and weak, as well-nigh to lose its connexion with the
vision of Daniel (where, however, as we have seen, the typical
weakness of human nature is included), and to revive the
ordinary prophetic use of the name to set forth human frailty.
Thus our Lord says, " The Son of Man hath not where to lay
His head" (Luke ix. 58). And it was this association of the
name with the frailty of ordinary human nature, in com
parison with God, that, in part at least, enabled our Lord to
use the title without its full significance being perceived.
If then, on the one hand, our Lord knew Himself to be
in a unique way the Son of God, on the other hand He knew
Himself to be equally the Son of Man, akin to and typical
of all mankind. What was true of Him, therefore, was
potentially true of all men, in Him, and was actually true of
His disciples. Therefore His Divine Sonship was the realisa
tion of the implicit possibilities of mankind. Hence His
office as Eedeemer was to realise these possibilities in all men ;
and they were actually realised in all who came to Him as
true disciples. And, finally, it was in the light of this con
sciousness of oneness with mankind that our Lord assumed,
rather than proclaimed, the universality of the Fatherhood
of God. As we shall see later on, this determinative consciousness
of our Lord shapes the whole theology of His apostles, to an
extent that is perhaps seldom fully perceived.
Against this wealth of teaching, all that can be set is
that our Lord on one occasion said to the Jews, " If God were
your Father, ye would love Me " (John viii. 42), and went on
to declare, " Ye are of your father the devil " (John viii. 44).
But several considerations must be borne in mind when
we consider this statement.
First, an isolated passage cannot be set against the
general tenor of our Lord's teaching, but must be brought
into harmony with it. Secondly, our Lord cannot have in
tended to teach that the Jews were created by the devil, or
had no part in the love of God. All that is intended is ex
pressed equivalently, though with less emphasis, by St. John
in his First Epistle, where he says, " He that doeth sin is of the
devil, for the devil sinneth from the beginning " (1 John iii. 8).

48 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
Thirdly, we have everywhere seen that, both with our
Lord and with His apostles, the sonship of men does not
stand on the same footing as the Fatherhood of God. The
latter exists, however restricted in any other manifestation
than that of mercy and forbearance, while the former is
practically absent.
When due weight has been assigned to all these con
siderations, the natural interpretation would seem to be on
the lines of the exhortation of the Sermon on the Mount,
" that ye may be the sons of your Father which is in
heaven " (Matt. v. 45). Our Lord would then deny not
Fatherhood to God in a strict dogmatic sense, but rather son-
ship to the Jews. Thus excluding them from sonship, on
account of their sin, He is forced by the form in which the
Jews had put their claim, namely, " We have one Father,
even God" (ver. 41), to deny their proposition, and to assign
them, on account of their spiritual and moral condition, to the
fatherhood of the devil. Their declaration that God was
their Father, implied that they were His sons. And our
Lord's intense repudiation of the latter could only take the
form of a denial of the former,. as travestied by the Jews.
We may therefore sum up by saying that the Father^
hood of God, as revealed by our Lord, is in a special sense
Fatherhood towards the Son; that, secondly, it is Father
hood towards those who, through faith in Christ, become sons
of God; but that the use of the name "the Father," the
express teaching, and still more the underlying assumption
of our Lord and of His apostles, and, finally, their doctrine of
human nature as a whole, especially in its relationship to
Christ, compel us to regard the universal Fatherhood of God
as everywhere set forth in the New Testament, though man's
sonship is but a latent capacity marred by sin, until he
receives "the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."

CHAPTER III
THE PLACE OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERHOOD
OF GOD IN THE THEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
We come now to the next and most important stage of our
inquiry. For any operative doctrine of the Fatherhood of
God it is not enough that we should find the name of Father
given to Him, or that we should be able to point to a certain
number of passages, which conclusively declare that His
Fatherhood is universal. The question is, whether the
Fatherhood of God is the only and sufficient spring of all
His dealings with mankind, and whether it is so represented
in the New Testament. The real test of the universality of
the Fatherhood of God is its supremacy as originating and
shaping the whole of a universally creative and redemptive
action. Similarly, the only satisfactory test of the New
Testament doctrine of the subject is not the discovery of
proof-texts, but the establishment of the fact that the New
Testament writers everywhere set forth the Fatherhood of God
as the clue to all His action, whether in creation or in redemp
tion, whether in grace or in law, in bestowment on man or in
requirement of him. Are all the purposes and deeds of God
explicable and explained in terms of His Fatherhood ? Or
is the primary, and therefore the true, universality assigned
to some other relationship — say, His sovereignty ? Or are
His various purposes and activities shared out as the mani
festations of different and' independent relationships ? Is the
Fatherhood a stray gleam here and there, or an all-revealing
light ? If the former, then we must conclude either that
some other relationship of God to man is prior to and more
influential than His Fatherhood, or that all His relationships
are independent one of another, and have different spheres,
4

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
at His Godhead is a unique relationship, of which
erhood, kingship, and the like, are subordinate and
tial manifestations. And if none of these conclusions,
bnsidered apart from Holy Scripture, will bear critical
examination, while, notwithstanding this, the teaching of
the New Testament necessitate one or the other of them
as its basis, then we shall be driven to infer that the insight
of the apostolic writers was insufficient to apprehend the
Fatherhood of God as the supreme and all-embracing relation
ship, and to trace the fatherliness of all His dealings with
mankind. In that case we shall conclude that their writings
are unmethodical not only in form, but also in substance,
resting on no clear and consistently held conception of God's
relationship to mankind.
We must therefore proceed to examine the doctrine of
the New Testament as a whole, and especially the teaching
of our Lord, of St. Paul, and of St. John, in order to find out
how the matter stands. I. Our Lord's Teaching
1. It may seem almost superfluous to point out that
the name " Father '' is that which is almost exclusively used
by our Lord to denote God. And yet the significance of this
fact for Christian theology has not been adequately realised.
Certainly our Lord uses from time to time the name
God. But a slight study of the passages will show the
reasons for this. Sometimes our Lord adopts phrases current
in His time, as, for example, when He speaks of the " King
dom of God." Sometimes He uses the word in quotations
from the Old Testament. Sometimes because He is answer
ing questioners who used it, as, for example, when to those
who asked, " What must we do that we may work the works
of God?" He replies, "This is the work of God, that ye
believe on Him whom He hath sent" (John vi. 28, 29). At
other times the word is used to emphasise the contrast with
man, or with the world. Examples of this are to be found
in such sayings as, " Thou mindest not the things of God, but
the things of men" (Matt. xvi. 23); "With men this is im-

THE PLACE OF THE DOCTRINE OF 51
possible, but with God all things are possible " (Matt. xix. 26 ;
Luke xviii. 27); "Bender therefore unto Ctesar the things
that are Cesar's ; and unto God the things that are God's "
(Matt. xxii. 21).
Again, the word is used when the Divine power or
authority or all-sufficiency is dwelt upon. Thus our Lord
bids His disciples, "Have faith in God" (Mark xi. 22);
reminds Martha, " Said I not unto thee, that if thou be
lie vedst, thou shouldest see the glory of God ? " (John xi. 40).
Once more, the name is used in dealing with unbelieving
Jews, when the tenderer name would have been out of
keeping with their state of mind. There are several ex
amples of this in the Gospel of St. John. The name God
is sometimes substituted by St. Luke for the name " Father "
in the parallel and probably more accurate passages of St.
Matthew. And in St. John's Gospel the name " God " is somewhat
frequently used in close association with the name " Father,"
or with the corresponding name " the Son." Thus, " God so
loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son " (John
iii. 16); "The true worshippers shall worship the Father
in spirit and truth ; for such doth the Father seek to be
His worshippers. God is a Spirit," etc. (John iv. 23, 24).
But all these are exceptional and carry their explanation
on their face. And their presence, when thus explained, does
but bring into higher relief the fact that the almost habitual
name for God, with our Lord, is Father, whether as "My
Father," " your Father," or " the Father."
The change of name is easily understood. The name of
God (Elohim) signified the awfulness and adorableness of the
Divine Being, looked at in Himself and as the subject of
personal attributes. The Covenant-name, Jehovah (" He who
is what He is "), declared the absolute and self-consistent life
of Him who is therefore the strength and stay of Israel. But
the name " Father," laying even increased stress on the per
fection which makes Him adorable, and on the supreme and
abiding life which makes Him the hope of man, declares
that His glory is not in Himself, but in the relationship and
fellowship in which His life is manifested, and that in them

52 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
He is revealed as infinite love, originating that He may
uplift and bless those who are akin to Himself. His supreme
perfection is revealed in spiritual and vital relationship and
fellowship with mankind. The condition of that revelation
is in the original Fatherhood of God towards His only-
begotten Son. Thus the communion of heaven is reflected
in the creation and redemption of man on earth. And to
this highest truth our Lord unceasingly witnesses. The
Fatherhood of God is with Him always supreme.
And it is the guide, in our Lord's teaching, to all the
purposes and acts of God. The disposition which He attri
butes to God is everywhere the fatherly in its perfection.
That this is so as towards Himself, St. John's Gospel bears
abundant witness. The love of the Father to the Son is
shown in all the ways in which perfect fatherliness can
manifest itself. It reveals itself in complete intimacy : " The
Father loveth the Son, and sheweth Him all things that
Himself doeth" (John v. 20). It displays the full trust
which commits to the Son the largest powers. He is con
scious " that the Father had given all things into His hands "
(John xiii. 3). It assures Him of unfailing support : "Iam
not alone, because the Father is with Me " (John xvi. 3 2).
It is consummated in fullest satisfaction with the filial
obedience of the Son : " Therefore doth the Father love Me,
because I lay down My life, that I may take it again"
(John x. 17).
But this fatherliness has a more general manifestation.
It is the cause of unfailing mercifulness towards sinners, as
is shown in the Parable of the Prodigal Son; and in the
command to the disciples : " Be ye merciful, even as your
Father is merciful" (Luke vi. 36). It pities and cares for
the weak : " It is not the will of your Father which is in
heaven, that one of these little ones should perish " (Matt.
xviii. 14). It inspires a sleepless Providence which watches
over each and all in order to satisfy all their needs : " Behold
the birds of the heaven, that they sow not, neither do they
reap, nor gather into barns ; and your Heavenly Father feedeth
them. Are not ye of much more value than they ? " (Matt.
vi. 26 ; Luke xii. 24). There is therefore no need of

THE- PLACE OF THE DOCTRINE OF 53
anxiety concerning the necessaries of life : " For your Heavenly
Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things " (Matt.
vi. 32). This care extends to the humblest creatures, and to
the minutest interests : " Are not two sparrows sold for a
farthing ? and not one of them shall fall to the ground
without your Father: but the very hairs of your head
are all numbered" (Matt. x. 29, 30).
The love of the Father, therefore, foresees our need, and
waits to satisfy it, without requiring to be urged : " Your
Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask
Him " (Matt. vi. 8).
And His generosity exceeds that of all earthly fathers,
both in its bounty and in the readiness of its response : " If
ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your
children, how much more shall your Father which is in
heaven give good things to them that ask Him ? " (Matt.
vii. 11; Luke xi. 11—13). And His gifts are irrespective
of desert : in His fatherly magnanimity, " He maketh His
sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on
the just and the unjust " (Matt. v. 45). So He rejoices to
reward His faithful children : " Fear not, little flock ; for it is
your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom " (Luke
xii. 32). And His love is the motive of the whole work of
salvation. As to this, one great saying may stand for the
whole of our Lord's teaching : " God so loved the world, that
He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on
Him should not perish, but have eternal life " (John iii. 16).
On the other hand, salvation, according to our Lord's
teaching, is simply the entrance into the fulness of the life
of sonship, in and through the Son. The words, " that ye
may be sons of your Father which is in heaven " (Matt.
v. 45), may be taken to express the whole end of God's
redemptive purpose, as well as the standard set before man's
faith and conduct. We may adopt Dr.'Hort's words on this
subject. " Salvation only by Christ," he says, " is a true
deduction, but only when salvation is biblically interpreted,
namely, as the perfecting of human natures into the mind
and form of sonship in and through the Son." l What is the
1 The Way, the Truth, the Life, p. 211.

54 The fatherhood of god
secret of the great transformation which the conception of
the kingdom of God, or of heaven, underwent at our Lord's
hands ? What gave to it its new inwardness and spirituality ?
The answer is, that, as our Lord revealed it, it was the king
dom of "our Father," realised in and through those who
entered into the life of sonship, and whose character, religion,
conduct were moulded by the filial spirit. That this was
our Lord's idea of salvation, becomes abundantly clear when
we penetrate below the surface of His teaching as recorded
in St. John's Gospel. Our Lord's discourses are full of
teaching as to life, "eternal life" being His great gift to
men. They dwell upon the necessity, in order to attain
eternal life, of "coming unto" Him, of "beholding and
believing on" Him (John vi. 40), of "abiding in" Him.
And as the object of this faith, the sphere of this indwelling,
He almost universally uses the name " the Son." Why
all this? What is the content of "eternal life"? Why
this stress on " coming unto Him " and " abiding in Him " ?
Why this constant emphasis on His " Sonship " ? Three
great sayings answer these questions : " I am the way, and
the truth, and the life : no one cometh unto the Father, but
by Me " (John xiv. 6). Coming to the Son, is in order to
coming to the Father. In order to reach that goal, men must
take the way, apprehend the truth, receive the life. And
these three are one, and Christ is all three.1 The way to
the Father can only be found by becoming His sons, through
the Son. The next saying makes it still more manifest that
this was our Lord's meaning. " In that day " — the day of
His return to His disciples in the Spirit of truth — " ye shall
know," He says, " that I am in the Father, and ye in Me, and
I in you" (John xiv. 20). Christ abides in His Father, the
disciples in Him, He in them. Then they also, through Him,
abide in the Father, realising the perfect fellowship of sonship.
The last saying to be quoted, completes the proof of
this : " 0 righteous Father, the world knew Thee not,
but I knew Thee; and these knew that Thou didst send
Me ; and I made known unto them Thy name, and will
make it known ; that the love wherewith Thou lovedst Me
1 See Hort, The Way, the Truth, ihe Life, p. 153, and elsewhere.

THE PLACE OF THE DOCTRINE OF 55
may be in them, and I in them" (John xvii. 25, 26). The
name made known is that of Father. To make it known is
to unfold the fulness of the gospel it contains. And the
end of making it known is that the fatherly love, which was
the peculiar possession of the Son, may be " in " His disciples,
and that the Son Himself may be in them. These two — the
indwelling of the Father's love and the indwelling of the Son —
represent the two sides of the same spiritual fact ; and that fact
is sonship, as the characteristic experience which the whole
ministry of Christ has been designed to bring to His disciples.
These sayings at once illustrate another great passage of
the Gospel, and are illustrated by it. Our Lord promised the
believing Jews : " If ye abide in My word, then are ye
truly My disciples ; and ye shall know the truth, and the
truth shall make you free." To their objection that they
" had never yet been in bondage to any man," He answered,
" Verily, verily, I say unto you, every one that committeth
sin is the bondservant of sin. And the bondservant abideth
not in the house for ever ; the Son abideth for ever. If,
therefore, the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free
indeed" (John viii. 31-36). The bondservants of sin are
also but bondservants of God ; this is the suppressed thought.
And the bondservant is cast out, like Hagar and her son.
Only the Son abides in the house for ever, and enjoys the
freedom of fellowship with His Father, and of secured heirship.
The Son, then, who alone is free, can alone make free, and
this by causing those who " abide in " His word to know " the
truth." What can that truth be which proceeds from the
Son, and gives to those who abide in it the freedom which
the Son alone — whether in the heavenly or in the earthly
family — enjoys ? It can be no other than the truth of son-
ship in and through the Son. His is the original Sonship.
It is "the truth" for us, because of our kinship with
Him. It is realised by us, as we become incorporate in Him,
or (what is equivalent) as He dwells in us. Thus He, the
only-begotten Son, is the vine; we are the branches (John
xv. 1-10). Thus He is eternally "the Bread of Life"; and
"he that eateth Him, he also shall live because of Him"
(John vi. 32-59). Hence everywhere the evidence meets us,

56 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
that the one conception of salvation, everywhere set forth by
our Lord, is that of sonship — of sonship as universally offered
as "the truth" to men — but realised only through the Son
and by faith in Him. The destruction involved in sin is,
primarily, that it shuts us out from the life of sonship ; so
that this can only be restored by the atonement of Christ
and by the operation of His Spirit.
Finally, the teaching of our Lord shows that the salvation
of mankind is wrought by His perfect filial obedience. Space
will not permit us to set forth this fact in detail, nor is there
need to do so. Suffice it to say that, in all conditions of age,
duty, temptation, suffering, and shame, our Lord's course is
determined by absolute and self-sacrificing obedience to His
Father's will ; and that this " obedience unto death, even the
death of the Cross," is set forth by Him, as of the essence of
His redemptive work. The profoundly fihal character of His
offering is declared in His great saying : " Therefore doth the
Father love Me, because I lay down My life, that I may take
it again. No one taketh it from Me, but I lay it down
of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to
take it again. This commandment received I of My Father ''
(John x. 17, 18). It is emphasised in the great high-
priestly prayer, which at once sums up the spirit and work of
our Lord's life, and expresses the meaning of His death, both
in itself and in relation to His life : " I glorified Thee on
the earth, having accomplished the work which Thou hast
given Me to do " (John xvii. 4).
Thus we may conclude that the whole of our Lord's
teaching concerning God, man, the nature and the means of
salvation, is moulded by His realisation of Fatherhood and
sonship as the determining relationship between God and
man, as constituted in and for the Son. Not only is no part
of our Lord's teaching incompatible with this dominant
relationship, but no part of His teaching falls outside its all-
embracing sphere. II. St. John
It is natural to pass first from our Lord's teaching to that
of St. John, as contained in his First Epistle. And here we

THE PLACE OF THE DOCTRINE OF 57
shall find, as manifestly as in our Lord's teaching, that the
whole of St. John's theology is contained under the relation
ship of Fatherhood, and the sonship which corresponds to it.
The task of showing systematically that this is so, by tracing
the connecting links of thought throughout St. John's teach
ing, is difficult, for the spiritual intuition of St. John does not
lend itself to formally reasoned statements. But that there is
an underlying unity of thought, capable of formal expression,
throughout the whole of St. John's First Epistle, will become
clear upon patient study of it, the only doubt being, not as to its
main features, but as to some of its details. The following main
heads will exhibit the general peculiarities of St. John's doctrine.
1. St. John, of all New Testament writers, most clearly
and constantly emphasises the Fatherhood of God. Though
frequently using the name " God," he seldom does so without
closely associating with it Love as the most distinctive of all
Divine attributes ; and thus he frequently passes on to the
name " the Father " as identical with the name God. It is
true that " the Father " is almost always in St. John's use, in
the Epistle, relative to " the Son."
But two considerations must be borne in mind. Firstly,
the names " the Father " and " the Son " are not merely
titular, nor do they express a merely metaphysical relation
ship. "The Fatherhood and sonship are ideally perfect — as
well as, nay because, eternal and Divine.
And, secondly, the whole force of St. John's mysticism
goes to show that there is such a relationship between the
Son and human nature, that the relationship eternally realised
by the Son towards the Father is not for Himself alone, but
represents the true life of all mankind.
As the Son cannot be considered apart from the human
nature He has assumed, so humanity cannot be shut out from
the relationship between the Father and the Son ; and thus we
are driven to universahse the Fatherhood of God from the
relationship in which the Son stands to human nature, and
therefore to mankind.
2. Hence the true life of men consists in sonship to God.
" Children of God " is the designation of all who have entered
into this true life (1 John iii. 1, 2, 10, v. 2).

58 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
But the characteristics of the " children of God " are
spiritual and moral. Sin and unrighteousness are incom
patible with sonship (1 John iii. 9, 10). Hence men generally
are excluded, on account of sin, from that sonship, in which,
nevertheless, is their true life. So absolutely is this the case
that mankind are divided into " the children of God " and " the
children of the devil" (1 John iii. 10).
Hence the true life of men is for them a destination, and
not a natural experience. And they can only be brought to
this destination through the Son, who is " the Word of Life "
(1 John i. 2), the "Advocate with the Father" (1 John ii. 1),
the " Propitiation for our sins ; and not for ours only, but also
for the whole world" (1 John ii. 2, iv. 10). "Herein," there
fore, " was the love of God manifested in our case, that God
hath sent His only-begotten Son into the world, that we might
live through Him" (1 John iv. 9). The name "the word of
lif e " and the qualification " only-begotten " suggest that, for St.
John, even apart from sin, the Son is the eternal and universal
ground of sonship for mankind. But, in the Epistle, sin and
its consequences so fill the apostle's mind that this truth is
overshadowed by the atoning and redemptive work of Him
who " was manifested to take away sins " (1 John iii. 5).
Sonship, therefore, is only for those who " are in Him that is
true, even in His Son Jesus Christ" (1 John v. 20).
3. There follows a twofold statement of the way by
which sinful men become " children of God." From the
standpoint of the Divine Fatherhood, they are " begotten of
God" (1 John iii. 9, iv. 7, v. 4, 18). The forth-putting of
the paternal grace of God raises them from their natural and
sinful condition to the relationship of His children.
But, on the side of man's spiritual apprehension, sonship is
brought about by faith in the name of the Son. "This is
His commandment, that we should believe in the name of His
Son Jesus Christ " (1 John iii. 23). Belief is the concomitant
of being begotten of God : " whosoever believeth that Jesus is
the Christ is begotten of God" (1 John v. 1).
Indeed the apprehension of the Father is only through
the Son, and through the revelation in the name of the Son ;
through an apprehension of the Son so definite as to issue

THE PLACE OF THE DOCTRINE OF 59
in explicit confession of Him. " Whosoever denieth the Son,
the same hath not the Father : he that confesseth the Son,
hath the Father also " (1 John ii. 23). Only in the Son is the
Father apprehended; and the apprehension is not perfected
until it becomes, on the theoretic side, dogmatic; and, on
the practical side, an act of confession, uttering spiritual
allegiance before the world. The Fatherhood of God is no
vague generahty ; it is that which is revealed towards, in, and
through the Son. Our faith in the Son is therefore the one
means by which we at once apprehend the Fatherhood in
itself, and apprehend it as existing towards ourselves.
4. Hence St. John's emphasis upon the Incarnation. It
is the keystone of his whole theology. "Hereby," he says,
" know ye the Spirit of God : every spirit which confesseth
that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God " (1 John iv.
2, 3) ; " Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of
God, God abideth in him, and he in God" (1 John iv. 15);
" Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth
that Jesus is the Son of God ? " (1 John v. 5). In all these
passages there is the most careful balance between the
Divine and the human, the supernatural and the natural, in
the person of our Lord. Stress is carefully laid alike on the
Divinity of the sonship, and on the reality of the flesh. Our
Lord's nature is at once transcendent and akin to man.
This all-important fact " concerning the word of life " is
authenticated by the testimony of those who heard and saw
with their eyes, beheld and handled (1 John i. 1, 2). To
" confess " the presence in our Lord of the Divine and human,
and the integrity of each in union with the other, is of the
highest spiritual import. Theoretically, the confession gives
the key to the religious meaning of the world. Spiritually,
it brings salvation.
And the reason for the importance attached to the fact
and to the confession of it is clear. The Incarnation unites
God and man, and does so by revealing sonship in terms of
human nature, and human nature in terms of sonship. Not
only can the Sonship of Christ be fully manifested " in the
flesh," but the only fully realised human life is the life of the
Son of God. Hence the worth of human nature apart from

60 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
sin; the brotherhood of the Son of God to all men, because
He has come in the flesh; the revelation of the spiritual
possibilities in all men, realised when, and only when, abiding
in the Son. The coming of the Son of God " in the flesh "
brings all men ideally within the sphere of sonship, shows
that true human life is filial.
5. Thus, wherever men enter into their true life in Christ,
one affection pervades their spirit, and gives them the victory
over the world: it is "the love of the Father" (1 John
ii. 15). All things are tested morally by their being or not
being " of the Father" (1 John ii. 16).
6. Finally, the Fatherhood of God is antecedent to our
sonship, and is the cause by which it is brought about.
" Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed
upon us, that we should be called children of God, and such
we are " (1 John iii. 1). The bringing this to pass was the
end for which " the Father hath sent the Son to be the
Saviour of the world" (1 John iv. 14). The only salvation
is sonship, the only Saviour is He who brings us into the life
of sons. And the motive which sent the Son to this end
could be nothing else than fatherly. Thus the whole of St.
John's theology is contained under the relationship of Father
hood and sonship. True, the sonship of men has been lost
by sin. But salvation is the restoration of it. And the life
of each man is judged according as he has or has not attained
to sonship. And above all is the perfect Fatherhood of
God, eternally existing towards the Son, but the only ex
planation, offered or suggested by St. John, of the relations,
the purpose, the redemptive action of God towards all
mankind. III. St. Paul
We enter now upon the theology of St. Paul. This is in
many respects the most important and difficult part of our
inquiry — partly because his teaching is the most systematically
reasoned of any in the New Testament, partly because the
different stages at which his Epistles were written, and the
differing controversial and practical necessities which called
them forth, caused the apostle to throw his statement of the

THE PLACE OF THE DOCTRINE OF 61
gospel into superficially different shapes ; and not least because
some elements of his teaching have been commonly interpreted
in a sense not only independent of, but incompatible with,
the supremacy and universality of the Fatherhood of God.
For our purpose, the Epistles which concern us are those
of the great group, comprising Eomans, 1 and 2 Corinthians,
and Galatians, and those of the Imprisonment, namely,
Ephesians, Colossians, and Philippians.
The rest, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Philemon, and the
Pastoral Epistles, deal with special and practical interests,
and therefore scarcely exhibit the fundamental conceptions of
St. Paul's theology. Of them it is sufficient to note that
1 Thessalonians once and again speaks of " our God and
Father" (1 Thess. i. 3, iii. 11, 13), thus giving at the start a
suggestion of the supremacy of Fatherhood, and of its union
with and qualification by Godhead, which affords a most
important clue to the whole of the apostle's subsequent
thought. The Epistles of the Imprisonment
We shall begin by considering the Epistles of the
Imprisonment. And this for several important reasons. To
begin with, we have here the final statement of St. Paul's
theology. These Epistles may, therefore, primd facie be taken
to represent the results of the apostle's maturest thought and
experience, the highest expression of the revelation given to
him and of his spiritual insight into its meaning, and
therefore the final standard by_ which his thought, as a
whole, must be judged.
Acr-ain, the external and internal conditions under which
they were written, combined to make them an exposition of
the great spiritual presuppositions underlying all St. Paul's
faith and thought. That which is implicit in his teaching
elsewhere becomes explicit here.
At the same time, these Epistles are not confined to the
statement or to the vindication of presuppositions. The
whole of the apostle's doctrine of salvation is restated in
them. And thus we gain a statement of the whole range of
Christian truth, according to St. Paul's conception of it, in

62 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
the full light of the ultimate spiritual conditions upon which
it rests, and harmoniously proportioned by them. It was the
easier for the apostle to give this complete exposition at this
period of his life, because by this time the Judaistic controversy
had been settled, so that these Epistles represent the advance
made possible by that decisive victory. Hence they give
full and absolute expression to St. Paul's catholicity ; little
hampered by the statement of it, and not at all by any
argumentative necessity to establish it, in terms relative to
the Judaistic point of view. Thus, finally, by dealing with
these Epistles first, we shall be enabled to set the special
difficulties of the earlier Epistles in their proper relations and
proportions to the whole trend of St. Paul's teaching, and to
apply to them principles of interpretation, derived not only
from the final statement of his theology, but from the main
principles of the earlier theology as illuminated by the light
of the later.
And of the Epistles of the Imprisonment we shall begin
with the Epistle to the Colossians, because the heretical
tendencies of the Colossians, tending to separate God, man,
and the universe from one another, and to place Christ in an
external and accidental relationship to all three, forced St.
Paul, as on no other occasion, to bring out those mutual
relations of God, Christ, mankind, the universe, to one
another, which were revealed in the concurrent facts of
Christian history and Christian experience. The result, in
its unification of the whole by means of eternal spiritual
relations, in its insight into creation and redemption as
stages of a coherent development, and in its use of the data
of Christian experience, as explaining the universe, unfolding
its nature, reflecting its beginnings, prophesying its inevitable
consummation, may fitly be termed St. Paul's philosophy of
the Christian religion.1 The Epistle to the Colossians
What, then, is the relationship of the Fatherhood of God
to the theology of the Epistle to the Colossians ?
1 See Chapter VII.

THE PLACE OF THE DOCTRINE OP 63
1 . In the first place, the opening salutation, " Grace to you,
and peace, from God our Father" (Col. i. 2), shows that the
end of God's dealing with us is that we may realise all the
blessings of His Fatherhood. The highest prayer of the
apostle naturally corresponds to the supreme purpose of God.
The relationship out of which proceeds the full blessedness of
the gospel is that of " our Father." Where its promise is
fulfilled, then men enjoy the unbroken manifestation of His
favour, and the answering consciousness of well-being and
inmost satisfaction.
This truth, that grace and peace are the manifestation
of God's Fatherhood, which is the root-thought of all St.
Paul's doctrine of Christian experience,1 exercises a profound
influence throughout this Epistle, though its presence is not
detected by a superficial examination. The Epistle is in a
peculiar degree Christocentric. And this of necessity, for the
error of the Colossians lay in their inadequate realisation of
the glory of Christ, both in His relation to the Father and in
His relation to the spiritual life of mankind. Hence the
emphasis throughout is upon Christ and upon the pre-eminence
of Christ in both His Divine and human relationships. The
latter is set forth, as regards the experience of salvation,
in the great passage chap. iii. 1—4, under the conception
always present to St. Paul, of the reception from Christ of
fellowship with His death, resurrection, and ascended life.
The relationship of believers to Christ is dwelt upon in
its manifold aspects ; the relationship to the Father is left in
the background undeveloped. But the nature of this latter
relationship readily becomes apparent. "Your hfe is hid,"
we are told, " with Christ in God " (Col. iii. 3). But seeing
that this refers not to proximity and inclusion in space, but
to fellowship with Christ in communion with God, the whole
is governed, obviously, by Christ's relationship to God and
our participation in it. Therefore as Christ is the Son, and
dwells in God by virtue of His Sonship, so our relationship
to God, as determined by our resurrection with Christ, is
sonship, and the result of our sonship is that we enter into
that hidden life which is communion with God, so perfect
1 See the opening salutations of all his Epistles.

64 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
and all-pervading that He becomes the environment of our
spirit, so that we ar.e " hid in " Him by reason of His fatherly
love and our filial nature. This will become still more ap
parent when we have studied St. Paul's doctrine of the relation
of the resurrection to sonship.1 Thus the position of believers,
in consequence of their fellowship with Christ, as described
in the Epistle, answers to the salutation with which it opens.
Fatherhood and sonship, as vitally experienced, are the deter
mining factors of Christian consciousness.
2. The Mediator through whom we come to realise the
Fatherhood of God is the "Son of His love" (Col. i. 13).
Of the Son three leading statements are made.
(1) That He is " the image of the invisible God, the
firstborn of all creation" (Col. i. 15); that "it was the good
pleasure of the Father that in Him should all the fulness
dwell" (Col. i. 19).
(2) That in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the God
head bodily (Col. ii. 9).
(3) That "He is the head of the body, the Church"
(Col. i. 18).
The name " Son " must be held to apply to our Lord's
preincarnate relationship to the Father. It is true that
the whole description so assumes the Incarnation that it
would almost be correct to say that the Son is only complete
as incarnate. He is " the image " of the invisible God ; exists
therefore to manifest Him ; and while the constitution of
nature in Himself is part of His manifestation of God, still it
would seem to be imperfect without the Incarnation, which
crowns that development of all things which is " unto Him "
(Col. i. 16). Moreover, "the fulness" dwells in Him
"bodily." It seems clear that the thought of the apostle
works backward from the incarnate to the preincarnate
condition of the Son, and regards the latter in the light of
the former. But it is equally clear that St. Paul teaches
that our Lord is divinely pre-existent, before His Incarnation,
and that His relationship to God gives Him a creative and
organic relationship to the universe. And the only name
given to Him in this preincarnate condition is " the Son of
1 See on Philippians iii. 11, p. 73.

THE PLACE OF THE DOCTRINE OF 65
His love." It is more natural to suppose that the apostle
sees the Incarnation sub specie aitemitatis, and therefore
treats it proleptically, than that He transfers to the pre
incarnate relationship of our Lord to God a name which has
reference only to His incarnate state, leaving the nature
of His preincarnate relationship to God unconceived and
unnamed.1 In the Son, then, dwells " all the fulness " of the Divine
attributes, under filial conditions : these are manifested with
out distortion or eclipse in bodily form ; and as thus incar
nate our Lord becomes " the Head of the body, the Church " ;
the Head, that is to say, of all those who, through Him,
" call upon God as Father." That Headship, the Epistle
to the Ephesians adds, is so intimate and vital that while
Christ " filleth all in all," the Church, on its part, is
" the fulness," which in a subordinate sense renders Christ
complete (Eph. i. 23). There is therefore perfect har
mony between our Lord's original Sonship and the attributes
belonging to it, His life in the flesh, and His Headship over
the Church.But how could this be unless the human nature, which
our Lord assumed and over which, in its redeemed condition,
He is Head, were originated by " the Father " with an
essentially filial constitution ? The fulness of any nature can
only exist and be manifested in those objective relations
which belong to it, and therefore in modes which are so
conformable to those relations that it can freely enter into
them and naturally express itself through them. In our
Lord's case, the supreme and all-determining relationship is
sonship. But the attributes which are characteristic of
sonship are fully displayed under the bodily conditions of
human life. Hence the goal of true life for all men is
sonship, and He who brings them to this goal is the Son,
whose incarnation, so far from conflicting with, distorting, or
even limiting His eternal Sonship, serves to manifest it in a
nature which, being thus congenial and akin to it, must have
been constituted in and for this filial relationship.2
1 For a further discussion see Chapter VII.
2 See Chapter VII.

66 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
3. Further, the explanation of how all this comes to pass
is given by St. Paul.
" In Him were all things created, in the heavens and
upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether
thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things
have been created through Him, and unto Him ; and He is
before all things, and in Him all things consist " (Col. i. 16, 17).
There is a solidarity between heavenly and earthly beings;
between heaven, earth, and man. It is profoundly true that,
for man to be what he is, all other things must be sub
stantially what they are. The universe is organically related
to and reflected in man. And man, individually and collec
tively, spiritually and as a crowning development, is con
summated in Christ. But all things are not merely con
summated by Christ, who is the Son of God's love. That
this is possible is due to the fact that all things have been
created in and through the Son, and are constituted in Him.
Origin, constitution, consummation are necessarily one. And
thus the Incarnation is prepared for by the creation — may
almost be said to be latent in it ; and human nature, as
created, is constituted with a view to the sonship, which
consummates it, in the case of the race, by the incarnate Son,
and, in the case of the individual, by adoption. But creation,
constitution, and consummation in and through the Son
imply that upon all things according to their capacity is the
filial impress. This inference is inevitable, and must have
been present — in substance — to the apostle's mind.
And what is involved in the supremacy of the Son over
and of the filial impress in creation, preparing it to expect
" the revealing of the sons of God " ? (Eom. viii. 1 9). Surely
the supremacy of the Fatherhood of God, realised in and
towards "the Son of His love," manifested through the
mediation of the Son in creation, maintenance, and redemp
tion, in order to secure the answer of sons to His fatherly love.
Thus the world-conception, which is the basis of the whole of
St. Paul's theology, depends ultimately upon a Fatherhood so
supreme as to be all -determining and all-embracing, since
no created things fall outside the sphere of His Son's life.1
1 See chapter VII.

THE PLACE OF THE DOCTRINE OF 67
4. It is by the light of this constitution of mankind
that their redemption is to be understood. The truly Chris
tian temper, according to the apostle's unceasing prayer,
is that of "giving thanks unto the Father, who made us
meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in
light ; who delivered us out of the power of darkness, and
translated into the kingdom of the Son of His love " (Col. i.
12, 13). The Father, therefore, is the source of our re
demption, and this on account of the steadfastness of His
fatherly love, and therefore of His fatherly purpose. Our
original creation having been in and for the Son of God's
love, the " power of darkness " has alienated us from the
true life marked out for us by that fatherly purpose which
shaped our nature and implanted its spiritual possibilities.
Sin has alienated us from that true life which the kingdom of
the Son consummates. That kingdom is therefore set up,
not only as the end of an ordered evolution, but as the
sphere of a redemptive love, which consummates through
restoration. And He who has delivered us from the de
structive power of darkness, and has translated us into the
kingdom of the Son, which redeems and perfects us, is the
Father, thus manifesting an ever-abiding and universal Father
hood, alike in the mercy which restores us, and in the nature
and means of our restoration, namely, our translation into a
kingdom, whose sway, both in its influence upon us and its
results within us, must, by reason of its king, of necessity
be filial. The apostle goes on to give another description of
redemption. It is "the forgiveness of our sins" (Col. i. 14).
The condition of our restored life is " the forgiveness of our
sins." Tbe nature of the act of forgiveness in itself, when
conceived as being in itself a complete and spiritual redemp
tion, can only consist in family relations, such as are exhibited
in the Parable of the Prodigal Son. Only one forgiveness
can so ensphere, penetrate, and transform a whole life as to be
its redemption. It is the forgiveness of one who is Father,
has never ceased to be Father, and triumphantly asserts His
Fatherhood in the forgiveness which restores sonship. And if
this be so in the nature of things, this interpretation also

68 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
does fuller justice to the context of this passage than any
other. Eedemption, therefore, must be interpreted, according to
the apostle, by the light of Fatherhood and sonship.
5. Finally, it is by a filial act that our redemption is
wrought out by the Son.
There is no detailed teaching in this Epistle as to the
Atonement, on its Godward side.
But one passage is deeply significant. We are told
of our Lord, that "having put off from Himself the prin
cipalities and the powers, He made a show of them openly,
triumphing over them " in the cross (Col. ii. 1 5). The
power of darkness which had brought mankind into bondage,
alienating us from that fellowship with God, through the
Son, which was our true life, assaulted the Son of God, by
means of its " principalities and powers." Their influence
was so pervasive as to wrap Him round and cling to Him
like a garment. Their object was to seduce Him from His
filial life. By the cross, which was the triumph of His filial
obedience, He stripped off from Himself these powers, and
made a show of them openly. The Son, therefore, redeemed
mankind by a death which finally vindicated the integrity of
His filial life.
Thus, throughout this Epistle, the Fatherhood of God is
the ever-present and final explanation; all the more im
pressive because, while everywhere underlying and funda
mental, it is plainly assumed rather than declared.

The Epistle to the Ephesians
The thought of the Epistle to the Ephesians is so similar
to that of the Colossians that we naturally pass to it next.
It may be dealt with briefly, the agreement of its main lines
of thought with those of the Epistle to the Colossians being
taken for granted, since no one questions them, and only its
peculiarities being considered.
The general outlines of the description of redemption in
the two Epistles closely correspond, though the Epistle to the
Ephesians does not lay bare the foundation of redemption

THE PLACE OF THE DOCTRINE OF 69
and consummation laid in the creation of all things in and
through the Son. But the Epistle to the Ephesians has
distinct features of its own.
1. It explains the accomplishment of redemption as the
fulfilment of an "eternal purpose" (Eph. iii. 11) of the
Father, which was to bestow upon us " adoption as sons
through Jesus Christ unto Himself" (Eph. i. 5).
For this reason He " chose us " in Christ " before the
foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without
blemish before Him in love " (Eph. i. 4). This purpose was
" according to His good pleasure, which He purposed in the
Beloved, unto a dispensation of the fulness of the times, to
sum up all things in Christ, the things in the heavens, and
the things upon the earth" (Eph. i. 9, 10). Hence St. Paul's
apostolic commission is " to make all men see what is the
dispensation of the mystery, which from all ages hath been
hid in God, who created all things " (Eph. iii. 9 ; see also i. 9
and iii. 3—6). The mystery of the catholic humanity in
Christ, " that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs and fellow-members
of the body, and fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ
Jesus through the gospel" (Eph. iii. 6), is treated, not as
gradually unfolded in Christ, but as an eternal reality subsist
ing in God, which needs not to be brought into existence, but
only to be made known (Eph. iii. 5 ; see also i. 9). The
similar passage about the " mystery " in Col. i. 2 5—2 7 shows that
there also the thought of the eternal purpose is present to the
apostle's mind, though not expressly mentioned in the Epistle.
Our foreordination is then, according to the eternal
purpose of the Father, " unto adoption as sons." What is
involved in " adoption " of precedent filial constitution and
possibilities has been already pointed out.1 Here the corre
sponding truth with regard to God is brought to light. The
eternal and world-directing purpose of God is to bring men to
the adoption of sons, and this to the consciousness of God, who
knows neither yesterday nor to-morrow, is an eternally sub
sisting reality, which only needs to be made known in the
fulness of the times to a race which lives under time con
ditions. What relationship is conformable to a grace which
1 See pp. 20, 21.

70 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
has the fellowship of sons in its eternal thought, directing the
history of time to its accomplishment and revelation, and
adding redemption to creation lest the purpose should mis
carry ? There can be only one, and that one perfect, eternal,
and unchanging Fatherhood.
And this is confirmed when we bear in mind that this
purpose is that of " the God and Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ," and that He blessed us "in Christ," chose us "in
Him," foreordained us to adoption as sons " through Jesus
Christ," and freely bestowed His grace upon us " in the
Beloved" (Eph. i. 3-6). Though all these expressions con
template the Son as incarnate, yet we cannot shut out
Col. i. 16 from the interpretation of the passage, nor can
we forget that, as was said in regard to that passage so
here, the incarnate Son is viewed sub specie cetemitatis.
Hence God's relationship to us is determined, according to
St. Paul, by His relation to the Son, and the name " the
Beloved " is fitly chosen to indicate not only the fatherly
love, which abounds towards Him, but its abundant wealth
towards those who are eternally constituted and regarded " in
the Beloved." And if this Fatherhood is supreme and all-determining,
presiding over and directing redemption as well as creation,
equally is it universal. If we isolated the statement as to
" adoption " and the reference to those who have entered into
its blessedness, we might perhaps be led to suppose that the
Fatherhood was hmited to those who, by faith in Christ,
entered into the fellowship of its love. But the general
tenor of the Epistle forbids us so to narrow the range of
Fatherhood. The breadth of the Divine purpose " to sum up
all things in Christ," and the range of the apostolic com
mission " to make all men see what is the dispensation of the
mystery," alike show that the purpose of God and its revela
tion are intrinsically world-wide, and spring therefore out of
a Fatherhood, at once supreme and universal, however parti
cular men may fail to correspond with it by attaining to the
" adoption as sons " offered by it.
2. From all this it arises that, when the apostle prays for
his readers that they may receive the fulness of those spiritual

THE PLACE OF THE DOCTRINE OF 71
gifts which belong to the Christian calling, the thought of
their sonship possesses him, and the prayer is addressed to
the Father, not only as the source of grace, but with special
reference to His original and ideal, therefore to His universal,
Fatherhood. St. Paul seeks that " Christ may dwell in " his readers'
"hearts through faith" (Eph. iii. 17). And to this end,
namely, that they " being rooted and grounded in love, may
be strong to apprehend with all the saints, what is the breadth
and length and height and depth, and to know the love of
Christ which passeth knowledge, that " they " may be filled
unto all the fulness of God" (Eph. iii. 17-19). By being
" rooted and grounded in love " they are to have the Divine
capacity of love, by which alone can they know Christ's love
and be filled, even unto the complete reception of that
" fulness " of God, which is love. A life, so determined and
filled by love, demands an infinite well-spring of love as its
source. And therefore He to whom the prayer is addressed
is described as " the Father, from whom every Fatherhood
in heaven and on earth is named" (Eph. iii. 14). In the
apostle's spiritual experience, the Fatherhood of God is as
supreme as in his spiritual thought.
3. The Epistle to the Ephesians dwells with peculiar
emphasis on the catholic community of the Church.
In setting forth this catholicity many figures are used.
The Gentiles are " fellow-citizens with the saints " ; they are
"members of tbe household of God" (Eph. ii. 19). They
represent several buildings growing " into a holy temple in the
Lord" (Eph. ii. 21). They belong to "the body" of Christ
(Eph. iii. 6, iv. 15, 16 ; see also 1 Cor. xii. 12-31). Several
of these are superficially incompatible with the relationship of
Fatherhood. So far as this is the case, the consideration of
them may be with convenience deferred till we face the
kindred, though greater, difficulties of the Epistles to the
Galatians and Eomans. But, meanwhile, we may note that
St. Paul brings these aspects of the Christian life into direct
association with the Father. All of them are treated as conse
quences of the governing fact that " through " Christ " we both
have our access in one Spirit unto the Father" (Eph. ii. 18).

72 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
The Epistle to the Philippians
We pass now to the Epistle to the Philippians.
Here, except for the customary salutation invoking grace
and peace " from God our Father " (Phil. i. 2), and for the
statement of the standard of Christian conduct as being " that
ye may be blameless and harmless, children of God, without
blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation "
(Phil. ii. 15), the bearing of the Fatherhood of God is at most
implicit and inferential. The evidence that St. Paul's thought
was determined by it may therefore be variously estimated,
though, having regard to what we find elsewhere, it seems
certain that this is the case.
There are two main passages in the Epistle : the first, that
wherein St. Paul sets forth the supreme example of our Lord
(Phil. ii. 1-11); the second, that wherein, in setting himself
forth as an example, he utters the inmost secret of his own
spiritual aspiration and pursuit (Phil. iii. 4-14).
In the former — the account of the Humiliation, Obedience,
and Exaltation of Christ — there is no mention of Fatherhood
and sonship, except in the concluding statement that the
confession that Jesus Christ is Lord is " to the glory of God
the Father" (Phil. ii. 11). Christ is spoken of as "being in
the form of God " (Phil. ii. 6), and as taking " the form of a
servant " (Phil. ii. 7). But when we remember the reference
" to the glory of God the Father," and bear in mind that St.
Paul never thought of Christ except as the Son, we shall see
that we have here set before us the triumph of the ideally
fihal spirit in Christ. The joyful assumption of servitude is
the highest expression of the spirit of a son, as distinguished
from a slave. And this act and temper were in contrast to
a possible spirit, which, while having a specious appearance of
sonship, would have denied its true inspiration. " Being in
the form of God," He might have " counted it " " a prize to
be on an equality with God" (Phil. ii. 6). The apostle
throws back to the Son's preincarnate condition the alter
native, which was pressed upon Him throughout the great
Temptation. The Incarnation resulted from His decision,
and thus the life and death which crown human history are

THE PLACE OF THE DOCTRINE OF 73
a supreme filial response in representative humanity to the
fatherly will of God.
In the second passage St. Paul describes himself as press
ing " on toward the goal, unto the prize of the high calling of
God in Christ Jesus" (Phil. iii. 14). Otherwise he expresses
his hope as being, " if by any means I may attain unto the
resurrection from the dead" (Phil. iii. 11).
Putting together these three facts, — namely, that the
apostle's " high calling " is " in Christ Jesus," that the " resur
rection from the dead " represents a general experience, of
which there has been the one typical example, our Lord's, and
that with St. Paul our Lord's resurrection stands always in
special connexion with His Sonship (see Acts xiii. 32, 33 ;
Eom. i. 4), — it seems clear that St. Paul's attainment to the
"resurrection from the dead," especially as it is "in Christ
Jesus," represents the final confirmation and completion of
his sonship in Christ. Here, therefore, again the determin
ing thought is that of the Fatherhood of God ; and this
interpretation is confirmed by reference to Luke xx. 36, where
we are told of those who " are accounted worthy to attain to
that world" (namely, the perfect order of things in the life
to come), that they " are sons of God, being sons of the
resurrection." Thus we may pass from our survey of the Epistles of the
Imprisonment, with the conclusion that throughout the final
statements of St. Paul's theology, and especially wherever its
ultimate presuppositions are laid bare, his thought interprets
God's dealings with mankind, from first to last, by means of
His Fatherhood towards the Son and towards the race in
Him. The Main Group of Epistles
We are entitled, on every ground, to carry with us the
results gained by our study of the Epistles of the Imprison
ment for the interpretation of Eomans, 1 and 2 Corinthians,
and Galatians.
And the first impression made upon us is how entirely
the main lines of the theology of these four Epistles corre
spond to those of the former, although the eternal and

74 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
creative relationships, which are finally manifest in redemp
tion, are not as fully expounded as in the Epistles to the
Colossians and Ephesians. The Epistle to the Romans
The Epistle to the Eomans traces the accomplishment of
salvation, first in the aspects which concern mankind generally,
then in relation to the experience of believers, and thence
onward to its world-embracing consequences and its final
historical results.
The Epistle opens by establishing the universality of the
reign of sin and death (Eom. i. 1 8 — iii. 20), passes on to unfold
the nature of the propitiation which atones for it (Eom. iii.
21-31, v. 1-11), and, having pointed out the general
effects of that propitiation upon the race, due to our Lord's
organic relationship to it (Eom. v. 12-21, and compare
1 Cor. xv. 22, 45), harmonising by the way the nature of
salvation and its general effects with the Divine dealings
with Abraham and his descendants (Eom. iv.), passes on to
give the completest exposition of the characteristic life of
salvation (Eom. vi.-viii.) anywhere to be found in St. Paul's
writings. But the prospects of the whole creation are bound
up with the perfecting of this individual experience of salva
tion (Eom. viii. 18-25). And the temporary rejection of
Israel, which is the price paid for the salvation of the Gentiles
(Eom. xi. 28), is in order to a fuller revelation of mercy.
Israel and the Gentiles have changed places for a season, the
latter passing from a state of disobedience to an experience of
mercy, while the former has become disobedient. But this is
not the end. " God hath shut up all unto disobedience, that
He might have mercy upon all" (Eom. xi. 32).
But what is this " one far-off Divine event to which the
whole creation moves," in which God's '' mercy upon all " shall
be manifested? It is "the revealing of the sons of God"
(Eom. viii. 19, 21). And the "first-fruits" of this re
vealing are to be found in the reception of the " Spirit of
adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father" (Eom. viii. 14-17,
23). Moreover, this adoption, and the realisation of all the

THE PLACE OF THE DOCTRINE OF 75
results implicitly contained in it, was the supreme object of
the foreknowledge and preordination of God. " For whom He
foreknew, He also foreordained to be conformed to the image
of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many
brethren : and whom He foreordained, them He also called :
and whom He called, them He also justified : and whom He
justified, them He also glorified" (Eom. viii. 29, 30). If any
one would here dogmatically create and attribute to the
apostle an outer darkness of reprobation environing those
who are not foreknown and foreordained, let him check him
self by remembering St. Paul's final statement that God's
purpose is to have " mercy upon all." While this statement
must not be pressed too far, it at least forbids us to suppose
that the splendour of foreordination to be conformed to the
image of God's Son was intended by the apostle to cast the
black shadow of absolute and eternal reprobation. In our
interpretation the sombre passage, ix. 19-24, must be qualified
not only by the moral elements present, namely, the fact that
the " vessels of wrath " are " fitted unto destruction," and by
the declaration that God, though " willing to show His wrath "
towards these, restrained it and treated them " with much
long-suffering " ; but also by the remembrance that the apostle
is, for the moment, restricting his consideration to the absolute
right and active lordship of God over His creatures.
It is therefore not intended to be a complete representa
tion of the general disposition of God, least of all to those
who have not yet placed themselves in the hopeless position
described by the apostle. A special condition of men, and
in relation to it a special right and activity of God, are
abstracted. But these last are subservient to His wider and
final purpose. And before we use this conception as a guide
to the general relationship of God to mankind, our under
standing of it must be governed by the triumphant insight,
reached by St. Paul after he has wrestled with an almost
insuperable difficulty, that " God hath shut up all unto dis
obedience, that He might have mercy upon all." Only so
much of the awful abstract sovereignty, residing in His
Creatorship, is used as may serve by dispensational means to
the fuller display of His universal mercy. We have here the

76 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
final victory of the assurance of Divine love over the specu
lative intellect of St. Paul ; while the assertion alike of His
abstract right, of His ceaseless activity, and of His unfailing
mercy, is necessary to a complete doctrine of God.
Hence the revelation of God is a continuous manifestation
of mercy, in which the whole creation shares, and by which
the darker problems of history shall one day be transformed
and solved. And the centre of this manifestation is the
adoption of sons ; the cause upon which the consummation of
the whole depends is the complete revelation of their sonship ;
and the foreordaining purpose, in which mercy fashions the
plan it is to realise, is that believers may be " conformed to
the image of His Son." How could there be a completer
demonstration that the Fatherhood of God is supreme both
in the theology of St. Paul, as it is presented to us in this
Epistle, and in the Divine realities which the Epistle unfolds ?
And with this general supremacy the apostle's reference to
the resurrection as " determining " the Sonship of our Lord
(Eom. i. 4), and his definition of the Son's atoning act as one
of obedience (Eom. v. 19), and therefore ideally filial, are in
accordance. Thus, once more, the filial end, reached through
the filial atonement of the Son, implies the fatherly source.
1 and % Corinthians
The manifold and special practical interests of the two
Epistles to the Corinthians unfit them for exhibiting the
ultimate elements of St. Paul's thought. But everywhere it
could easily be shown, were there necessity, that the teaching
of both Epistles is not only compatible with, but is to be
explained by, the fundamental ideas set forth elsewhere.
Take, for example, the passage, " For all things are yours ;
whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or
death, or things present, or things to come ; all are yours ;
and ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's" (1 Cor. iii. 22,
23). How can this be interpreted, save by means of Christ's
Sonship, of our predestination to life in and through Him,
and of that heirship of God and fellow-heirship with Christ
which results ? (see Eom. viii. 17 ; Gal. iv. 7).

THE PLACE OF THE DOCTRINE OF 77
So with the Second Epistle. How can we understand the
statement, " But we all, with unveiled face reflecting as a
mirror the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same
image, from glory to glory, even as from the Lord the Spirit "
(2 Cor. iii. 18), apart from the remembrance that the glory of
the Lord is the revelation of His Sonship, that we are to be
" conformed to the image of God's ' Son,' and that the Spirit
of His Son ' is sent ' into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father "
(Gal. iv. 6) ? Indeed the climax of the more strictly evan
gelistic position of 2 Corinthians is reached in the verse, due
perhaps to a reminiscence of Hos. i. 10: "I will be to you a
Father, and ye shall be to Me sons and daughters " (2 Cor.
vi. 18). The Epistle to the Galatians
The Epistle to the Galatians throughout reveals the in
fluence of the Fatherhood of God upon the apostle's thought.
His equipment for his apostolic mission comes from " the
good pleasure of God ... to reveal His Son in him " (Gal.
i. 15, 16), where the revelation of the person of the Son
cannot be taken apart from the truth and life contained in
the Son, which made up the sum-total of St. Paul's Gospel.
Again, the standard by which St. Paul condemns the legalism
of the Galatians, and the determining principle by which he
shapes his representation of the truly Christian temper and
conduct, is, " For ye are all sons of God, through faith, in
Christ Jesus " (Gal. hi. 26). And, once more, the explanation
of the history of revelation and religion given in this Epistle
is, that it is an ordered process from tutelage to sonship,
crowned when " in the fulness of the time " ; " God sent forth
His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, that He might
redeem them which were under the law, that we might receive
the adoption of sons " (Gal. iv. 1-7). Thus the main stress
is the same here as in the other Epistles.

The Difficulties raised in the Main Group of the Epistles
But there are difficulties in regard to our subject in St.
Paul's theology. These are especially prominent in the main

78 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
group of the Epistles, and can best be dealt with by a separate
consideration. They consist almost entirely in the apostle's transference
to the New Testament of the conception of the Covenant (in
Eom. ix.-xi. ; 2 Cor. iii. ; and specially in Gal. hi., in connexion
with the spiritual fatherhood of Abraham), and in the so-called
" forensic " elements of his teaching.
In what relations do these elements of his doctrine stand
to the Fatherhood of God ? Can they be deduced from it ?
Are they compatible with it ? The question arising in con
nexion with the Covenant must be determined by different
considerations from that of the " forensic " doctrine ; and what
is put forth in respect of it may be held to apply, without
additional treatment, to the similar problem in the Epistle to
the Hebrews. The Covenant
The principal passage dealing with the Covenant is Gal.
iii.— iv. 7 ; the interpretation of it. must of necessity govern
any similar passages elsewhere, so that separate discussion of
them is needless.
In writing to the Galatians, St. Paul treats Christian
believers as "Abraham's seed" (Gal. iii. 29). God's dealings
with Abraham were by "blessing" (Gal. iii. 8, 9, 14), con
veying to him an "inheritance" by "promise" (Gal. iii. 18).
This blessing Abraham received by faith : " Abraham believed
God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness " (Gal.
iii. 6). And thus there was instituted with Abraham and
his seed a covenant which cannot be disannulled, and into
that covenant Gentiles have entered by becoming " Abraham's
seed, heirs according to the promise" (Gal. iii. 15-18, 29).
Now, in itself, the bestowment of a special promise, and still
more its embodiment in a covenant, and one so permanent
that it governs God's dealings not only with Israel but with
believers in Christ, does not suggest the supremacy of Father
hood, but seems rather to proceed from Divine sovereignty,
gracious yet authoritative.
On the other hand, it must be borne in mind that from
no standpoint can the conception of a Divine covenant be

THE PLACE OF THE DOCTRINE OF 79
regarded as ultimate, either in the actual relations between
God and men, or in their theoretic explanation. What are
the spiritual conditions, in the nature and relations of God
and man, which make the inauguration and maintenance of a
covenant between them possible ? What were the relation
ships existing prior to the Covenant, out of which it took its
rise ? What are the ends sought by the Covenant ? And
how does God's dealing with an elect people under a covenant
stand related to His universal dealing with mankind ? At
least these questions necessarily arise ; the problems contained
in them carry us much deeper than the Covenant ; and the
answer to them must be sought beyond the range of anything
contained in its conditions or its terms. All these questions
must be discussed when we come to consider the doctrine of
the Old Testament.1 Meanwhile we must limit ourselves to
investigating what was in St. Paul's mind in his use of the
conception. Two preliminary observations must be made.
1. St. Paul's theology must needs connect itself with that
of the Old Testament, and it is at this point that the connexion
must be made.
The discussion of the relations between the New Dispensa
tion and the Old was forced upon the apostle by the Judaism
of the Galatians.
But, quite apart from that accidental necessity, it was an
urgent problem for one who was " a Hebrew of Hebrews," and
"as touching the law, a Pharisee" (Phil. iii. 5). Both the
Old and the New were for him Divine ; and thus, from the
standpoint of liberty in Christ, he was constrained to find an
interpretation, which carried with it at once the abolition of
the Old and the perpetuation, of its permanent principles.
In short, he was under the necessity of finding in the New
the fulfilment of the Old. To use Augustine's saying, the
New Testament must be found to be latent in the Old, and
the Old Testament must be patent in the New. But while
this necessitated a readjustment in the apostle's mind of the
spiritual principles of the Old Testament, revealing in it the
presence of evangelical factors which were at once the key
1 See Chapter IV.

80 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
to its meaning and the explanation of its history, it no less
necessitated the carrying over to the New Testament, at least
for the special purpose now under consideration, not only of
the evangelical principles newly discovered in the Old Testa
ment, but of the personalities in whom, and of the framework
of conceptions in which, they were realised. And chief among
these were, of course, Abraham, the predominant personality,
and the Covenant, the predominant conception.
For the sake, therefore, of rooting the final manifesta
tion of God by the gospel in His original manifestation to
the Fathers, of providing a reasonable interpretation of the
spiritual history of mankind, and of carrying over into the
New Dispensation that which was permanent in the now
abolished Old, St. Paul was obliged to state the gospel in
terms of the spiritual life of Abraham, of the Covenant, and
of the world-wide promise made in Abraham (Gal. iii. 8 ;
Gen. xii. 3). Doubtless, this involves a temporary sinking of
some one of the distinctive features of the New Testament,
in order to its correlation with the Old. And we should
expect to find what we shall see turns out actually to be the
case, that the suppressed features of the New Testament
break in, from time to time, upon its statement in terms of
the Old, until in the end they become the dominant note.
And the very fact of all this will show that the terms of
the Old Testament are inadequate to, but not incompatible
with, the New, and that therefore the use of the Old. does
not imply that even for a moment the characteristic truths
of the New Testament had lost their supremacy in the apostle's
mind. Moreover, if this be true, it would a priori seem natural
that we should find this statement of the gospel in terms of
the Covenant to be distinctive of St. Paul's earlier thought,
of the period of his controversy with Judaism, and that the
conditions urging him to such a statement relaxed their hold
upon him in later life, when the Judaistic controversy had
been settled, when the apostle's environment had become
more prevailingly Gentile, and when habitual and long-con
tinued abiding in the New had caused the Old to fall into
the background. And this is exactly what we do find in

THE PLACE OF THE DOCTRINE OF 81
contrasting the Epistles of the Main Group with those of the
Imprisonment. 2. Not only, however, did St. Paul sink certain dis
tinctive elements of the New Dispensation in order to bring
it into connexion with the Old, but he distinctly states that
God Himself had done the same in order to the preparation
of the world for Christ.
The whole argument of Gal. iii. is directed to show that
God, for paedagogic purposes, introduced in the law a method
of dealing with " the seed of Abraham," which did not
correspond fully either with His real relationship to them,
or with their original nature and its spiritual faculties, or
with His original dealing with Abraham, or with His final
purpose in Christ. The law " was added because of trans
gressions" (Gal. iii. 19 ; see also Eom. v. 20); it "hath been
our tutor to bring us unto Christ" (Gal. iii. 24). But alike
before the law (Gal. iii. 17), after the law (Gal. iii. 25),
contrary to the law (Gal. iii. 10), and independent of the
law (Gal. iii. 17), had been "the promise" and "faith."
Thus God for a temporary purpose — namely, to create the
consciousness of sin — suppressed, for the time being, some
thing of what was distinctive in His relationship to men and
in their relationship to Him. It was not only the ceremonial
portions of the law that effected this ; above all, it was its
authoritative aspect, separated, both in God's utterance and
in the people's apprehension, from the love which blesses and
is the eternal foundation of the law of life. " The law is not
of faith ; but he that doeth them shall live in them " (Gal.
iii. 12; Lev. xviii. 5). The purely magisterial features of
God's sovereignty, therefore, — just the aspects of it difficult to
reconcile with His Fatherhood, — are, for St. Paul, subordinate
and transitory, devised for a special purpose, to pass away
when that purpose has been accomplished by them.
But, so much having been premissed, it will be found
when we come closely to examine St. Paul's train of thought —
(1) that the whole is in subordination to the relationship of
Fatherhood and sonship ; (2) that there is a special reason,
bearing upon this relationship, for the emphasis on the
Covenant; and (3) that the qualification involved in (2)
6

82 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
having been introduced, the fundamental thought is uni
versal. 1. It is true that St. Paul takes the relationship of God
to Abraham as he finds it in the Old Testament, where
Abraham appears as the " friend of God." This relationship
created by the promise of God, as accepted by Abraham's
faith and confirmed by a covenant, is not in itself the
relationship of Father and son.
But let us trace the development of St. Paul's thought.
(1) The foundation is laid in the statement that " Abraham
believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness "
(Gal. iii. 6).
(2) It is next laid down that Abraham's descendants are
of the spirit and not of the flesh : " Know, therefore, that
they which be of faith, the same are sons of Abraham "
(Gal. iii. 7).
(3) And this relationship to Abraham extends to the
Gentiles, upon their faith : the purpose of God is " that upon
the Gentiles might come the blessing of Abraham in Christ
Jesus" (Gal. iii. 14).
(4) Further, the true seed, which shares in the promise
made to Abraham, is Christ : " He saith not, And to seeds, as
of many ; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ "
(Gal. iii. 16).
(5) Moreover, " the law," which " was added because of
transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise
hath been made" (Gal. iii. 19), "hath been our tutor to
bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith "
(Gal. iii. 24).
(6) Hence "ye are all sons of God, through faith, in
Christ Jesus" (Gal. iii. 26).
(7) Finally, the whole statement is gathered into unity
by an express explanation of the equivalents used in it : " If
ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, heirs according
to promise" (Gal. iii. 29). Thus "they which are of faith"
are, in terms of the Old Testament, " sons of Abraham," and,
in terms of the New, " Christ's " ; in terms of the Old Testa
ment they are " heirs according to promise," in terms of the
New they are " sons of God."

THE PLACE OF THE DOCTRINE OF 83
The blessing of Abraham belongs in its fulness to Christ,
and to those who are in Christ. Hence we may say, with
substantial truth, that Abraham is looked upon by St. Paul
as the plant, of which Christ is the life, the root, and the
trunk, of which believers are the fruit, and faith the sap.
The promise to Abraham culminates in Christ ; the faith
of Abraham culminates in faith in Christ ; the relationship
of Abraham to God culminates in the realised sonship of
believers who are " Abraham's seed," and their inheritance of
the promise comes of heirship " through God," following on
sonship (Gal. iv. 7). Until this development is fully
wrought out, "the heir is a child" and "differeth nothing
from a bondservant, though he is lord of all ; but is under
guardians and stewards until the term appointed of the
father" (Gal. iv. 1, 2). This statement does not appear to be
applied by St. Paul to those exceptional men of the Old
Testament in whom, as in Abraham, faith was regnant and
free. These anticipated, in a peculiar degree, the maturity
of sonship. Hence, as this illustration clearly shows, that
which becomes explicit at tbe close, has been implicit in St.
Paul's mind from the beginning. The unfolding and per
fecting of the relationship of Abraham and his faithful
descendants to God is in realised sonship in Christ. There
fore the relationship which was secretly at work from the
first, determining the original Covenant and manifesting itself
in Christ, has been the Divine Fatherhood, fixing the term in
the " fulness of time " for its full display in the maturity and
redemption of sons.
2. But there is serious advantage in making Abraham
and the Covenant the starting-point, apart from the reason
given above. By this means St. Paul emphasises the truth,
that as it was through his faith that Abraham's relationship
to God was realised, so only through faith do men become
sons of God : " For ye are all sons of God, through faith, in
Christ Jesus" (GaL iii. 26). It is only in Christ Jesus that
we are sons : " For as many as were baptized into Christ did
put on Christ" (Gal. iii. 27).
3. But, subject to that great condition as to sonship, the
Fatherhood of God, which has thus shaped the training and

84 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
redemption of the race, in and for the Son, is universal, as
is revealed proximately by St. Paul's universal apostolate ;
principally, on the ground of Christ's relationship to mankind,
as the sphere in which the Fatherhood is manifested, and to
which all mankind are bidden to betake themselves ; and
ultimately, from the historical standpoint, by the promise made
to Abraham : " In thee shall all the nations be blessed "
(Gal. iii. 8). It is clear that St. Paul understands by this
that the Father constituted His original relationship to
Abraham with a view to the sonship of the race in Christ.
In keeping with this, there is the clear indication that a
universal filial constitution and potentiahty is present in
mankind which answers to the universal Fatherhood of God.
Abraham and those who are of faith are the typical repre
sentatives of the true life of mankind. To be otherwise,
whether under the law or under the sway of heathen religion,
is to be " held in bondage under the rudiments of the world "
(Gal. iv. 3, 9) ; a state which, just because it is bondage,
shows that the capacity of those who are held in it is sufficient
for the higher life offered to faith.
Thus at no point does the connexion of the New Testa
ment with the Old weaken the influence of the Fatherhood of
God over the theology of St. Paul.
The so-called Forensic Elements of St. Paul's Teaching
Lastly, the so-called forensic elements of St. Paul's theology
call for consideration.
St. Paul speaks much, especially in the Epistle to the
Eomans, of the righteousness, judgment, condemnation of
God ; expounds his doctrine of the justification of the un
righteous, explaining the " propitiation " of Christ as " for the
shewing forth " of God's " righteousness . . . that He might
Himself be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in
Jesus" (Eom. iii. 25, 26). He dwells with great weight
upon the " work of the law," both as revealed to Israel and
as written in the hearts of dutiful Gentiles (Eom. ii. 12-29).
And he connects this work of the law with the awful judicial
function of God exercised by Jesus Christ : " In the day when

THE PLACE OF THE DOCTRINE OF 85
God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel,
by Jesus Christ" (Eom. ii. 16).
Finally, he says much of the wrath and mercy of God ;
affections which, if not judicial, may be held to suggest
sovereignty rather than Fatherhood.
In what relation, then, do all these elements of St. Paul's
theology stand to the Fatherhood of God, both intrinsically 1
and in the apostle's own mind ?
1. In the first place, it should be borne in mind that the
dealing with men described in Eom. iii. 21-31 is a complex
whole and sui generis. No analogies of human procedure
can be a complete reflexion of it, still less can analogies
taken from any one department of human relations. In an
act so unique and comprehensive as that of the Atonement,
it would not be remarkable if, as has been seen to be the
case with regard to "adoption,"2 there should be elements
which abstractly taken are forensic, but which yet are inherent
in a whole that is not forensic. This indeed seems to be
the case.
2. Moreover, secondly, it should be remembered that
there are judicial and kingly aspects of all true fatherhood,
even in its human embodiment.
Most, if not all, of the terms enumerated above have a
well-recognised place in the economy of family life, and had
this, in yet fuller measure, when public law for the most
part limited its province to what lay outside the family,
leaving the patria potestas within the family, but little re
stricted or supervised.
In particular, the so-called " forensic " problem, how to
reconcile righteousness or justice and justification, is often an
urgent one in the family, far oftener than in the state;
though of course it presents itself in the attenuated form,
which is in accordance with a dependent as contrasted with
the absolute Fatherhood.
3. Indeed the work of justifying " the ungodly " (Eom.
iv. 5) is fatherly rather than forensic or even kingly. Justifi
cation is- forgiveness, but it is more. It includes reinstate-
1 This subject is discussed theoretically in Chapter VI.
2 See Chapter II.

86 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
ment. And both the forgiveness and the reinstatement are
so issued in a judicial decree of righteousness, and fortified
by it, that, apart from a new falling away from faith into
ungodliness, what happened before the justification can never
be raised again.
But such a justifying act, whether performed without
respect to considerations of righteousness, or with due regard
to them and by the provision of means by which it can be
righteously exercised, is certainly not judicial, either in motive,
in spirit, or in general procedure. It is conceivable as pro
ceeding from sovereignty ; it is still more in keeping with
Fatherhood. Perhaps we might provisionally describe the whole dealing
as fatherly in its motive and in the securing of means for
the exercise of mercy, sovereign in its authoritative decree,
and judicial in the form in which effect is given to the mercy
and to the decree.
Still less can the fatherly motive be left out of account
when we remember that the justification is not a reinstatement
in an external position, still less a mere remission of pains
and penalties. It opens up to us the present blessedness and
the assured hope of the most intimate fellowship with God.
" Being therefore justified by faith, let us have peace with
God through our Lord Jesus Christ ; through whom also we
have had our access by faith into this grace wherein we
stand; and let us rejoice in hope of the glory of God"
(Eom. v. 1, 2). It is true that the reference to peace, and
the further description of the justified as having been
" enemies," but now " reconciled to God through the death
of His Son" (Eom. v. 10), carries with it thoughts of the
Divine sovereignty and our relations to it. These will be
separately considered. But, at least, restoration to fellowship
has to do with the very heart of God, and lies therefore
beyond the range of anything predominantly judicial.
4. Further, it is impossible to leave out of account the
close association between justification and the reception of
the "Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father"
(Eom. viii. 15; Gal. iv. 5-7). "Justification" and "adop
tion " may be taken as practically equivalent. The position

THE PLACE OF THE DOCTRINE OF 87
which becomes ours by faith is that of sons ; the way to it
is by justification and adoption. The latter has its legal
aspects, but belongs above all, as we have seen,1 to the realm
of spirit and life ; the former is judicial, but, by reason of
its result in the reception of sonship, cannot be separated
from its source in Fatherhood.
5. But, finally and principally, the Fatherhood which St.
Paul sets forth is that of " the God and Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ " (Eph. i. 3). Godhead is qualified by Father
hood, Fatherhood by Godhead. And both have their primary
and complete manifestation towards our Lord Jesus Christ
and towards us in Him. The combination of the two names,
while it sets Godhead in the light of Fatherhood, brings out
the absolute character of that Fatherhood, making it entirely
unique. And its manifestation to us in and through one who
is " our Lord " reflects back upon the Father the Lordship
which is revealed in the Son. If the Son's Headship over
us is Lordship, equally must the Fatherhood of God towards
us be a sovereign Fatherhood.
Moreover, if the limited fatherhood of man has its legis
lative, kingly, and judicial aspects and functions, how much
more must this be the case with the absolute Fatherhood
of God ! And both the infinite greatness of the Godhead
and the vastness of His dealings through all ages with the
universe are such that the most imposing manifestation of
human authority and power — whether legislative^ kingly, or
judicial — are but faint shadows of those revealed in the dis
pensations of God towards men. All such aspects and func
tions of human government in their most august form are of
necessity suitable, though inadequate, to express the awful
realities of the Divine authority.
The apphcation of such aspects and functions of authority
to God must needs tend, for the moment, to exhibit such of
His ways and works as are governed by them in separation
from the Fatherhood which lies behind them.
And this temporary separation, which would be a necessity
of thought quite apart from history, is still more natural and
necessary because of two additional causes. In the first place,
1 See Chapter II.

88 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
these aspects and functions of government are in the forefront
of the Old Testament, and are carried from it into the New.
The relationship of the Old Testament doctrine on this sub
ject to that of the New will be considered in the next chapter.
And, in the second place, the universal fact of sin has brought
the sovereign aspects and functions of the Godhead towards
mankind into a prominence, both objective, in God's dealings
towards us, and subjective in our apprehension of them, which,
but for sin, would have been unnecessary and abnormal.1
Thus, for example, when St. Paul is dealing with the
alienation of the race in its vast multitudes from God and
its rebellion against His authority, with its subsequent recon
ciliation and peace, it is most natural to speak in terms of
kingship (Eom. v. 10 ; 2 Cor. v. 18-21).
But the true test to be applied is whether these aspects
and functions, both in themselves and in their operations, are
intrinsically, and in the mind of St. Paul, not only com
patible with the absolute Fatherhood of God, but embraced
under it, serving its ends, and therefore, in the last resort,
part of the revelation of it.
And this we may fairly claim that our examination of
St. Paul's general teaching has shown to be the case. Isolated
figures may undoubtedly be found, where the relationship even
of behevers of God is represented under forms taken from
lower relationships. Such, for example, is the statement
made in the Epistle to the Ephesians that Gentile believers
are " of the household of God " (Eph. ii. 1 9). The variety of
such figures and their impressiveness are in accordance with
the majesty of God, and bid us cultivate — as is most needful
— in our consciousness of the Divine Fatherhood in Christ,
the awe and reverence which were awakened by the revelation
of the Old Testament, as well as the tenderer and more
intimate trustfulness which have been inspired by the New.
But all such representations are easily harmonised with, and
even seen to be necessary to, the realisation of the supremacy
of the Divine Fatherhood when its glory is fitly conceived.
Similar considerations will explain the frequency of refer
ences to citizenship, as the privilege of Christians in St. Paul's
1 See Dr. Simon, Reconciliation by Incarnation, p. 142.

THE PLACE OF THE DOCTRINE OF 89
writings. For example, he tells the Ephesians that they
are "fellow-citizens with the saints" (Eph. ii. 19); to the
Philippians he writes : " For our citizenship " [or " common
wealth"] "is in heaven" (Phil. iii. 20); while in the Epistle
to the Galatians he says : " The Jerusalem that is above is
free, which is our mother" (Gal. iv. 26).
Such figures are, of course, in part taken over from the
Old Testament, and we could ill afford to lose the poetry of
their associations. But beyond this, the community of God's
family is so vast and catholic, that the analogies of the city
are more in keeping with its grandeur than the more homely
ones drawn from the narrow sphere of an earthly family.
Thus we may conclude that, great and complicated as is
the system of St. Paul's thought, the one sufficient guide to
it is to be found in the supreme relationship of Fatherhood
and sonship.
A brief notice of the remainder of the New Testament
will suffice.

IV. The Epistle to the Hebrews
The Epistle to the Hebrews has a special apologetic
purpose. It presents to Hebrew readers the realities and
facts of the Christian dispensation as the eternal archetypes,
and therefore the historical fulfilment, of the Hebrew cere
monial law. Hence the atoning death of our Lord is treated
as a sacrifice, His mediation as that of the perfect High
Priest, while the sphere of His atonement and intercession is
the true temple, of which heaven is the " Holiest of all."
All the more remarkable, therefore, is the steady and
commanding influence of the Fatherhood of God throughout
the Epistle. At the outset, the comprehensive completeness
and the spiritual directness of the Christian revelation is
shown in that God " hath at the end of these days spoken
unto us in His Son" (Heb. i. 1, 2). And the supreme purpose
which the Son has revealed and is accomplishing is the
"bringing many sons unto glory" (Heb. ii. 10).
And if the end purposed by God is the manifestation of
His Fatherhood in bringing sons to Himself, the High Priest

90 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
who accomplishes this is the Son, emphasis being laid through
out both on his filial dignity and perfection, and on the filial
character of His sacrifice. Christ is faithful " as a Son over
His house " (Heb. iii. 6). " The law appointeth men high
priests, having infirmity ; but the word of the oath, which was
after the law, appointeth a Son perfected for evermore"
(Heb. vii. 28 ; see also iv. 14).
Further, there was in the Son the perfection of the filial
spirit. As " no man taketh the honour " of priesthood " unto
himself, but when he is called of God, even as was Aaron.
So Christ also glorified not Himself to be made a High Priest,
but He that spake unto Him, ' Thou art My Son, this day
have I begotten Thee ' " (Heb. v. 4, 5). And the humihty with
which the Son received His investiture as High Priest was
perfected in the " godly fear " in which He, " though He was
a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which He suffered "
(Heb. v. 7, 8). Superficially taken, Christ in His humility
resembles priests who are not sons, and His learning obedience
is put in contrast with His dignity and prerogatives as a
Son. But, substantially, humility, submission to discipline,
and obedience are the fulfilment of the filial ideal on the side
of dependence, loyalty, and self - surrender to training and
service. So also the spirit of the Son's sacrifice is filial, and it
derives from this quality its acceptableness. " Lo, I am come
to do Thy will" (Heb. x. 5-10) is the great profession with
which He offers His body once for all.
And the fatherly dealing, by which Christ was disciplined
to perfection, is the key to all the bitter experiences of
Christians. " God dealeth with you as with sons, for what
son is there whom his father chasteneth not ? " (Heb. xii. 7).
From all this, it is not surprising that the writer passes
on to designate God "the Father of spirits" (Heb. xii. 9).
At every point the translation of the Hebrew type into the
Christian antetype has been moulded by the entrance of
considerations drawn from sonship, and therefore from the
Fatherhood, which is its correlative. The Saviour is the Son ;
His life and death are the utterance of His filial obedience,
and derive from it their worth ; as " Author of their salva-

THE PLACE OF THE DOCTRINE OF 91
tion," He fulfils the Father's purpose of " bringing many sons
unto glory," and, in doing so, conforms Himself to the lot of
those whom " He is not ashamed to call " His " brethren "
(Heb. ii. 11).
What is all this but the manifestation of what is involved
in God being above all else and towards all " the Father of
spirits " ? The Hebrew ceremonial set forth the Divine King
ship ; but its eternal archetype in the heavens proclaims the
Fatherhood of God. V. St. Peter
Only a few sentences are necessary on 1 Peter.
The practical objects of the Epistle, and the temperament
of the writer, are alike incompatible with the profounder and
more systematic treatment of Christian truth. Moreover, the
apostle's concern for the temper of Christian hope in his
readers, and for the moral worth of their conduct in the
ordinary relations of life, menaced as each was by severe
persecution, led him to insist upon two main considerations,
which, while not inconsistent with one another, are left side
by side, without any attempt to exhibit their relations. On
the one hand, it is " the God and Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, who, according to His great mercy, begat us again
unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from
the dead " (1 Pet. i. 3), and Christians are described as those
who "call on" God "as Father" (1 Pet. i. 17). On the
other hand, the temper of true Christian dignity and self-
respect is appealed to in the declaration : " Ye are an elect
race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's
own possession, that ye may show forth the excellencies of
Him who called you out of darkness into His marvellous
light : which in time past were no people, but are now the
people of God : which had not obtained mercy, but now have
obtained mercy" (1 Pet. ii. 9, 10). We may perhaps sum
up St. Peter's point of view by saying that he regards
Christians as a new " chosen people " in succession to Israel,
but that the distinctive mark of the new elect is that they
are conscious of the Fatherhood of God, and order their
worship in the filial spirit accordant with it.

92 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD

VI. The Apocalypse

In the Apocalypse the Fatherhood of God is not brought
out, except as it relates to our Lord (Eev. i. 6, xiv. 1). And
the explanation is simple. The great theme of the book is
the Kingship of Christ, as " the Lamb " ; His Lordship over
the redeemed ; His Leadership in their great struggle against
" the kingdom of the world," and against " Babylon " its
embodiment ; His control of the issues of history, resulting in
" a new heaven and a new earth," and in the " holy city, new
Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God " (Eev. xxi.
1, 2). Naturally, as we shall find to be the case also with
Isaiah,1 the Kingship of Christ has as its background and
condition the Kingship of God. Hence God is, above all, set
forth as "the Almighty" (Eev. iv. 8, xi. 17, xv. 3, xvi. 7, 14,
xix. 6, 15, xxi. 22). The Apocalypse is the translation to the
New Testament of the Old Testament conception, glorified in
Christ. The Sonship of Christ, which links His Kingship
with that of God, may almost be said to be the idealisation of
that of the Davidic King (1 Chron. xxii. 10), save that the
name "the Lamb" points to the fulfilment of Isa. liii., as
well as Isa. xi., in our Lord's dominion. The Apocalypse is
therefore the one clear exception to the supremacy of the
Divine Fatherhood in the New Testament theology, and the
force of the exception is destroyed by the simplicity of the
explanation. The remaining books of the New Testament are not of
such a nature as to exhibit Christian truth and life in relation
to any dominant conception of the relationship between God
and man.
We may therefore conclude this inquiry. Its results are
easily summed up. The whole of our Lord's teaching is
governed by the one relationship of Fatherhood and sonship ;
as is also St. John's. The same is the case with St. Paul ; his
teaching, however, in its " forensic " elements enabling us to
realise the vast and manifold functions which are included
under the Divine Fatherhood. In the Epistle to the Hebrews
the whole meaning of expiation and intercession is conceived
1 See Chapter IV.

THE PLACE OF THE DOCTRINE OF 93
as governed by the same relationship. In 1 Peter, faith in
the Fatherhood is influential, being treated as characteristic of
Christianity, sonship being the mark of those who, otherwise,
are viewed as successors of the old elect people. In the Apoc
alypse alone its influence is not felt, and that because the
visions which fill the writer's mind are of conflicting kingdoms
and their forces, ranged in secular conflict till the triumphant
end.

CHAPTER IV
THE DOCTRINE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN RELATION
TO THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
One of the difficulties hindering men from perceiving that,
from the standpoint of Christian truth, the Fatherhood of
God is the clue to all His dealings with mankind, has been
the doctrine of the Old Testament.
The deeper causes which have led men comparatively to
neglect the Fatherhood of God, and to build their theology
rather upon the basis of the Old Testament than on that of
the New, must be investigated in the next chapter.
Confining ourselves, meanwhile, to what is more super
ficial, but not therefore uninfluential, it may be said that
readers of the Holy Scriptures, being until recently without
the means of apprehending the laws of their development,
treated the Old Testament simply as being of equal authority
with the New, and came to it first. In reading the New
Testament, therefore, they were so permeated by the truths
and principles of the Old that they made these unduly their
guides to the interpretation of the New. In the Old Testa
ment they found the truth of the sovereignty of God every
where supreme. This, therefore, they naturally adopted as
being His characteristic relationship to mankind, and most in
accordance with the majesty which they reverenced and
obeyed. The Fatherhood, therefore, was either left out of
account altogether, or treated as a special grace, only mani
fested to the chosen few in the peculiar intimacy of their
fellowship with God ; while even the general relations of
the elect to God, still more those of the universe and of
unregenerate mankind, were explained by His sovereignty.
Thus the Divine sovereignty became to them, substantially,
84

THE DOCTRINE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 95
the highest and most influential relationship revealed either in
the Old or in the New Testament. Even this was often
narrowed and hardened by an imperfect apprehension of
many of the aspects of Old Testament theology and religion,
and by the introduction, into the conception of sovereignty, of
elements, at once more rigid and more complex than belonged
to the period of the Old Testament, being derived from the
analogies of human sovereignty as this was developed in more
recent times.
As to all these problems concerned with the interpretation
of the Old Testament and with its relationship to the New,
ours is the first generation which has the means of sound
decision within its reach. We are able to apply more
scientific methods of investigation, and can use the ever
growing materials drawn from the comparative study of
religions and from the general history and philosophy of
religious thought and hfe. But, above all, we have become
familiar with the idea of development in revelation and
spiritual life, in theology and religion, and are able to use it
as the basis of inquiry, and to perceive by its means the
formative principle explaining the sequence and inter
dependence of the different stages of thought and hfe which
are discovered. We are able, as was never the case before,
to realise the extent to which revelation is necessarily relative
to the faculty for apprehending it, and to understand how
this latter is limited by the age and environment, by the
lessons of the past, and the outlook of the present. Thus, as
to the truth and life revealed and enjoyed in a particular
age, we can say why — God's method being what it is- — it was
as we find it, no less and no more ; how it prepared the way
for fuller revelation and higher life in the future. In
particular, it becomes clear how necessarily inadequate the
results attained at any stage must be to the end of the
development, and how the crowning fulfilment, transcending
the preparation for it, must become the standard by which
the preparatory process is judged, and supply the light in
which its truths are held. Hence it is impossible for us any
longer simply to put the Old Testament side by side with
the New, treating each, and the separate books contained in

96 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
each, merely as a collection of separate, though harmonious,
oracles ; the method of old - fashioned demonstration of
doctrines by proof-texts selected haphazard and torn from
their context. For us the New Testament is both the ripe
and complete fruit of the Old Testament,, and something
more. In this is involved, that the New Testament takes up
into itself and fulfils the whole eternal substance of the Old,
and that what remains is seen to have been the protective
sheath thrown out in the process of growth ; a product of
life whose function was to safeguard the life it enfolded, and
which now remains, both as the setting of that life and as
the means by which its original development is understood.
Thus the permanent significance of the Old Testament
depends upon its relation to the New. The Law and the
Prophets, being fulfilled, are also judged by Christ. All
permanent elements in them are taken over by Him, and
glorified in tbe transition. All elements which are unable to
bear this transition pass away, having served the purposes of
that stage in the revelation of God and the salvation of man
to which they belonged. And the Old Testament as it stands
is a body which, while many of its elements, taken severally,
are well-nigh ideally complete, cannot, as a whole, be treated
in itself and apart from the New Testament, in which it is
fulfilled, harmonised, transfigured, and transcended, as being a
direct and adequate guide to the mind and will of God,
perfectly and finally revealed in Christ.
This being our general standpoint, it will be necessary for
us to pursue the following inquiry. In the first place, we
must endeavour to trace the development in the Old Testa
ment of the consciousness and doctrine of God's relationship
to men from its earliest to its latest forms, attempting to lay
hold of its main features, and avoiding, as far as possible,
what is either uncertain or controversial. We must, in the
second place, investigate the meaning of the characteristic
conception of the Old Testament — that of the covenant between
God and Israel. We must then pass on to examine, in the
third place, the Kingship of Jehovah as it is set before us in
the Prophets, the Book of Proverbs, and the Psalms. We
shall then be able to discover, not merely the nature of the

THE DOCTRINE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 97
Old Testament doctrine of the relationship of God to men, in
its different phases, but also its relations to the New Testa
ment doctrine of the Fatherhood of God, and the way in
which it prepared the way for the latter.
I. The Development of the Doctrine of the Eelation-
ship of God to Men in the Old Testament
At the outset, attention must be called to the fact that
the literature of the Old Testament as it stands does not
correspond with the historical development of its theology.
It is of course both unnecessary and undesirable to discuss
here the history and chronological order of the sacred books.
It is sufficient for our purpose to remark that, while the
Bible begins with the account of creation, the history of
the Old Testament religion, strictly speaking, begins with
the religion of the patriarchs.
When we study the Old Testament theology as it is
developed from its patriarchal beginnings to its forms as
finally elaborated, we shall be struck with the contrast
between the course of its growth, as revealed in the religious
consciousness of men, and the usual procedure of theological
argument and exposition. In carrying on the latter, men
usually start by discussing whether or not there is a God :
having concluded that He exists, they then proceed to invest
Him with suitable attributes, and to define their conception
as to His relationships to the universe as a whole. Then,
finally, they descend from this abstract, speculative, and
universal position, to consider His relations to mankind
and to individual men, out of which arises the religious
consciousness as such.
But this course exactly inverts the historical process by
which men were led to know and to conceive of God ; and the
historical process, as it took place, was both the only course
intellectually possible, and also the only one possessing, from
first to last, spiritual worth.
To attempt to trace the relations between the rehgion of
the Old Testament and other religions would lead us too far
afield. But, confining our outlook to the Old Testament, we
7

98 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
may confidently affirm that personal experience went before
argument or speculation ; the revelation, therefore, before the
distinct intellectual apprehension of God. Men did not
proceed outside themselves to a Godless world, and then
reason to an abstract God as its remote source. They
found God present to their consciousness, and influential in
their lives. They knew Him ; and, had they produced a
theistic argument, it would have been, in effect, God is known
to us, therefore He is. Further, the consciousness of personal
relations went before universal conceptions, and it was
through the sense of relations sustained that there came the
growing revelation of the Divine Being, who constituted those
relations. Men knew nothing of a God ; but spoke of the
God of our Fathers, our God, or my God. They took up
towards Him the attitude of worship, trust, and obedience
before even asking themselves, still less defining and pro
claiming, what were the exact attributes which characterised
Him whom they reverenced. To begin with, they recognised
the sovereign but gracious Being, who commanded and
watched over the life of the race-father and of his descendants.
Thence, in the progress of revelation and of the consciousness
which apprehended and reflected upon it, they proceeded out
wards, till the Divine presence and sovereignty filled the
whole world, and was extended backwards to creation, as its
source. The Lordship, which originated and controlled the
universe of things seen, was further recognised to be supreme
over the unseen. And, lastly, the Divine Being, whose
personal relationship was still experienced as the immediate
reality, but whose glory was seen to fill heaven and earth,
revealed, through His relationship to the spirit of man and
nature, tbe wealth of all those attributes, which were in
tuitively discerned and then described by inspired men. In
short, the course of the Old Testament revelation was, in
principle, similar to that which took place in the experience
of St. Paul concerning our Lord, as we have seen witnessed by
the Epistle to the Colossians. There the apostle, beginning
with the personal experience of redemption in Christ, is led to
extend His Lordship outwards from men to the universe, and
backwards from redemption to creation, developing, as he

THE DOCTRINE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 99
proceeds, those dogmatic assertions as to the person of Christ
which are necessitated by the relations He sustains.
This general account of what actually took place corre
sponds with the only conception of what could possibly have
taken place, which is tenable in the light of man's general
development. Man, as a religious and moral being, must
have been conscious of God long before his experience was
wide enough, his reason strong enough, or his reflexion
profound enough, to enable him to receive an adequate
revelation of the nature of God, much less to unfold such a
revelation in an elaborate theology. Eevelation is determined,
not only by the grace and power of God as the giver, but by the
capacity of man as the receiver. In the simple and personal
religion of the fathers lay the potentiality of all that was to
come, but the unveiling of it could only be " in many parts
and in divers manners," as the growing power and enlarging
consciousness of men enabled them to receive it.
A brief reference to the history of Eevelation as it is
presented to us in the Old Testament, will enable us to verify
in detail the general statement which has just been made.
The dealings of God with Israel begin with the call of
Abraham, of which an account is given in Gen. xii. 1-9.
An act of sovereign grace and election on the part of God,
leading to the setting up of special personal relations with
Abraham, calls forth, on the patriarch's side, a special act of
faith and obedience, which determines both the temper and
the course of the whole of his subsequent career. This act of
special choice is renewed to Isaac (Gen. xxvi. 1—6) and to
Jacob, at Bethel (Gen. xxviii. 10-22). The whole narrative
from Gen. xii. to the end of the book is the story of the
personal dealings between God and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,
with their families. His grace to them, their self-surrender
to Him, — in these the whole meaning of their lives is found.
Such a relationship involves, doubtless, a disclosure of His
glory by God to them, and a corresponding apprehension of it
by them. ''His authority over them, His will and power to
guide and bless them, together with their obedience to and
satisfaction in Him, imphcitly contain all that is involved in
His Godhead, as subsequent ages apprehended it. And the

100 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
revelation of it was made to them according to their power
and need. For example, when God announces to Abraham the
making of His covenant with him and his seed (Gen. xvii. 1),
He declares, " I am God Almighty " (El Shaddai). But what
strikes us is the relative character of the revelation. Doubt
less the all-sufficiency of God, as we understand it, is implicitly
contained in the announcement, but the whole tenor of the
revelation is, so to speak, Abraham-wards. The all-sufficiency
is, primarily, towards Abraham and his seed, and subserves the
personal relations between God and them ; though, of course,
ultimately, all-sufficiency towards those who experience God's
saving grace involves His sovereignty over the universe.
In the same manner, this relative Godhead and the personal
relations in which it manifests itself are set in the forefront of
the fuller revelation made to Moses. We are told : " Moreover
He said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the
God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob " (Ex. iii. 6 ; see also ver. 1 3).
The great advance in the progress of revelation which
was made by the instrumentality of Moses began with the
assumption by God of a new name, or rather by the placing
of a new and fuller meaning on an old name.1 But foremost is
the resumption with Israel of the personal relations in which
God had stood to their fathers. The commission to Moses is :
" Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The Lord,
the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of
Jacob, hath appeared unto me" (Ex. iii. 16). And the result
of that resumption is a great act of national redemption.
The Divine message continues : " I have surely visited you,
and seen that which is done to you in Egypt : and I have
said, I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt " (Ex.
iii. 16, 17). The new name Jehovah, whatever more may be
implied in it, is, above all, relative to this resumption of
personal relations with Israel, and to the redemption in which
that resumption is manifested.
And this aspect of the whole is emphasised by the First
Commandment, which is at the foundation of the Covenant of
Sinai : "Iam Jehovah, thy God, which brought thee out of
the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt
1 See p. no.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 101
have none other gods before Me " (Ex. xx. 2, 3). Only in the
Fourth Commandment does the general statement appear : " In
six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that
in them is" (Ex. xx. 11); and it is extremely significant
that in the version of the Fourth Commandment given in
Deuteronomy, instead of this reason for keeping the Sabbath,
there is substituted : " And thou shalt remember that thou
wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and the Lord thy God
brought thee out thence by a mighty hand, and by a stretched-
out arm ; therefore Jehovah, thy God, commandeth thee to
keep the Sabbath day" (Deut. v. 15).
Throughout, the religious obligation is based primarily
upon the personal, or national, spiritual relationship, and upon
the redemption which has issued from and given further effect
to it. Thus " Jehovah," afresh revealed, is " thy God," renews
and carries a stage forward the old relationship ; in this
relationship He " brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out
of the house of bondage," signahsing His fidelity to the old
purpose by a new act of redemption ; and upon the relationship
and the redemption He founds an act of exclusive appropriation,
in which, however, is offered to the people perfect satisfaction :
" Thou shalt have none other gods before Me." Grace, redemp
tion, appropriation, — this is the order on God's part ; surrender,
service, fellowship, — this is the order of the people's response.
So also this exclusive spiritual relationship is foremost in
the Deuteronomic First Commandment : " Hear, 0 Israel ; the
Lord our God is one Lord : and thou shalt love the Lord thy
God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all
thy might " (Deut. vi. 4, 5).
The Book of Deuteronomy represents a substantial advance
in the fulness of its teaching. The supremacy of Jehovah over
His people is throughout insisted upon, and made the basis of
His law. But there appears a new emphasis on His creator-
ship, both directly set forth (e.g. Deut. iv. 32), and indirectly in
the warning against being drawn away into worshipping " the
sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven,"
" which the Lord thy God hath divided unto all the peoples
under the whole heaven" (Deut. iv. 19). But, again, the
impression made by a careful perusal of the book is of the

102 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
striking way in which general statements about God are made
subordinate to His spiritual relations to Israel, and the redemp
tion which gives effect to them. The basis of the whole is a
living experience of God. And the whole effect is summed up
in the great utterance of Jehovah by Moses, to the people : " Ye
have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you
on eagles' wings, and brought you unto Myself " (Ex. xix. 4).
The glory of the " eagles' wings," the attributes of Jehovah, may
become the subject of abstract or general reflexion ; but, as first
revealed, they were seen as relative to a special and gracious
relationship to Israel, and as putting forth their almighty
power in an act of deliverance and loving appropriation.
In these features of the Book of Deuteronomy the general
course of the development of the Old Testament revelation
becomes clear. First, the presentation of God to the spiritual
consciousness and experience of men of faith ; then, His
providential and redemptive manifestation in the issues of
their personal, family, and national life. But His spiritual
and redemptive sovereignty, in their experience, demands His
sovereignty in all time and space, over all men and all
worlds. And this creative sovereigntyT^first^seen in relation
to Israel, as involved in the nature of His Lordship over
them and in the glory and grace of His dealings with them,
becomes, in later times and with the growing maturity of
their receptive and reflective faculties, the subject of more
universal and dogmatic statements. Prophets and psalmists
expatiate on the glories of the Divine attributes, and on the
range of the Divine sovereignty : these become the subject of
the meditation of " the wise." At length, spiritual apprehen
sion has well-nigh reversed the original order, as is seen
in Isa. xl.-lxvi., in which Old Testament revelation and
theology have perhaps their final and grandest expression.
There the glory of the Creator overarches all things and fills
the spiritual eye. The special relation to Him of Israel is
that of those "that wait upon tbe Lord" (Isa. xl. 31). But
He is described as " the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator
of the ends of the earth," who "fainteth not, neither is
weary ; there is no searching of His understanding " (Isa. xl.
28). Thus revelation has proceeded from the personal to the

THE DOCTRINE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 103
national, from the inward to the outward, from the spiritual
to the natural, and from the relative and particular to the
absolute and universal.
And, in the course of this advance, another new and most
important feature has made its appearance. Not only has
the spiritual experience of Jehovah, as inwardly sovereign,
been extended and completed by the full vision of His
sovereignty over the universe, but the conception of the
coming universalisation of those spiritual relations, which
hitherto had been the exclusive privilege of Israel, dawns
upon prophetic minds as the glory of the future. Isaiah and
Micah predict : " It shall come to pass in the latter days, that
the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the
top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills ;
and all nations shall flow into it. And many people shall go
and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the
Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob ; and He will teach us
of His ways, and we will walk in His paths ; for out of Zion
shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
And He shall judge between the nations, and shall reprove many
people : and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares,
and their spears into pruning-hooks ; nation shall not hf t up
sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more "
(Isa. ii. 2-4 ; Mic. iv. 1-3). And Isaiah foretells in the
most glorious strain of Old Testament evangelism : " In that
day shall there be an altar to the Lord in the midst of
the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the
Lord. And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the
Lord of hosts in the land of Egypt : for they shall cry unto
the Lord because of the oppressors, and He shall send them a
saviour and a defender, and He shall deliver them. And the
Lord shall be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians shall know
the Lord in that day ; yea, they shall worship with sacrifice
and oblation, and shall vow a vow unto the Lord, and shall
perform it. And the Lord shall smite Egypt, smiting and
healing ; and they shall return unto the Lord, and He shall be
entreated of them, and shall heal them. In that day shall
there be a highway out of Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian
shall come into Egypt, and the Egyptian into Assyria ; and

104 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
the Egyptians shall worship with the Assyrians. In that day
shall Israel be the third with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing
in the midst of the earth : for that the Lord of hosts hath
blessed them, saying, Blessed be Egypt My people, Assyria the
work of My hands, and Israel Mine inheritance" (Isa. xix.
19-25). Eeligion, which has hitherto operated to divide,
having supplied both the watchwords and the enthusiasm of
strife, shall henceforth unite, — this is the meaning both of
Isa. ii. and of Isa. xix. 23 ; and the greatest privileges,
hitherto restricted to Israel, shall be shared out equally with
those nations who had been his enemies and oppressors.
Thus Old Testament revelation, having proceeded from
the spiritual relations of God to His servants to the glory of
His cosmic relations and of His eternal attributes, finds its
inevitable goal in the universalising of those special spiritual
relations, with the personal and national forms of which it
began. It is impossible not to be struck here with the similarity
between the process of the Old Testament religion and that
which we have observed in the New Testament in regard to
the Fatherhood of God. The latter, being revealed at first in
the unique spiritual consciousness of our Lord, was in the
next place apprehended as a personal experience by believers
in Him, then seen by a generalisation from special experience
in the glory of " the Father," and finally perceived to be the
universal and governing relationship in all God's dealings
with the world. So in the case of the Old Testament revela
tion of Jehovah, the whole is on a lower plane than the ful
ness of the New Testament unveiling of God, but it follows a
similar law: beginning with the personal and experiential,
rising to the general and abstract, and completed in the fore
knowledge (not the actual realisation) of an equal spiritual
fellowship, embracing and blessing all mankind. Each
process illustrates the other. And the growingly catholic
spirit of the Old Testament, equally with the distinct teaching
of the New, forbids us to reserve a lower relationship of God
to men for mankind in general than that which is experienced
by believers. On the contrary, the Old Testament is at one
with the New in teaching, by its highest and noblest utter-

THE DOCTRINE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 105
ances, that the special experience of the chosen manifests a
universal relationship of God to men, which, by His grace, all
may eventually be brought to apprehend and enjoy.
II. The Covenant
The dominating conception of the religious bond between
God and Israel is, in the Old Testament, that of the Covenant.
We must now proceed to investigate the origin, nature, and
development of this conception.
It is obvious, at first sight, that the hving experience of
the true God, which, as we have seen, is the basis of Old
Testament revelation and religion, involved the most marked
differentiation between those who possessed it and those who
did not. The knowledge of God was, from first to last, that
which distinguished Abraham, the patriarchs, and Israel, in
all the periods of their history, from the peoples who sur
rounded them. And this distinctive experience, growing up
within a personal relationship, represented an act of choice on
the part of God, and a response of faith and self-surrender on
the part of the men chosen by Him. Further, the solemnity
of the choice and of the response emphasised the separation
between Israel and other peoples, as being far more complete
than could have been brought about by any other kind of
distinctions. And it made the special relationship between
God and His people both dominant and permanent. AU this
is conveyed by the term " covenant." Beaching its maturity
in the dealings of God with Israel as a nation, the Covenant
was, in the first instance, inaugurated by God with Abraham.
After years of fidelity have followed upon the patriarch's
obedience to the original call of God, we are told that God
appeared to Abraham, guaranteed that the gracious relation
ship subsisting between them should be continued to the
patriarch's descendants, and instituted the rite of circumcision,
as a sign of separation to God and from other peoples. And
this is spoken of as God's covenant with Abraham and his
seed (Gen. xvii. 1—14).
What is involved in this covenant is decisive as to the
meaning of the conception throughout the whole history of

106 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
Israel. It is the extension to the religious relation, of the
solemnities of mutual agreement constantly observed between
the Hebrews — whether tribes, families, or individuals — in
worldly affairs, and exercising such an influence over their
thought that the term " covenant " is applied to well-nigh
everything, even in the sphere of natural phenomena, upon
which man can confidently count.1
Before tracing the development of the Covenant from its
patriarchal foundation, we must, however, pause to notice the
previous mention of a covenant, namely, that between God
and Noah after the Flood (see Gen. ix. 8-17), if only in order
to show how distinct the use in that passage is from the con
ception of the Covenant as defining the relationship of God to
His people, and how nearly it approaches to the figurative use
just mentioned.
We are told that " God spake unto Noah, and his sons
with him, saying, And I, behold, I establish My covenant with
you, and with your seed after you : and with every living
creature that is with you, the fowl, the cattle, and every beast
of the earth with you ; of all that go out of the ark, even
every beast of the earth. And I will establish My covenant
with you ; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the
waters of the flood ; neither shall there any more be a flood
to destroy the earth."
It is obvious that there is here no selection, unless it be
of the living from the non-living. It is a universal covenant
between the Creator and the created, in the establishment of
which Noah and his sons are treated as the representatives of
all living creatures beneath them and after them.
Two ideas, therefore, are contained in this particular
covenant. In the first place, there is the recognition of a subordinate
independence of the creature over against the Creator. The
sovereignty of God does not override creation, nor do His
dealings with His creatures ever sink to the level of a fate
which gives no intelligible account of itself to them. God
and the creatures, as represented by man at their head, stand
face to face in personal relations, which are ordered and
1 See Schultz, Old Testament Theology (Eng. trans.), ii. 2, 3.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 107
defined. The form of the covenant sets forth the union in
the creatures of both dependence and independence, and
proclaims the Divine purpose to respect both the one and the
other. The finite life of which God is author has a quasi-
independence, which involves, despite His absolute rights, the
necessity of His entering into personal relations and arrange
ments with it, so that all, in proportion to their reason, may
know on what they may surely count.
In the second place, God assures those whom He sets in
personal relationship to Himself of the steadfastness of His
purpose towards them. He will fulfil creation by preservation.
He will educate and perfect the life He has created by a
stable and consistent world-order, which shall be free from
any interruption caused by caprice or indifference or anger
aroused by the unworthiness of the creature.
Thus we have here the earliest statement of a world-order,
and of the spiritual conditions in the character, purpose, and
grace of God, upon which that order rests. We are taught
that God can be bound only by Himself, but that, in creating,
He has bound Himself to a course from which He will not
turn aside. And the knowledge of this solemn engagement
God makes the basis for the spiritual and moral training of
mankind. Such is the meaning to be put upon this earliest
covenant. But the Covenant as distinctive of Old Testament rehgion
had its earnest in the relationship of God to the patriarchs,
and was inaugurated in its completeness with Israel at Sinai.
The account of the. inauguration of the Covenant and of its
terms is given to us in Ex. xx.-xxiv. The Law as then
given is expressly termed " the book of the Covenant " (Ex.
xxiv. 7). The whole of it is to be read in the hght of its
opening words : " I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee
out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou
shalt have none other gods before [or beside] Me " (Ex. xx. 2, 3).
Let us study the form of it.
In the first place, the Covenant is based upon revelation
and upon the sovereign right of God. He addresses the
people as Jehovah, and thus appeals to the new and special
revelation of Himself, which prepared the way for the new

108 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
Covenant. But He claims them as His own, demanding of
them a national confession in accordance with His rights.
" I am Jehovah, thy God."
Here, then, we find God, so to speak, confronting the
people, in order to come into permanent spiritual relations
with them. And this is the form which the institution of a
covenant must necessarily take. In thus manifesting Himself,
Jehovah undoubtedly availed Himself of the conception of the
relations of God to man characteristic of the Semitic races.
The religions of the Aryan races so tended to the conception
of union between God, on the one hand, and nature, or man,
on the other, as to be in danger of confusing them. Thus
the religion of these races taught the Fatherhood of God, or
of the gods, in a physical sense. The Greeks idealised them
selves in their conceptions of the gods. And philosophy,
notably in India, but to a large extent also in Greece, fell
into pantheism. But the Semites regarded God as con
fronting and commanding nature and man. He is " Baal "
(Master), or " Moloch " (King). Even the worshippers of
Jehovah were accustomed to call Him Baal ; for Hosea tells
the people : " And it shall be at that day, saith the Lord, that
thou shalt call Me Ishi ; and shalt call Me no more Baali "
(Hos. ii. 16).1 Hence, just as St. Paul carried over the
fruits of his Pharisaic training into Christianity, and these
characteristics were utilised and ennobled by the Spirit of
Christ, so in the giving of revelation God selected, for the
establishment of His covenant, a people the whole tendency of
whose minds fitted them to receive and to express the con
ception of the Divine sovereignty. And to the people, thus
prepared, Jehovah manifests Himself in the giving of law.
/i But, in the second place, though God reveals Himself in
the exercise of authority and the giving of law, yet His law
giving is a manifestation of grace, and His covenant relation
ship is based on a great act of redemption. " I am Jehovah,
thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt."
1 There is a close connexion between the significance of "Lord" and that
of "Husband" in the name Baal, and it must not be forgotten that, in the
ordinary Semitic theologies, Baal, as the supreme male divinity, was husband
to the female, Ashtoreth.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 109
Authority has been transfigured by grace ; exclusive
loyalty and obedience are claimed on the ground of saviour-
ship, and the relationship brought about by saving help is the
constraint to duty and service. The declaration of the First
Commandment, therefore, at once recites the Divine favour of
the past, and assures of the Divine faithfulness in the future.
And it is on the ground of this that the demand of con
secration is made upon the people, a demand the extent of
which the whole of the law — moral, ceremonial, and adminis
trative — is intended to unfold, so far as the hardness of their
hearts will permit.
Hence there was not only a gospel before the law, but a
gospel in the law. The supposition of a " covenant of works,"
understood in the bare sense of Eeformed theology, distorts
the whole, and misrepresents alike the spiritual relationships
upon which the Covenant was based and the motives to which
it appeals. So, again, to represent the terrors of Sinai as
primarily due to the wrath of God and to the guilty dread of
sinful men, in presence of a law given to condemn them, is
to misinterpret the meaning of the whole scene. It is the
majesty of the Creator, who appears to set up His kingdom
over the elect of His creatures, which is set forth, and not
His wrath. Imperfect as the Covenant is, and inadequate as
is man's power to keep it, its institution is, from first to last,
an act of grace ; though there is awf ulness even in the
gracious approach of the thrice-holy God to frail and sinful
men. It is not that God comes to condemn, but that sinful
flesh cannot bear His glorious presence.1
And it is in this light that the prophets always regard
the Covenant, as crowning the deliverance from Egypt. It
constitutes the foundation and the form of all the subsequent
life of the nation. In all time of their unfaithfulness and of
God's subsequent withdrawal from them, the appeal is made
to this great inauguration. Even Amos treats the sad out
come of the nation's history as a falsification of hope. " Hear
this word," he says, " that the Lord hath spoken against you,
0 children of Israel, against the whole family which I brought
1 Hence man cannot see the face of God, and live (Ex. xxxiii. 20 ; see also
Gen. xxxii. 30 ; Deut. v. 24 ; Judg. vi. 22, 23, xiii. 22).

110 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
up out of the land of Egypt, saying, You only have I known
of all the famihes of the earth : therefore I will visit upon
you all your iniquities" (Amos iii. 1, 2). And Hosea, speak
ing of Jehovah's dealing with His unfaithful people in order
to bring them back to Himself, says : " Therefore, behold, I
will allure her, and bring her into the wilderness, and speak
comfortably unto her . . . and she shall make answer there,
as in the days of her youth, and as in the day when she came
up out of the land of Egypt" (Hos. ii. 14, 15). And after
the same fashion Jeremiah says : " Thus saith the Lord, I
remember for thee the kindness of thy youth, the love of
thine espousals ; how thou wentest after Me in the wilder
ness in a land that was not sown " (Jer. ii. 2). Thus, despite
the claims of the Law, the Covenant is throughout treated as
a covenant of grace. The claim to the loyal obedience of the
people is based upon the manifestation of the Divine love and
grace, as is the husband's claim to the faithfulness of his wife.
And this view receives its grandest expression in the account
of God's choice of Israel given in Isa. xl— xlvi.
The revelation of the name Jehovah is relative to the
deliverance from Egypt, and to the Covenant which was its
sequel. There is considerable difficulty in ascertaining the exact
original meaning of the name. It is beyond our province to
enter here into this discussion.1 And there is a further
difficulty. In Ex. vi. 3 God is represented as saying, " By
my name Jehovah was I not known unto them." Yet the
name is present in the history, previous to the times of Moses,
for his own mother, Jochebed, bears it ; and the commission
given by God to Moses, as it is stated in Ex. iii. 15, "Thus
shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God
of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the
God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you : this is My name for
ever, and this is My memorial unto all generations," implies
that the name Jehovah was that of the patriarchal God.
There is one way of harmonising this apparent discrepancy,
namely, by understanding that Jehovah revealed through
1 For a careful statement the reader may be referred to Robertson, Early
Religion of Israel, p. 280, et seq.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 111
Moses a new significance of an old name, and that that new
significance was in close connexion with the fuller relations
with God into which Israel was about to enter by means of
the Covenant.To know and to trust in the absoluteness, the steadfastness,
the consistency of God, was of the highest moment for those
who received a covenant from Him as the basis of their
spiritual and national life and hope. And this was the
assurance contained in the name Jehovah, as explained
through Moses. The philological origin of the name does
not affect its Covenant meaning. The revelation of Him who
is what He is, in giving assurance of His absoluteness, stead
fastness, and consistency, did more. It bore witness to all
those attributes of God, which had been manifested in His
absolute purpose, and in His unchanging relation with the
fathers and with their descendants. If the question were
asked, What is He ? or to what will He abide faithful ? the
answer was given in the unfolding of His holy character, with
its grace, righteousness, and might, in the relationships con
stituted by Him and subsisting between Him and the chosen
people. Thus the gospel of the Covenant, the pledge of its
permanence, is contained in the name Jehovah. It empha
sises for the whole future the sovereignty of Jehovah's all-
perfect character, and is the starting-point for a progressive
revelation of all the glories contained in it.
But it will be apparent, upon reflexion, that the whole
stage of revelation represented by the Divine Covenant, and
by the name Jehovah as relative to it, is so highly special
as of necessity to be merely provisional.
The special features set forth by the Covenant are theN
moral nature of the relationships between God and man,
the righteousness and grace, as well as the selective choice,
by which God constitutes them, and the solemn responsibility
restino- upon the- people to enter into them and fulfil them.
Amos gives perfect expression to what is involved in his
declaration : " You only have I known of all the families of
the earth ; therefore will I visit upon you all your iniquities "
(Amos iii. 2). The Covenant represented a unique fellowship
between God and His people, and laid upon them a unique

112 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
moral responsibility. It was all-important for the religion
and redemption of mankind that by this means the immoral
naturalism of early rehgion should be for ever transcended,
and that the reality and awfulness of the spiritual relations
between God and men should, once and for all, be revealed
and apprehended.
But the very need for such a special revelation and
apprehension prevents Old Testament religion, as embodied
in the Covenant, from giving a full and complete exhibition
of the relations between God and man, and of their ground.
The religion of the Covenant makes its starting-point with
the sovereign and gracious act of choice, which separates
Israel to God ; it fixes attention upon that act of choice and
what is involved in it. At every point, therefore, there is
a special determination which excludes from view aspects
which yet must be considered before the final and complete
truth can be received. The Covenant sets before us Israel,
separated from the nations by Divine election, and endowed
with all those spiritual qualities which make fellowship with
God at once possible and obligatory. But it is clear that
here all the ultimates are left unexplained. The creation of
Israel was before his historical election ; and although he is
elect among the peoples, yet he belongs to mankind. Now
this special act of choice, embodied in the Covenant, in order
to the inculcation of those special truths which were supremely
necessary at that stage of revelation, brings into prominence
what was subsequent to creation and narrower than mankind.
But the final and complete revelation must, above all, be both
ultimate and universal ; must begin with creation, and with
the spiritual relationships involved in it ; and must embrace
mankind, explaining what is the peculiar privilege of any one
race by the common possibilities of all.
And the progress of Old Testament revelation is towards
the fulfilment of both these conditions, and towards their
fulfilment in their necessary interdependence. God's creator-
ship and His relationship to mankind, as ordering all men
and ultimately saving them, of which His favour to Israel
is a special and typical manifestation, fill the foreground,
for example, of the Book of Isaiah, and with their promi-

THE DOCTRINE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 113
nence the conception of the Covenant, though not of the
election of Israel, falls into the background.
The statement, therefore, of revelation and religion in
terms of the Covenant, and of the name of Jehovah, which
is relative to the Covenant, are in the highest degree im
portant, as marking a stage in God's redemptive disclosure
of Himself ; but, for the very reasons which made them so
important for the time, they are inadequate to convey the
complete meaning of the truth, as it is made manifest in
the "fulness of the times." And the growth of the Old
Testament, to the full glory of its final maturity, tends so to
supplement them, by filling out their meaning, as to supersede
them, at least in the form in which they were originally held,
III. The Kingship of God
The relationship of God to Israel, as manifested and
realised in the Covenant, is subordinately conceived in a
fourfold way in the Old Testament writings. His institution
of the Covenant for a supreme moral end sets forth His
absolute Lordship, and this aspect is brought out with un
sparing fidehty in the stern teaching of Amos. But, on tb^
other hand, the choice of Jehovah was an expression of His
love, and of a yearning sympathy which desired the nation ,
for fellowship with Himself. And this suggested to the '
tenderer spirits of Hosea and Jeremiah the most intimate I
and gracious of all human covenants — that of marriage, j
Jehovah was the Husband of His people, and the permanence ;
of His purpose was due to the steadfastness of an undying ',
love. Or, again, the relationship was regarded from - the i
standpoint of the salvation which was contemplated in it,
and then Jehovah was spoken of in countless prophecies and .>
psalms as " the Eedeemer." And, finally, the mingling of .
authority and love in Jehovah's relationship to Israel, taken
in conjunction with His Guardianship of their immaturity^
suggested the relationship of Fatherhood (see, for example,
Hos. xi. 1 ; Isa. i. 2, lxiii. 16 ; Jer. iii. 4).
But all these may easily be subsumed, so far as their
Old Testament use is concerned, under the dominant con-

114 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
ception of Jehovah's Kingship, being but different aspects
in which that Kingship presents itself, in different circum
stances, with respect to different necessities, or to different
types of prophetic minds.
Jehovah is King in Israel. Prophets are His messengers,
declaring His will ; or, viewed from the priestly side, the
temple is His dwelling-place, the priests are His ministers,
and the services are the ceremonial of His court. The
ordinary instruments of civil government — whether kings
or judges — are His representatives and servants. They are
bound to rule Israel with a view to the accomplishment of
Jehovah's purposes, representing in their own conduct His
character and the ends of His kingdom, maintaining also the
character of the people as a holy nation, a peculiar inheritance
of Jehovah, in the midst of the surrounding heathenism.
It was the great business of the prophets to enforce and
to expound the Kingship of Jehovah. They declared His
exclusive rights, as against the unfaithfulness of idolatrous
worship. They dwelt upon His all - sufficiency, as against
the secular spirit, which deprived the nominal profession
of the nation of all spiritual and moral value. They made
war upon all unrighteous and licentious social conditions
and habits of conduct, as being indeed a state of active
rebellion against the authority and the laws of the thrice-
holy King who reigned in Jerusalem.
The prophets agree with the people in giving expression
to a faith in Jehovah's Kingship over the nation, which
is common, if not to all, at least to the vast majority ; they
differ from the majority in that they appreciate the spiritual
and moral content of that Kingship, and endeavour to con
form their own life and that of the nation to it.
A little consideration will again show that, as in the
case of the Covenant, so the conception of God's Kingship
is relative to the particular stage of revelation and religion
reached in the Old Testament. Let the religious relationship
be apprehended from the side of moral authority; let the
religious unit be not the individual, but the community,
and the community when it has reached the cohesion and
organisation of a nation, with the civic life of a great capital
\

THE DOCTRINE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 115
at its head ; knd let that nation be arrayed for unceasing
conflict on behalf of the integrity of its peculiar life —
spiritual, moral, and physical — with the surrounding nations,
and these influences in combination, not only will make the
conception of God's Kingship inevitable, but will make any
other conception both inadequate and unsuitable to the
necessities of the times.
And these were exactly the conditions of Israel during
the prophetic period of its history. As to the first, God was
realised by the Hebrew, if he attained to the prophetic faith,
as the God of holy character, commanding the conscience.
Eeligion was the solemn and ethical choice of Him and
correspondence with His will, under the twofold sanction
of blessing upon obedience, and of curse upon disobedience
(Deut. xxviii, xxx. 1). The categorical imperative of duty
lay at the heart of Hebrew, as of all worthy, monotheism ;
and God, as the source of that absolute command, is appro
priately conceived to be King.
In the second place, the unit of religious life is, throughout ,
most of the Old Testament, not the individual, but the nation. [
This does not mean, of course, that there is not to be found)
in the Old Testament an individual experience of acceptance
with God and of fellowship with Him. The contrary of this
is everywhere manifest. But though there is a growth
towards individualism, as we shall see later on,1 yet, through
out the whole course of the Old Testament, the individual
has not come into full realisation of his individuality. His
relationship to God is in and through his membership of the
holy community of Israel. Nothing stands in the way of his
appropriation to himself of all the blessings which belong to
Israel ; but it is as an Israelite that he must appropriate
them. They belong to the nation before they belong to the
individual. Hence in- most of the Psalms we find that the
highest experience of personal rehgion is realised in the
congregation, within the Holy City, and at the Holy Place ;
that it is dependent upon these conditions to a degree that
is strange to our mouern religion, even when it insists most
strongly upon churchmanship. 1 See p. 137.

116 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
But this community was organised as a city and a state.
The development of the state, also, proceeded step by step
with the growth of the effective headship — religious and
civil — 0f Jerusalem. The Divine Head, therefore, of this
great national unit could not be other than its King. He
was the bond of the national fellowship, His glory was the
splendour of the Holy City ; its order and government pro
ceeded from Him, enthroned in the midst.
But, in the third place, Israel was struggling for its
existence, and, above all, in its noblest representatives, for
the integrity of its spiritual and moral life. The stress of
conflict is everywhere felt throughout the writings of the
prophets and the Psalms. The God whom the people worship
must therefore, of necessity, be the God who fights for them,
and under whose banner they fight in every field of warfare,
whether the physical, by which the nation maintains its
independence and its territory intact, or the spiritual, by
which it resists the heathen customs which endanger its
spiritual and moral life. This experience of Jehovah is
familiar to us, whether in the cruder form represented by the
lost " Book of the Wars of Jehovah," or in such noble Psalms
as the 46th, " God is our refuge and strength," or the 68th,
" Let God arise, let His enemies be scattered." But the God
who fights for Israel, and for whom Israel fights, is naturally
thought of as King.
In thus asserting that the Old Testament doctrine of
Kingship is relative to the way in which Israel apprehended
rehgion, to the stage of its general development, and to the
emergencies of its natural position, there is nothing which,
even by implication, lessens the divinity of the revelation.
This will become increasingly clear when we consider the
providential wisdom which led men to realise the sovereignty
of God before they learnt His Fatherhood. But revelation
proceeds step by step with the general development of those
who receive it, stands in vital relationship to the whole of
their life as they receive it, and utilises their changing
conditions and circumstances to enable them to receive and
to reflect special and manifold aspects of the full truth, which
is gradually being revealed. And the conditions in which

THE DOCTRINE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 117
Israel stood during the great period of its history, not only
enabled it to receive the truth of God's Kingship, but made
His Kingship the only relationship which could serve the
needs of their higher hfe on all its sides.
The soundness of this general conclusion may be tested
by reference to the Aryan religions. It may be said that
Sanskrit, Greek, and Eoman religions all have a doctrine
of the Fatherhood of God, whether as Dyaus-pitar, Zeus
Pater, or Jupiter, and this in the early, the national, and
the struggling periods of their history ; that is to say, just
in those stages when we have said that the Divine King
ship was the only relationship answering to the needs of
Israel. The agreements and differences between the Hebrew and
the Aryan religions, when studied, alike confirm the soundness
of our conclusion. We may here assume, without discussing,
the fundamental contrast between the Semitic sense of the
apartness and the dominance of God and the Aryan sense of
His affinity with men.
1. But, in the first place, it must be borne in mind that
the Aryan religions were predominantly not ethical, but
nature-worships. The ethical and spiritual nature of Hebrew
religion enabled it to apprehend the spiritual and moral
Headship of Jehovah. But the physical relationship was
foremost with the Aryan. Hence the physical Fatherhood
of God was in the foreground, and the glory of God lay
in His immensity and happiness, not in His holiness. There
were divinities for the ethical aspects of life, as, for example,
among the Greeks, Themis ; or Zeus was qualified by special
epithets to represent the ethical features of his relations
to men : thus we find Zevs e/>Keto?, opicios, givtos, t/eeo-to?,
and the like. But the ethical was never in the ascendant,
and therefore the imperative of duty never received an
adequate religious basis in the relationship of God to men.
2. In the second place, the Divine Kingship made its appear
ance with the development of the city or state. Zeus became
dyopaux;, or flovXalos, in the Greek city ; Jupiter was qualified
as Stator, or Imperator, at Borne. Or, again, special divinities
took charge of the city, as Pallas Athene of Athens.

118 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
3. And, in the third place, there were special gods and
goddesses of war, who acted as the leaders and helpers of
those who were under their protection.
Thus a doctrine of Divine Kingship did make its appear
ance among the Aryan races, under the same conditions as in
Israel, but it was modified by naturalism, by polytheism, by
local cults, and by specialisation, in particular places or for
particular emergencies, of certain aspects of the Divine
relationship to men- — representing a transient monotheism
for the practical needs of life. And thus it was possible not
only for a doctrine — unworthy though it was — of the Divine
Fatherhood to be first, but also for it to persist while other
and special provision was made by means of polytheism for
the special civic and militant necessities which required a
king ; the ethical necessities never being sufficiently impera
tive to demand any serious measure of satisfaction.
The doctrine of Jehovah's Kingship, which originally
ministered to the ethical and national needs of Israel, was
gradually extended, as we have already seen, to embrace His
Lordship over the heathen, His absolute power over nature as
its Creator and upholder, and His dominion over the heavenly
hosts. Thus, finally, He is "Lord of hosts," a title which,
while originally it may have referred to His Lordship over
earthly hosts in battle array, or over the heavenly bodies,
ultimately came to be applied to His sovereignty over
the angelic ministers who stood nearest to His throne,
and were the most faithful and efficient instruments of
His will.
Once more, as King, Jehovah was Eedeemer. As His
sovereignty was established by a great act of redemption, so
the ultimate purpose of His kingdom was to accomplish
redemption for Israel, and, in the end, for the world, with a
completeness which taxed the utmost powers of prophetic
imagination in order to set it forth. And the glory of the
Divine sovereignty is realised in proportion as the vastness
and persistence of His redemptive purposes are apprehended
in prophetic vision.
If all this be true, we should expect to find prophecies
and psalms corresponding to the various aspects of the Divine

THE DOCTRINE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 119
sovereignty, and to the various needs which the expression of
it satisfied. We should look, for example, for psalms in which the
solemn note of God's ethical Kingship is struck ; for others,
again, where He is to the nation what a king is, as the bond
of its unity and the orderer of its government ; for others
which represent the militant attitude of the people and of
their King ; while in others His Lordship over the nations and
over the universe of the seen and unseen would be celebrated.
Or, again, we should expect to find any or all of these aspects
in combination. And the whole collection would reflect the stages of the
nation's spiritual development, the phases and emergencies of
its life, as well as the characteristic qualities and experiences
of its psalmists. And in the writings of the greater prophets
we should expect to find a growing completeness of expression,
striving after tbe harmonious utterance of all these elements
of the truth, and succeeding, according as the growing fulness
of the Divine revelation accumulated treasures of wisdom, and
as these treasures were appropriated by men whose faith and
insight were adequately prepared to receive and to set them
forth. And, once more, we should expect to find a growing
experience of God as Eedeemer, set forth by prophets as the
explanation of world-history, but inwardly realised with ever-
increasing fulness, as the powers and needs of individual life
were stirred to full consciousness. The extensive glory of
prophetic vision, having reached its height, would be succeeded
by the intensive glory of the inward experience of the
individual saint. By means of this double progress, the full
meaning of the redemptive Kingship would gradually be set
forth, both in the range and triumph of its world-wide
achievement, and in the grace and tenderness of its personal
benediction of believing hearts.
All this is exactly what we do find. We must attempt
briefly to trace this twofold development : firstly, the prophetic
development of the doctrine of God's Kingship, and then the
saintly realisation of its spiritual meaning.

120 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD

THE PROPHETS

The first two prophets whose writings call for notice,
Amos and Hosea, are important, not so much for the detailed
exhibition of God's Kingship which they give, as for the con
trasted view which they take as to what is involved in the
kingly relation of Jehovah to His people.
Amos
Amos gives ideal expression to the ethical aspect of God's
Kingship, regarding it as the supreme authority for securing
a great moral end — an end so sovereign that, when it is
frustrated, the Divine Kingship is manifested in a punishment
so condign as altogether to destroy the special and gracious
relationship between God and Israel, which existed only to
realise this moral end. The keynote of the whole book is to
be found in the great declaration : " Hear this word that the
Lord hath spoken against you, 0 children of Israel, against
the whole family which I brought up out of the land of
Egypt, saying, You only have I known of all the families of
the earth : therefore will I visit upon you all your iniquities "
(Amos hi. 1, 2). The peculiar fellowship of Jehovah with
His people was for the accomplishment of an ethical end ; and
when that end was unrealised, the relationship, which existed
for it, would be broken off. Thus does Amos turn the force of
the Divine covenant against those who boasted of it in carnal
security. Nothing can be grander than the spectacle of this plain
herdsman of Tekoa coming forth, impelled by the irresistible
word of Jehovah (see Amos hi. 3-8), as a prophet to denounce
the evil of his times, with an indignation unmatched for its
moral sublimity and for the uncompromising directness of its
utterance. The nature of the man, moulded by the influences of his
ordinary surroundings, was exactly fitted for this stern mission
to his generation. Feeding his flocks and dressing his
sycomore trees (Amos vii. 14) on the rugged uplands of the
wilderness, he had dwelt alone, simple, courageous, austere, in

THE DOCTRINE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 121
the company of the moral law within, of the starry heavens
and the most awful phenomena of nature without. He had
watched the glory of the heavens, had trembled before the
storm, breaking out in darkness, fire, and flood. These had
but proclaimed to him the majesty of Him who had uttered
His law to Israel, and the terrors of the retribution which
would overtake their violation of it. " Seek Jehovah, and ye
shall live ; lest He break out like fire in the house of Joseph,
and it devour and there be none to quench it in Bethel : ye
who turn judgment to wormwood, and cast down righteousness
to the earth ; seek Him that maketh the Pleiades and Orion,
and turneth the shadow of death into the morning, and
maketh the day dark with night ; that calleth for the waters
of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth ;
Jehovah is His name ; that bringeth sudden destruction upon
the strong, so that destruction cometh upon the fortress "
(Amos v. 6-9).
Moreover, from the rocky heights, whence he had
surveyed not only Israel and Judah, but Philistia and Edom
and Moab, not only had all human life been dwarfed in
comparison of the greatness of God, but men of all races
were reduced well-nigh to a level, special privileges being
obliterated by the fact that a common nature brought all
under common obligations to supreme moral laws. If Israel
and Judah had privileges, it was only in order to enable them
the better to fulfil these obligations of righteousness resting
upon all.
As this grand and simple man came down to mix with
the life of the centres of worship, government, and commerce,
filled with this overwhelming sense of the Divine Kingship
over conscience, nature, and mankind, it was to receive a
terrible shock from the superstitions, immoralities, and crimes
prevailing among all the nations of which he heard, but most
of all from these evils, as he witnessed them at Bethel,
aggravated by hypocritical perversion of Jehovah's law. He
declares God's judgment against other nations in a series of
oracles, but he utters the severest and most hopeless de
nunciations against Israel, whose responsibilities were measured
by the greatness of his opportunities. He cries on behalf of

122 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
Jehovah, " I hate, I despise your feasts, and I will take no
dehght in your solemn assemblies. Yea, though ye offer Me
your burnt offerings and meat offerings, I will not accept
them ; neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat
beasts. Take thou away from Me the noise of thy songs ; for
I will not hear the melody of thy viols. But let judgment
roll down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream "
(Amos v. 21-25).
And his prophecy ends by the proclamation of' hopeless
doom.1 " I saw Jehovah standing beside the altar ; and He
said, Smite the chapiters, that the thresholds may shake ; and
break them in pieces on the head of all of them ; and I will
slay the last of them with the sword ; there shall not one of
them flee away, and there shall not one of them escape"
(Amos ix. 1). The election of Israel is completely set aside
on account of his unpardonable sin. "Are ye not as the
children of the Ethiopians unto Me, 0 children of Israel ?
saith the Lord. Have not I brought up Israel out of the
land of Egypt, and the Philistines from Caphtor, and the
Syrians from Kir ? [That is to say, all these nations are on a
level ; God's hand has ordered the settlement of the Philis
tines and the Syrians, equally with that of Israel.] Behold,
the eyes of the Lord God are upon the sinful kingdom, and I
will destroy it from off the face of the earth " (Amos ix. 7, 8).
The completeness of the retribution upon the nation which,
brought into special relations with Jehovah, has thus entirely
failed to fulfil righteousness, is the finishing touch put upon
the ideal representation of Jehovah's Kingship, as being absolute
over nature and man, in order to the realisation among men,
by the authority of His law, of the righteousness which is
supreme and perfect in Himself. Hosea
In striking contrast with this view is the representation
given by Hosea.
1 I am constrained to agree with those critics who see in the closing passage
of the book interpolations subsequently introduced to bring it into fuller agree
ment with prophetic teaching elsewhere.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 123
The prophet is himself as widely different in temperament
and training from Amos as it is possible to imagine." Tender
and sympathetic in disposition, idealising the objects of his
affection so that they appeared worthy of it, and yearning
over them with undying hope and compassion, however basely
they disappointed him, all these qualities had been exercised
to the full in his dealings with his unfaithful wife.
By means of the conception of the Covenant, Hosea had
been led to find in his own married relationship the analogy of
that between Jehovah and Israel, and to see in his own tender
love, with its ideahsm, its yearning hope, and untiring long-
suffering, a shadow of the same qualities in God, unfailingly
manifested to Israel.
Thus the prophet learned to treat the bitter experiences
of his own private hfe as providential, and from the highest
prophetic standpoint to look upon them as important, simply
as enabling him to receive this all-important truth about
God.1 Hence Hosea preaches a doctrine of Divine pity, in almost
complete contrast to the uncompromising sternness of Amos.
" How shall I give thee up, Ephraim ? how shall I deliver
thee, Israel ? how shall I make thee as Admah ? how shall I
set thee as Zeboim ? Mine heart is turned within Me, My
compassions are kindled together. I will not execute the
fierceness of Mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim :
for I am God, and not man ; the Holy One in the midst of
thee: and I will not enter into the city" (Hos. xi. 8-10).
This is Hosea's conclusion, where Amos had declared : " Are ye
not as the children of the Ethiopians unto Me, 0 children of
Israel ? saith the Lord " (Amos ix. 7).
Punishment has its place, and a most important one, in
God's dealings with Israel, according to Hosea, but it is as the
instrument of love, and remedial in its purpose. Thus, after
the Divine judgments have laid her vines and her fig trees
waste, we are told : " Therefore, behold, I will allure her, and
bring her into the wilderness, and speak comfortably unto
her. And I will give her her vineyards from thence, and the
1 See for this interpretation Dr. George Adam Smith, The Book of the Twelve
Prophets, vol. i. chap. xiv.

124 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
valley of Achor for a door of hope; and she shall make
answer there, as in the days of her youth, and as in the day
when she came up out of the land of Egypt" (Hos. ii.
12-15). This being the prophet's dominant point of view, it is not
surprising that Israel's backslidings should once and again
present themselves to his mind as the rebelliousness of youth
ful immaturity rather than as the offences of an unfaithful
wife, and that he should then regard Jehovah's attitude as
being that of a tender and wise father rather than that of
a forbearing husband. Hence he says, " When Israel was a
child, then I loved him, and called My son out of Egypt "
(Hos. xi. 1). And this Fatherhood takes almost an individual
form, for he says, " It shall come to pass, that in the place
where it was said unto them, Ye are not My people, it shall
be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God "
(Hos. i. 10).
But, whether the figure be taken from husbandship or
from fatherhood, the main effect of the teaching is the same.
It is to present an aspect of the truth which is exactly
complementary to that to which Amos gives expression. The
Covenant represents not only the ethical command of God,
but the unspeakable yearning of the Divine love, which
seeks Israel for its own exclusive fellowship. And the King
ship of Jehovah sets forth not merely the authority by which
He will enforce His demand, but the spiritual influence and
discipline by which He will in the end secure its fulfilment.
Thus, if Amos lays stress upon the apartness of God, witnessed
to in His Kingship, Hosea brings out the affinity, which is
equally implied. It is the business of the later prophets,
and, above all, of the New Testament, to harmonise these
contrasted elements of the truth, by showing them united
in a more comprehensive whole. Isaiah
It is to the Book of Isaiah that we must look for the com-
pletest, most balanced, and most magnificent representation
of the Kingship of Jehovah anywhere to be found.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 125
The two parts of the book set it before us under differing
conditions, and therefore with characteristic differences of
manifestation. In Isa. i.-xxxix. the Kingship is normal ; not
indeed in the sense of realising its great spiritual ends, for
the city is in rebellion, only veiled by a hypocritical cere
monialism, against the Divine law, but as existing over a
duly constituted city and state. In Isa. xl.-lxvi. the city
has been destroyed, and the state is fallen, and hence the
Divine Kingship is displayed in a work of national restora
tion. These two parts must therefore be dealt with
separately. Isaiah i.-xxxix. — Here we shall find all those elements
and aspects which have been set forth above.
1. The key to the whole is to be found in that great
vision of God, described in chap, vi., which formed the
turning-point in Isaiah's life, at once qualifying him and
commissioning him for his prophetic ministry, and containing
the substance of the truth to which he was witness. " I saw
Jehovah sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and His
train filled the temple" (Isa. vi. 1): this supplies the key to
all Isaiah's prophecies. The vision sets forth, in equal balance,
the transcendence and the immanence of God. If His throne
is " high and lifted up," His train fills the temple ; if He is
thrice holy, yet " the whole earth is full of His glory." And
the threefold ascription of holiness "to the Lord of hosts"
shows that His Kingship is the expression of His absolute
perfection. Moreover, the answering worship of the seraphim,
representatives of the whole creation, sets forth worship as
rapture, service as freedom, the realised Kingship of Jehovah
as the hfe of the creation. Once more, in order that man,
made conscious of his sin in sight of God and within hearing
of that worship which utters the true meaning and end of
creation, may experience the blessedness of Jehovah's kingdom
and enter into His service, a sacrificial ministry of redemp
tion provides atonement for and purification from his sin
(Isa. vi. 5-7). And the completeness of the reconciliation is
measured by the fulness of the service : " I heard the voice
of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for
us ? Then I said, Here am I ; send me " (Isa. vi. 8).

126 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
2. Throughout this whole vision the ethical meaning of
God's Kingship is set in the forefront, and it explains that
strenuous insistence upon personal and social righteousness
which fills the whole book, and notably chaps, i.— v. It is
the key to the solemn announcements of impending judgment,
which throughout the early chapters re-echo the teaching of
Amos. But Isaiah has practically solved the seeming contra
diction between Amos and Hosea, by his teaching of the
salvation of the remnant contained in the name of his son
Shear-jashub (Isa. vii. 3), and still more clearly set forth in
the great passage which treats the presence of Immanuel as
the pledge of the overthrow of the invader, even when he
has reached " even to the neck," and " the stretching out of
his wings" has filled the breadth of the land (Isa. viii. 7-10).
3. This doctrine may perhaps be taken as the means
which enables Isaiah at once to enforce, with all sternness,
the awfulness of Jehovah's law, and yet to lay equal stress
upon the abiding meaning and the blessed significance of
Jehovah's Kingship over the nation. This national note
reaches its most splendid expression in Isa. xxxiii. 13-24.
There the starting-point is the purging of Zion from its
" sinners " and " godless ones." But, when that has been
accomplished, the prophet sets forth in glowing language,
and with the noblest poetic inspiration, the righteousness, the
safety, and blessedness of " Zion, the city of our solemnities,"
which abides as " a quiet habitation," in which Jehovah makes
up for all natural deficiencies, being present " in majesty, a
place of broad rivers and streams " ; unaccompanied by the
usually attendant danger, " wherein shall go no galley with
oars, neither shall gallant ship pass thereby" (Isa. xxxiii.
20, 21). All this is realised by the city, because "Jehovah
is our Judge, Jehovah is our Lawgiver, Jehovah is our King ;
He will save us" (Isa. xxxhi. 22).
4. And to all this the militant aspect of Jehovah's
Kingship is added in the glorious episode of Sennacherib's
invasion : " Then Isaiah the Son of Amoz sent unto Hezekiah,
saying, Thus saith Jehovah the God of Israel, Whereas thou
hast prayed to Me against Sennacherib king of Assyria, this
is the word which Jehovah hath spoken concerning him : the

THE DOCTRINE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 127
virgin daughter of Zion hath despised thee, and laughed thee
to scorn ; the daughter of Jerusalem hath shaken her head
at thee. Whom hast thou reproached and blasphemed ? and
against whom hast thou exalted thy voice, and lifted up thine
eyes on high ? even against the Holy One of Israel " (Isa.
xxxvii. 21-23). The defiance against Assyria is hurled
equally in the name of Jehovah, and of the Holy City, which
He protects. 5. Again, Jehovah's Kingship over all nations has its com-
pletest expression in Isaiah. It is set forth in a threefold way.
(1) The series of burdens (Isa. xiii— xxiii.) review, after
the manner of Amos, but with a far wider range, the whole
life of the Gentile peoples, trying them by the standard of
the spiritual and moral truths, which, for Isaiah, were intended
to shape the temper and conduct of all men, and necessarily
determined their ultimate fate.
(2) The nations are represented as the instruments of
Jehovah's purposes.
We are told : " And it shall come to pass in that day, that \
Jehovah shall hiss for the fly that is in the uttermost part
of the rivers of Egypt, and for the bee that is in the land
of Assyria. And they shall come, and shall rest all of them
in the desolate valleys, and in the holes of the rocks, and
upon all thorns, and upon all pastures" (Isa. vii. 18, 19),
where of course the fly and the bee represent the countries
which they inhabit. So, later on, we read : " Ho ! Assyrian,
the rod of Mine anger, the staff in whose hand is Mine in
dignation ! " (Isa. x. 5, et sea.). It is, however, made manifest
that these heathen nations are Jehovah's instruments by an
inferior relationship to that of Israel. " In that day," the
prophet says, " shall the Lord shave with a razor that is hired,
which is in the parts beyond the river, even with the king of
Assyria" (Isa. vii. 20).
(3) This Lordship has its evangelical promise, as is seen
in Isa. ii. 1, et seq., and in xix. 18-25, the high-water mark
of Old Testament catholicity, to which sufficient reference has
been made above.1
6. The Kingship of Jehovah over nature is rather assumed
1 See p. 103.

128 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
in Isa. i. -xxxix. than set forth. It is so in a twofold way.
First, in the awfulness of His power, which, when He arises
in judgment, is manifested rather over than through nature ;
as, for example, in the passage which foretells that "men
shall go into the caves of the rocks, and into the holes of
the earth, from before the terror of Jehovah, and from the
glory of His majesty, when He ariseth to shake mightily
the earth" (Isa. ii. 19). And, secondly, in the transforming
power, which God exercises over savage beasts and barren
nature, as He accomplishes the fulness of His redemptive
purposes for His people (see Isa. xi. and xxxv.).
7. The frequent title, " The Lord of hosts," and the vision
of the seraphim in chap, vi., show how the Kingship of
Jehovah embraces the unseen, as well as the seen, world.
8. It is in these two chapters, xi. and xxxv., that the redemp
tive purpose of Jehovah's kingdom, which ultimately triumphs
after His justice has accomplished the work of destruction
necessarily precedent, is revealed. Thus Jehovah's Eedeemer-
ship is finally manifested as the highest glory and ultimate
end of His Kingship. And His Eedeemership, while primarily
on behalf of the elect remnant of His people, embraces the
whole world of creation in its range.
9. Finally, it is significant that as we have seen Jehovah's
Kingship to be in closest connexion with the Holy City,
Jerusalem, and to secure its inviolability, so also it stands
specially related to the appearance and triumph of the
Messianic King. Of course the conception of the Kingship
of God is distinct, and in large measure independent of the
special predictions of the Messiah. Conceivably, the first
might have existed without the second. On the other hand,
the full realisation of the manifold glories of Jehovah's King
ship, as His highest relationship to men and as the expression
of His spiritual perfection in His authority over the world,
gave a higher dignity and importance to the kingly office as
existing in Jerusalem. This was seen to be the earthly re
flexion and the intended instrument of Jehovah's sovereignty.
And thus the prophet was guided, in presence of the miserable
failure of Ahaz, alike in character, conduct, and policy, to
realise the glory of an office which should have made him

THE DOCTRINE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 129
vicegerent of the Most High, to receive and proclaim the
tidings of the coming of Immanuel, who should realise the
Divine in the human, and should display the glory of a
Kingship which, exercised by the grace of the sevenfold Spirit
of God resting on him, should be the instrument of final
salvation to Israel, and of redemption to the ends of the world
(Isa. vii.-ix. 7, xi). Thus Jehovah as King, the Holy City
and the Messiah, realising the Divine presence and Kingship
on earth, stand in natural and almost necessary relations to
one another in Isaiah's thought.
Isaiah xl.-lxvi. — In this second portion of the book all
is changed. Jerusalem has fallen, the nation is in exile, the
judgments foretold in the first portion have exhausted them
selves, producing substantially the effects for which they were
sent. Thus the opening proclamation is : " Comfort ye my
people, saith your God. Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem,
and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her
iniquity is pardoned, that she hath received of Jehovah's
hand double for all her sins " (Isa. xl. 1,2). Hence the gospel
now to be preached to the downfallen but penitent people, is
that of God's steadfastness : " The grass withereth, the flower
fadeth : but the word of our God shall stand for ever " (Isa.
xl. 8) ; and of the certainty of His triumphant manifestation,
in spite of all obstacles : " Every valley shall be exalted, and
every mountain and hill shall be made low : and the crooked
shall be made straight, and the rough places plain : and the
glory of Jehovah shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see
it together: for the mouth of Jehovah hath spoken it"
(Isa. xl. 4, 5).
Hence a new and more tenderly gracious aspect is worn
by Jehovah's Kingship in this section. Every feature which
marked the former section is present. The ethical, national,
and militant aspects of. His Lordship are emphasised ; so is
the Lordship of Jehovah over the nations, Cyrus being the
Lord's "anointed," raised up for the redemption of God's
people (Isa. xiv. 1-7), as the Assyrian had been formerly
used as the rod of Jehovah's anger against them. Signifi
cantly, the evangelical predictions of Gentile salvation, which
marked the former portion, are here subject to a limitation.
9

130 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
It is the salvation of Israel from the nations that is celebrated,
and therefore it is the paramountcy of Jerusalem among the
nations that is ultimately to be secured (see, for example,
Isa. Ix. 11, 12).
But, in presence of the nation's downfall, and in conse
quence of Jehovah's steadfastness and of His purpose to
reveal His glory, His Kingship is transfigured by a Bedeemer-
ship, revealed in utmost power and tenderest grace. Hence
the chief stress is laid upon three elements, which made
Jehovah's Eedeemership so constraining over Himself and so
effective in the world.
(1) First, there is the almightiness of God, as it is once
and again set forth, but with greatest power in the magnificent
passage (Isa. xl. 12-26), as contrasted with the nothingness
of idols. This attribute ensures that, whatsoever He takes in
hand, He will unfailingly accomplish.
(2) But, in the second place, there is the condescension of
God's grace, which chose Israel, which will for ever be faithful
to that choice, and manifests itself in the magnanimity of
a full forgiveness for the sins of the past. The passages
setting forth this grace are too numerous and familiar for
quotation. (3) And, lastly, there is the righteousness of God. This
guarantees at once His steadfast maintenance of His original
covenant and His redemptive activity, in order to secure, at
all costs, that, by His restoring and protecting power, the
position of Israel in the world shall correspond both with
the Divine election and with the dignity and worth of the
national calling. Again, the references to this righteousness
are too numerous to quote.
By these three — the power, the grace, and the righteous
ness of God — the certainty of the national restoration and
transfiguration is assured, and it is by these three that the
Divine King is revealed as, above all, the Eedeemer, of whom
throughout their history it can be said, that "in all their
affliction He was afflicted " (see Isa. lxiii.).
But with the transformation, under adversity, of Jehovah's
Kingship, till He appears as the faithful and compassionate
succourer of His people, there comes also a change in the

THE DOCTRINE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 131
Messianic ideal. In the first portion, the Messianic King
corresponded on earth to the Divine King in heaven ; in the
second portion, the Servant of Jehovah corresponds to the
Eedeemer, whose highest glory is that He compassionates and
redeems His people.
The ideal of the nation's calhng is not different perhaps,
but it is seen on tbe Godward side. It is " the servant of
Jehovah," and only His representative in proportion to its
faith and obedience. The ideal spirit is that of " waiting
upon Jehovah " (Isa. xl. 31) ; the only spirit, which can receive
and experience His redemptive grace and might. And whereas,
in the first part, Jerusalem, regnant and representative of
Jehovah, was glorified in the Messianic King ; so, in the second
part, Israel, the servant waiting upon Jehovah in humility
and faith, has its ideally perfect embodiment in the prophetic
Servant, described in Isa. xiii., whose obedience is so absolute
that, as the 53rd chapter sets forth, He submits to bear the
sin of the people, which is laid upon Him, and the vicarious
chastisement with which it is visited. Hence, because He so
perfectly waits upon God in loyal trust and self-surrender, He
becomes the most signal object of God's redemptive grace,
and its vehicle to the whole nation, for whose sin He has
atoned. " He shall see of the travail of His soul, and shall
be satisfied : by His knowledge shall My righteous Servant
justify many ; and He shall bear their iniquities. Therefore
will I divide Him a portion with the great, and He shall
divide the spoil with the strong ; because He poured out His
soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors ;
yet He bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the
transgressors" (Isa. liii. 11, 12). May we not sum up by
saying that, in the second portion of Isaiah, God's Kingship,
transfigured as Eedeemership, has become perfectly fatherly,
at least towards Israel ; and that in the atoning Servant we
have a perfect filial response ?
Jeremiah
The remaining prophets, with the exception of Jeremiah,
have little to add to the portrayal of the Kingship of

132 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
Jehovah by tbe four great prophets whose teaching we have
examined. But Jeremiah adds more than one original feature. In
many respects he reproduces the teaching of his predecessors,
notably in His setting forth of the Covenant relations between
Jehovah and his people, after the manner of Hosea, under
the form of the marriage relationship (e.g. Jer. iii).
Yet, while thus adopting the teaching especially of Hosea
and Isaiah, in changed circumstances, he breaks away altogether
from the distinctive teaching of Isa. i.-xxxix., that the Kingship
of Jehovah and the inviolability of Jerusalem are correlates,
and declares that the Kingship of Jehovah will be manifested
in the destruction of Jerusalem (e.g. Jer. xix., xxi. 1-10).
No wonder that he appeared unpatriotic to a generation
which lulled itself to sleep in careless security, in the memory
of the great deliverance from Sennacherib and of Isaiah's
attitude in regard to it.
But if, in this respect, Jeremiah seems to echo the severity
of Amos, while at other times he recalls the tenderness of
Hosea, he completes Isaiah's teaching as to the salvation of
the remnant by his prediction of the new redemption, which
will succeed the downfall and will blot out the memory of
the earlier deliverance from Egypt, and of the new covenant,
which will supersede that instituted in the wilderness.
Jeremiah taught, with Hosea and Isaiah, that it was im
possible for God utterly to cast off His people ; yet the
sterner necessities of Divine justice must be satisfied by the
downfall of the nation, to be followed by its restoration, under
a covenant which, unlike the former one, should ensure the
fulfilment of the great spiritual end of its election. Hence
he says, " Therefore, behold, the days come, saith Jehovah,
that it shall no more be said, as Jehovah liveth, that brought
up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt ; but, as
Jehovah liveth, that brought up the children of Israel from
the land of the north, and from the countries whither He
had driven them: and I will bring them again into their
land that I gave unto their fathers"1 (Jer. xvi. 14, 15).
1 Among the indications that the writer of Isa. xl.-lxvi. had Jeremiah
before him, it may be pointed out that Jeremiah foretells that before this

THE DOCTRINE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 133
The graciousness of this crowning redemption is set
forth in moving language in the 31st chapter, and it is
followed by the announcement of the new covenant, which
again establishes the relations of Jehovah with His people
on a normal and durable basis. But this new covenant
carries, in its spiritual conditions, the guarantee of its per
manence and of its realisation of the holy purpose of
Jehovah. " This is the covenant that I will make with the
house of Israel after those days, saith Jehovah ; I will put
My law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write
it ; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people ;
and they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and
every man his brother, saying, Know Jehovah : for they all
shall know Me from the least unto the greatest of them,
saith Jehovah : for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin
will I remember no more" (Jer. xxxi. 31-34).
Over this reconstituted state, and in keeping with it,
reigns the Messianic King, " the righteous Branch," raised by
Jehovah unto David (Jer. xxiii. 5). The main stress, there
fore, is laid by Jeremiah on the new experience of Jehovah's
graciousness, bringing the knowledge of forgiveness and the
transformation of the heart, as fitting Israel for the covenant
and Kingship of Jehovah.
And this is in keeping with the distinctive presentation
of Jehovah's Kingship given by Jeremiah. If in Isaiah the \
Kingship is the expression of Jehovah's absolute perfection,
in Jeremiah it is the explanation of the spiritual satisfaction
only to be found in Jehovah. It is this aspect which
accords with the tenderness of the prophet, with his spiritual
susceptibility and yearning aspiration. It is because of the
satisfaction of this hunger and thirst of his heart for God,
that Jeremiah turns with a wrath, which has both wonder
and pity in it, towards those who can depart from the only
source of satisfaction to serve false gods. As showing this
relationship of Jehovah's Kingship to the subjective needs of
the heart, the following two passages may be cited. "A
restoration, "First I will recompense their iniquity and their sin double " (Jer.
xvi. 18); while the second part of Isaiah opens with the declaration, "She
hath received of Jehovah's hand double for all her sin " (Isa. xl. 2).

134 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
glorious throne, set on high from the beginning, is the place of
our sanctuary. 0 Jehovah, the hope of Israel, all that forsake
Thee shall be ashamed, because they have forsaken Jehovah, the
fountain of living waters. Heal me, 0 Jehovah, and I shall be
healed ; save me, and I shall be saved : for Thou art my praise.
... Be not a terror unto me : Thou art my refuge in the day
of evil" (Jer. xvii. 1 2-17). In tbe second passage the objective
ground of this subjective satisfaction is set forth. " He hath
made the earth by His power, He hath established the world by
His wisdom, and by His understanding hath He stretched out
the heavens. When He uttereth His voice, there is a tumult
of waters in the heavens : and He causeth the vapours to ascend
from the ends of the earth : He maketh lightnings for the rain,
and bringeth forth the wind out of His treasuries. Every man
is become brutish and is without knowledge ; every goldsmith
is put to shame by his graven image : for his molten image is
falsehood, and there is no breath in them. They are vanity,
a work of delusion : in the time of their visitation they shall
perish. The portion of Jacob is not like these ; for He is the
former of all things ; and Israel is the tribe of His inheritance :
Jehovah of hosts is His name" (Jer. Ii. 15—19).
With this expression of the subjective blessedness springing
from Jehovah's Kingship, and from that alone, the unfolding
of its meaning is complete. The remaining Prophets
A word will therefore suffice for the remaining prophets.
Micah is most fitly placed side by side with Isa. i.-xxxix.,
though the range of his prophecies is much narrower. But
the picture of Jehovah's kingdom given in the 4th and 5 th
chapters of Micah, opening with the same prophecy as is found
in Isa. ii. 1-4, and continuing with a prediction of Jehovah's
redemptive reign in " Mount Zion " (Mic. v. 2, et seq), is
substantially the same as Isaiah's. Moreover, the representa
tion of Jehovah's controversy with His people, and of His
ethical requirements, as expressed by Balaam, given in Mic.
vi. 1-8, corresponds with the opening chapter of Isaiah. The
final representation of Jehovah as the hope of His people, the

THE DOCTRINE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 135
certainty of whose ultimate mercy brings patience under His
indignation (Mic. vii. 7-20), again recalls the teaching of
Isaiah. Nahum, Zephaniah, and Joel set forth the sterner and
judicial aspects of the Kingship of Jehovah.
Nahum sets forth the consequences to the world of
Jehovah's character and omnipotence, as these latter are
described in the great declaration : " Jehovah is a jealous God,
and avengeth ; Jehovah avengeth, and is full of wrath ;
Jehovah taketh vengeance on His adversaries, and He
reserveth wrath for His enemies. Jehovah is slow to anger,
and great in power, and will by no means clear the guilty:
Jehovah hath His way in the whirlwind and in the storm,
and the clouds are the dust of His feet " (Nah. i. 2, 3, et seq.).
Zephaniah and Joel endeavour to awaken the people to
reahse how great and terrible " the day of Jehovah," for
which they longed in carnal security, will be, though both
predict that mercy and salvation will follow it.
The Book of Jonah witnesses to the universal Kingship of
Jehovah by assuming it, and declares also the wealth and uni
versality of His evangelic grace, which has regard to repentance,
whether that of a disobedient prophet or of a heathen city.
With Ezekiel we reach the approximation of the prophetic
and priestly points of view, as is clearly seen in the closing
chapters (Ezek. xl— xlviii.). In addition to this, the only
noteworthy features for our particular purpose are the
description of Jehovah's kingdom by means of the mystic
visions of the earlier chapters, and the detailed stress upon
conjugal relations as representing those between Jehovah and
His people, after the example of Hosea and Jeremiah, but
with greater fulness of detail and less reserve.
The post-exilic prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi,
are, when we consider their times and circumstances, naturally
chiefly occupied with the relations of Jehovah's Kingship to
the institutions of national worship.
Proverbs
One concluding word may be said as to the Book of
Proverbs, which, in its teaching as to the Divine kingdom,

136 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
may be said to be the prophetic view translated into terms of
reflective wisdom. God's kingdom is at once so transcendent,
immanent, and universal, that He constitutes the nature and
conditions of all being, from the lowest to the highest. His
law is the creature's life, and the identity of these two is
explained by the part which Divine wisdom has played in the
foundation and government of the world. Hence " the fear of
Jehovah is the beginning of knowledge " (Prov. i. 7) ; and '' all
they that hate " the wisdom which has been the counsellor of
God in the constitution of their life, " love death " (Prov. viii.
36). At the same time, as the last quotation shows, God's
kingdom is directed by rational and moral principles, and
allows a quasi-independence to creatures endowed with reason.
And hence the wisdom which was with God in creation
dwells in the midst of men, to guide them and exhort them
(Prov. i. 20-33) on behalf equally of the Divine purpose
and of their own well-being. THE PSALMS
We pass now to consider the saintly realisation of the
kingdom of God as it is exhibited to us in the Psalms.
It is this feature of subjective realisation in the national or
individual experience of what is objectively seen and pro
claimed as a world-explanation by the prophets that is
distinctive of the Psalms. The collection, as a whole,
contains examples of such realisation of all the separate
aspects of God's Kingship named above, and of all possible
combinations of them. Some Psalms are prevailingly ethical
in their note, while others set forth the relationship of
Jehovah to Israel, and celebrate the glories of the nation or
of its Holy City, as governed by Him. In many of these the
clarion of holy war resounds. In some the sovereignty of
God over nature is described, though generally with a view to
the accomplishment of the purposes of His holiness, and to
the protection of His chosen. Some, again, are chiefly
occupied with the redemptive work of God, dealing with the
character from which it proceeds, the purposes it has in view,
its achievements in the past, its unfailing activity in the

THE DOCTRINE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 137
present, its certain triumph in the future. Others are more
general, and with varying degrees of fulness dwell upon all
these. In short, leaving out a few didactic Psalms, this may
perhaps be taken as a complete classification of all those
Psalms which belong rather to the community than to the
individual. »
But there are a large number of what may be termed \
Psalms of individual experience ; and it is with these that we
are here chiefly concerned. The peculiarity of these Psalms
is that, according to them, what God is seen to be in relation
to the nation which is in covenant with Himself, that He is
experienced to be in relation to the beheving member of that
nation. The aspects of God's kingdom, which are set forth
from the objective and universal standpoint by the prophets
and are celebrated by the community, become the ground of
trust and the interpretation of life to the individual saint.
God is their Eedeemer, their Eock, their Light, their Salva
tion, the source of their spiritual satisfaction, their King and
Lord. These Psalms, then, tell of the dealings of God, so •
conceived and experienced, in relation to the individual life, \
with its joys and sorrows, its trials and temptations, its crises '
and emergencies, its sins and its salvation. Often they tell
the story of God's apparent withdrawal of His presence and
help ; and then they describe the eager, and it may be
agonised, quest after Him, followed by the joyful discovery
and renewed consciousness of His presence and salvation.
The language of peace and exaltation succeeds that of
bewildered and troubled search.
Generally, as has been said, all this is realised by the
individual as a member, and because he is a member, of the
holy community. He may even feel that, if the integrity of
his membership were damaged, the manifestation of God's
grace to him would be restrained. This is certainly the case
in those Psalms which are occupied with lament at separation
from the holy place at which, or from the sacred assemblies
in which, the revelation of God is fully made. The
Psalmist, however, being a member of the elect community,
in harmony with its ideal and in full communion with it,
is conscious that God is to him, in the issues of his own

138 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
individual life, what He is to the community as its Lord and
Eedeemer. But this very fact of individual consciousness, of the
verification by personal experience of the national faith,
necessarily tended to throw the national into the background,
and to bring into the foreground, as time went on, the
dealings of God with the individual spirit and life. This was
especially the case where such personal experience was given
to unofficial individuals ; for the position of officials, whether
priests or kings, made their experience represent at once more
and less than that of private men, it being easier to extend
the privileges of the nation to its representatives than to
unrepresentative individuals. At length, the basis of faith, so
far as it is conditioned by membership of the community,
becomes little more than subconscious, though it never
altogether disappears, and there is given a completed repre^
sentation of the grace, redeemership, and fellowship of God, as
individually experienced, which forms a point of immediate
contact between the Old Testament and the New.
As the result, it may be said that the^e Psalms set forth
almost perfectly the fatherliness of God. And yet the
doctrine of His Fatherhood is completely absent. The
nearest approach to it is found in the declaration, " Like as a
/rather pitieth his children, so Jehovah pitieth them that
fear Him" (Ps. ciii. 13), where, however, only the fatherliness
of Jehovah, and that in its attitude to weakness and helpless
ness, is spoken of, and not His Fatherhood. Whenever the
formal relationship between God and the Psalmist is spoken
/of, it is always that of Kingship, so far as its authority is
concerned, and that of Eedeemership, if the spirit and ends of
His Kingship are expressed. How is it, we ask, that so
fatherly a manifestation of Jehovah's grace, as many of the
Psalmists had experienced, never suggests His Fatherhood ?
Two reasons will give the explanation.
1. In the first place, experimental piety is seldom, as
such, originally creative on the formal side, but subjectively
realises the presence of God in the formal relations, revealed
by means of the prophets, the authoritative teachers, and the
general consciousness of the religious community. Spiritual

THE DOCTRINE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 139
experience is active within the borders of the great conceptions
of God's relationships to the world and man, current in the
particular time and place, and does not break forth beyond
them. This is true, for example, of Christian hymnology,
which corresponds in various ages and churches to the great
prophetic or dogmatic conceptions which characterise them.
In the same way, the prophetic and dogmatic conceptions of
the times underlie the Psalms ; it is the calling of the
Psalmist to verify them, not to go beyond them. Hence the
general reasons, which have been stated, for the predominance
in the Old Testament of the doctrine of God's Kingship, hold
good for the Psalmists, equally with the Prophets, and even
for those Psalmists who bring out most fully the individual
aspects of religion.
2. But there is another reason. In proportion to his
personal consciousness of God, the sense of sin, of unworthi-
ness, and of insignificance visits the Psalmist, and growingly
as the work of spiritual education advances with the ages.
How should such a man, conscious of his guilt, overwhelmed
by the thought and experience of God's mercy and condescen
sion, rise to the conception of God's Fatherhood, when even in
the New Testament this is only revealed in the sinless
consciousness of the Son, and experienced by others as
mediated in and through Him ? Moreover, with the con
sciousness of sin, the sense of God's authority is heightened,
and it is part of God's gracious dealing with sinners that
this should be so.1
And, further, the positive consciousness of salvation given
to such a man must needs be that of redemption from evil by
the forth-putting of condescending grace and might. God,
when He enters into fellowship with a sinner, must of
necessity be known as the Eedeemer. The only means by
which the Fatherhood of God can become the ruling concep
tion even of Christians, is the transference of the redemptive
office, not ultimately or exclusively, but proximately and
generally, to the Son. And the redemptive office suggests
Kingship before it suggests Fatherhood, although it is by no
means incompatible with Fatherhood.
1 See Dr. D. W. Simon, Reconciliation by Incarnation, p. 142.

140 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
Yet, on the other hand, these Psalms of individual
experience prepare the way for the New Testament doctrine
of the Fatherhood of God, in a twofold way. Firstly, in
setting forth the redemptive grace of God, marked as it is by
fatherliness, in relation to the manifold conditions and varying
temperaments of individuals, they accumulate a wealth of
spiritual and moral content under the form of God's Kingship,
and give to that Kingship a many-sidedness and intimacy
which cause it growingly to approximate to the higher and
closer relationship. Thus they prepare saintly spirits to
receive the new creative revelation, when it is so given that
the spiritual difficulties in the way of its reception are
removed, as they are in the fulness of Christian truth.
And, secondly, with the growing predominance and fulness
of individual experience, the relationship of Kingship becomes
less and less adequate to the experience of direct fellowship
with God. The sense of affinity must necessarily, eventually,
outgrow that of apartness. While the prevailing conscious
ness was that of membership of a congregation, Kingship was
a sufficient and the most suitable relationship for God. But
as individual relationship to God comes to be apprehended as
direct and immediate, and eventually as the ground of
relationship to the sacred community, the conception of
Kingship begins to become subordinate. And though the
last stage was never completely reached in the Psalms, yet
we are brought to the very eve of it, and may conclude by
saying that the ripest spiritual consciousness of the Psalmists
can only be crowned by the revelation of the Fatherhood of
God, and by the recognition of it as the source of all His
dealings with believing hearts.
To sum up. On each line of our inquiry we have found
both the incompleteness of the Old Testament and also its
preparatory training for the New. Its method of advance, so
far as realised faith is concerned, from the particular to the
universal, furnishes a striking analogy in many respects to
that of the New. Its dominant conception — that of the
Covenant — clearly omits from view, for a paedagogic purpose,
those ultimate realities which the New Testament reveals.
And, lastly, its doctrine of the Divine Kingship, whether

THE DOCTRINE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 141
declared in growing fulness of meaning by the Prophets, or
subjectively experienced by the Psalmists, culminates in an
apprehension of the fatherliness of God, at once general and
individual in its manifestations, which waits to be consum
mated by the revelation of His Fatherhood, when in the
fulness of the times the work of redemption finds room for all
the Old Testament aspects in a complete whole.
It was in the Divine order of truth and grace that the
Kingship of God was revealed before His Fatherhood. The
truth of first consequence to immature and sinful men was
that of the righteousness of God — of the perfection of His
righteous character, both in itself and as giving the law to
men and guiding the world to righteous ends. With this
revelation the higher spiritual history of mankind begins.
And the truth of God's relations to mankind, which corre
sponds to this ethical revelation, is His sovereignty. Just
as the more narrowly ethical aspect of life is not the whole,
though of the greatest importance, so the kingly relationship
of God is not the whole, though for ever profoundly true.
Without the previous revelation of righteousness and King
ship, the conception of the Fatherhood of God must sink
to naturalism and sentimentality. But the Old Testament
revelation passes over into the New. The sovereignty of
God is transfigured by but is present in His Fatherhood, and
His righteousness sets forth the nature of His love, and is
the grandest manifestation of it. To give due effect alike to
the Fatherhood of God — to His . love for and affinity with
men — as transcending and embracing all other relations, and
to His righteous sovereignty as included in that Fatherhood,
is the noblest and yet the most difficult task set to theology,
as it interprets the world and man in the hght of God.

CHAPTER V
THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY
The Fatherhood of God, as we have seen, was the characteristic
revelation of the New Testament, and determined the whole
teaching of our Lord and of His chief apostles as to the
relationship and dealings of God with men in Christ. This
revelation was, moreover, the completion of the religion of
the Old Testament, from which, for the reasons given in the
previous chapter, it is nevertheless absent.
But when we trace the course of theological thought in
the Christian Church, all is different. Its history is that of
the gradual vanishing away, first from the thought, then from
the heart, of the Church of the apprehension of God's Father
hood, and the substitution of other conceptions for it, until
recent changes in religious thought have brought the promise
of its restoration ere long, in Eeformed theology and religion,
to the supreme position rightfully belonging to it.
The study of the gradual changes on this subject which
came to pass in the thought of the Church is most interest
ing and important. Many influences were at work, as we
shall presently discover. At the outset, the doctrine of the
universal Fatherhood of God is clearly taught by the greatest
and most representative Fathers of the Church, though, for
reasons which will by and by appear, it was not wrought out
in any clear and consistent account of His dealings with man
kind. But, as time went on, two great influences operated to
supersede the doctrine of God's Fatherhood by that of His
sovereignty. The first was due to the, perhaps inevitably,
defective treatment of the great Christological problems
which were dealt with in the fourth century. In establishing,
as was most necessary, the truly Divine relationship of the

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 143
Son of God towards the Father, and by consequence towards
the world, the universal significance for mankind of that unique
relationship was to some extent obscured, in the teaching even
of Athanasius himself.
And, in the second place, the theological inheritance
handed over by the East to the West was at once trans
formed by the genius of Augustine ; owing in the main, to the
peculiarity of his religious experience, to his philosophical
doctrine of the Divine will, to the legal presuppositions which
he had received from the Latin African Fathers, and to the
political analogies which were suggested to him by Catholic
organisation, Eoman imperialism, and Old Testament history
as ideahsed in the New Testament. Henceforth the doctrine
of Divine sovereignty was complete in its principal features.
It altered from time to time in its details and in tbe analogies
by which it was set forth. By some it was set forth in all
the rigour of absolutism ; by others it was treated as con
ditional. But, in the long-run, the effect upon religion was
the same. God, who is the hope of men in the Old Testa
ment and their Father in the New, was removed by the
thought of men, in the darker times and moods of the Middle
Ages, to an infinite distance, while the saints and the officers
of the Church filled the foreground of His court, and dis
charged, by delegation, His functions for Him. Or, where
God was not thus trifled with, He became for the majority
the object of abject dread, which was fostered by ecclesiastical
teachers, both for the promotion of religion as then under
stood, and for the aggrandisement of the Church.
A remedy for this dread was brought to men in the
newly found gospel of the Eeformation, and in the personal
assurance of salvation given to those who experienced the
reality of justification by faith. The fatherliness, rather than
the Fatherhood, of God was fully set forth by Luther, and
was the very root of all his practical religion. Calvin also
made frequent mention of the paternal love of God, and
emphasised the adoption of believers. But even here
Augustine prevailed, to the damage of theology, if not of
religion, and prevailed by reason of the depth and permanent
import of his religion. Their spiritual needs drove Luther

144 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
and Calvin across the dreary regions of the later scholasticism,
not only to the New Testament, but to Augustine. They —
especially Calvin — rejected his Cathohcism ; they adopted his
general doctrine of the Divine will in its relation to the
human, of the helpless condition of mankind, and of the dis
tinction between nature and grace. Hence Calvin reasserted
the Augustinian doctrine of the Divine sovereignty, and in an
austerer and more repellent form, both because the Catholicism
which masked it to some extent in Augustine had been re
moved, and because Calvin's teaching of the personal assur
ance of final election given to believers was absent from
Augustine ; because, also, Calvin's doctrine of the reprobation
of the rest of mankind had additional features of harshness
and arbitrariness.
The Socinian teaching bore only indirectly upon the
Fatherhood of God. Its dogmatic definitions set forth His
relationship to mankind in terms of sovereignty as exclusively
as did the theology of the evangelical teachers. But its
polemic against the Calvinist doctrine of election and repro
bation, and also against the overstrained doctrine of
satisfaction, which held Christ to have suffered upon the
cross the exact equivalent of the eternal torments remitted
to the elect, brought into strong relief the benevolence of
God, and to some extent utilised for this purpose the teaching
of our Lord as to the fatherly love of God. With the
growth of naturalist explanations of the person and nature of
Christ, it eventually became a matter of course to treat our
Lord's filial relationship to God as typical of that in which
men generally stood to Him, and hence to make the universal
Fatherhood of God the source of His benevolence. This last,
however, represents a later development of thought than is to
be found in Socinus and his immediate followers.
Thus matters stood till the rise of Arminianism, and
subsequently the Methodist movement in England revived
the influence upon men's minds and hearts of God's universal
mercy, and, so far as Methodism was concerned, made the
presence of the " Spirit of adoption, crying in our hearts,
Abba, Father," the distinctive note of the justified as never
before.

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 145
But the practical aim of the great Methodists, and their
absorbing concern in salvation as a process and experience,
kept them from recasting the highest theological conceptions
by the help of their spiritual experience and their universal
sympathy. The time had not come for such a task, nor were
they the men to accomplish it. They took the higher
theological conceptions current in their time as they found
them, though filling them with a new evangelical meaning
and warmth.
It fell to later teachers of the nineteenth century, in
their conflict with Calvinism — to Erskine of Linlathen,
M'Leod Campbell, Maurice, Kingsley, and others — to reassert
in its fulness the truth and supremacy of the Divine Father
hood, and to bring it into the foreground as shaping the main
tendencies of our present theology.
Even by them the work was not thoroughly carried out.
Their treatment of the Fatherhood was not sufficiently pro
found or comprehensive to save and support all that was
true in preceding theology. The marks and limitations of
a counter-statement are on the teaching of all of them. But
they have at least brought the Fatherhood of God, for British
theology and religion, into the position to which the New
Testament and the nature of things entitle it. It remains
only to unfold its meaning and its relation to Christ and
to mankind more completely, as giving the key to all the
truth, in order to bring about a transformation as momentous
as that wrought by Augustine, but with results altogether
beneficial. This general sketch is sufficient to prove, in times when
many are inclined to doubt it, the immense influence not only
of spiritual hfe upon formal theology, but equally of formal
theology upon spiritual hfe. The loss during the Middle Ages
of the sense that God is the source and object of a fellow
ship of love to which all men are called in Christ, is due to
the substitution of the doctrine of His sovereignty for that of
His Fatherhood, more than to any other single cause. It
may be answered that the spiritual condition which renounced
the Divine Fatherhood was incapable of profiting by it, and
would surely have corrupted it. And of multitudes this may
10

146 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
be true. But who can estimate the effect upon European
rehgion had the greatest saints and thinkers learned from the
authoritative teachers of the Church, and in their turn set
forth in all its fulness, the truth that God is our Father ?
What has been said already, marks out the range of our
present inquiry. We must endeavour to trace in detail the
way in which the changes we have surveyed were brought
about, and to delineate the successive views of the relationship
in which God stands to men. We must also indicate, where
possible, the effect upon religious life and on general theological
teaching which these changes brought about. The latter part
of our inquiry, however, must of necessity be brief, for to deal
with it fully would be to write a complete history of Christian
theology from the standpoint of the ruling ideas of God's re
lationship to men. In some periods even a brief indication
is difficult, owing either to the unsystematic or internally
inconsistent nature of the theology, or to the imperfect
development of its parts. But the broad outlines will become
clear. Our investigation will naturally fall into the following
sections, corresponding either to distinct periods or to different
stages or tendencies : —
I. The teaching of the primitive Church to the end of the
Gnostic controversies.
II. The modifications introduced by the Christology of
the great teachers of Alexandria, and particularly by
Athanasius. III. The transformation in the West brought about by
Augustine, and the preparation for it in Latin Christianity.
IV. The developments during the mediaeval period, and par
ticularly in Scholasticism, with the causes giving rise to them.
V. The theology of the Beformers.
VI. The influence of the reaction against Calvinism and
of Methodism. VII. The theological changes of the nineteenth century.
These may be conveniently grouped in three sections : the
first dealing with the transformation of the doctrine of the
Fatherhood of God, and the substitution of the doctrine of the
Divine sovereignty for it ; the second with the mediaeval

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 147
doctrine of Divine sovereignty ; and the third with the recovery
of the doctrine of the Fatherhood of God.
We may enter upon our inquiry, as thus marked out,
without further preface.
FIEST SECTION. — The Transformation of the Doctrine
of the Fatherhood of God, and the Substitution
of the Doctrine of the Divine Sovereignty for it
I. THE TEACHING OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH TO THE
END OF THE GNOSTIC CONTROVERSIES
It will be better to omit Clement of Alexandria from this
head, and Origen, dealing with them in connexion with the
Church of Alexandria ; and also Tertulhan, considering his
influence in connexion with the teaching of Augustine.
The conditions prevaihng throughout the greater part of
the first age of Christianity forbid us to expect a formally
complete and systematic theology. Life always goes before
the interpretation of hfe ; action before reflexion. The first
concern of catholic Christianity, after the departure of the
apostles, was to secure at once — for the two were inseparably
bound up together — practical fidelity in the Christian life, and
the organisation of the Church, as the sphere in which, the
guide and the support by which, that life could be lived out
in a hostile world. This task absorbed the energies of the
leaders of the Church. There was neither leisure, occasion, nor
material as yet for great Church thinkers to arise. Their
premature presence would have caused the Church to be con
ceived as a philosophical school, instead of as the home in
which Christian life is fostered and equipped for service in the
world. Only when the materials acquired by the corporate
experience of Christians had become rich and manifold, and
when conflict with the world had entered upon the intellectual
stage, had the season for great theologians arrived. The
Church was then driven, in the first place, to meditate upon
the contents of the faith, in order to its successful vindication
against unbelievers and its safeguarding against heresies. In
this way it was eventually led to form positive systems of

148 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
theological thought, for the satisfaction of the reflective reason
of its own members.
Previously all was fragmentary. Letters or treatises
were called forth by passing practical needs, to answer hasty
and superficial objections, or to dispel stubborn but shallow
prejudices, whether of the people or of rulers.
Moreover, it is important to remember that the early
Churches and their teachers were guided by a more or less
complete apostolical tradition, but not by complete, still less
by widely diffused, collections of the New Testament writings.
Some early teachers, such as Ignatius, show their familiarity
with large portions of the New Testament, but to a consider
able extent the biblical studies of the earliest writers were
devoted to demonstrating how perfectly the Christian facts
fulfilled the predictions of the Old Testament ; an undertaking
which of necessity laid stress upon the presentation of God
given in the Old Testament, rather than on that contained in
the New. •
Again, the more thorough attempts of the Apologists
aimed at showing, at one and the same time, how rational was
the Christian faith, and how irrational the prevailing
heathenism. In order to succeed, they were obliged to find
some common ground of reason between themselves and those
before whom their plea was urged. And this was generally
secured by first ranging on their side the great philosophers,
especially Plato, in the polemic against the popular rehgion ;
by further showing how extensive an agreement existed be
tween the philosophers of the past and the Christians as to
the nature of God ; and, finally, by establishing that, wherein
they differed, the Christians had a larger measure of truth
and reason than the philosophers.1 But such a task involved
not only differentiation, but also approximation, and both in
the one and in the other there was some peril to the complete
unfolding of the entire Christian truth.
1 See, for example, Justin Martyr's discussion of the resemblance between
the teaching of Plato's Timceus and that of Moses as to the existence of God.
" For Moses said ' He who is,' and Plato ' That which is,' " etc. This resem
blance he explains by the fact that Plato visited Egypt, and there, in Justin's
opinion, heard of the Mosaic teaching. — Justin, Hortatory Address to the
Greeks, cap. xxii.

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 149
And, lastly, life was largely conceived by the Christians
i'rom the standpoint of the kingdom of Christ, with the sense
of His Kingship in the heavens, the regard for His laws upon
earth, the eschatological hopes of His speedy triumph over
the world which that kingdom meant for them. And this
again caused, to some extent, a deflexion from a theology
giving full expression to the teaching of the New Testament.
Yet, when all this has been allowed for, the fact becomes
the more striking that with the representative Church teachers
of the first two centuries the Fatherhood of God had a promi
nence which has never been given to it since, until the
nineteenth century.
And there are two connected features about this promi
nence. In the first place, the Fatherhood is supreme ; is
the relationship by which creation, the moral attributes of
God, and His deahngs with mankind are explained.1 And, in
the second place, the Fatherhood is consistently treated as
universal. A series of quotations will suffice to establish both these
assertions. It is necessary to give them with considerable
fulness in order to show clearly how influential was this
conception during the first ages, in contrast with those which
came after.
In his Epistle, Clement of Eome says, " The all-merciful
and beneficent Father has bowels [of compassion] towards
those that fear Him, and kindly and lovingly bestows His
favours upon those who come to Him with a simple
mind." 2
And again he exclaims, " How blessed and wonderful,
beloved, are the gifts of God ! The Creator and Father of
all worlds, the Most Holy, alone knows their amount and
their beauty. Let us therefore earnestly strive to be found
in the number of those that wait for Him, in order that we
may share in His promised gifts." 3
1 In the case of the more philosophical Apologists, the influence of Plato is
to be recognised as well as that of the New Testament, especially where God is
called Father and Fashioner of the universe. See Plato, Timceus, i. 28 C.
2 Ep. Clement R. cap. xxiii. See also cap. xxix.
3 Ibid. cap. xxxv.

150 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
The writer of the Epistle of Barnabas, quoting the
prophetic denunciations of the empty ritualism of Jerusalem,
says, with less evidently universal extension, "We ought
therefore, being possessed of understanding, to perceive the
gracious intention of our Father; for He speaks to us,
desirous that we, not going astray like them, should ask how
we may approach Him.1
Here, obviously, the spiritual sacrifices of the gospel are
held to be in keeping with the Fatherhood of God.
Ignatius speaks continually of " the Father " throughout
his Epistles, and brings God, under that name, into closest
relations with the spiritual life. But the Fatherhood, in his
use, is certainly in its primary meaning relative to our Lord,
and its extension to men is, at least, not made clear.2
The Epistle to Diognetus gives a peculiarly evangelical
account of the fatherliness of God, as furnishing the clue to
all His dealings with mankind. The following passage is
characteristic, and must be cited at length. " But when our
wickedness had reached its height, and it had been clearly
shown that its reward, punishment and death, was impending
over us, and when the time had come which God had before
appointed for manifesting His own kindness and power, how
the one love of God, through exceeding regard for men, did
not regard us with hatred, nor thrust us away, nor remember
our iniquity against us, but showed great long-suffering, and
bore with us, He Himself took on Him the burden of our
iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the
holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked,
the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One
for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are
mortal. Having therefore convinced us in the former time
that our nature was unable to attain to life, and having now
revealed the Saviour, who is able to save even those things
which it was formerly impossible to save, by both these facts
He desired to lead us to trust in His kindness, to esteem
Him our Nourisher, Father, Teacher, Counsellor, Healer, our
1 Epistle of Barnabas, cap. ii. The Latin omits the word "not" before
"going astray."
2 The same is true of the Epistle of Polycarp ; see cap. xii.

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 151
Wisdom, Light, Honour, Glory, Power, and Life, so that we
should not be anxious concerning clothing and food.
" If you also desire [to possess] this faith, you likewise
shall receive first of all the knowledge of the Father. For
God has loved mankind, on whose account He made the
world, to whom He rendered subject all the things that are
in it, to whom He gave reason and understanding, to whom
alone He imparted the privilege of looking upwards to
Himself, whom He formed after His own image, to whom He
sent His only-begotten Son, to whom He has promised a
kingdom in heaven, and will give it to those who have loved
Him." i
Justin Martyr, dealing in his First Apology with the
charges made against Christians, says, " Hence are we called
Atheists. And we confess that we are Atheists, so far as
gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the
most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance
and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity. But
both Him and the Son who came forth from Him and taught
us these things, and all the host of the other good angels who
follow and are made like to Him, and the prophetic Spirit, we
worship and adore, knowing them in reason and in truth, and
declaring without grudging to everyone who wishes to learn,
as we have been taught." 2 This passage is of great interest,
because, while the Trinitarian form of it shows that " the
Father " is relative to the Son and to the Spirit, an ethical
and universal application is given to His Fatherhood, as " the
Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues."
So, later on, Justin speaks of God as " the Father of all and
the Euler." 3
Similarly, in his Second Apology the same writer,
speaking of " the Father of all," says, " These words, Father,
and God, and Creator, and Lord, and Master, are not names,
but appellations derived from His good deeds and functions." 4
Finally, Justin's discussion of the resemblance and difference
between the doctrine taught by Moses and that to be found
in Plato's Timceus, shows how closely the truth that God is
1 Ad Diognetum, caps, ix., x. 2 Justin, First Apology, cap. vi.
3 First Apology, cap. xii. 4 Second Apology, cap. vi.

152 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
the Creator, and not merely the Artificer, of the universe, is,
for Justin, bound up with His Fatherhood.1
Associating in the same way the Fatherhood of God with
His relationship to the universe, Athenagoras, in explain
ing why Christians do not sacrifice, declares, " The Framer
and Father of this universe does not need blood, nor the
odour of burnt-offerings, nor the fragrance of flowers and
incense, forasmuch as He is Himself perfect fragrance,
needing nothing either within or without ; but the noblest
sacrifice to Him is for us to know who stretched out and
vaulted the heavens, and fixed the earth in its place like a
centre ; who gathered the water into seas, and divided the
light from the darkness ; who adorned the sky with stars, and
made the earth to bring forth seed of every kind ; who made
animals and fashioned man." 2
Two similar passages may be quoted from Tatian's Address
to the Greeks. He says, " Our God did not begin to be in time ;
He alone is without beginning, and He Himself is the begin
ning of all things. God is a Spirit, not pervading matter, but
the maker of material spirits and of the forms that are in
matter ; He is invisible, impalpable, being Himself the Father
of both sensible and insensible things. Him we know from
His creation, and apprehend His invisible power by His
works." s Later on, in describing the free education given by
the Christians to all classes, Tatian speaks of " the Father
of immortality," and adds, " for the things which come from
God surpass the requital of earthly gifts " ; thus explaining the
bounty of the gifts of God by His Fatherhood, and finding
therein a standard of generosity for the ministers of the
Church, who are the more inclined to it by remembering how
priceless are the gifts dispensed by them.4
iRENjEUS
With Irenseus — the great Church Father of the close of
the second century — we enter upon a region of far pro-
1 See Justin, Hortatory Address to the Greeks, caps, xx.-xxxiii.
2 Athenagoras, cap. xiii.
3 Tatian, Address to the Greeks, cap. iv. 4 Ibid. cap. xxxii.

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 153
founder and more systematic thought. We shall soon see
that his importance for the doctrine of the Fatherhood of
God is unique. And the reason is not far to seek. He was
the Christian teacher who dealt in detail and exhaustively
with the Gnostic heresies, at once controverting them, and
expounding in reference to them the Christian doctrine of
God as it had never been unfolded before.
We have here a typical instance of the service which
seriously minded heresy, so called,1 is always constrained to
render to the catholic truth of Christ. The worthier forms
of heresy always arise, because some, probably hitherto
neglected, needs of the human spirit manifest themselves in
an exaggerated and disproportionate form, and satisfy them
selves either by an exaggeration and dislocation of those
aspects of Christian truth which minister to them, or by
importing into Christianity from without those elements
which are craved for, and in which it is supposed to come
short. No such heresy is ever overcome by mere opposition,
still less by ecclesiastical discipline. It lives till an expression
of Christian truth, wrought out in controversy, but rising out
of it and becoming independent of it, takes complete and
living form, satisfying all that is legitimate in the demands
made on it, and thereby ensuring the ultimate falling away
and perishing of that which is irrational and untrue.
Such a process requires for its accomplishment not
merely an authoritative and faithful counter-statement of
the Christian truth, as previously declared, but a new
reflexion upon its meaning and principles, in the light of the
new thought and the newly developed need. And thus there
can be no absolute finality in any exposition or vindication of
the Christian faith, so long as the human mind continues to
grow, and, at least superficially, to change.
That it necessitated a deeper reflexion upon and a fuller
unfolding of the contents of Christian theology was the
great service rendered to the world by Gnosticism in its
1 The qualification ' ' so called " is used because error in theology, even when
it leads to the strongest protest against accepted orthodoxy, may have little or
nothing of that spirit of self-assertion which is charged against it in the term
"heresy."

154 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
various forms. It is impossible and needless here to attempt
any full account of the leading forms of Gnosticism which
represented the first attempt to create a complete religious
philosophy of the universe and of history. While the
resulting systems, strangely and incongruously compounded of
Christian, Platonic, and Oriental elements, strike us, at first
sight, as in some respects almost incomprehensible and in
others as absurd, yet beneath the surface are to be discovered,
in many directions, the germs of profound truth ; none the
less spiritually true because they are disguised in the, to us,
impossible forms of personification, due to logical abstraction
combined with a mythologising imagination. Generally
speaking, Gnostic speculations raised every question concerning
the nature of God, His relationships to the universe, to
Christ, to mankind, and concerning the significance of Christ,
for the life and salvation of men. And thus the refutation
of Gnosticism demanded a comprehensive treatment, up to
the level reached in the controversy, of all the highest
subjects concerned with theology and with spiritual hfe.
Although it is needless to attempt here any complete
exposition of Gnostic teaching, some detailed account must be
given of the system of Valentinus, if we are to understand its
effect upon Irenaeus, especially in regard to the Fatherhood of
God. Valentinus explained the genesis of the universe by means
of a supposed series of Emanations, called iEons, his whole
system representing a crude form of what would now be
termed transcendental Idealism.
The iEons, which exist in pairs, represent in reality
metaphysical abstractions, endowed with life, activity, and
the power of producing life. The names of the principal
^ons are Buthos (the Abyss), Nous, Truth, the Logos, Life,
Wisdom.1 The sum of the ^Eons constituted the Pleroma,
the complete whole of those principles by which the universe
was explained to reason.
The ultimate principle was Buthos, which would now be
termed " the Unknown and the Unknowable." This principle
1 There is no need to encumber this statement by giving an exhaustive
account of the extremely complicated series of Mons and their history.

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 155
was mated with " Ennoia," the conception of the mind of
Buthos. From the union of these two ultimates all existence
proceeds. But for Valentinus the material world was evil. It
represented a blending of spirituality (to which it owed
whatever reality and rationality belonged to it) with
materiality. Hence its existence could only be explained by
a spiritual fall in the Pleroma itself. The lowest placed of
the .rEons, Wisdom (Sophia), had presumptuously sought to
know Buthos, whom only the firstborn Nous or Monogenes
could comprehend, and through this unlawful desire had fallen ;
the existing universe, in which the spiritual is confused by
the material, being the result. By an elaborate process of
emanation the Demiourgos, or Artificer, was produced, who,
while outside the Pleroma, acted as the instrument of Buthos
in ordering the natural world. There is, obviously, here a
blending of Platonism — including its failure to recognise the
personality of God, and its doctrine of the relations between
the ideal and the sensible worlds — with the Oriental belief in
emanations and the feeling that material existence in itself
was evil.
The results, then, of the system of Valentinus are, that
there is no personal God, absolute and supreme ; that the
"fulness" of what, seen in personal unity and perfection,
would be God, is divided among a cluster and hierarchy of
partial and abstract principles ; that the impulse to what
answers to creation is treated as being, in the main, evil and
not good, as representing pride and not grace ; and that the
resultant universe is evil, although the evil bound up with its
materiality is partially redeemed by the presence in it of
spiritual and rational principles ; even these latter, however,
being deteriorated both by their premundane fall and by
their consequent admixture with matter.
This summary account of the speculation of Valentinus
will serve to make immediately clear what was the nature of
the task laid upon Irenseus in the exposition and defence of
Christian truth given in his great work, Against Heresies.
He was constrained —
(1) To assert the personality and absoluteness of God;

156 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
(2) To set forth His infinite perfection, as uniting in
Himself all the fulness (Pleroma) of Divine attributes ;
(3) To insist upon His direct and sovereign activity
throughout the universe; while recognising the truth,
contained in Gnostic idealism, that that activity is not
mechanical, but vital and immanent ;
(4) To make good that the creation and ordering of the
world was the manifestation of the most glorious and gracious
love; (5) And hence to show that the universe is substantially
not evil, but good.
And what conception of God, in His relationship to the
world and in His character as manifested in that relationship,
is so perfectly fitted to give, in one word, full expression to
all these truths as that of " the Father " ? Hence Irenseus
is the teacher, above all others, of the Fatherhood of God.
He was assisted to this general solution, and to a satis
factory statement of it, by three circumstances. In the first
place, Valentinus called his first principle Buthos, Father, as
being the originating factor of ideal existence. This naturally
almost constrained Irenseus, if indeed he needed such influ
ence, to make use of the characteristic revelation of the
Fatherhood of God contained in the New Testament. In
the second place, Irenseus wrote before the great controversies
as to the true Divinity of our Lord, and His relation to the
Father. He thus escaped those tendencies which, as we shall
shortly see, in safeguarding the unique relationship of the Son
to the Father, incidentally obscured the fatherly relation of
God in Christ to mankind. Moreover, the fact that the usage
of his time, and the necessities of the controversy, caused
Irenseus commonly to select the name Logos, and not Son, to
describe our Lord's relationship to the Father, still further
enabled him to treat the Fatherhood of God as directly and
universally manifested to the world; the Logos being the
expression and Agent of that Fatherhood. That this prevail
ing use of the name Logos, however, had its disadvantages as
well as its advantages for our subject, we shall presently see.
But at least it served to emphasise the direct relationship
of the Father to the world.

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 157
And, in the third place, the doctrine of Marcion, that
there were two Divine beings — a God of justice and a God of
mercy — forced Irenseus to think out an adequate notion of
fatherhood, showing conclusively that it must embrace justice
and judgment as well as grace and mercy.
A few quotations may be given, illustrating the use which
Irenaeus made of the Fatherhood of God, and especially his
conception of it, though such a selection must fail adequately
to exhibit what the student of Irenseus will at once discover,
that this universal Fatherhood is the key to every part of his
arguments. At the outset of his reply to Valentinus, Irenseus lays
down : '' It is proper, then, that I should begin with the first
and most important head, that is, God the Creator, who made
the heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein
(whom these men blasphemously style the fruit of a defect),1
and to demonstrate that there is nothing either above Him
or after Him ; nor that, influenced by anyone, but of His own
free will, He created all things, since He is the only God,
the only Lord, the only Creator, the only Father, alone con
taining all things, and Himself commanding all things into
existence. For how can there be any other fulness, or
principle, or power, or God, above Him, since it is matter of
necessity that God, the Pleroma (Fulness) of all these, should
contain all things in His immensity, and should be contained
by no one ? But if there is anything beyond Him, He is not
then the Pleroma of all, nor does He contain all." 2
With a more practically religious application Irenseus
lays down : " For faith, which has respect to our Master,
endures unchangeably, assuring us that there is but one true
God, and that we should truly love Him for ever, seeing
that He alone is our Father; while we hope ever to be
receiving more and more from God, and to learn from Him
because He is good, and possesses boundless riches, a kingdom
without end, and instruction that can never be exhausted." 3
The following may be taken as summing up the belief of
1 i.e. the Demiourgos of Valentinus.
2 Adv. Heer. bk. ii. cap. 1. See also I.e. ii. cap. 9.
8 Ibid. ii. 28.

158 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
Irenseus : " But there is one only God, the Creator- — He who
is above every principality, and power, and dominion, and
virtue : He is Father, He is God, He the Founder, He the
Maker, He the Creator, who made those things by Himself,
that is, through His Word and His Wisdom — heaven and earth,
and the seas, and all things that are in them : He is just, He
is good ; He it is who formed man, who planted Paradise, who
made the world, who gave rise to the Flood, who saved Noah ;
He is the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the
God of Jacob, the God of the living: He it is whom the
Law proclaims, whom the prophets preach, whom Christ
reveals, whom the apostles make known to us, and in whom
the Church believes. He is the Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ ; through His Word, who is His Son, through Him He
is revealed and manifested to all to whom He is revealed ;
for those [only] know Him to whom the Son has revealed
Him. But the Son, eternally coexisting with the Father
from of old, yea from the beginning, always reveals the
Father to angels, archangels, powers, virtues, and all to whom
He wills that God should be revealed." x
The very important passage as to what is included in the
conception of Fatherhood must be quoted in full. Irenseus
says that the nobler Gentiles were '' convinced that they
should call the Maker of this universe the Father, who
exercises a providence over all things, and arranges the
affairs of our world. Again, that they 2 might remove the
rebuking and judicial power from the Father, reckoning that
as unworthy of God, and thinking that they had found out
a God both without anger and [merely] good, they have
alleged that one [God] judges, but that another saves, uncon
sciously taking away the intelligence and justice of both
deities. For if the judicial one is not also good to bestow
favours upon the deserving, and to direct reproofs against
those requiring them, he will appear neither a just nor a
wise judge. On the other hand, the good God, if he is
merely good, and not one who tests those upon whom he
shall send his goodness, will be out of the range of justice
and goodness, and his goodness will seem imperfect as not
1 Adv. Heer. ii. 30. 2 Namely, the Marcionites.

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 159
saving all ; [for it should do so], if not accompanied with
judgment. " Marcion therefore, himself, by dividing God into two,
maintaining one to be good and the other judicial, does in
fact, on both sides, put an end to Deity. For he that is the
judicial one, if he be not good, is not God, because he from
whom goodness is absent is no God at all ; and again, he
who is good, if he has no judicial power, suffers the same
[loss] as the former by being deprived of his character of
Deity. And how can they call the Father of all wise if they
do not assign to Him a judicial faculty ? For if He is wise,
He is also one who tests [others] ; but the judicial power
belongs to him who tests, and justice follows the judicial
faculty that it may reach a just conclusion ; justice calls
forth judgment, and judgment, when it is executed with
justice, will pass on to wisdom. Therefore the Father will
excel in wisdom all human and angelic wisdom, because He
is Lord, and Judge, and the Just One, and Buler over all.
For He is good, and merciful, and patient, and saves whom
He ought ; nor does goodness desert Him in the exercise of
justice, nor is His wisdom lessened ; for He saves those whom
He should save, and judges those worthy of judgment.
Neither does He show Himself unmercifully just, for His
goodness, no doubt, goes on before, and takes precedency.
" The God, therefore, who does benevolently cause His
sun to rise upon all, and sends His rain upon the just and
unjust, shall judge those who, enjoying His equally distributed
kindness, have led lives not corresponding to the dignity of
His bounty ; but who have spent their days in wantonness
and luxury in opposition to His benevolence, and have, more
over, even blasphemed Him who has conferred so great benefits
upon them." l
We are constrained to exclaim, Would that such a con
ception of the Fatherhood of God could have been consistently
wrought out and maintained throughout the centuries that
followed Irenseus ! How different would then have been the
course of Christian theology !
Thus Irenseus made good that the Fatherhood of God
1 Adv. Heer. iii. 25.

160 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
involves the perfect indwelling in Him of all perfection, of
all life, with the spiritual, rational, and moral principles of
its existence ; that it involves the giving forth of this fulness
in and towards creation through the Logos, in such wise that
the Father is directly and absolutely supreme. He has
further established that as the creation is brought into being
by reason of the fatherly love of God, so it is ordered and
guided to the ends of that fatherly love, and that this will
be verified on examination of His dealings with mankind,
provided that an adequate notion of the meaning of father
hood is entertained.
Certain qualifications must, however, now be made. In
his account of Fatherhood, Irenseus laid the main stress upon
creatorship, and upon what may be called the natural and
universal relationships springing out of a creation motived
by love. He was, in a measure, constrained to this by the
controversies he was engaged in, which turned on the person
ality and the attributes of God, upon His creatorship, His
government of the world, His revelation given to mankind,
and their redemption from evil. But the prominence of
these universal and objective elements threw into the back
ground those spiritual and moral qualities of Fatherhood
which are manifested in the personal and intimate communion
with sons.
And corresponding to, indeed increasing, this weakness, is
the imperfect treatment of the sonship which answers to the
Divine Fatherhood ; not so much in regard to the means by
which that sonship is brought about, as in respect of its
spiritual characteristics. It is true that nowhere can we find
more emphatic and constant reference to the " adoption of
sons " as the characteristic gift to believers in Christ than in
Irenaeus. His thought is dominated by the great saying of
St. Paul : " Ye received not the spirit of bondage again unto
fear ; but ye received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry,
Abba, Father" (Bom. viii. 15).
But the way in which the conception of sonship is carried
out is unsatisfactory. Irenaeus proceeds, again under the
stress of controversy, to appropriate to the sons of God the
Gnostic epithets, " the pure," " the spiritual," " those living

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 161
unto God," and the like ; thus turning aside, as did Athanasius
later on under different influences, from setting forth sonship
in terms of the relations of sons to God, and describing it
rather by means of the intrinsic qualities and characteristics
of those receiving the Spirit of God.
Moreover, when he delineates the life of sonship God-
wards, he generally passes into a description which, while
profoundly spiritual, just misses the features of sonship. Thus,
in a fine passage, he discusses the object for which God
created man. He says, " Thus also service rendered to God
does indeed profit God nothing, nor has God need of human
obedience ; but He grants to those who follow and serve Him,
life and incorruption and eternal glory, bestowing benefit upon
those who serve Him because they do serve Him, and on His
followers because they do follow Him : but does not receive
any benefit from them ; for He is rich, perfect, and in need
of nothing. But for this reason does God demand service
from men, in order that, since He is good and merciful, He
may benefit those who continue in His service. Forasmuch
as God is in want of nothing, so much does man stand in
need of fellowship with God. For this is the glory of man,
to continue and remain permanently in God's service." :
God is the infinite source of goodness and blessedness,
who, wanting nothing in Himself, is constrained by His love
to impart Himself to His creatures according to their spiritual
capacities. Men have the capacity, and therefore the need,
to receive God's fulness. But the condition of their receiving
this fulness lies in their service to the Divine commands ; a
putting which, though true, is expressed in terms of sovereignty
and obedience rather than in those of Fatherhood and sonship.
And this imperfection of treatment, which might be
further illustrated, is closely bound up with the defects of
the Christology of Irenseus. It is true that the title Son of
God is frequently on his lips, but it was as the Logos that
Irenseus interpreted our Lord's relation to the Father. And
the predominance of this conception inevitably suggests the
expression of thought, the utterance of will, rather than the
fellowship of love. It was impossible, therefore, that the
1 Adv. Hair. iv. 14.

162 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
incarnation, redemption, the relationship of Christ to men,
could be wrought out in terms of His Sonship when that
was not the determinative conception of His relationship to
the Father. It would be a most interesting occupation to
pursue this subject through the whole of the teaching of
Irenaeus as to the Incarnation and redemption. But, by doing
so, we should be led too far afield from what is essential to
our present subject. It should, however, be pointed out that
his emphasis on the Fatherhood of God enabled Irenseus to
escape from the undue stress afterwards laid upon the element
of knowledge contained in salvation as compared with fellow
ship and obedience — a one-sidedness arising from Platonic in
fluences on Christian theology.
We may conclude by saying that the study of the noble
attempt of Irenseus to make the Fatherhood of God the key
stone of theological doctrine, when account is taken of its
shortcomings and of the subsequent fading of this truth from
theology, shows conclusively that only an adequate realisation
of sonship can make the conception of Fatherhood adequate
or effectually safeguard it ; and that while that realisation
must in theology be theoretic, yet it depends for its possibility,
its completeness; and its permanence upon the prevalence of
the filial consciousness in the practical religious experience
of Christians. Owing to imperfect spiritual conditions, this
prevalence did not exist even in the times of Irenaeus, still
less in later and mediaeval Christianity. Hence with the
growing loss of the spirit of sonship the Fatherhood of God
lost its place in Christian theology, and the noble effort of
Irenseus remained a promise unfulfilled.
II. THE MODIFICATIONS INTRODUCED BY THE CHRISTO
LOGY OF THE GREAT TEACHERS OF ALEXANDRIA,
AND PARTICULARLY BY ATHANASIUS
We pass now to consider the influence of the great
Church teachers of Alexandria — the most rational, the
broadest, and, in a sense, the most spiritual and modern of
all the Christian Fathers. In considering consecutively the
teaching of Clement of Alexandria, of Origen, and of

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 163
Athanasius, we shall see how strikingly the course of thought
and controversy in the Church affected the inherited doctrine
of the Fatherhood of God, to which, nevertheless, they most
earnestly clung.
But, first of all, a few words must be said about the
general intellectual conditions of the Church of Alexandria
as they bear upon our special subject ; and, in the next place,
a short account must be given of those elements of Greek
philosophy which moulded the teaching of the Greek Fathers
as to the relationship of God to the world, and, through them,
that of Augustine and the Church of the West.
1. The Christianity of Alexandria was profoundly affected
by the peculiarity of its environment. The city was, in the
earlier centuries of the Christian era, the intellectual head
quarters of the world ; the meeting-place of the representatives
of the various schools of Greek philosophy in its most recent
phases, of the more catholic Judaism, and of Oriental ten
dencies of religion and life seeking to commend themselves
to the Western mind. The predominance of the Greeks,
with their eager and receptive intelligence, secured the full
influence of this environment upon the higher thought, and
fostered at once a prevailingly intellectual temper, mutual
approximations of thought, and eclectic systems, which en
deavoured from their different standpoints to appropriate and
use, in their explanation of the universe, all that was best in
rival religious schools. This sympathetic and eclectic spirit
of necessity took possession of the Christian Church as it
rose to influence in Alexandria. The temper of the city
produced an intellectual spirit in the great Christian leaders.
It obliged them to maintain and extend their hold upon the
life of the city, not so much by earnest preaching (still less by
the methods of mere ecclesiastical dogmatism and authority),
as by teaching, which recognised and satisfied the reason of
inquirers, converts, or disputants. While this is not a com
plete account of the causes which resulted in the celebrated
Catechetical school, it is sufficient to indicate both the con
ditions which made it the characteristic exponent of the
Christianity of Alexandria and the spirit in which its in
struction was carried on.

164 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
But these general tendencies caused not merely that
Christian faith should be buttressed in believers, and defended
against unbehevers by intellectual considerations, and in an
irenical rather than a controversial spirit : they further
brought it about that, for the edification and satisfaction of
the spiritual hfe of believers within the Church, faith must
be perfected in reason ; satisfied by a presentation of Christian
truth, which unfolded its spiritual, theological, and philo
sophical grounds ; affording a rationale of religious belief by
giving to thought a comprehensive account of the mutual
relations of God, man, the world.
And there was a further and far-reaching consequence.
The intellectual temper affected the whole nature of religion,
and went far to determine the view taken of the special
office of the Eedeemer. God was, above all, manifested in
an adequate revelation to the spiritual faculties ; religious
life had its typical expression and its final goal in spiritual
knowledge; and Christ was, before all else (especially in
Clement), teacher and revealer. The question of His nature
tended largely to turn on the conditions necessary to the
completeness of His revelation. It will thus be seen that
the whole teaching of the school went to destroy the
supremacy of love as the key to religion, and to substitute
that of knowledge — save so far as, on the side of God, it is the
desire of Him who loves to make Himself known to the object
of His love ; and, on the side of man, love rejoices in reverent,
and eventually ecstatic, contemplation of Him who is loved.
This spirit is predominant in Clement ; is present, but
modified by his strenuous morality, in Origen ; and exerts a
powerful influence over Athanasius, though qualified, especially
in his later writings, by the emphasis he lays on life, and
therefore on redemption. The stress laid upon revelation
and knowledge as the predominant elements of the religious
relationship could not but affect the doctrine of the Father
hood of God.
2. Further, the influence of Greek, and especially of
Platonic, philosophy upon the Alexandrian Fathers, and through
them upon the theological thought of the West, is of immense
importance for our subject.

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 165
That influence is very naturally explained. Men of
reflective mind cannot avoid expressing and justifying their
faith by reference to and in terms of the most congenial
philosophy of their times. Especially must this be the case
in an intellectual atmosphere hke that of Alexandria. Still
more, if such men have been philosophers before they were
believers, and if they are compelled continually, as a condition
of the progress of the Church, to utter and justify their faith
in terms of philosophy, for the sake of philosophers.
And this being generally the case, the idealism of Plato,
especially the point of contact between his doctrine of the
relation of the ideal to the sensible world, when modified by
Stoicism, and the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation, how
ever great and vital were the differences between them,
accounted for the influence of his philosophy upon the
Christian Fathers.
And this recourse to Plato was facilitated by the fact
that in the Timceus — the work by which he chiefly influenced
Christian teachers — there was found an explanation of the
world which could easily be translated in terms of Christian
theism, and was currently supposed to teach it exphcitly,
though with some shortcomings.
Some account must therefore be given of those elements
of Plato's teaching which exerted an influence upon Christian
teaching as to the relationship of God to the world, and
especially of the form which those elements took in the
Timceus. The central doctrine of Plato concerns the independent
existence of the world of ideals and its relations to the world
of sensible things. Only the briefest summary of this can be
given, without raising any of the philosophical questions in
volved. His was the first attempt to fix the relations between
the objects of thought and the objects of experience, between
the world of the intelligible and that of the sensible. At
that stage, general concepts, the attainment of which by exact
methods of definition had been the great aim of Socrates,
seemed to have a higher reality than the individual to whom
they were presented, or than the concrete experience in which
they were first of all embodied for and perceived by man.

166 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
The problem of knowledge was therefore not that of the
individual intelligence, of the relation of the thinker to his
thoughts, of the percipient to his perceptions. It was that of
the general relation of the intelligible, supposed to have an
existence independent both of individual consciousness and of
the perceptible universe, to the material world, presented to
the senses. Generalisation and definition led to classification and to the
formation of concepts representing the common and distinctive
qualities universally present in each member of the class. For
Plato the sum-total of all these concepts formed the real, sub
stantial, changeless universe — the world of the Ideas. What
ever reality belongs to the world of sense-experience it possesses
by participation in these archetypal Ideas. For example,
particular men are real, just in so far as the Idea of manhood
inheres in them. But, at best, their existence is dependent
and confused ; while the result of mere sense-perception is
only opinion, and never knowledge. Supreme over the other
Ideas Blato placed the idea of the Good, thus securing that
his first principle of Being should represent the supremacy of
ethical ends throughout the universe, asserted by the ethical
faculty in man. Thus the spiritual and ethical character of
Plato's system is secured, though the supreme Good is for him
an Idea (an ideal-real), not a person.
The great problem for Plato was to explain, not the
existence of the world of Ideas, which appeared to him
evidently self-existent, but the way in which they came into
their present relations with the lower world of sensible
existence. As to this his account varied from time to time,
and is never free from difficulty and obscurity. Sometimes
the mystery is left unaccounted for, sometimes the Ideas are
themselves endowed by him with creative power. But in the
Timceus Plato brings upon the scene the Divine Artificer
(Jrj/uovpy6<;) x to supply the creative and world-ordering power
in which the Ideas, as such, appeared to be lacking.
To find the exact meaning of Plato's doctrine of the
Artificer, and of his relations to the Ideas, is a task beset with
1 The vovs pamXevs of the Philebus, 26 E-28 E. See Archer Hind, Introduc
tion to the Timceus, p. 39, etc.

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 167
difficulty, owing to his habit of clothing metaphysical abstrac
tions in mythological forms. It may suffice for us that the
form in which he presented the matter lent itself easily,
perhaps naturally, to a theistic interpretation ; that the world,
according to his doctrine, results from the action of the
Artificer in bringing the Ideas into formative relations to the
formless substrate (viroBo^i]) which is identified with empty
space, receptive of all forms, though possessing none,1 and that
Plato calls the Artificer " the Maker and Father of this [created]
All." 2
It will be easily seen that the whole of this explanation
of the universe — the Ideal World with the Idea of the Good
at its head, the Artificer standing apparently between it and
the created world, that world as created, organised, vitahsed,
and ruled by Ideas which gave to its formless substrate (little
more than the Nothing out of which all things were created)
positive existence — leant itself easily to the Christian doctrine
of God, as manifesting Himself in thought and action by the
Logos, and of the world as existing by the creation of God
through the Logos, who, by His own universal indwelling,
implanted throughout it reason, wisdom, truth, and life.
Under some aspects this interpretation might support a
doctrine of the Fatherhood of God, considered as the living
source of life, as impressing His own spiritual and ethical
attributes upon creation, and as immanent throughout it by
His Logos. But equally it might be expressed in terms of
the Divine sovereignty ; for the ideal is absolutely supreme
over the visible world, and the Artificer is the Maker of all
temporal existence. That sovereignty, both transcendent and
immanent, makes the Divine at once substance, life, and law
of the All which comes into existence by it.
Two additional facts must be brought out. Firstly, Plato
was the author of the great distinction between eternity and
time which passed into Christian theology, and profoundly
influenced the thought of the Greek Fathers, of Augustine,
1 See Archer Hind, Timceus, note on p. 170.
2 In the Philebus this substrate is termed the tLweipov. See Archer Hind's in
troductory Essay in his edition ofthe Timceus. tov /icV oSf ttoitjt^v koX Taripa rovSe
tov Tavros evpetv re tpyov recti cupivra. eh iravras aSivarov \£yew, Timceus, v. 28 C.

168 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
Boethius, and, through them, of the Schoolmen, as to the con
trast between the life of God and that of created beings, and
as to the goal of blessedness to which earthly discipline is
intended to bring the saints. He says : " First, then, in my
judgment this distinction must be made. What is that which
is eternally and has no becoming, and again what is that
which comes to be but is never ? The one is comprehensible
by thought with the aid of reason, ever changeless ; the other
opinable by opinion with the aid of reasonless sensation, be
coming and perishing, never truly existent. Now all that
comes to be must needs be brought into being by some cause ;
for it is impossible for anything without a cause to attain
to birth." x Later on we find : " For whereas days and nights
and months and years were not before the universe was
created, he then devised the generation of them along with
the fashioning of the universe. Now all these are portions of
time, and was and shall be are forms of time that have come
to be, although we wrongly ascribe them unawares to the
eternal essence. For we say that it was and is and shall be,
but in verity is alone belongs to it ; and was and shall be it
is meet should be applied only to Becoming, which moves in
time ; for these are motions." 2
Secondly, Plato held the view, at least in his later period,
that evil is not positively existent, but is the negation of
existence. He lays down the principle in the Timceus : " Now
it neither has been nor is permitted to the most perfect to do
aught but what is most fair." 3 Evil arises from imperfect
participation in the Ideas, which form the types of all
particular existences. Hence evil is a defect, and not a
positive quality.* Speaking generally, there are no Ideas of
evil in Plato, although, since particular existences may resemble
one another in their divergence from the Idea, there are class-
names for evil qualities. For Plato the world, in so far as it
has being, is good. This doctrine of the negativity of evil is
closely connected, as we shall shortly see, with subsequent
1 Timceus, v. 27 D-28 A. 2 Ibid. x. 37 E-38 A.
3 r?r?/«s de otr' t)v o<St tan t$ ap'ump Spav &\Xo ir\ty rb k6XKi<ttov, Timceus,
vi. 30 A.
4 See Archer Hind, Timceus, pp. 25, 26.

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 169
Christian doctrine as to the relations of God to the
world. Finally, the importance given by Platonism to knowledge,
as the means and essence of salvation, gave its prevailingly
intellectual view to Greek theology. The goal of life is the
vision of God ; the fitness for it is acquired through the
process by which faith rises to become knowledge.
Such were the leading elements of the Platonic philosophy,
which were now to exercise almost incalculable influence upon
the development of Christian theology.
A word must be added as to the influence of Stoicism.
For the Stoics, universal reason, the Divine Logos, is the
ultimate explanation of the world, the human soul being part
of that universal reason. By a blending of this doctrine with
Platonism, it becomes easy to regard the Logos as the home
of the Ideas. This was done by Philo,1 who further treated
the Logos as intermediate between God and the universe,
being at once immanent in both. The Stoic Logos-doctrine,
as thus modified by Platonism and by Jewish Monotheism, was
brought into contact with the doctrine of St. John, and
secured the transference to Christian theology of Plato's
conception of the relation of the Ideal to the sensible
world. Again, the Stoic insistence on rational order in the
universe, and on rational law as of the nature of man, and on
both as due to the constitutive presence of the Divine Logos,
met with ready acceptance by Christian theism, and sub
sequently became markedly characteristic of the theology
of Augustine. We may now pass on to consider the teaching of the
Alexandrian Fathers, and to trace the changes which they
brought about in respect to the doctrine of the Fatherhood
of God. Clement of Alexandria
The teaching of the Fatherhood of God, and of salvation
as the reconciliation of " disobedient children to their Father," 2
1 See Kaftan, Tlie Truth ofthe Christian Religion (Eng. trans.), i. 56.
- Exhortation to the Greeks, cap. i.

170 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
so pervades the teaching of Clement that it is impossible to
do justice to it by isolated quotations. Let one fine passage
suffice. It is representative of many, and expresses Clement's
characteristic view of the gospel ; of its source, method, and
result ; and of the catholicity of its ground and end. He says
in his Exhortation to the Greeks : " The union of many in
one, issuing in the production of Divine harmony out of a
medley of sounds and division, becomes one symphony
following one choir-leader and teacher, the Word, reaching
and resting in the same truth, and crying, Abba, Father.
This, the true utterance of His children, God accepts with
gracious welcome — the first-fruits He receives from them." 1
The intellectual and educative view of Christianity which
Clement took, from causes which have been already explained,
led him to set forth our Lord above all in the light of the
Instructor (7rai8aytoyo<;) of mankind ; and this is the title of
the second of his theological writings. This office belongs of
right to our Lord as the Logos, whose " rational creatures "
men are.2 This creative relationship of the Logos to man
kind is consummated in His incarnation for our redemption.
It at once gives to the Logos His eternal relationship to and
office for the race, founds the universalism of His gospel in
the constitution of human nature as such, and, by means of
the name Logos, stamps upon the work of salvation the
prevailing feature of the revelation and apprehension of
Divine truth. The following quotation gives Clement's view
of the relation of the Logos to God, and again of the Logos to
mankind : " For the image of God is His Word, the genuine
Son of Mind, the Divine Word, the archetypal light of light ;
and the image of the Word is the true man, the mind which
is in man, who is therefore said to have been made ' in the
image and likeness of God,' assimilated to the Divine Word in
the affections of the soul, and therefore rational." 3
Thus, as against Gnosticism, Clement taught that the
results attained by the "elect," the "spiritual," the " be-
1 Exhortation to the Greeks, cap. ix.
2 tou QeoO AcVyou rd "XoyiKa irXaafiaTa. 4rte?s, Exhortation to the Greeks,
cap. i.
3 Exhortation to the Gentiles, cap. x.

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 171
lievers," the true " Gnostics," were but the consummation of
possibilities universally present in the race. With char
acteristically Greek spirit, though more profoundly, he treats
sin as due above all to ignorance, though arising from dis
ordered spiritual conditions, and is as confident of the freedom
and capacity of all men to will tie good, as Augustine was
afterwards convinced of their inability.
This universahsm of Clement, arising from the inner
relationship of man to the Logos, from which comes ahke the
possibility and the method of his salvation, is strikingly
illustrated by two noble passages in his Exhortation to the
Greeks. Protesting against the Homeric stories of the
immoralities of the gods, he says, " We are they who bear
about with us, in this living and moving image of our human
nature, the Likeness of God — a Likeness which dwells with
us, takes counsel with us, associates with us, is a guest with us,
feels for us." 1 And again, later on, he says, " But it is
truth which cries, ' The light shall shine forth from the dark
ness.' Let the hght then shine in the hidden part of man,
that is, the heart ; and let the beams of knowledge arise to
reveal and irradiate the hidden inner man, the disciple of the
hght, the familiar friend and fellow-heir of Christ ; especially
now that we have come to know the most precious and
venerable name of the good Father, who to a pious and good
child gives gentle counsels, and commands what is salutary for
His child." 2
One short passage may be selected as giving a complete
account of Clement's doctrine of salvation. He says, in the
Pcedagogue : " Being baptized, we are illuminated ; illuminated,
we become sons ; being made sons, we are made perfect ;
being made perfect, we are made immortal."3 This, as
summing up the process, must be put side by side with the
description of the Instructor as the Author of salvation. We
are told: "But our Paedagogue is the holy God Jesus, the
Word who is the guide of all humanity. The loving God
Himself is our Paedagogue." i
1 Exhortation to the Greeks, cap. iv.
2 Exhortation to the Gentiles, cap. xi.
i. 6. 4 Ibid. i. 7.

172 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
In the above account, baptism, according to the Catholic
view, is the initiatory and grace - conveying sacrament of
Christian life; but its blessing is not so much that of re
generation,1 as that of illumination, by which is meant that it
brings into vitalising spiritual contact with the Logos, who
gives living illumination in the truth of the relations in which
men stand to God. Thus the spiritual illumination leads to
sonship, because it enables us to apprehend as our own, to
enter into, and conform ourselves to, the position of sonship,
determined for us by the Fatherhood of God. Entering upon
this — our true — position, the process of perfection is in
augurated, which is eventually consummated by immortality.
Thus, in Clement's teaching, revelation, spiritually appre
hended, and not atonement, is the way of reconciliation,
because sin is conceived of as springing out of error, rather
than as an act of responsible and wilful transgression, in
volving, above all things, guilt.
Hence, as has been said before, an intellectual view not
only of the means, but of the end, and of the blessedness of
salvation. The knowledge of God, with the stress upon its
intellectual element, namely, spiritual apprehension and con
templation, is most prominent,2 though in the pursuit of this
knowledge love is the animating spirit.
We may perhaps say that the Platonic ideal of the
purifying and uplifting of the soul to behold the true and
archetypal reality lives again in Clement, but that with him
it is lit up and warmed by the love which goes forth to a
personal God, the home of all perfection, who is seen in the
grace and condescension of Fatherhood as revealed by Christ.
One additional word must be said on this matter. The
emphasis laid by Clement on perfected knowledge, and upon
that knowledge as conveyed by the indwelling Word and
Wisdom of God, while it led to the development of his doctrine
of the prophetic office of Christ, conduced also to the setting
forth of salvation, rather by means of the truth inwardly
revealed by the Word, than by means of the love of the
Father awakening man's loving response. As knowledge is
1 Though Clement treated it as a "washing."
2 See Exhortation to the Greeks, caps, x., xi,

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 173
pre-eminently the mark of perfected salvation, so also our
relation to the Logos, bearing the truth to us, is more per
fectly wrought out than that to the Father in Christ, shedding
abroad His love in our hearts. And thus we have in Clement
the first appearance, and in a special form, in Alexandrian
theology, of Christological teaching, which by its limitations
began to weaken the influence of the Fatherhood of God,
working by love and filling us with the corresponding con
sciousness of sons. We shall soon see how this tendency
grew in the later stages of Alexandrian theology.
In conclusion, it is to be noted that in Clement there is to
be found for the first time that Greek conception of salvation
as " deification " which we shall have to consider more care
fully in its bearing on our subject, when we reach the teach
ing of Athanasius. Thus Clement lays down : " The Word of
God became man, that thou mayest learn from man how man
may become God." 1 Origen
We may now proceed to consider the effect of the teach
ing of Origen on our subject. It is impossible here to enter
into the general features of Origen's theology ; and super
fluous to speak of his great genius, or of that fearless courage
of thought the spring of which was his magnificent faith in
the gospel, as being supreme and universal truth, and as
giving the key to the whole history and meaning of the
universe. But, so far as the Fatherhood of God is concerned, it may
perhaps truly be said that he did disservice to it rather than
service, as the following summary will show : —
1. Everywhere in his great constructive work, De Prin-
cipiis (TJepl ' ' Ap^mv), Origen assumes or asserts the universal
Fatherhood of God. There is no need either to prove or to
illustrate this fact by quotations.
2. Further, in his use of the conception of Fatherhood,
Origen did a striking and lasting service to the doctrine of the
Divinity of our Lord. He it was who showed that eternal
Fatherhood implies as its correlate an equally eternal Sonship,
1 Exhortation to the Greeks, cap. i.

174 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
and by this means explained the relationship of the Father
to the Son as that of eternal, timeless, and therefore change
less, generation. The relationship is thus vital to the life of
the Godhead ; it never came into existence, nor can it ever
pass out of existence.1
3. But throughout Origen conceived this relationship
and this eternal act of generation in terms of wisdom, and not
of love. The Son of God is the Father's personal Eeason,
Wisdom, Word, by whom He is made known and is active
throughout the universe. Hence his prevailing view is
rational or intellectual, concerning only the conditions under
which the Divine reason exists and accomplishes its ends
towards and in the universe. The Logos is therefore the
principle of reason, present to God, present to and con
stituting the universe, in which He manifests God's mind
and realises His will. The only effect here of the conception
of God's Fatherhood is to secure that His reason shall be His
Son, and not a mere attribute.
4. Again, Origen lays down that all men derive their
being from the Father in so far as they exist, their rationality
from participation in the Son, their holiness from the agency
of the Holy Spirit.
He says : " God the Father bestows upon all, existence,
and participation in Christ ; in respect of His being the Word
of reason, renders them rational beings. From which it
follows that they are deserving either of praise or blame,
because capable of virtue and vice. On this account, there
fore, is the grace of the Holy Ghost present, that those beings
which are not holy in their essence may be rendered holy by
participating in it. Seeing then that, firstly, they derive
their existence from God the Father ; secondly, their rational
nature from the Word ; thirdly, their holiness from the Holy
Spirit, — those who have been previously sanctified by the
Holy Spirit are again made capable of receiving Christ, in
respect that He is the righteousness of God ; and those who
have earned advancement to this grade by the sanctification of
the Holy Spirit will nevertheless obtain the gift of wisdom
according to the power and working of the Spirit of God." 2
1 See De Principiis, i. 2 (2). 2 De Principiis, i. 3 (8).

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 175
There is some uncertainty, as a careful study of the
context will show, as to the dividing line between the work of
the Son and that of the Spirit, but the circle of those who are
influenced by the Spirit is at present narrower than the
circles of those who receive their existence from the Father
and their rationality from the Son ; though Origen taught
that God, in His wisdom and love, purposes ultimately to
redeem the whole world of spirits, and the quotation just
given shows that the work of the Spirit leads men to a fuller
participation in Christ.
5. That which determined God to the work of creation
was His goodness.
Origen says : " We have frequently shown, by those de
clarations which we are able to produce from the Holy Scrip
tures, that God, the Creator of all things, is good and just and
all-powerful. When He in the beginning created those beings
which He desired to create, i.e. rational natures, He had no
other reason for creating them than on account of Himself, i.e.
His own goodness." 1
6. Hence almost the only use of the relationship of
Fatherhood made by Origen is to treat it, towards the Son, as
the eternal going forth in and communion with personal
Wisdom ; towards man, as creatorship, motived by infinite
goodness. The Father is the substance of all finite existence, which
comes into being by His will ; just as the Son is the principle
of all rationality.
Two consequences at once arise. Firstly, participation in
the Son is treated as the means of the enjoyment of rationality,
together with the moral quahties which should accompany
and support rationality — not as man's entrance into sonship.
And, secondly, religion is explained in its origin, development,
and consummation in the blessed life, with practically no
reference to the fellowship of love with the Father. True,
in the passages above quoted we are told that the Divine
purpose is, "that those whom He has created may be un
ceasingly and inseparably present with Him who IS " ; but
Origen continues characteristically and in truly Platonic
1 De Principiis, ii. 9.

176 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
spirit to describe this blessedness as being " to behold the holy
and the blessed life." Everywhere, from Origen's theology
though not from his heart, love, except in its intellectual and
moral elements, is absent, and thereby his doctrine of the
Fatherhood of God, though universally present and supremely
influential in his writings, has lost all its gracious tenderness,
and much of its religious worth.
7. In conclusion, this loss is partly occasioned and partly
completed by the lack of any real significance, in Origen's
doctrine of salvation, of the humanity of Christ.
Origen's account of the fall of man as taking place by the
individual unfaithfulness of souls in a previous existence ; of
the one perfectly holy soul, which clave to the Logos and
hence was counted worthy of the perfect indwelling of the
Logos, brought about by the Incarnation,1 together with his
general account of salvation as by participation in the eternal
(preincarnate) Logos, shows that neither the Incarnation nor
the Sonship of the Divine-human Christ had found their true
place in his conception either of spiritual relationships or of
redemption. For all these reasons, the conclusion is forced
that Origen obscured, rather than illustrated, the meaning of
the Fatherhood upon which he laid such stress ; and this
injury became permanent in Greek theology.
Athanasius
This is not the place to enter into the Arian controversy,
upon which well-nigh the whole strength of Athanasius was
spent. Our concern is simply with the bearing of his theology
upon the Fatherhood of God ; and in that respect we shall
soon discover that his unparalleled services to the doctrine of
our Lord's true Divinity were at once based upon the con
ception of the Fatherhood of God, and yet, by the accidental
peculiarities of his treatment, put that Fatherhood at a
greater distance from mankind than had been the case up
to his time.
The following general statement must suffice to make the
general nature of his influence clear : —
1 De Principiis, ii. 6 (3).

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 177
1. In the first place, the whole strength of the polemic
of Athanasius against Arianism depends upon his serious and
systematic investigation of the relationship of Fatherhood and
Sonship as between the first and second Persons in the holy
Trinity. In his later and main theological writings he com
pletely escapes from the influence of Origen in this respect,
and treats our Lord's Divinity as determined by the intrinsic
meaning of His Sonship, and not by the fact of His being the
Wisdom or Word of the Father.1 The whole question is argued
in a twofold way : first, by an examination of the New Testa
ment statements as to the Sonship of our Lord, showing that
the sacred writers teach His eternal and truly Divine Sonship ;
and, secondly, by a philosophical inquiry, based upon these state
ments and assisted by the Platonism of Alexandrian Chris
tianity, into what is involved as to His true Divinity in our
Lord's eternal Sonship as the " only-begotten " of the Father.
2. But the Fatherhood and Sonship thus investigated
are, perhaps almost of necessity, treated far more impressively
in their metaphysical than in their spiritual or moral aspects ;
though thereby not only is the teaching of the New Testa
ment departed from, but possibly, as we may some day come
to see, the surest proof of our Lord's Divinity is missed.
Moreover, the very fact that the controversy as . to the
Divinity of the Son turned upon the metaphysical meaning
of His Sonship, tended in the system of Athanasius to restrict
both the meaning and the manifestation of the Fatherhood
of God unduly to the unique relationship between the Father
and the Son.
Thus Athanasius lays down that the Father is such in
His relationship to the Son, and not immediately to mankind ; 2
even that God is to be called Father only as Father of His
only-begotten Son,3 and that our sonship comes to us through
the incarnation of the Son.4
All these statements are in a sense both true and im
portant, but they needed to be accompanied by a fuller in
vestigation as to what our Lord's Sonship, as the incarnate
1 In his earlier writings,, e. g. in the De Incamatione Verbi, the influence of
Origen remains.
2 Contra Arianos, Oratio i. 33, 34. 3 Ibid. ii. 2. * Ibid. i. 43.

178 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
head of the race, meant both for the manifestation of God's
Fatherhood towards all men and as to the inherently filial
constitution of all human nature in the Son. Through the
lack of this, the very stress rightly laid on our Lord's unique
Sonship threw into the shade the full meaning of the sonship
of men as based upon their creation in the Son and consum
mated in their union with Him.
3. It is true that Athanasius lays greater stress than
had yet been done by any other teachers, save Irenaeus and
Clement, upon the sonship of Christians, and upon the making
of sons as the great end of the Incarnation.
In his earliest period he had treated the relationship of
men to our Lord, as did Origen, from the point of view that
men became rational creatures because of their participation
in the Logos.1 But, later on, he almost entirely abandoned
this point of view, and substituted for it the statement that
men became sons because of their participation in the Son.
He showed that it is the Son's proper Divinity that enables
Him to impart sonship to those entering into vital fellowship
with Himself.2 But,
4. It is in keeping with this that Athanasius distinctly
treats the Creatorship of God as going before His Father
hood, and not as the expression of it. Correspondingly,
he lays clown that men were creatures before they became
sons, and treats sonship as a special gift coming to men
through their redemption in the Logos.3
Hence, firstly, the Fatherhood of God ceases to be the
ultimate explanation of His creative activity, as it had been
for Irenaeus, Clement, and Origen. The sovereignty of God
takes its place. And, secondly, the subsequent sonship of
behevers, on which so much stress is laid, becomes theirs, not
because of the antecedent Fatherhood of the Father, but
because of their inherence in the Son by faith, and therefore
of their assimilation to His relationship to the Father.
Perhaps this latter may seem an unduly subtle distinction,
but it undoubtedly, on closer thought, will be seen to
co-operate with the former, and with the way in which God's
1 De Incarnatione VerU, cap. 3. 2 See, e.g., De Synodis, 51.
8 See Contra Arianos, Oratio ii. 59-61.

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 179
Fatherhood has been restricted to the Son, to impair the
fellowship of love, which is implied in the sonship of behevers,
having the " Spirit crying in their heart, Abba, Father," set
forth in the New Testament.
5. And all may be explained by the fact that the human
nature of our Lord does not assume, for Athanasius, its full
importance. " The man Christ Jesus " is unduly overshadowed
by the only-begotten Son and the eternal Logos, and there
fore, among other things, the essentially filial constitution of
humanity prior to the Incarnation, and as a condition of it,
is not clearly grasped. The participation of rational natures
in the Logos in order to be rational, of believers in the
Divine redemptive Son of God in order to become sons, — these
truths are insisted on, but not the fihal constitution of human
nature in order that the Son of God may become manifest in it.
6. Lastly, in dwelling on sonship as the privilege of
believers in the Son, Athanasius invariably goes on to
consider it not in terms of fellowship with the Father, but of
deification. The great saying, " For He became man that we
might be made gods," 1 is characteristic of the whole teaching
of Athanasius.2 This conception, vague though great, is
closely associated with the thought, pervading the writings of
Athanasius, of our Lord as being the Eedeemer by reason of
His giving life — in the first place, spiritual, eventually bodily
and immortal — to sinful men by the power of His resurrec
tion. But, whatever may be the merits of the conception, its
effect is to direct attention exclusively to the intrinsic
qualities and the successive experiences on their way to
perfection of the sons of God, and to turn it away from the
consideration of the relationship in itself of sons to the
Father, and its manifestation in the fellowship of love.
This conception of deification as the meaning of sonship
became characteristic of Eastern theology. It pervades the
writings of the Cappadocian Fathers, Basil, Gregory of
Nazianzum, and Gregory of Nyssa. With its predominance
the whole conception of sonship tended to become abstract
and external, rather than religious and ethical.
1 De Incarnatione Verbi, cap. 54.
2 See, e.g., Contra Arianos, Oratio i. 39, ii. 70, iii. 19-22 ; De Synodis, 51.

180 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
We may briefly sum up the thought of Athanasius by
saying that for him the relationship of Fatherhood and Son-
ship, though once more brought into the forefront, tends to
become restricted to the relationship of the Father to the
Son, and to be exhibited in its metaphysical rather than in
its spiritual aspects ; that the Fatherhood towards mankind
is obscured ; that instead of showing that it operates in the
Son, alike in the creation, the constitution, the redemption,
and the consummation of mankind, the fundamental relation
ship of God to men is held to be rather a gracious and
immanent sovereignty of the Creator in and through the
Son ; and that man's sonship is too exclusively set forth as
the attainment to a Divine nature by the conquest of sin, and
ultimately, through resurrection, of death, instead of as being
the entrance into a Divine fellowship.
In short, the Father is insufficiently manifested in and
through the Son to men ; and men are insufficiently brought,
in the Son, to the Father. The results of this change upon
Western theology we shall now go on to see.
III. THE TRANSFORMATION IN THE WEST BROUGHT
ABOUT BY AUGUSTINE, AND THE PREPARATION
FOR IT IN LATIN CHRISTIANITY
For our present purpose, and indeed so far as all higher
theological questions are concerned, the next great name to
Athanasius is Augustine. He may be said to be the meeting
ground of the East and the West ; receiving the influence of
Greek theology through Ambrose and Victorinus, of Latin
through Tertullian and Cyprian, and by his religious genius
profoundly modifying both. How he affected the Greek
theology, received by him through Latin channels, on the
question before us, will be the subject of our present inquiry,
and will soon become manifest.
But our first business must be to note, not only with
reference to Augustine, but also with a view to the later
stages of our history, some of the prevailing features of Latin
Christianity, and to consider how they influenced and were
influenced by Augustine.

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 181
In passing from Eastern to Western Christianity we pass
into another atmosphere, and the difference of religious
thought and feeling had the most vital effect upon the
doctrine of the Fatherhood of God. The Latin temper and
genius moulded Christian development in the West at every
point. The practical and external temper of the Eomans,
their tendency either to a hard moralism or to a narrow and
fettering superstition, gave the tone, in the long-run, to their
Christianity. It became institutional, satisfied with external
observances, at once morally self-satisfied and spiritually
superstitious, expecting and submitting to the exercise of
ecclesiastical authority. Its ecclesiastical leaders were adapted
to the peculiarities of the people they led. The genius for
organisation and rule, which had made Eome great, passed
over to them, and with it the ideal, gradually wrought out,
of a Catholic and Christian imperialism reigning in the
spiritual world, as Eome had done in the temporal, and
reigning by means of a sacerdotal hierarchy, so organised as
to make authority at once ubiquitous and august, flexible and
overwhelming. The great teachers of Christianity, who were
almost always its ecclesiastical rulers, presented a Christian
doctrine which was in keeping both with the temper of the
people and with the practical ends of ecclesiasticism. To
begin with, most of the great leaders, e.g. Tertullian, Cyprian,
Ambrose, had been Eoman lawyers and administrators before
they became ecclesiastics. Augustine himself was trained as
an advocate. To such men it was natural not only to
administer the Church in the spirit of Eoman government,
but, what is more important, to conceive the relations of
God to man under the forms of public law. For example,
Tertullian, the most influential theologian of the West before
Augustine,1 knows nothing of the Fatherhood of God, only
mentions it in his controversy with Praxeas, in which his
unsatisfactory doctrine of the Trinity, to which it is restricted,
shows how little he understood it or knew how to use it.
For him God is simply the Creator and Governor of the
world. And he for the first time introduces terms of Eoman
law into Christian theology, to set forth the relations and
1 Irenseus, though living in the West, is not Western.

182 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
dealings between God and men. For example, Tertullian
imported the term satisfaction (satisf actio), with all its
associations in Eoman law, to explain the Divine requirement
and the result of repentance. The effect of this, not only on
the subsequent doctrine of the Atonement, but also on the
general conceptions held with regard to the relations of God
to men, can hardly be exaggerated. These relations became
at once hardened and externalised, while the requirements of
the Euler and Judge, and their satisfaction by the act of the
penitent, blotted out almost entirely the grace and mercy of
" God our Saviour."
Owing to the prevalence of this temper, the creeds,
wrought out in the East primarily to define and safeguard the
truth and to satisfy the faith of Christians, became the Laio
of the West, little understood, rigidly and unintelligently
expressed, and enforced by the powers of ecclesiastical
authority.1 Again and again throughout the history of theo
logical thought in the West we shall find how adversely men's
insight into the relationship of God to mankind in Christ was
affected, in one way or the other, by the exaggerated and
exclusive influence of political and legal conceptions.
But something more must be noted by way of introduc
tion. Deeper influences were at work to transform men's
thoughts of God, and to set up a conception of His sovereignty
which made religion a work of fear rather than of love. In
the first place, there was the current superstition, and
superstition is always deeply tinctured with the spirit of
fear. In the next place, there were the almost overwhelming
difficulties in the way of living out Christian morality, both
by reason of the weakness of the converts and by reason of
their social environment. These led to a one-sided emphasis
on the coming judgment, and upon the judicial relationship of
God to men. And, finally, the matter was affected in a
higher realm by the spiritual experiences of some of the
most influential teachers, notably Tertullian and Augustine.
These men combined with their Eoman training the perfervid
African temperament, with its hot passions, its consequent
strife between the flesh and the spirit, and its deep sense of
1 See, for example, the so-called Athanasian Creed.

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 183
the disease of sin. Naturally, therefore, God was presented
to them and by them with His will and authority strongly
marked — an authority which at once uttered the condemna
tion of their sin and was the strength of their spirit — the
inward moderator of their turbulent impulses and passions.
Even the gospel came to Augustine in the decisive moment
of his life by the quickening grace felt through the command
ment, " Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not
provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof " (Eom. xiii.
14) ; and throughout his subsequent course the same character
istic of his religious experience is manifest, as is shown, for
example, by his noble and oft-repeated exclamation, " Give
what thou commandest, and command what thou wilt." x For
all these reasons, it is not remarkable that in passing to the
West we leave, for all practical purposes, the doctrine of the
Fatherhood of God behind. Ahke, the more superficial and
the profounder conditions of Western religion replaced the
thought of the Fatherhood of God by that of His sovereignty.
This led to the introduction of legal considerations, which in
their turn reacted upon the doctrine of the Divine sovereignty,
fixing it, filling it out, and connecting it with the doctrine of
the Church as the sphere and instrument of the earthly rule
of God. And all this without check, except so far as
modifications might be introduced here and there by the
warmth of a more evangelical religion, as, for example, in the
case of Augustine himself.
We come now to consider the doctrine on our subject of
Augustine, the greatest teacher of the West, and the most
influential on the supreme questions as to the relations of
God to men.
The study of his relation to the general tendencies of
Western thought, just described, is intricate and difficult.
Like all epoch-making personalities, he absorbed the most
various influences from the past and from the surrounding
present. It was the defect of his genius, that it was so
capacious as to hold together the most various and indeed
incompatible tendencies of thought without successfully
1 " Da quod juhes, et jube quod vis," Confessions, x. 40. The thought recurs
elsewhere in his writings again and again, with only slight verbal alterations.

184 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
transforming them, or ever seriously attempting to transform
them, into a higher and consistent unity. The most striking
personality, the most voluminous writer, the most many-
sided and influential teacher of the Western Church, he gave
manifold and mighty impulses to all succeeding theological
thought, powerfully influencing such divergent systems as
those of scholasticism, of mediaeval ecclesiasticism, and
eventually of Calvin.
On the side of what he received, while not unifying it, as
has just been said, he in some parts modified it, in others
passively accepted it, in others intensified it. Not to mention
at present his inheritance from the East, as regards Western
Christianity he modified its legalism by his intense and
evangelical experience of religion, he found room for the law
and customs of the prevailing Catholicism, while he intensi
fied, to an unspeakable degree, the doctrine of the dread
authority and power of God.
The influences which shaped Augustine's life and thought
were manifold. First came that of the ordinary Catholicism,
represented at its best by his mother, Monica. Then, during
weary years, Manichaean influences laid hold of him, from
which, indeed, owing to the effect upon him of his long
conflict with strong passions, his thought never completely
shook itself free. Subsequently, at the critical period of his
life, came the influence on him of Ambrose, representing pro
nounced Western Catholicism enlarged by a knowledge of
Greek theology, received through Basil the Great, and
deepened by an evangelical spirit due to the depth of his own
spiritual experience. Finally, Victorinus introduced Augustine
to the main outlines of Platonism as reproduced in his own
Latin teaching, for Augustine never gained any sufficient
knowledge of Greek to become acquainted with Plato at first
hand. The whole of Augustine's thought was shaped by
these four influences.
But behind and above all such influences lay the spiritual
passion of the man, his unceasing desire for the living God.
The key to all his life is found in the ever-recurring thought of
his Confessions : " Thou awakest us to delight in Thy praise ;
for Thou madest us for Thyself, and our heart is restless

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 185
until it find rest in Thee." x " Oh ! for Thy mercies' sake, tell
me, 0 Lord my God, what Thou art unto me. Say unto my
soul, I am Thy salvation." 2 Thus, whether Augustine is con
troverting Manichsean dualism by the aid of Platonic
doctrine, or whether he is urging the absolute ruin and
inability of sinful men against Pelagian optimism, or whether
he is enforcing the authority of the Catholic Church and the
life-giving power of her sacraments upon Donatist schismatics,
— in all he is moved by this deep spiritual passion. Every
conclusion reached in his theology, it may almost be said,
represents a victory, moral as well as intellectual, over the
haunting besetments of sin. His restatements of theology,
inconsistent in themselves, diverging into an unconditional
philosophy on the one hand, and into ecclesiasticism on the
other, are suffused by the glow and unified by the experience
of a great spiritual nature, making Augustine in many
respects the most remarkable religious personality between
St. Paul and Luther.
The three controversies above named, the Manichsean,
the Pelagian, and the Donatist,3 while the main occupation
of Augustine's thought and effort, all had their influence in
substituting for the doctrine of the Fatherhood of God that
conception of His sovereignty which he gave to subsequent
ages, and in determining its outlines. Therefore, without
digressing into the history or the meaning of the controversies
themselves, we must trace the doctrine of God in His
relationship to the world and to mankind which is successively
presented to us in these three connexions, mentioning, in
addition, some subsidiary causes which helped to determine
the final result.
1. We must begin by examining the main outlines of the
doctrine of God presented in the more philosophical works of
Augustine. This doctrine was wrought out at first in his own inner
conflict, afterwards by means of bis public controversy, with
Manichseism. It was moulded under the influence of the
theology of Ambrose and the philosophy of Plato received at
1 Confessions, i. 1. 2 Mid. i. 5.
3 They are treated in this order, for the better exposition of our subject.

186 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
second hand. It bad its final expression, independent of
controversy, in such dogmatic treatises as his work, On the
Trinity. Augustine came to apprehend God as the one absolute
substance, the Summum ens, the eternal ground of all created
reality. His doctrine is presented to us in the history of its
making, in the Confessions, and more theoretically in his
treatises, Concerning the Trinity and Concerning Free Will.
Founded upon a Christianised form of Platonism, it is the
first Christian statement of the ontological argument as to
the existence of God which has in more recent times and
wi^h minor differences been put forth by Anselm, Descartes,
and by the German Transcendentalists.
In a great passage of the Confessions 1 Augustine describes
his gradual ascent by a truly Platonic method, combined
with a psychological accuracy which was characteristically
his own,2 from outward bodies through the various faculties
of the soul till he reaches its highest power, " the reasoning
faculty, to which what is received from the senses of the
body is referred to be judged." But at once he declares
there was revealed within him the presence, in strong
contrast with one another, of that creaturely faculty which
becomes, and therefore changes in time, and that eternal, and
therefore unchangeable, truth and being which is. Clearly,
as Augustine says, " the unchangeable was to be preferred to
the changeable," by reason of being alone truly existent,
supremely perfect, and the ground of all that of which the
becoming, with its temporal changes, shows that its existence
is derived and dependent.
This superiority of that which IS to that which becomes,
and its relation to the latter as the ground of its existence,
necessitates that the truly existent should eternally possess
absolute perfection, and that that perfection should consist in
the transcendent realisation of those spiritual and moral
faculties the presence of which, though imperfect, in man is
1 Confessions, vii. 17 ; see also vii. 4, 10. Elsewhere he says, " Domine cui
esse et vivere non aliud atque aliud est ; quia sunime esse atque summe vivere
idipsum es," Confessions, i. 10.
2 See Harnack, History of Dogma (Eng. trans.), v. 21, 106.

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 187
his distinctive glory. Only by thus possessing spiritual
perfection could God be in reality the supreme Being, the
highest Good, which He is.
A similar course of argument is pursued by Augustine in
his treatise, Concerning Free Will. Man has three attributes,
existence, life, and intelligence, of which the highest is
intelligence ; 1 nothing is higher than human reason, save a
reason which is eternal and unchangeable, and this is God.2
And this eternal and unchangeable reason, human reason
perceives not by means of any instrumental faculty, but by
itself ; and, in perceiving it, at once is obliged to confess its
own inferiority, and that the eternal and unchangeable reason
is its God.3
A similar ontological argument to establish that God is
the supreme Good and the unchangeable Wisdom is to be
found in Augustine's work, Concerning Christian Doctrine.*'
Indeed it may be said to underlie all his theistic discussions.6
Augustine constantly speaks in Platonic language of the
beauty of God, and of God as the " beauty of all things
beautiful." 6
What is more important, he magnifies the love of God.
" 0 truth who art eternity ! " he cries, " and love who art
truth ! and eternity who art love ! thou art my God, to Thee
do I sigh night and day ! " 7 God creates because of His love.8
And from this creative love proceeds the mercy which makes
Him the helper of sinful men. The place which love takes
in the religion of Augustine corresponds to his apprehension
1 De Libero Arbitrio, ii. 3-5.
2 "Sed, quseso te, si non inveneris esse aliquid supra nostram rationem,
nisi quod seternum atque incommutabile est, dubitabisne hunc Deum dicere ? "
De Lib. Arb. ii. 6.
3 " Quae si nullo adhibito corporis instrumento neque per factum, neque per
gustatum, neque per olfactum, neque per aures, neque per oculos, neque per
alium sensum se inferiorem, sed per seipsam cernit eeternum aliquid et
incommutabile, simul et se ipsam inferiorem et ilium oportet Deum suum esse
fateatur," De Lib. Arb. ii. 6.
4 De Doctrina Christiana, i. 7, 8. 5 See, e.g., De Trinitate, v. 2.
6 Confessions, iii. 10, "Mi Pater summe bone, pulchritudo pulehrorum
omnium. "
7 Ibid. vii. 16, " 0 eeterna Veritas et vera eharitas et cara seternitas ! "
B See De Doctrina Christiana, vii., viii.

188 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
of God as love. But, as regards God Himself, love is reached
by a direct speculative method, prompted and determined by
the needs of the heart, and not found in the facts of the
gospel, as was the case with Luther.1 Thus Augustine reaches
his intellectual conception of God as absolute and eternal
Being, supreme over and in all created existence ; the home
and source of all perfection ; manifesting that perfection by
means of the goodness which imparts it in and to the
creation, and especially in the creation of those spiritual
beings who are capable of entering into fellowship with His
life and love, and whom He satisfies with it.
All creaturely existence, therefore, comes from parti
cipation in the supreme and changeless existence, namely,
God. Things are just so far as they partake of it, beginning
with bare existence and rising through all the ranges of
created being to the highest and fullest manifestations of
finite perfection. And nothing exists which does not derive
its existence from God ; and equally that which does not
derive its existence from God is nothing. Hence evil is
nothing positive ; is indeed the negation of positive existence.
To speak of evil as existent is a contradiction in terms, for
existence is good and not evil. All that is positive in the
creatures is good, though the measure of it may be small, and
where evil is found there is the actual privation of existence,
or the good. And this privation is so entire in lost spirits,
that the only positive quality left to them is bare existence,
and even in them this is good. To sum up, all that is
positive is good ; it is so because the ground of its being is
God, who is at once the Absolute Existence and the Highest
Good.2 By the adoption of this Platonic doctrine 3 Augustine
emancipated himself theoretically from Manichaeism, and set
up what, if it had been consistently carried out, would have
1 See Harnack, History of Dogma (Eng. trans.), v. 87.
2 "Ergo si omni bono privabuntur omnino nulla erunt, ergo quamdiu sunt,
bona sunt, ergo qusecumque sunt, bona sunt." See Confessions, vii. 18.
"Omnia vera sunt in quantum sunt," vii. 21. See also iii. 12 ; Encheiridicm,
xi., xii., xiii., c, ci. ; De Natura et Gratia, iii., xx.
3 See above on tho Timceus. The same view was held previously by
Origen; and subsequently, through Augustine, Boethius, and the pseudo-
Dionysius, it became the common property of scholasticism.

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 189
been a spiritual Monism, recognising only one substance and
one will in the universe, at once transcendent and immanent
throughout it, supreme over it, because in the most absolute
sense its hfe.1
Again, the relation between the supreme and perfect
being, God, and the world of becoming, is that, to begin with,
He is its Creator, that He made it out of nothing, and that,
consequent upon creation, He is its Orderer according to that
eternal law which is the highest reason.2 The great passage
in the Confessions, x. 9, well sets this forth, the climax of which,
repeating the question successively addressed to and the
answer given by all parts of the creation, ending with man,
is : "I asked the whole frame of the world about my God ;
and it answered, ' I am not He, but He made me.' " Hence
throughout it is the will of God which is most prominent, not
His life. The universe is not an emanation, as the Platonic
basis of Augustine's doctrine might suggest, but the product
of creation. Throughout it law prevails imposed by will,
manifest in an order of which Augustine speaks as did the
Stoics, and thinks substantially as we do now. But his
pecuharity is the stress which he lays on will, though that
will is a will of goodness, is equivalent to reason, and bestows
beauty and hfe.
Hence, as immanent substance, creative will, supreme
orderer of the universe and of the realm of finite spirits, God
is set forth under the aspect of absolute sovereignty, and the
whole stress is laid upon this.
It is true that God is the end of the creatures, the only
satisfaction of spiritual beings. In Him, and in Him alone,
they find satisfaction, hfe out of death, unity out of division
and distraction, eternity beyond time, love making an end of
strife.3 But when , Augustine pours out his heart in the
1 It is beyond our present scope to expound and criticise the whole system of
Augustine. Were we to do so, we must discuss his doctrine of sin as arising
from the presumptuous self-will of the creature, and criticise its incompatibility
not only with the view of evil as negative, but also with Augustine's doctrine of
the absoluteness of the will of God.
2 "Creator et ordinator omnium rerum," Confessions, i. 16. Forthe equi
valence of the Divine Law and highest reason, see De Libero Arbitrio, i. 6.
3 See many passages in the Confessions.

190 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
loftiest language of aspiration after and satisfaction in God, it
is still the note of sovereignty which is struck. It is the
supremacy of the highest Good, which commands and causes
beings made for His fellowship unresting to seek it. " Thou
madest us for Thyself ; and our hearts are restless till they
find rest in Thee."
2. We must now pass on to consider how this general
view of the relationship of God to the world and to mankind
was strengthened by Augustine's experience of redemption ;
an experience the results of which were dogmatically unfolded
in the Pelagian controversy.
Our sketch may be brief, partly because we are not at
the moment concerned to criticise it, or to show the elements
of inconsistency in it, and partly because the philosophy upon
which it is based is simply that which we have been
considering, carried forward to explain the problems alike of
sin and of salvation. What is added to the teaching of
Augustine as thinker, is his characteristic experience as
saint. There can be no extremer contrast than the contrast
between the religious temper of Augustine and that of
Pelagius and his coadjutors. Pelagianism, whether represented
by the moral earnestness of Pelagius or by the genial tolerance
of human nature shown by Julian of Eclanum, has its
root in optimism as to human nature, its present condition,
its powers and innate possibilities, and in the conviction of
the moralist, that the command ' thou shalt ' and the
inward testimony ' thou oughtest ' necessarily involve ' thou
canst.' Human duty and human power mutually define one
another. In such a view there is, generally speaking, a
lack alike of the highest aspiration after holiness and
of the deepest consciousness of sin. The religious spirit
is wanting which is conscious that, if there is any good
thing in us, it is because God of His mercy " worketh in "
us " both to will and to do of His good pleasure " (Phil. ii.
13). The grace of God, for such a view, becomes almost
entirely His constitution, at the outset, of a nature capable
of so much, His revelation made to it, and the ordination
of those influences of teaching and example which surround

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 191
the succeeding generations of men as they are born into
the world.1 On the other side was Augustine, with his profound desire
for fellowship with God, with his memory of the long years
during which he had fruitlessly struggled against the unruly
passions of the flesh, and, above all, with his continuous
experience of the gift of Divine power, which had first come
to him in an instant as he heard the, to him, mysterious and
certainly providential voice, " Tolle, lege," and had opened his
copy of St. Paul's Epistles upon the saying, " Not in rioting
and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in
strife and envying ; but put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and
make not provision for the flesh."2 This great experience
with the new and permanent moral power which came to
him, after the weary struggles of years, by the direct influ
ence of God, became the determinative consciousness of
Augustine for the rest of his life. His whole doctrine of
nature and grace, as elaborated in the Pelagian controversy,
is his attempt to explain such an irresistible influence, and
to set it forth as the law of God's dealings with men in
terms of that general philosophy the sources and nature of
which we have already considered.
Augustine, first of Christian theologians, rigidly marked
out the distinct rearms of nature and grace.3
For Augustine, sin, beginning in the abuse of free will
owing to the spirit of pride, manifests itself especially in
the lust of concupiscence, and has its results in an abject
slavery to the flesh and a state of moral ruin in which God
punishes sin by sin.4 In this state of helplessness, free only
to evil, man lies, the slave of sinfulness,5 unless and until
1 See this view of grace as contained in the statements of Pelagius and
Julian, and Augustine's answers.
2 See Confessions, viii. 29.
3 See, generally, the anti-Pelagian writings.
4 As to sin being punished by sin, see, for example, De Natwra et Gratia,
xxii. In this last element is the first dogmatic utterance of that doctrine of
retribution to which Dante gave such wonderful expression in the Inferno.
6 The growth of sinful habits is thus described: "Quippe ex voluntate
perversa facta est libido : et dum servitur libidini, facta est consuetndo ; et dum
consuetudini non resistitur facta est necessitas," Confessions, viii, 10.

192 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
God, by the forth-putting of His grace, frees him and
restores him to Himself. Grace is defined against Pelagius
as that by which God bestows upon us and assists us with
the power to do.1
This grace is gratuitous,2 proceeding unconditionally frorn
the will of God. It gives expression to an eternal election,3
Augustine's understanding of which is based on his interpre
tation of the teaching of St. Paul in Eom. ix. to xi. It is
prevenient,4 irresistible, and continuous, though there is no
security in this life of final election, for grace may be
withdrawn.5 It is the source of all our good, for without
it man is but a " mass of perdition." 6 Even pur love of
God is implanted in us by God.7 The resources of grace
are the explanation of God commanding us what with
out Him we cannot perform.8 It is all-sufficient, so that
sinlessness may possibly be attained in this present life,
for this depends entirely not upon us, but upon the particular
will of God ; and, where that is present, upon His unlimited
power.9 From first to last the whole weight rests upon the
will of God, though that will is set forth as perfect in holiness
and love.10
Moreover, such a doctrine of grace founded on the will of
God could not, philosophically, rest alone. If the condition
of those who are in the course of salvation is what it is
1 "Qua donat atque adjuvat ut agamus," De Gratia Christi, i. 8. See
ix. 2 "Gratia vero nisi gratis est, gratia non est," Enclieiridion, 107. See also
De Natura et Gratia, iv.
3 See, e.g., De Natura et Gratia, v.
4 See De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio, xvi.
5 Herein, of course, Augustine differs from Calvin, who introduced into the
Augustinian doctrine personal assurance of final salvation and an indefectibility
of grace totally foreign to Augustine's thought.
6 "Massa perditionis."
7 De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio, xviii.
8 See De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio, xvi. Hence the cry—" Da quod jubes,
et jube quod vis."
" See De Natura et Gratia, xiii., xliii., xlviii.
10 We have no need here to consider the inconsistent introduction, under the
pressure of controversy and of moral interests, of free will in a limited sense ; or
to discuss the recognition, which was more than a concession to popular Catholi
cism, of a doctrine of merits. See De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio, vi.

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 193
altogether by reason of the will of God, electing and saving
whom He will, equally must the condition of those who
continue in sin and are exposed to death be also due to
His will. It is true that the original abuse of free will
brought sin into the world, and death by sin ; but the race,
having become by that first sin helpless and ruined, — a prey
to sin and death, — God's will is equally done in their being
left to destruction. For this position Augustine everywhere
strongly contends. He finds a necessity for it in that God
must be the " Ordinator " of all things, and therefore of sin.1
The will that thus punishes is part of the Divine perfection,
and Augustine finds beauty in it and goodness. Augustine's
doctrine masks the horror of this view of unconditional
deliverance to perdition, by his teaching, already considered,
that all evil is negative. What God gives, even to the lost,
is continued existence, which is good. What they suffer is
from privation of good ; and this is negative, non-existent, and
therefore uncaused, though it is also unremedied, by God.
Hence the Will, which explains the salvation of the elect,
is only a special case of that universal Will which is the one
ultimate and real force in the universe. The only word for
such irresistible supremacy of will is not, of course, fatherhood,
but sovereignty. The greatest problem of theology is to find
room for the truth contained in this view, which has ever
awakened a response from the profoundest religion, in a more
satisfactory theory of God's relationship to mankind, with the
wider and more generous outlook which such a more satis
factory theory can provide.
One supplementary word must be said. Augustine's
whole doctrine of the nature of sin and of holiness is in
keeping with this ruling conception of the sovereignty of
God. For him the essential spirit of sin is pride, manifesting
itself in lawlessness ; the essential spirit of holiness is humility,
manifesting itself in obedience to the commandments of God.2
It accords with this view that that which stands out above
1 Anselm admits this doctrine, and introduces it into his statement of the
reasons for the Divine demand of satisfaction on account of sin. See Cur Deus
Homo, i. 12.
2 See Confessions, iii. 16 ; De Natura et Gratia, xlviii.
!3

194 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
all in the incarnate Christ is the humility which led Him to
take upon Himself the form of a servant and to humble
Himself.1 True, Augustine lays great stress upon both faith
and love, but neither has the characteristically filial note of
childlike and confident trust. The humility and service of
absolute,, loyal, and satisfied dependence is the dominant
feature of perfected religion, as expounded by him — the
spirit of true subjects of Him who, in being infinite perfection
is eternally King.
3. In the third place, we must consider, in relation to our
subject, what may be called Augustine's theological politics ;
in his mind closely connected with what has gone before.
Augustine's belief as to the Church was elaborately set
forth in the Donatist controversy, and its details need not
occupy us here. What concerns us is the view given to
the world in the City of God. We must glance at its
conception, both on its positive side and also in its opposition
to the existing order of the so-called secular world.
Augustine, as philosophical theologian and as sinner saved
by grace, is also, in presence of the Catholic Church, with its
world-wide organisation, with its episcopal and sacerdotal
rulers, and with its sacraments, made the means of spiritual
life to those who faithfully partake of them.2 There were
here the beginnings of a great Christian imperiahsm, the
developments of which the idealism of Augustine did much
to promote, and which grew by natural, and in the circum
stances perhaps inevitable, processes till it became the papal
empire of the Middle Ages.
In the Church, Augustine found empirically the presence
of God, the consciousness, in a time of surrounding decay,
of abounding youth and strength, the sense of spiritual and
intellectual security. Its influence was about him in the
1 " Verax autem mediator quem secreta tua misericordia demonstrasti humili-
bus, et misisti ut ejus exemplo etiam ipsam discerent humilitatem," Confessions,
x. 68. 2 The difficulties and inconsistencies of Augustine's view of the sacraments
in connexion with his doctrine of absolute predestination must not detain us
here. The solution that the predestinating purpose of God is carried out by
means of the Church and the sacraments is never given by Augustine. See
Harnack, History of Dogma (Eng. trans.) v. 166, 167.

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 195
tenderest and most sacred memories of his childhood, which
haunted him during years of intellectual perplexity and moral
strife. When tossed about in the storms of doubt and
temptation through which he passed, it was the authority
of the Church, uttered in the wise and gracious teaching of
Ambrose, which first became to him the haven of intellectual
rest.1 To the end of his life he found assurance in the
external attestation of the truth offered by the Church.
Thus, as Harnack says, "Augustine first transformed the
authority of the Church into a factor in rehgion."2 This
conception and influence of authority as the safeguard of the
truth and the guide of men, must in itself have tended to
strengthen and develop the tendency to regard God primarily
under the aspect of sovereignty.
But a mind hke Augustine's could not leave the matter
thus. The Catholic and authoritative Church, in itself part
of the changing order of time, must be set in relation with
the changeless order of eternity — must indeed be seen as the
temporal expression of that eternal and spiritual order. The
conception of the " Civitas Dei," on its positive side, fulfils this
requirement. There is an eternal city, Divine in its origin,
heavenly in its nature, in which God is supreme and perfectly
manifested, in which perfect spirits find eternal blessedness
as citizens in humility and service. This eternal order is, so
to speak, projected into time, is never absent from the world,
is slowly and partially manifested through Old Testament
history, and is completely revealed in the Christian Church.
History, from the creation of Adam, is the story of its de
velopment under Divine guidance by processes of selection,
choosing one and leaving another, and in manifold strife with
the powers of darkness.
The City of God is the eternal order and fellowship of
spiritual life, which manifests itself progressively in the Church
on earth. That Church is at once the result and manifestation
of, as also the preparation for, the eternal and heavenly state.
1 "Ex hoctamen quoque jam praeponens doctrinam catholicam, modestius
ibi minimeque fallaciter sentiebam juberi ut crederetur quod non demonstra-
batur," Confessions, vi. 7. See this book generally.
2 Harnack, History of Dogma (Eng. trans.), v. 77.

196 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
But Augustine sets this eternal City of God in contrast
with the city of the world. This is his historical apologetic
for Christianity. For him the City of God, and the city of the world
represented by and embodied in imperial Eome, were face
to face and contending for mastery. The Church was grow
ing ; the empire was crumbling, and the barbarians threatened
the very existence of the city of Eome.
Whence and wherefore this downfall ? Augustine ex
plained it as the judgment of God, called down not only by
existing superstitions and iniquities and by historic crimes,
but, above all, by the essential principle of which these evils
were the symptoms. Just as the eternal City of God realised
the true spirit of humility and service, so Augustine found
that imperial Eome was the earthly manifestation of the
opposite principle of self - seeking, with its pride, super
stition, and self-indulgence. It was as the embodiment
of the spirit, by which angels had fallen, that Eome
was doomed. And, as it sank to ruin, the City of God
would appear, triumphant because inspired by humility,
reahsing the victory of God's order over the disorder of
earth. Herein was wrought out the view, so influential at
least over the monastic ideals of the Middle Ages, of the
worthlessness of the visible order, and of the necessary
warfare between the sacred and the secular.1
The elements which went to the production of this
grand imagery of the " City of God " were primarily Augus
tine's conception of the sovereignty of God, as the reality
of which the Eoman emperor was the shadow ; 2 his sense of
the catholic fellowship in heaven and earth, which makes the
true subjects of God a community, invested with the privi
leges of Divine and heavenly citizenship; and, finally, the
resemblance between the influence of the heavenly city
throughout the universe indeed, but here below by means
of the Churches throughout all the world, and that of the
1 Of course such a view cannot be consistently carried out even in thought,
much less in practice. And therefore there are glimpses of another view in
Augustine. See Harnack, History of Dogma (Eng. trans.), v. 92, 93.
2 We shall see, later on, how Dante spoke of " the Emperor ofthe Universe."

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 197
imperial city of the Seven Hills, which yet encircled and
ruled the earth. The conception was suggested, shaped, and
coloured by the scriptural account of the earthly Jerusalem,
the ancient city of God, which was consummated in the
Christian Church by St. Paul's teaching as to the " Jerusalem
'chat is above, which is free, and is our mother" (Gal. iv. 26),
and by the apocalyptic vision of the New Jerusalem.
Augustine's conception took hold upon the imagination
of subsequent ages. And while it conveyed the notion of
the brotherhood and fellowship of the saints, as manifested
in the graduated order of a political community, still more
did it tend to foster an imperial conception of God's relation
ship to men, and a political conception of the prerogatives
and functions of the Church on earth. And these last two
acted and reacted on one another, although they naturally
alternated, the sense of the dread sovereignty of God and the
belief of the delegated sovereignty of the Church, each, from
time to time, in men's minds throwing the other into the
shade. In considering this, strictly speaking, political conception
of the relationship of God to men, His position as Judge
must not be left out of account. Thus, at every point of
Augustine's theology, the influential factors of it went to
substitute for the doctrine of the Fatherhood of God a
doctrine of His sovereignty, modelled upon the vision of
Isaiah vi.
4. A subsidiary, but most important, theological in
fluence in the same direction must be noticed. It consists
in Augustine's doctrine of the holy Trinity, with its
results. Augustine set himself to remove the last possibility of
falling into any doctrine of subordinationism as to the rela
tions of the Son and the Holy Spirit to the Father in the
holy Trinity. In emphasising the absolute equality of the
three Divine Persons in the Godhead, he asserted the triunity
of all the Divine actions, without preserving any oeconomical
distinctions in that triunity. All things were created by the
holy Trinity ; it was the holy Trinity, and not specially the
Father, who sent Christ into the world. Even the three men

198 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
who appeared to Abraham were the three Persons in the
holy Trinity.1
Thus Augustine takes pains to insist that the relations
of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are entirely
immanent in the Godhead Himself. They do not apply to
the external manifestation of God in action, which is one.
Hence there were two results. Firstly, Fatherhood is no
longer the clue to the actions of the Father, in the Son, and
by the Spirit. It is true that from time to time Augustine
speaks of God as Father, especially where passages of the
New Testament force him to do so.2 But the thought is
inoperative in his theology. The triune action grows out of
a sovereign and not a fatherly relationship. And, secondly,
the significance for the world and for mankind of the Son,
as the Logos constituting the nature of the humanity He was
Himself to assume, is gone. The Sonship of our Lord in the
holy Trinity declares no truth as to the sonship of men in
and through Him.
Nay more, it does not even suffice to make His own
eternal Sonship the guide to an interpretation of the incar
nation of the Son of God and of His incarnate life. The life
of the incarnate Christ is understood practically without
reference to the eternal relationship of the Son in the holy
Trinity. It is not even explained by the relationship of
Sonship at all. Both the Incarnation and the incarnate
life are seen simply as a continuous act of humility, con
descending to manhood, to service, and to suffering, and
not in the light of the life of sonship, with its obedience
and trust.
Thus when Christ was no longer seen, above all else, to
be the incarnate Son, casting by His Sonship a twofold light,
revealing the Fatherhood of God and the sonship — potential or
realised — of men, the conditions were complete for the substi-
1 See for this whole doctrine, especially Augustine, De Trinitate, i. 7, ii.
18, v. 2, ix. ; Encheiridion, ix.
2 See, e.g., Confessions, viii. 6, ix. 9, x. 46. Once and again, however,
passages occur where Fatherhood receives a fuller recognition. For example,
Confessions, x. 6 : "Parvulus sum sed vivit semper Pater meus, et idoneus est
mihi tutor meus ; idem ipse est enim qui genuit me et tuetur me : et tu ipse es
omnia bona ruea, tu omnipotens qui meum es, et prius quam tecum sim."

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 199
tution in theology of the Divine sovereignty, with all its
consequences, for the Fatherhood of God.
5. One influence alone could have checked this trans
formation — the influence of Augustine's own personal religion.
But just here its pecuharities had the opposite effect, and
accelerated, instead of hindering, the change. To begin with :
the experience of his intellectual and moral struggles,
and his deliverance by God Himself, made him profoundly
conscious of salvation as redemption from the power of evil.
This peculiarly intense experience, together with the depth of
his rehgious feeling, sent him above all to the Psalms, which
give ideal expression to the consciousness of redemptive
deliverance. And from them, as we have seen,1 the doctrine
of the Fatherhood of God is absent, while His sovereignty
is magnified as the object both of worship and trust. Again,
Augustine's experience made him a close student of St.
Paul, and led him to fasten upon just those portions of
St. Paul's theology which are commonly called forensic, and
which create superficial — though, as we have seen,2 only
superficial — difficulties as to the supremacy and universality
of the Fatherhood of God. Where these were above all seized
upon, it was natural to treat the sovereignty, which is
obvious, without regard to the Fatherhood, which is latent.
And, finally, Augustine never attained to that assurance
of personal and permanent standing with God which is the
mark of evangelical rehgion in the New Testament and since
the Eeformation. He is unresting in the quest of God ; he is
visited by the grace and love of God, and his heart responds
with joy and love. But he neither asks nor obtains the filial
assurance of present, full, and final acceptance with God.
Space prevents us from discussing the explanation : the
fact remains. It is true, not only of Augustine, but of
almost all mediaeval piety. It is both cause and effect of
the disappearance from thought of the Fatherhood of God in
Christ, with the gracious tenderness of Him who loves us
with an everlasting love, and satisfies us with the assurance
of His salvation. 1 Chapter IV. 2 Chapter III.

200 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
SECOND SECTION. — The Mediaeval Doctrine of
Divine Sovereignty
With the theology of Augustine the Fatherhood of God
had, as we have seen, passed entirely out of sight. It had
been replaced by the conception of His sovereignty. This
conception of His relationship to mankind ruled the theology
of the Middle Ages.
It is true that, for the most part, the Divine sovereignty
was not set forth with the rigour of Augustine, but, tempered
by the conditionalism of the Eoman Church, with its vast
machinery of means of grace. It had been so qualified even
by Augustine, though the absolutism of His doctrine of God
and the conditionahsm of his Catholicism were, because incom
patible, in only external connexion with one another. The
Church found both his doctrine of the will of God and his
doctrine of the utter ruin and helplessness of human nature
impracticable as a working theory of human life ecclesiasti
cally conditioned. Not till Calvin was it possible to adopt
them without hmitations, and to make them the foundation
of theology and of Church life. Yet for the thousand years
after Augustine, during which ecclesiastical pohtics were
the supreme influence over the Christian world, the sovereignty
of God was the only existing conception of His relationship to
mankind. Indeed, while the development of the ecclesiastico-
political system of the Church in some respects softened the
sovereignty, and in others elaborated contrivances for screening
men from it, yet it only confirmed the inability of theologians
to conceive of any other relationship as existing, either
instead of or alongside of, much less as supreme over, this
Divine sovereignty.
We must proceed, therefore, to trace the influences
throughout the Middle Ages which contributed both to
strengthen the hold and to modify the expression of the
doctrine of the sovereignty of God in Christian theology.
Our survey may be brief, because it is almost entirely limited
to the consideration of the view taken of this highest relation
ship ; because, also, it is only necessary to review the teaching
of those few representative men who have summed up the

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 201
characteristic teaching of their own times, and by so doing
have been in the main current of Christian thought. We
must consider, in order, how the conception of the sovereignty
of God is affected or expressed by Christian politics and law,
by scholastic philosophy, by practical piety, and by the poetry
of Dante.

1. The Influence of Politics and Law
During the Middle Ages the outstanding characteristic is
the development of authority, and particularly of the authority
of the Church.
A wonderful chain of causes contributed to the develop
ment and ascendency of the papal power in the Middle Ages.
The history and its explanation lie beyond the scope of our
present inquiry. A few words necessary to the understanding
of our subject must suffice. The religious ideal which in
spired and guided the movement was supplied by Augustine's
De Civitate Dei. The opportunity was provided by the
withdrawal of the Eoman emperors to Constantinople. In
the absence of the emperor, the most influential personality
in the West was the Bishop of Eome. Henceforth the chair
of Peter instead of the throne of Caesar was invested with
the splendid and undying prestige of the imperial city.
And this was growingly the case, as the sceptre was borne by
ever feebler hands, and as such energies as were left to the
emperors were more severely taxed by the growing perils of
the East. The subsequent fiction of the Donatio Constantini —
the alleged cession by Constantine to the Eoman bishop
of supreme authority in the West — if a literal falsehood,
represented a historical truth. And the occasion was pre
sented by the break-up of the old Eoman world ; by the birth
of the newly settled nationalities, and by the movements for
their evangelisation. The call of God to convert and civilise
barbarian Europe was heard, and a strong authority was
necessary to influence and control the mind and morals of
those who united the intellect of children with more than
the passions of men. The result brought about was the
combined effect of Christian truth and of advantageous

202 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
civilisation. But these were welded together under the
influence of Borne, and were made omnipotent by the awe
which the great city never ceased to inspire even over those
who had overthrown her material power.
Thus Catholic succeeded imperial Eome. The downfall
of the empire, with its citizenship among all peoples, was
followed by the rise of the Church, which transcended
national particularism by the citizenship of catholic and
spiritual fellowship. The predominant note of the Church
became that of authority, held to be apostolic. And the
development of that authority not only brought the priest
face to face with each- individual man, but from a mere
primacy of influence built up a supremacy for the Bishop of
Borne over all other bishops, and eventually made the
Hildebrandine papacy a power before which kings, even the
proudest, quailed.
But the new-making of the European world, under the
influence ahke of the empire and of the Church of Borne,
eventually raised the civil problem, and in a peculiar form.
With the rise of national life in new vigour the necessity and
the worth of the secular order of things once more asserted »
itself. It could neither be ignored nor despised. Augustine's
view suited an age of decay and downfall, but not one of
renascent life and of social reconstruction. Neither the
reality, the worth, nor the sanctity of the natural and
political order would be denied. And the catholicity of the
Church created a demand for internationalism in politics
also, — for a central point of unity in civil government, to
counteract the centrifugal tendencies of the new nationalities.
The traditions of ancient Eome, the reality of papal Eome,
created a conviction not only that such a political unity was
possible, but that it was normal. Hence the spirit of
imperial Eome, still hovering over the world, the experience
of Catholic Eome, and the uprising of national and inter
national interests created an opportunity, and with the
opportunity came the man, in Charlemagne. The foundation
of the holy Eoman Empire, in a.d. 800, when Charles was
crowned in Eome by the pope, was the result. As the pope
was supreme over bishops, so henceforth, in theory, was the

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 203
emperor to be supreme over kings. As the pope was the
centre of unity for the whole world in things spiritual, so
henceforth was the emperor to be in things temporal. Thus
in later times Louis iv. proclaimed that he " was guardian
of the human race, of the Christian world ; chosen by God to
preside over the city and the world." x
It matters not for us that the ideal was never realised —
that the practical impotence of the empire justified the
modern sarcasm that it was neither holy, nor Eoman, nor an
empire. We are in the realm of ideals which lived in and
for the faith of those who held them. And the men of the
Middle Ages could as little do without the ideal as they
could brook the reality. Such an institution might have had
the utmost concrete reality, and yet have had little influence
for thought or faith. The reverse is the truth. The
existence of the empire was spiritual ; it lived by faith, and
therefore coloured the whole thought of men.
And, above all, the empire coloured religious thought ; for
it must needs be conceived as an ordinance of God, created
for the well-being of secular, as the papacy for that of
spiritual, life. The Divine sovereignty had its spiritual
representative in the pope, its secular representative in the
emperor. Thus the Archbishop of Mentz declared to the
Emperor Conrad II., " Thou hast reached the height of
dignity ; thou art the Vicar of Christ." 2
The relations of these two Vicars of Christ were the
subject of the most passionate controversy in the thirteenth
and fourteenth centuries. Did the emperor hold his authority
direct from God, or was it delegated to him by the pope ?
We are not concerned with the course or with the pohtical
and ecclesiastical results of the dispute. But the discussion
produced at the beginning of the fourteenth century the
celebrated treatise of Dante, De Monarchia, in which he gave
his pohtical philosophy to the world.
1 "Gentis humanse, orbis Christiani custos, urbi et orbi a Deo electus
praesse," Pfeffinger, Vitriarius illustratus, quoted by Bryce, Holy Roman
Empire, 7th edition, p. 111.
2 "Ad summum dignitatis pervenisti ; Vicarius es Christi," Wippo, Vita
Chuonradi (apud Pertz), c. 3, quoted by Bryce, Holy Roman Empire, 7th
edition, p. 110.

204 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
To begin with : Dante establishes the necessity of a
universal monarchy. He points out that the human race,
as a community, is both a whole in regard to particular
kingdoms and races which are its parts, and a part in regard
to the whole universe. " As, therefore, the subordinate parts
of the human community answer well to it, so in its turn it
is said to answer to its whole. Its parts answer well to it
by means of one principle only, as can easily be gathered from
what has been already said ; therefore, also, it simply answers
well to its universe, or to the Buler of it, who is God and
Monarch, by means of one principle only, that is, one Euler
(per unum principium tantum, scilicet unicum Principem).
From which it follows that monarchy is necessary to the
well-being of the world." x It is the purpose of God that all
things should resemble Him, so far as their nature is
capable of so doing. And this is especially true of man, who
was made after the " image and likeness " of God. " Therefore
the human race is constituted well, and in the best way,
when it resembles God according to its power. But the
human race resembles God in the highest degree when it is in
the highest degree one ; for the true reason of the one is in
Him alone. On account of which it was written : ' Hear, 0
Israel, the Lord thy God is one ! ' " 2 And the greatest measure
of unity can only be secured among men by subjection to
one ruler. It is needless to pursue the details of the
argument, but the conclusion is that " existence, unity, and
goodness" are bound up together in that order, that the more
existence the more unity, the more unity the more goodness,
and that the monarchy secures the maximum of all three.3
The second Book furnishes a historical proof that the
universal monarch can be none other than the Eoman
emperor. The conquest by Eome of the whole world, and its
reduction to unity under the empire, was the ordering of
Divine Providence. To secure unity by conquest was, as
Dante admits, a second-best method, but it was the only one
available, where the world was divided into hostile parts.
And 'the highest mark of God's ordination and good pleasure
is to be found in the fact that Christ was born when
1 De Monarchia, i. 7. " Ibid. i. 8. 3 Ibid. i. 15.

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 205
Augustus reigned as the first emperor, and that then the
whole world was at peace.
The third Book treats of the relations of the monarchy,
as represented by the Eoman emperor, to the papacy. Dante
seeks to establish the conclusion that each stands in direct
relationship to God, and that therefore the authority of each
is distinct from and parallel to that of the other ; the empire
being charged with the temporal interests of mankind, the
Church with the concerns of their eternal salvation. He uses
the curious arguments of the Middle Ages in support of this
contention ; e.g. the bearing of the analogies of the sun and the
moon, Levi and Judah, the two swords of Luke xxii. 38, are
discussed. But, above all, he claims that the empire existed
prior to the papacy, and therefore he argues that " if the Church
should possess the power of granting authority to the Eoman
emperor, it must either have it from God, or from itself, or
from some emperor, or from the universal assent of men, or
at least of those of them who are paramount." 1 And not one
of these suppositions is correct.
His final conclusion is that " it is manifest that the
authority of the temporal monarch, without any mediation,
descends to hinj from the fount of universal authority ;
which fount indeed, united in the citadel of its own simphcity,
flows into manifold channels out of the abundance of its
goodness." 2 The emperor, or monarch of the world, stands
in immediate relations to the Euler of the Universe, who is
God.3 How deeply Dante mourned the papal aggression which
destroyed the true independence of the empire is shown by
his reference to it in the Divina Commedia.
1 "Amplius, si Ecclesia virtutem haberet auctorizandi Romanum Principem,
aut haberet a Deo, aut a se, aut ab Imperatore aliquo aut ab universo mortalium
adsensu, vel saltern ex illis prsevalentium," De Monarchia, iii. 14.
2 "Sic ergo patet, quod auctoritas temporalis monarchae sine ullo medio in
ipsum de fonte universalis auctoritatis descendit. Qui quidem fons, in arce suae
simplicitatis unitus, in multiplices alveos influit ex abundantia bonitatis," De
Monorchia, iii. 16.
3 " Ostensive probandum est, Imperatorem sive Mundi Monarcham,
immediate se habere ad Principem universi, qui Deus est," De Monarchia,
iii. 16.

206 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
" Rome," he says, " that turn'd it unto good,
Was wont to boast two suns, whose several beams
Cast light on either way, the world's and God's.
One since hath quench'd the other ; and the sword
Is grafted on the crook ; and so conjoin'd,
Each must perforce decline to worse, unawed
By fear of other. If thou doubt me, mark
The blade : each herb is judged of by its seed." 1
It is clear, from all this, how powerful was the mutual
influence of the theological and the political conception.
Authority on earth was fortified, because held to be the earthly
vicegerent of the sovereignty of heaven. But, on the other
hand, the prevalence of the imperial analogies reacted upon
the conception of the relationship of God to men. It mat
tered not, in this respect, in which way the dispute between
the pope and the emperor was decided. The discussion
brought into the foreground the conception of civil rule, by
the might of will, expressed in law, and executed if necessary
by force, even though that rule were held by the authorisation
of the pope. The association with the Eoman empire, and the
belief that that empire was an ordinance of God prior to the
existence of the Church, strengthened this impression. The
imperial conception of earthly government, viewed as the
secular expression of Divine authority, therefore led naturally,
as the quotations from Dante have shown, to an imperial con
ception of the relationship of God to mankind. Thus it followed
that Dante spoke of God as " the Emperor of the Universe " ; 2
and that, long after the ideal of the earthly emperor had paled
away, that of the heavenly Emperor remained supreme.
1 ' ' Soleva Roma, che'l buon mondo feo,
Duo Soli aver, che l'una e l'altra strada
Facean vedere, e del mondo e di Deo.
L'un l'altro ha spento, ed e'giunta la spada
Col pastorale : e l'un coll 'altro insieme
Per viva forza mal convien che vada ;
Perocche giunti, l'un l'altro non teme.
Se non mi credi, pon mente alia spiga,
Ch' ogni erba si conosce per lo seme." II Purgatorio, Canto xvi.
The quotations of Dante given throughout in the text are from Cary's
translation. 2 Convito. See also the general conception of the Divina Commedia.

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 207
And to this political influence must be added the effect
of the legal spirit, which was characteristic of Eoman religion.
It had been so from the earliest times, as we have seen.
Latin theology had interpreted the relations of God to men
and the work of salvation in terms of law, had turned the
creed into law imposed by authority, while Latin religion over
awed the conscience of those it influenced by reminding them
of the Divine Judge. Throughout the period of moral decay
which marked the fall of the empire, and of the rudimentary
moral instruction of the new races rising to national hfe under
the training of the Church, that insistence, if one-sided, was
natural, and to a certain extent salutary. It left its mark,
however, upon formal theology.
And to this generally legal conception of the relationship
of God to men was added in the Middle Ages the effect
produced by the development of ecclesiastical law.
When the Eoman law, upheld by the Eoman authority,
failed owing to the break-up of the empire, and special caste
laws took its place, the only semblance of a central authority
and of a common law for Europe was supplied by the Church,
whose overwhelming influence enabled the popes to some
extent to fill the gap by their decisions on matters affecting
the Church ; and even beyond, for there are many points of
contact between decisions as to moral law and administration
in the interests of social order.
The revival of legal studies and of the influence of Eoman
law as codified by Justinian at the University of Bologna in
the twelfth century, exercised an immense effect upon the
Church. As civil law became once more systematic, and the
conception of a universal law was revived, the law of the
Church must follow suit. Hence the development of Canon
Law in the thirteenth century under the auspices of Gregory
IX. and by the efforts of Gratian, modelled after the pattern of
the Corpus Juris Civilis. Thus the study of law passed into
the hfe of the Church, and to be a leading ecclesiastic was
above all to be a jurist.
Once more, the Church was armed for advance. The
Christian nations united to fill the ranks of the great mihtary
orders for the protection of Christendom against the un-

208 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
behevers. And in the spiritual sphere the great monastic
orders, composed of men who had no citizenship save of
Jerusalem above and of papal Eome below, made the idea of
the City of God to live for piety, as it does in the great hymn
of Bernard of Clugny.
Thus the whole development of thought in Church and
State developed the conception of the monarchy of God. The
idea of His sovereignty might be weakened by its representa
tion through earthly Vicars in Church and State, but it
remained the only conception left of the relationship in
which God stood to mankind. It became so external for
ecclesiastical and popular religion, that for the majority the
spiritual conditions out of which the Divine sovereignty
grows and which it serves passed entirely out of mind and
heart. But, though the grounds of its absoluteness passed
out of sight and its spiritual meaning was ignored, the con
ception as such stood alone ; its sufficiency unquestioned, its
simplicity secured by its externality and lack of truly
spiritual content. 2. Scholasticism
From the eleventh to the fourteenth century is the
period of scholasticism, that is, of the sustained effort after
the philosophical apprehension of the dogmas of the Church.
The fundamental difference between the typical School
men and Augustine, by whose thought they were profoundly
influenced, may be said to be as follows. Augustine, a man
of philosophical mind, was moved to set forth Christianity as
he apprehended it, in forms deeply coloured by philosophy.
But, throughout, his object was entirely religious and practical,
not philosophical. The Schoolmen, however, while for the
most part men of high Christian character, were moved by an
entirely intellectual impulse. Their object was to furnish an
intellectual interpretation of Christianity, as understood by
the Church, in terms of the philosophy they were familiar
with, and by the help of that philosophy both to solve any
difficulties felt within the Church in regard to the faith, and
to refute any objections that might be urged against it from
without.

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 209
The general problem of the Schoolmen was, given the
doctrines of faith (that is, the dogmas of the Church received
with unquestioning assent), how to interpret them to, to
support them by, or even to base them upon, the reason.
There was no question as yet of a possible divergence between
the two. For the earlier Schoolmen, the spheres of faith and
reason were coextensive, and the deliverances of the one and
of the other identical. The later Schoolmen restricted,
indeed, both the range and the power of reason ; but, within
the limits marked out for it, reason was always a consenting
voice to the faith ; only the Nominalists, with the later and
more ecclesiastical Schoolmen, took up an attitude opposed to
reason. And they did so, not because its decisions contradicted
those of faith, or because they started with a contempt for
the power of human reason as creaturely, but because their
doctrine of God destroyed His rationality, and, by conse
quence, the rationality of the universe. Since reason had
not planned, reason could not interpret the universe.
With these reservations, the general intellectual outlook
of the Schoolmen upon Christianity was the same. Ample
room, however, was left for subordinate differences ; as, for
example, for the celebrated controversy between the Bealists
and Nominalists as to the nature of Universals ; or for that
concerning the relations of faith and reason, as represented
by the Credo ut intelligam of Anselm, and the rejoinder, In-
telligo ut credam, of Abelard.
But there are two differences which, for our subject, are
of greatest importance. The first is that between the earlier
and later Schoolmen, that is to say, between those whose
philosophy was moulded by Plato and those who followed
Aristotle, rediscovered by the help of the Arab philosophers.
For the former period Anselm is of moment to our inquiry ;
for the latter, Thomas Aquinas. The other difference is
between those who sought the key to the universe in the
reason of God, and those who found it in His will. This
last tendency is represented by Duns Scotus and by the
Nominalists. We must briefly consider the three types in
connexion with these three names. Into further detail it is
unnecessary for our purpose to go.

210 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
(1) The Earlier Schoolmen — Anselm
The philosophy of the earlier Schoolmen was Platonic, was
above all that of the Timceus, coming to them, not direct, but
through Augustine, Boethius, and the pseudo-Dionysius.
From the Platonic doctrine of the Ideas came the
scholastic Eeahsm. Its greatest recommendation was the
rational support it seemed to give to the doctrine of the
holy Trinity. And the result of the apparent coincidence
between the greatest fact of theology and the highest truth
of philosophy was, naturally, a confident belief in the power
of the reason. and the fearless submission of the mysteries of
the faith to its speculation and discussion.
But it is obvious that while, in one direction, Platonic
idealism, or scholastic realism, lends itself readily to the
service of Christian theism, in another it exposes that theism
to an almost fatal danger. It is easy not only to use Platonic
idealism in defence of the doctrine of the Trinity, but also
to treat the Godhead as the eternal home of the Ideas, and
to supply them, from the Godhead, not only with the principle
of existence, but also with that creative activity with which
Plato had found it so difficult to endow them. And, further,
while the doctrine of the Trinity was a protection against
pantheism, and secured the transcendence of God, it was easy
on Platonic grounds to give the fullest expression to His im
manence in creation, and therefore to His supremacy over it.
But, equally, it was difficult to establish consistently any
measure of independence for the creature, or any full mean
ing for personahty in man. Mankind, each individual man,
was threatened with theoretic absorption in God, with the
loss of that basis of independent, if delegated and hmited,
personal existence which is necessary if the relations between
God and men are to have rehgious worth, or, indeed, any real
significance. The tendency, moreover, is in leaving God as
the sole Being of the universe to substitute a doctrine of
emanation for that of creation. The result, strictly speak
ing, is fatal equally to God's sovereignty as to His Father
hood ; for sovereignty in any real sense must be spiritual and
moral — involves, therefore, a free, if finite, human personality

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 211
face to face with God. But perhaps, under such conditions,
the conception of sovereignty is more natural than that of
Fatherhood, at least for Western minds, in the sense that the
Absolute has supreme control over His own life, and its evolu
tion or manifestations. That quasi-sovereignty will be the
naturahstic supremacy of force, or the logical all-sufficiency
of an abstract definition, according as abstract will or abstract
reason is more influential in the thinker's mind. This general
result of the Platonic idealism is seen in the theology of John
Scotus Erigena.
From this danger Anselm was saved by the sincerity of
his Trinitarianism, and by the Augustinian expression which
he gave to it. But his safety was gained at the cost of in
consistency, and of a total lack of continuity and coherence
between the various parts of his theology as a whole. And
the general effect of his theology is, after an internal oscilla
tion, to arrive at error of a precisely opposite kind.
The philosophical theism of Anselm is set forth in his
Monologion and Proslogion, in which he endeavours by inde
pendent speculation to establish the being, the attributes,
and the personal distinctions of the Godhead, and, in addition,
His general relations to the universe. Each treatise contains
its own form of the ontological argument for which Anselm
is celebrated ; of the general position, namely, that the thought
of God involves His existence. The main argument of the
Proslogion is that the existence of God is given in the
thought of Him as supreme perfection. For if He did not
exist, another being might be conceived adding to all the per
fections of the imaginary being that of existence. But, by
hypothesis, God is supreme perfection. Thus it must be im
possible to imagine a more perfect being. And therefore
His perfection must include His existence.1
In the Monologion Anselm starts with the ideas of the
Good and of the Existent. By a process of logical abstrac
tion he arrives at the conclusion that God is the supreme
Good and the highest Existence, united and immanent, as the
ground of existence, in all that is. This Summum Bonum
and Ens Entium is simple and eternal.2
1 Proslogion, cap. ii. 2 Monologion, cap. i. et seq.

212 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
Up to this point Anselm is fully exposed to the danger
described above in its more logical form ; that is, of finding
the whole essence or meaning of the universe, intellectually
conceived, in the immanent God as its intellectual ground.
He escapes, however, by means of the doctrine of the
Trinity set forth in terms supphed by Augustine. The God
whose existence and goodness have been arrived at as above,
exists necessarily in Trinity as the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Ghost. The Father is Memory (Memoria), the Son is
Intelligence or the Word (Intellectus, Verbum), the Holy
Spirit is Love (Amor). It needs little demonstration to
show that God, as the supreme personality, which is meant
by infinite perfection, must have all three. He must have
memory, that is, He must be self-conscious, and be the
eternal storehouse of His own experiences; He must have
intelligence and the power to express it ; and He must have
love. What is not so obvious is the personification of these
psychological abstractions, and their identification at a bound
with the three Persons of the Godhead revealed in the gospel.
Yet it is in this way that Anselm saves himself from a
doctrine of emanation, and particularly by the stress which
he lays upon the Divine Word. For the " Word " raises at
once the thought of mind, and even more of will, uttering
itself in revelation and in command. And the Word must
be spoken to someone, and in respect of something. There
fore the thought of creation resumes its place, the creative
will becomes prominent, and the created universe becomes
something in a measure external to God and related to Him
through the Word, who created and ordered it in Love. Hence
the immanence of God, given by the ontological argument, is
thrown into the background by the externality and independ
ence of a universe created by His Word, and the Divine
sovereignty, by the Word and through the Spirit, occupies the
foreground. The Fatherhood of God in regard to the universe
of course is impossible, seeing that the Father is such only
in relation to the Son; His Fatherhood, moreover, means
little more than that Self-consciousness (Memoria) is the con
dition of Intelligence and of self-revealing Will (Intellectus,
Verbum), while Love comes last, if not least, in the sacred Triad.

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 213
This sovereignty supplies the starting-point for the Cur
Deus Homo. But again we meet with a manifest and most
striking change. To begin with : the psychological inter
pretation of the Persons of the holy Trinity has vanished,
and the ordinary conception of independent personal rela
tionship has taken its place. And, secondly, the philosophical
aspect of God's sovereignty has vanished, save for an occasional
gleam, and has become entirely inoperative. In its place is
a sovereignty, frankly based upon the analogies of mediaeval
feudalism. The Incarnation and death of Christ are ex
plained as a satisfactio to God, a restoration to Him of that
of which He had been robbed by sin, with an added com
pensation for the insult offered to Him by sin. All is under
stood by means of human law familiar to Anselm — by means
of a conception of the Divine Majesty which simply moulds
the claims of God upon, and His procedure towards man upon,
those of ordinary earthly sovereignty, though with an occa
sional gleam of profounder truth, supplied by a haunting
remembrance of Augustine.1
Thus in the Cur Deus Homo the theology of Anselm
ends at the opposite extreme from its beginning. His
ontology only saved itself from destroying the conception of
any universe capable of personal relations with God, by means
of a precarious use of the doctrine of the holy Trinity. But,
in the end, under the influence of human analogies, pressed
too far, God, the Son, mankind, have become so external to
and independent of one another, that there is no possibility
of setting each in vital relations to the others; that the
soteriology is not only, in the last resort, unspiritual, but
also accidental ; and that the unique majesty of the Divine
sovereignty sinks to the level, by being set forth under the
forms, of feudal monarchy.
(2) The Later or Aristotelian Schoolmen — Thomas Aquinas
A great transformation of scholastic thought was brought
about by the discovery of Aristotle through the Arab philoso-
1 I refer to the doctrine of the necessary "ordering" of sin by God. See
Cur Deus Homo, i. 12.

214 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
phers Averrhoes (Ibn Easchid) and Avicenna (Ibn Sina) At
first the association of the Greek philosopher with Moham
medan teachers, their use of him in support of their own
theological tenets, and the difference of tone between him
and the Blatonic philosophy, hitherto supreme, created a
prejudice against Aristotle, and he was banned by the
Church. But eventually the very process of controverting the
Aristotelian Arabs led to a better understanding of their
master, and to the perception of the service which he could
render to the polemic and dogmatic interests of the Christian
rehgion. At length Aristotle, in his turn, became the supreme
philosophical influence over mediaeval thought, with the result
that Augustine fell ever more and more into the background
till the Eeformation. Indeed the influence of Thomas
Aquinas, the greatest of the Aristotelian Schoolmen, over all
subsequent theological thought has involved the downfall of
Platonism, not only in Eoman Catholic theology, but for the
most part among Protestant dogmatists and writers on
Christian evidences. The significant exception must be
made, that all the Eeformers before the Eeformation and
the greatest Eeformers of the sixteenth century — notably
Luther and Calvin — revolted against Aristotle, and fell
back naturally upon Augustine as second only to the Holy
Scriptures. In one very important respect, which had, as we shall see,
decisive consequences for theological thought, Aristotle became
an authority for the Schoolmen in a sense that Plato had
never been. The earlier Schoolmen had no immediate
knowledge of Plato. He influenced them through the
writings of Augustine and of the pseudo-Dionysius, and, in
a subsidiary way, through the doctrine of the relation of
God to the world, and of eternity to time, reproduced from
the Timceus in the De Consolatione Philosophies of Boethius.
Thus Plato never reached them independently, but only as he
had been absorbed into previous Christian or semi-Christian
thought. But Aristotle was in the end enabled to speak to the

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 215
later Schoolmen direct, and thus to supply to them a philosophy
of the universe entirely distinct from, if in essential par
ticulars corroborative of, their Christian theology.
The result became apparent in the teaching of Albertus
Magnus, and yet more so in that of his greater disciple and
successor, Thomas Aquinas, with whom alone, on account of
his completely representative position, we need here concern
ourselves. We must consider changes introduced or perfected and
made current by the doctrine of Aquinas, so far as they relate
to our immediate subject. In the first place, Aquinas gave
final expression, following Albertus Magnus in the matter, to
the distinction, which has ever since been generally received,
between natural and revealed theology.1
Natural religion is the doctrine of God, His existence,
attributes, and relations to the universe, which is attainable
by reason, according to a logical proof, even without a Divine
revelation. That there is such a natural theology, what is
its scope, and what are its contents, the philosophy of Aristotle
plainly shows. In short, natural theology, as the science of
God that can be established without revelation, is simply
the doctrine of God which has been so estabhshed by
Aristotle. Of such truth men had a double warrant — the warrant of
reason, establishing its conclusions by its own independent
processes ; and, in addition, that of the revelation contained in
the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, interpreted by
the dogmas of the Church.2
But the peculiar historical facts of Christianity and its
pecuhar dogmas — for example, those of the holy Trinity and
the Incarnation — were altogether beyond the range of human
reason, though not contrary to it. Beason was under obliga
tion to accept these from authority, on the ground of revela-
1 Summa contra Gentiles, i., Prooemium, cap. iii. The plea may be urged
that St. Paul originated the distinction between natural and revealed theology
when he said that the "invisible things of God " were "clearly seen " by the
Gentile world, "even His eternal power and Godhead" (Rom. i. 20). But in
reality this is not so. St. Paul treats this knowledge as a preparatory revelation.
He says, " God manifested it unto them " (Rom. i. 19).
2 Summa contra Gentiles, i., Procemium, cap. iv.

216 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
tion, and, having accepted them, could never become compe
tent to prove them.1
Yet here reason had ancillary functions — those, namely,
of scientific definition, of examining and refuting objections,
and of discrediting counter - doctrines diverging from the
authoritative dogmas.2
As to natural religion, reason works parallel to revelation ;
as to revealed, within the sphere of and in subordination to
revelation. In the second place, Aquinas gave final expression to
the henceforth received Eoman doctrine of human nature in
relation to the knowledge and service of God.
From the beginning it had been taught that man's know
ledge of God had been obscured and his power to serve God
weakened by sin. But different views as to the degree of this
depravation had been held — from the spiritually-grounded opti
mism of Clement of Alexandria, not to mention the humanism
of Pelagius, to the Augustinian doctrine of the total inability
of the nature which had become " a mass of perdition."
But, by a strange irony, the ecclesiastical and intellec
tual revolt against the impracticable pessimism of Augustine
resulted in placing man at a greater natural distance from
God than in the doctrine of Augustine. Augustine, with
noble inconsistency, had read the secret of universal human
capacity in his own spiritual experience, and had cried, " Thou
madest us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless till they
find rest in Thee." No introduction of theological qualifica
tions can modify the glorious universahsm of a Divine need
and capacity as the root-fact of human nature, even though
ruined by the Fall.
In Aquinas the extreme gloom of the Augustinian doc
trine of total ruin has gone. But so also has the splendour
of Augustine's conception of the essential meaning and worth
of human nature. The following doctrine has taken its place.
God is unspeakable and above human knowledge.3 This
1 Summa contra Gentiles, i., Prooemium, cap. v. 2 Ibid. cap. ix.
3 "Per hoc ergo quod homini de Deo aliqua proponuntur, quae rationem
exoedunt, firmatur in homine opinio, quod Deus sit aliquid supra id quod cogitari
potest," Summa contra Gentiles, i., Prooemium, cap. v. See also cap. iii.

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 217
fundamental position is adopted from pseudo-Dionysius and
the neo-Platonists. And man has lost by the Fall the super
natural and superhuman grace which made him a supernatural
being, capable of fellowship with God. His general powers
have no doubt been weakened by sin, but the really important
change has been the loss of the " superadded gift " (donum
super additum), which before the Fall lifted man into the
supernatural sphere and enabled him to have communion with
God. This gift redemption restores by means of the sacra
ments of the Church. Without it man is a merely natural
being, competent, though with diminished power, for secular
ends, but without spiritual capacities. He is not, indeed,
ruined throughout, but is limited to that originally earthly
environment for which alone he is naturally fitted and in
which he is naturally satisfied.
It is obvious how this affects the Fatherhood of God.
Sin, as destroying man's fellowship with God, was, according
to the earlier doctrine, a deadly disease, striking at the very
heart of human nature. All that produced spiritual in
capacity was a fatal defect of human nature, which in its
true and inmost constitution could only be explained in
terms of its capacity for God. But with Aquinas all this
has been changed. Fellowship with God is not in the truest
sense natural to man, but is supernatural. Man, though
unequal and indifferent to the knowledge and service of God,
is man according to his original and natural capacity. Human
nature can be adequately defined and can actually exist with
out Godward capabilities, which are " superadded." Such a
doctrine is incompatible with the Fatherhood of God and
with the originally filial constitution of mankind, for which a
life of fellowship must be, strictly speaking, natural and not
supernatural.1 Aquinas not only ignores the Fatherhood and
dispenses with it, as did Augustine ; he destroys it. Man, in
capable of God by nature without the "superadded gift," may
be the work of a Divine Artificer, the effect of an Aristotelian
First Cause, but is not either potentially or really the child
of God ; since capacity for fellowship, and therefore incom-
1 Natural must here, of course, be interpreted as according to the nature of
man, and not according to the nature of things.

218 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
pleteness and degradation without it, is of the essence of
sonship. In the third place, in Aquinas the Aristotelian Eealism
modified the general doctrine of the relationship of God to
the world. The Schoolmen distinguished between universalia ante rem,
universalia in re, and universalia post rem; in other words,
between the eternal ideals of things, their essence, and the
generalisations as to them formed by the processes of definition
and classification. Christian Platonism had, of course, laid
the whole stress upon the first. Aquinas, following Aristotle,
emphasised the second.
We have seen that Christian Platonism had had diffi
culty from its standpoint in safeguarding individuality. The
universalia ante rem subsisted in God and drew from Him
their creative power, which became the basis of external and
creaturely reality. There was danger, therefore, of making
God the only existence in the universe. But directly the
centre was shifted to the universalia in re, or the doctrine of
creaturely essence, the danger of the absorption of the finite
in God was done away by setting up its externality to Him,
and to some extent its independence. Things carry the secret
of their being within them, and, though that being comes
from God, His immanence is expressly done away with.
Aquinas lays down that God is in things not as form is
in body or as a sailor is in a ship, but as a cause is in its
effect.1 Thus the externality and quasi-independence of things
and persons is the starting-point with Aquinas, and the doc
trine of God becomes for him that of the First and Sufficient
Cause. The category of causality, indeed, becomes the key
stone of theology. Aquinas brushes away the ontological
argument of Anselm and goes on to establish the existence of
God a posteriori, as the explanation of the world. Thus in
the book "De Deo," having dismissed the ontological argu
ment, he goes on to demonstrate in Aristotelian fashion that
1 "Non sic est in rebus quasi aliquid rei, sed sicut rei causa, quae nullo modo
suo effectui deest. Non enim similiter esse dicimus formam in corpore et
nautam in navi," Summa contra Gentiles, i., De Deo, cap. 26.

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 219
the movement of the world demands a Prime-mover, Himself
unmoved ; that the world as effect can only be explained by a
First Cause ; that, moreover, there being manifestly degrees of
truth and existence, the highest must be God ; that there
being one order throughout the universe, there must be one
Governor over the whole.1
Having thus obtained his First Cause, conceived with
Aristotle as actus purus, Aquinas proceeds to endow Him
with those attributes which are necessary to explain the
particular effect manifest in the universe and in man. God
is one, personal, spiritual, and so forth ; He possesses
supremely goodness, truth, will, intelligence, love, and other
spiritual and moral attributes.2
This First Cause, in whom, according to the Christian
revelation, love is supreme, produces a world of effects which
are at once distinct from Him and yet hke Him. They are
distinct from God, because He is one and they are diverse ;
because, also, the cause must not be confused with the effect.
They are like Him, because the effect resembles its cause, and
in a sense the cause is in the effect.3 Thus Aquinas sets up
a world as the outward effect of God, that world being
crowned, apart from the angels, in man.
How, then, does God deal with men ? He governs them
by law ; He uplifts them by grace, in order that they may
fulfil law.4 Thus, by the twofold action of law and grace,
men are to reach the end marked out for them by God,
namely, to know God, who is the supreme end of every
intellectual substance.5 Here, finally, the mtellectuahsm of
the Greeks, which Aquinas necessarily adopted, making the
immediate intuition of God the highest end of the creature,
conflicts with his doctrine of grace, which makes man natur
ally incapable of his true end, until raised to a higher level
1 Summa contra Gentiles, i., De Deo, cap. 13, "Rationes ad probandum
Deum esse."
2 Ibid. i. caps. 15 - 102. See also Summa Theologice, Quaestio
Prima. 3 Ibid. i. cap. 29.
4 Ibid. iii. caps. 111-163. See also Summa Theologice, Prima Secundae,
Quaestiones 90-114.
5 Ibid. iii. cap. 25.

220 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
by what is strictly the mechanical and accidental action of
grace. Indeed, both in relation to law and grace, the over
emphasis on God as Cause is apparent. Law is the external
imposition of the commands of supreme will upon independent,
and possibly refractory, natures with no sufficient answer to
that law in their original spiritual constitution.1 Grace is
power, mechanical rather than vital, external and so acci
dental; the last manifestation of God as supreme Cause,
which shows its supremacy and its externality in nothing
more conclusively than this, that by a last forth-putting of
power God raises man above himself.
Every line of the theology of Aquinas has therefore
gone, not only to make the Divine sovereignty the only
conceivable relationship between God and man, but also to
externalise and harden it. The emphasis on causahty; the
discovery of God, not first in the deliverances of human
thought and consciousness where Augustine and Anselm
found Him, but in the communicated movement of the
universe ; the destruction, by theory, of the power of human
nature to find the presence of God given in and with itself ;
the use of causality, law, and grace, to set up a bridge
between the otherwise severed natures of God and man, — all
these elements, so opposed to the more spiritual if less
articulated theology of the past, have diminished the religious
significance of the theology, and have impoverished the
spiritual content of the relationship between God and man.
Substantially, the doctrine of Aquinas has held its ground
ever since, not only in the official Eoman theology, but in
what may be termed moderate Protestant dogmatics and
Christian evidences, though it has been shaken off whenever
religious fervour or spiritual idealism have arisen to claim
their due. (3) Duns Scotus — The Nominalists
As we have seen, Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas
hmited the power of human reason, but they did not doubt
the rationality of that which lay beyond its range. Eeason
1 As natural beings, effects of the First Cause, their nature is on a lower
plane than that of the Divine law.

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 221
was the key of all things, though the reason of God and not
of men. In other words, the nature of God was the ground
of His action, and therefore the explanation of the nature of
things. The universe had a necessary nature stamped upon
it, because, as effect, it resembled the nature of its cause.
And reason was on firm ground in seeking to know that
nature, and in treating it as truth, although perfectly to
reach and grasp it was beyond the power of the creaturely
and finite.
But Duns Scotus took an altogether different view.
For him the will of God is the only explanation of the
existence, . nature, and history of the universe. God, as
supreme Will, proposed to Himself certain ends. But, had He
willed otherwise, both ends and means, or either of them,
might have been altogether different. No reason can be
sought beyond the will of God for His action. In particular,
there is no recourse to the essential perfection of His nature,
for this would limit the freedom of His will. The creation
and the government of the world is the supreme example
of the arbitrary " Sic volo, sic jubeo ; sit pro ratione
voluntas." Hence the power of reason to interpret the world is gone ;
not because of any inherent imperfection in human reason, as
such, but because reason, Divine equally with human, does
not contain the secret of the purposes and acts of God. With
the emphasis on the will of God passes away all reference to
His nature. With the supersession of His nature, in order
to exalt the absoluteness of His will, goes the destruction of
all true rationality in the nature of things themselves. With
the destruction of rationality in the universe goes the
dethronement of reason in man. If he is to know how and
what things are, he must simply be told. If an arbitrary
will in the creature is not to set up its caprices in rebelhon
against the arbitrary but supreme will of the Creator, it must
be schooled in submission and unquestioning obedience.
The same general view was taken by the Nominahsts,
accentuated in their case by the fact that they swept away
the Aristotelian doctrine of Essence, alike the Platonic uni
versalia ante rem and the Aristotelian universalia in re, and

222 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
contended that the properties of things as enumerated in
definitions were simply conceptual and derived from ex
perience. Hence the exaggeration by both Scotists and the later
Nominalists of ecclesiastical authority. All knowledge of
God, of man, or of the universe, being simply acquaintance
with the fact of how God has happened to will, only the
Church, as entrusted with the secret by God, can disclose it.
All the duties of godliness and morality being created by the
bare acts of the Divine will, all that is required — nay, all that
can be given — is a sufficient authority to announce what they
are. Finally, the subjugation of the will being the whole
meaning of religion, the more nakedly authoritative the
ecclesiastical authority the more entirely it corresponds to
and represents the will of God in heaven, and secures the
ends of true religion on earth.
At such a price was the needed protest made against
the reign of theological abstractions, and against the too
intellectual explanation of religion, which prevailed during
the Scholastic period. The personality, the will, and the
authority of God were now emphasised but by the sacrifice
of His spiritual glory. The absoluteness of His sovereignty
was declared, while the deep and living grounds of that
absoluteness were destroyed. Faith had its issue no longer
in understanding, but in servility ; and an authority which
reigned in heaven by the negation of reason was represented
on earth by an authority which outraged the spiritual life,
and secured by tyranny the ends of a priestcraft which grew
the more exacting in proportion as it was accompanied by
entire intellectual unbelief and utter worthlessness of moral
life. Such was the spiritual judgment which fell on those
who dethroned eternal truth in God and reason in religion.
3. The Theology of Medieval Piety
But there were many saints and many movements of
deeply contemplative or of practical piety during the Middle
Ages. What was the effect of these upon general theology ?
How far and in what way did the experience and the aspira-

the fatherhood of god in church history 223
tions of their piety transform the theological conceptions of
these saintly men themselves ? The general answer to the
first question is, that these men and movements produced
little or no purely theological result, partly because they
never attained to preponderant influence, and partly because
they never produced a personality who, to the ardours of
spiritual aspiration and the tendencies of religious devotion,
added the intellectual capacity of a great constructive
theologian. This latter fact supphes, in part, the answer
to the second question. But, in addition, mediaeval piety
took, as we shall see, special forms, which in each type pre
vented it from transforming the current doctrine of the
relationship of God to men.
A brief notice of several of the leading representatives
of mediaeval piety will suffice to make this clear.
In few saints of the Middle Ages is a deeper or a
tenderer piety manifest than in Bernard of Clairvaux. Those
who know him only by the hymn,
" Jesus, the very thought of Thee," 1
may be surprised to find that he was a great ecclesiastical
statesman, the adviser of popes, a force in all political
discussions which affected the Church, a great administrator
and reformer of monastic life.
In addition to all this he was a theological writer and
controversialist, the unsparing opponent, in especial, of the
rationahsm of Abelard.
But, intellectually, Bernard was neither original nor
profound. Moreover, his tender devotion did not master the
intellectual instrument, nor was there that union between the
two which would have enabled a great spiritual personality
to transform the tenderness of his devotion into adequate
forms of theological thought. His devotion went out rather
to the personal and humanly manifested Jesus than to God
as revealed in Christ. The ardours of his heart went out
in devotion and humble obedience to the Jesus whom he
loved, and to whom, in relation to the Church and to the
faithful member of it, he applied the imagery and the sacred
1 Jesu, dulcis memoria.

224 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
passion, sublimated from the Song of Solomon, as Bernard
understood it.
Hence the force of Bernard's piety spent itself upon the
human Jesus ; his intellect simply adopted and expounded
the current theology, though he brought to it an added
graciousness and tenderness from that spirit of love which
was more fully expressed elsewhere.
Thus Bernard in his tract on loving God, De diligendo
Deo, written to Haimeric, a cardinal of the Church, makes no
mention whatever of the Fatherhood of God revealed by
Christ. He says, " You wish, therefore, to hear from me
wherefore and how God is to be loved ; and I answer, The
cause of loving is God Himself, the measure is to love Him
without measure." J He is to be loved for two reasons :
because of His own perfections, and because of His benefits
to men. The reasons for loving God and for the measure of that
love are summed up in Chapter VI. He, being so great, has
loved us so much, being, as we are, so insignificant and so
sinful. He who loves us is immensity, eternity, is love
passing knowledge, and so forth. The love which is returned
to such an object must be in keeping with the object, and
therefore without measure.
But the devotion of Bernard finds characteristic expression.
" I love Thee," he exclaims, " 0 Lord my strength, my founda
tion, my refuge and my liberator, and my whatever else
desirable and lovable can be said, my God, my helper, I
will love Thee for Thy gift and according to my measure,
which is less than what belongs to Thee, but not less than
my power ; who, although I cannot love Thee as much as I
ought, cannot love Thee beyond my power." 2
Again, Bernard expatiates on the bond of love ; but he
does so, not by means of the Fatherly and filial relationship
of the New Testament, but by the Aristotelian doctrine of
causes. " I said above," he declares, " the cause of loving
1 De diligendo Deo, cap. i., "Vultis ergo a me audire, quare et quomodo
diligendus est Deus ? et ego : Causa diligendi Deum Deus est, modus, sine
modo diligere."
2 Ibid. cap. vi.

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 225
God is God Himself. I said the truth : for He is both the
efficient and the final -cause. He Himself gives the occasion
of love, creates the affection of love, and consummates the
desire of love." 1
Bernard passes on to discuss the four grades of love,
beginning with the carnal love with which a man loves
himself, passing to the selfish love of God, thence to the love
of God on His own account, for the sake of His perfection,
and rising at last to that highest love in which a man no
longer loves himself at all except on account of God.2 But
throughout no fihal note is struck. The relationship in
which the God of love stands to the loving heart is never
expressed. He is immense, infinite, loving, perfect. His
love is enhanced in that it is manifested towards frail and
sinful creatures as their Helper and Eedeemer. He is the
end of their being ; but why, and in what relationship, we are
never told.
We pass to Francis of Assisi.
The note of his rehgion is his gladsomeness in God ; his
assured confidence in His love and providential care. He is
the "Joculator Dei." But his holy rapture is incommuni
cable. And, further, the faith of Francis is associated with his
devotion to poverty, his joy in casting off the burdens and
conventions of worldly civilisation, and returning to live as a
child of nature dependent upon God, or rather on the human
charity which God inspires. And Francis is in love with the
Crucified, and seeks to imitate Him by exultantly embracing
His cross, and especially in its most shameful and humiliating
aspects. This he effects by self-abasing ministry to the most
repulsive forms of human suffering and to the most unworthy
of moral outcasts, in the ecstatic desire for fellowship with
and conformity to the Servant Jesus, who finds hfe in utmost
service and sacrifice.
The spirit of this practical religion also was humanly
incommunicable, though its outward forms might be stereo
typed in a new fashion of monastic life. Thus there is
nothing more disappointing than the practical result of the
1 De diligendo Deo, cap. vii. 2 Ibid. caps, viii.-x.

226 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
life of Francis, save as an abiding, though inimitable, ideal.
The earliest Franciscanism broke the heart of its founder.
How much more would this have happened could the ecstatic
saint have looked into the future and seen the Franciscans,
busied indeed with external ministry, but still more occupied
with theological strife, the most subservient tools of papal
aggression, and through their purely practical spirit supplying
a constant succession of thinkers, from Duns Scotus to the
later Nominalists, who, as we have seen, magnified the papal
authority, because, by theory, they despaired of Divine truth,
and because, in heart, they had lost that immediate con
sciousness of the God of love which had made Francis so
supremely great.
But there were the Mystics. A detailed account of
these, and of their different types, according as intellectual,
moral, or emotional characteristics predominated, is here un
necessary. In the more intellectual phase, knowledge is the
supreme ideal, and man finds his goal is passing from the
mediate or reasoning stage to that immediate or intuitive
vision of God in which the beheving spirit is, as it has been
said, " all eye." In the more moral types, union with God is
the end desired. And the way by which this end is attained
may be represented in two different ways. It may be the
result of the spiritual activity of the finite spirit reaching out
to the Infinite, which is conceived to be quiescent, and hence
abstract, and in the end indeterminate. Or the activity may
be conceived as on the part of God, who seeks out the finite
spirit of man, which becomes capable of receiving Him
only so far as its own individual activity is completely
renounced.1 The noblest expression of this latter spirit is in
the aspiration, " I would fain be to the eternal Goodness what
His own hand is to a man." 2
But whether the end sought is to become " all eye " for
seeing God, or "all hand" for serving Him, equally the
suppression of the finite personality makes any doctrine of
personal relationships between God and man theoretically
impossible. The same is true if it is the personality of God
1 See Dorner, History of Protestant Theology, bk. r. sec. ii. chap. i.
2 Theologia Germanica, cap. x. (Miss Winkworth's translation).

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 227
which is destroyed. In the latter case, God becomes in the
end the mere instrument of man, the object of an intuition,
which grows in the emotional sense of blessedness according
to its emptiness. In the former, man is either the inactive
witness or the unresisting instrument of God, and, according
as he is the one or the other, God will be described in terms
of sovereignty or in those of majesty ; though, in either case,
without the fulness attaching to these terms, when rehgion is
conceived as demanding for its realisation the fullest and
freest personality both in God and man.
Once more, there were the Eeformers before the Eeforma
tion. But in regard to our subject their influence is scarcely
noteworthy. Much of their effort was devoted to the
reformation of practical abuses rather than to the reformation
of theological thought. The restoration of the authority of
Scripture, as against the traditions of the Church, was an
object common to them all. In the case of Wyclif, this
effort was conjoined with a predominant concern for practical
duty and social reconstruction. With Huss, there was, on
the other hand, a tendency to sympathise with the mystical
tendencies of his times. The distinguishing feature of John
Wessel, nearer to the Eeformation, was the thoroughness of
his rediscovery of the truth of justification by faith. In all
of them the authority of the Augustinian theology superseded
the influence of the later scholasticism. All these efforts
therefore tended in the direction not only of practical
rehgion, but of a deepening of theological thought, and of the
reassertion of the authority of Scripture over it. But none
attained to the influence of a complete transformation of
theology, in the light of the gospel, as objectively set forth
and as subjectively experienced.
4. The "Divina Commedia" of Dante
Our survey of mediaeval theology would be incomplete
without some examination of Dante's great poem, the Divina
Commedia, which, as it is a storehouse of historical informa
tion respecting Italian history in the Middle Ages, is, above
all, the noblest expression of mediaeval theology and rehgion

228 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
at their best. Dante is marvellous, not merely as one whose
purely poetical gift is almost unrivalled, but because he is,
besides being poet, a politician, historian, philosopher,
theologian ; because, above all, he is so supremely poet, that
his Divine gift transcends, appropriates, inspires, and welds
into a harmonious whole all that he aims at as pohtician,
records as historian, thinks as philosopher, or believes as
theologian. In each province his genius unfailingly selects
the noblest thought open to a man of his age, unifies the
whole, and throws over it the splendour of a poetry which has
not only magnificence of form, but has the prophetic power
of giving highest utterance to the truest and deepest faith and
aspiration of his times. Thus he justifies the ways of God
to men, as the greatest poets must, by simply declaring them.
Evidence of the manifold culture of Dante is to be found
on every page of his great poem. He is steeped in the
theology of Augustine, familiar with the writings of Thomas
Aquinas, deeply influenced by the Aristotelian philosophy.
The political concern which gave birth, as we have already
seen, to the De Monarchia, has stamped its pecuhar impress
upon his conception of the relationship of God to men.
Above all is his pecuhar gift of reverential and ecstatic love,
which shows itself not only in his unique devotion to
Beatrice, but in his unfailing power to draw forth and to give
full effect to those more spiritual elements of theology which,
though never entirely banished, had long lain hid beneath a
growing accumulation of metaphysical abstraction. The
result is, that the Divina Commedia gives a view of the
universe, especially of the relationship of God to mankind
and of His dealings with men, the foundation of which is the
spiritual philosophy of Augustine, modified at once by the
political analogies of Dante's own time, by the philosophy
of Aristotle, and by the far-reaching consequences of securing
a more effective primacy and a more far-reaching sway for
the principle of Divine love. Divine love the heart of
Augustine had indeed known to be supreme, but his intellect
had practically overlaid it by the predominance of his
doctrines of existence and cause, and therefore of the
sovereign will of God.

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 229
The following summary of the leading features of Dante's
theological teaching must suffice, illustrated by but a few of
the many quotations by which each point could be illustrated.
1. In the first place, the universe, in its three divisions
of paradise, purgatory, and hell, has been created, and is
ruled by the infinite might of Him who is the " Emperor of
the Universe," whose Godhead is celebrated throughout in
terms of authority and power, and whose law, sustained by
His power, is laid upon all creation from the highest to the
lowest, insomuch that the souls in hell who transgress it
are the striking witnesses to its inexorable reality.
The creation of the universe by the holy Trinity,
described in terms taken from Augustine, is set forth as the
poet approaches the Inferno, and is true even of it —
"To rear me was the task of Power Divine,
Supremest Wisdom, and Primeval Love." *
The sovereignty and almightiness of God are, once and again,
given as the final explanation of what exists —
"So 'tis will'd,
Where will and power are one : ask thou no more." 2
The Divine order which causes the universe to resemble
God is impressed on all things —
" Among themselves all things
Have order ; and from hence the form, which makes
The universe resemble God."8
Even that which seems fortuitous, transferring advantages
from one to another by mere caprice, is in reality ordained
by God. Thus when Dante asks of Vergil —

1 i

Fecemi la Divina Potestate,
La somma Sapienza, e'l primo Amore." L' Inferno, Canto iii.
" Caron, non ti crucciare :
Vuolsi cosl cola dove si puote
Ci6 che si vuole, e piii non demandare."
L' Inferno, Canto iii., also Canto v.
"Le cose tutte quante
Hann' ordine tra loro : e questo e forma,
Che l'universo a Dio fa somigliante." H Paradiso, Canto i.

230 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
" My guide ! of thee this also would I learn ;
This Fortune, that thou speak'st of, what it is,
Whose talons grasp the blessings of the world."
Vergil replies —
" 0 beings blind ! what ignorance
Besets you ! Now my judgment hear and mark
He, whose transcendent wisdom passes all,
The heavens creating, gave them ruling powers
To guide them ; so that each part shines to each,
Their light in equal distribution pour'd.
By similar appointment He ordained,
Over the world's bright images to rule,
Superintendence of a guiding hand,
And general Minister, which, at due time,
May change the empty vantages of life
From race to race, from one to other's blood,
Beyond prevention of man's wisest care ;
Wherefore one nation rises into sway,
Another languishes, e'en as her will
Decrees, from us concealed, as in the grass
The serpent train, against her naught
Avails your utmost wisdom. She with foresight plans,
Judges, and carries on her reign, as theirs
The other Powers divine." 1
1 "Maestro, dissi lui, or mi di' anche —
Questa Fortuna, di che tu mi tocche,
Che e, che i ben del mondo ha si tra branche ?
E quegli a me : 0 creature sciocche,
Quanta ignoranza e quella che v' offende !
Or vo' che tu mia sentenza ne imbocche.
Colui lo cui saver tutto trascende,
Feci li cieli, e die lor chi conduce
Si ch' ogni parte ad ogni parte splende,
Distribuendo egualmente la luce :
Similemente agli splendor mondani
Ordin6 general ministra e duce,
Che permutasse »• tempo li ben vani
Di gente in gente, e d' uno in altro sanguine
Oltre la difension de' senni umani,
Per ch' una gente impera ed altra langue,
Seguendo lo giudicio dl costei,
Ched e occulto, com' in erba l'angue,
Vostro saver non ha contrasto a lei :
Ella provvede, giudica, e persegue
Suo regno, come il loro gli altri Deo.'' L' Inferno, Canto vii.
This thought is taken from Augustine, as Cary shows by the quotation :

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 231
The declarations of the sovereignty of God are too numer
ous and uniform to need quotation. The Fatherhood of God
is only mentioned once, and that in the paraphrase of the
Lord's Prayer. And there it is important to note how entirely
Fatherhood is translated into terms of supreme authority and
power, despite the spirituality of the note which is struck —
" 0 Thou Almighty Father ! who dost make
The heavens Thy dwelling, not in bounds confined,
But that, with love intenser, there Thou view'st
Thy primal effluence ; hallowed be Thy Name :
Join each created being to extol
Thy might ; for worthy humblest thanks and praise
Is Thy blessed Spirit. May Thy kingdom's peace
Come unto us ; for we, unless it comes,
With all our striving, thither tend in vain." :
2. But this sovereignty, declared in law and maintained
by power, is above all based upon the manifold spiritual per
fections of the Godhead ; is therefore spiritual, so that God
not only transcends the universe, but fills it with His presence.
God is immanent, though of His immanence there are
degrees ; and His immanence is described under the influence
of the Aristotelian doctrine of cause and effect, and in accord
ance with the theological teaching of Aquinas.2
The following passage, describing the relationship of the
"Noseas causas, quae dicuntur fortuitae (unde etiam fortuna nomen accepit)
non dicimus nullas, sed latentes, easque tribuimus, vel veri Dei vel quorumlibet
spiritum voluntati," De Civitate Dei, lib. v. What is fortuitous there is not,
indeed, uncaused ; but is due to a special Divine, or delegated, volition.
1 "0 Padre nostro, che ne' cieli stai
Non circoscritto, ma per piii amore
Ch' ai primi effetti di lassu tu hai :
Laudato sia '1 tuo nome e '1 tuo valore
Da ogni creatura, com' e degno
Di render grazie al tuo dolce vapore.
Vegna ver noi la pace del tuo regno
Che noi ad essa non potem da noi,
S'ella non vien, con tutto 1 nostro ingegno."
II Purgatorio, Canto xi.
It will be seen that the exigencies of metre have forced Cary to emphasise
the thought of the Divine Power by introducing the epithet " Almighty " where
Dante simply says "our." But the essential thought is not altered thereby ;
from His heavenly dwelling-place God beholds the "effects "of His will, and
every creature unites to praise His "might."
2 See above, p. 219.

232 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
spirits in paradise to God, gives Dante's view of the essential
relation of the Creator to the creatures, in proportion to the
perfection of their being —
" The fountain, at whose source these drink their beams,
With light supplies them in as many modes,
As there are splendours that it shines on ; each
According to the virtue it conceives,
Differing in love and sweet affection.
Look then how lofty and how huge in breadth
The eternal might, which, broken and dispersed
Over such countless mirrors, yet remains
Whole in itself and one, as at the first." 1
Thus, again, this doctrine of the Divine immanence, of
which yet there are degrees, is set for.th in language which
has reference to the argument of Aquinas (derived from Aris
totle) as to the Prime Mover of the universe —
" His glory, by whose might all things are moved,
Pierces the universe, and in one part
Sheds more resplendence, elsewhere less."2
The transcendence of God and the spiritual idealism of
His causality is as clearly set forth —
"Who painteth these,
Hath none to guide Him : of Himself He guides ;
And every line and texture of the nest
Doth own from Him the virtue fashions it."3
1 " La prima luce, che tutta la raia,
Per tanti modi in essa si recepe,
Quanti son gli splendori a che s'appaia.
Onde, perocche all 'atto che concepe
Segue l'affetto, d'amor la dolcezza
Diversamente in essa ferve e tepe.
Vedi l'eccelso omai e la larghezza
Dell' eterno Valor, poscia che tanti
Speculi fatti s' ha in che si spezza
Uno manendo in se, come davanti."
II Paradiso, Canto xxix.
"La gloria di Colui, che tutto muove,
Per l'universo penetra; e risplende
In una parte piu, e rueno altrove."
11 Paradiso, Canto i.
3 " Quei, che dipinge li, non ha chi '1 guidi ;
Ma esso guida : e da lui si rammenta
Quella virtu, ch' e forma per li nidi."
II Paradiso, Canto xviii.

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 233
3. Thirdly, the supreme perfection in God, the source of
creation, and the inspiring end of His government, is His love.
Again and again God is spoken of, or apostrophised, as
Love. Thus, for example—
" If I were only what Thou didst create,
Then newly, Love ! by whom the heaven is ruled." x
Again — " The celestial Love, that spurns
All envying in its bounty, in itself
With such effulgence blazeth, as sends forth
All beauteous things eternal."2
The passage goes on to explain how the degrees of per
fection to be found in creation are due to the degrees of
immediateness in which different orders of created beings
stand to Love, their source.
In the same sense Dante exclaims —
" There begin
Thy wonder of the Almighty architect,
Who loves His work so inwardly, His eye
Doth ever watch it."8
The love which prompts God to create rests first upon
the Divine ideal of the creation —
"That which dies not
And that which can die, are but each the beam
Of that idea, which our Sovereign Sire
Engendereth loving ; for that lively light,
Which passeth from His splendour not disjoin'd
From Him, nor from His love triune with them,
Doth through His bounty congregate itself,
Mirrored as 'twere, in new existences,
1 " S'io era sol di me quel che creasti
Novellamente, Amor, che '1 ciel governi."
II Paradiso, Canto i.
2 "La divina bonta, che da se sperne
Ogni livore, ardendo in se sfavilla
Si, che dispiega le bellezze eterne." II Paradiso, Canto vii.
3 " E li comincia a vagheggiar nell 'arte
Di quel Maestro, che dentro a se l'ama
Tanto, che mai da lei l'occhio non parte."
11 Paradiso, Canto x.

234 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
Itself unalterable, and ever one.
Descending hence unto the lowest powers,
Its energy so sinks, at last it makes
But brief contingencies ; for so I name
Things generated, which the heavenly orbs
Moving, with seed or without seed, produce."1
Thus when Dante, arrived at St. Peter in paradise, recites
to him the Apostles' Creed, he begins —
" I in one God believe ;
One sole eternal Godhead, of whose love
All heaven is moved, Himself unmoved the while." 2
So completely are the counsels of God determined by His
love, that only perfected love can interpret them —
" Brother ! no eye of man not perfected,
Nor fully ripened in the flame of love,
May fathom this decree."3
4. Hence, because love is supreme in God and is the
motive of creation, love is also the supreme and mightiest
principle in man. The source of all man's greatness, the
possibility of all his ruin, is to be found in his capacity of love —
1 " Ci6 che non muore, e ci6 che pu6 morire,
Non e se non splendour di quella idea,
Che partorisce, amando, il nostro Sire :
Che quella viva luce che si mea
Dal suo lucente, che non si disuna
Da lui, ne dall' amor che in lor s' intrea,
Per sua bontate il suo raggiare aduna,
Quasi specchiato, in nove sussistenze,
Eternalmente rimanendosi una.
Quindi discende all' ultimo potenze :
Gul d'atto in atto, tanto divenendo,
Che piii non fa che brevi contingenze :
E queste contingenze essere intendo
Le cose generate, che produce,
Con seme e senza seme, il ciel movendo."
II Paradiso, Canto xiii.
" Credo in uno Dio
Solo ed eterno, che tutto '1 ciel muove
Non moto, con amoro e con disio." H Paradiso, Canto xxiv.
3 " Questo decreto, frate, sta sepulto
Agli occhi de' mortali, il cui ingegno
Nella fiamma d'amor non e adulto." H Paradiso, Canto vii.

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 235
" Creator, nor created being, e'er
My Son, he thus began, ' was without love,
Or natural, or the free spirits' growth,
Thou hast not that to learn. The natural still
Is without error : but the other swerves,
If on ill object bent, or through excess
Of vigour, or defect. While e'er it seeks
The primal blessings, or with measure due
The inferior, no delight that flows from it
Partakes of ill. But let it warp to evil,
Or with more ardour than behoves, or less,
Pursue the good; the thing created then
Works 'gainst its Maker. Hence thou must infer,
That love is germin of each virtue in ye,
And of each act no less that merits pain.'"1
And God implants this highest power in man that He may
satisfy it. Thus — " Fervent love,
And lively hope, with violence assail
The kingdom of the heavens, and overcome
The Will of the Most High ; not in such sort
As man prevails o'er man ; but conquers it,
Because 'tis willing to be conquer'd ; still,
Though conquer'd, by its mercy, conquering."2
1 " Ne Creator ne creature mai,
Comincib ei figliuol, fu sanz 'amore,
0 naturale, o d' animo : e tu 1 sai.
Lo naturale e sempre senza errore ;
Ma 1' altro puote errar per malo obietto,
0 per troppo, o per poco di vigore.
Mentre ch' egli e ne' primi ben diretto,
E ne' secondi se stesso misura,
Esser non pu6 cagion di mal diletto :
Ma quando al mal si force, o con piii cura,
O con men che non dee, corre nel bene,
Contra '1 Fattore adopra sua fattura.
Quinci comprender puoi, ch'esser conviene.
Amor sementa in voi d' ogni virtute,
E d' ogni operazion che merta pene."
H Purgalorio, Canto xvii.
2 ' ' Regnum ccelorum violenza pate
Da caldo amore, e da viva speranza,
Che vince la divina volontate,
Non a guisa che 1' uomo all' uom sovranza ;
Ma vince lei, perche vuol esser vinta :
E vinta vince con sua beninanza." H Paradiso, Canto xx.

236 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
The unity of law, life, and love is the dominant thought
of Dante throughout. Love gives life, and conducts it to its
end in the Divine love by means of law, which perfects all
true life, repressing only the false.
5. Therefore, finally, the nature of man's destiny and the
forces by which it is wrought out are spiritual.
Heaven is simply the blessedness coming from the full
fruition of the Divine love, which satisfies the spirit that has
been made perfect in love because it has loved supremely the
supreme good. It is thus the natural and normal consum
mation of the true hfe. The chastening and discipline of
Purgatory is occasioned by the presence of Divine love in the
hearts of those who are there imprisoned — a love real yet
imperfect, ever seeking and pressing on to its complete satis
faction, suffering by the lack of it, and by the very reality of
its spiritual passion becoming triumphant, through a steadily
advancing purification, over the sinful imperfection which has
come from the waywardness of love on earth and its inordinate
dissipation among creaturely and unsatisfying objects.
Thus Dante says — " Other good
There is, where man finds not his happiness :
It is not true fruition ; not that blest
Essence, of every good the branch and root.
The love too lavishly bestowed on this,
Along three circles over us, is mourn'd."1
And the pains and penalties of Hell, described in the con
crete imagery of poetic fancy, represent the final working out
of spiritual laws. The dread retribution is the manifestation
of Divine wrath, the sentence of infinite justice, carried out
by Almighty power; but all these are spiritual and not
arbitrary, work immanently and not by a merely external
infliction. The punishment of God takes effect in and through a
1 " Altro ben' e, che non fa 1' uom felice ;
Non e felicita, non e la buona
Essenzia d' ogni buon frutto radice.
L'amor, ch' ad esso troppo s' abbandona
Di sovra a noi si piange per tre cerchi."
11 Purgatorio, Canto xvii.

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 237
spiritual nature, which, in turning from and finally renouncing
the supreme Love, has outraged, distorted, and destroyed its
own nature. Love it must, but it chose the creature in some
particular form or aspect, instead of the Creator, with a passion
so inordinate as to break forth in fatal revolt against God.
In refusing God and choosing a particular good, it destroyed
itself, missed its mark, and is tormented by means of that
very diseased and sinful affection, whatever it may have been,
which resulted from depraving love by an evil exercise of free
choice. In the depths of hell is the most emphatic witness
to the supremacy of love and to the awful responsibilities of
free will. All are there through a perverted choice, which
has ruined their nature. But all are tortured, because the
love, which is the very essence of man's nature, is still in
them, hopelessly corrupted by wilful sin, yet retaining its
infinity ; cursed for ever by going forth with vacuous intensity
towards objects now denied it, and returning on itself, no
longer capable of desiring or of finding the all-perfect love by
which alone it can be satisfied, but which yet it has for ever
contemptuously spurned. So far as hell has different environ
ments in the descending limbos which mark the differing
degrees of enormity in deadly sins, they are but the necessary
means of giving effect to this universal spiritual law.
Heaven, Purgatory, and Hell in their various forms are
the inevitable outcome of men's present life, although the
will of the Divine sovereign ordains them. And differences
of idiosyncrasy and capacity being subordinate, the decisive
matter for each man is what he does with the power of love.
The whole key to life, with its infinite and eternal issues,
as Dante saw it, is given in the following lines : —
" The soul created apt
To love, moves versatile which way soe'er
Aught pleasing prompts her, soon as she is waked
By pleasure into act. Of substance true
Your apprehension forms its counterfeit ;
And, in you the ideal shape preventing,
Attracts the soul's regard. If she thus drawn,
Incline toward it ; love is that inclining
And a new nature knit by pleasure in ye.
Then as the fire points up, and mounting seeks

238 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
His birthplace and his lasting seat, e'en thus
Enters the captive soul into desire
Which is a spiritual motion, that ne'er rests
Before enjoyment of the thing it loves.
Enough to show thee how the truth from those
Is hidden, who aver all love a thing
Praiseworthy in itself ; although perhaps
Its matter seem still good. Yet if the wax
Be good, it follows not the impression must.
Grant them that from necessity arise
All love that glows within you ; to dismiss
Or harbour it, the power is in yourselves.
Remember Beatrice, in her style,
Determinates free choice by eminence
The noble virtue ; if in talk with thee
She touch upon that theme."1
Thus the sovereignty of God is, throughout, for Dante
spiritual and vital, and not merely external. And it is
1 " L' animo, ch' e creato ad amar presto,
Ad ogni cosa e mobile che piace,
Tosto che dal piacere in atto e desto.
Vostra apprensiva da esser verace
Tragge intenzione, e dentro a voi la spiega,
Si che 1' animo ad essa volger face :
E se rivolto in ver di lei si piega,
Quel piegare e amor ; quello e natura,
Che per piacer di nuovo in boi si lega.
Poi come '1 fuoco muovesi in altura,
Per la sua forma, ch' e nata a salire
La dove piu in sua materia dura ;
Cosi 1' animo preso entra in disire,
Ch' e moto spiritale ; e mai non posa,
Fin che la cosa amata il fa gioire
Or ti puote apparer quant' e nascosa
La veritade alia gente ch' awera
Ciascuno amore in se laudabil cosa ;
Perocche forse appar la sua matera
Sempr' esser buona ma non ciascun segno
E' buono, ancor che buona sia la cera.
Onde pognam che di necessitate
Surga ogni amor, che dentro voi s'accende,
Di ritenerlo e in voi la potestate.
La nobile virtu Beatrice intende
Per lo libero arbitrio ; e pert guarda
Che 1' abbi a mente, s'a parlar ten prende."
11 Purgatorio, Canto xviii.

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 239
founded in life, because its source is love. It is this which
makes alike the glory and the inevitableness of the Divine
dispensation. It is the secret of the universe, as revealed in
Christianity, to one whose highest gift, among all his other
great distinctions, is the gift of adoring love.
The writings of Dante present to us, as has been already
said, mediseval theology and religion at their best. But may
we not say that the spiritual splendour of Dante's insight
points the way back over the course which had been taken
by theology for centuries before his time ? Augustine, with
a sense of the love of God unequalled among the great
thinkers of the Church who succeeded him till we come to
Dante, had yet so magnified the Divine will and authority
that His Fatherhood had been altogether lost. Anselm,
great and rehgious man though he was, had so treated the
immanence of God that it became in his hands merely meta
physical, worked out by a process of logical abstraction ; and
when he came practically to discuss the relations between
God, mankind, and Christ, he had made them so purely ex
ternal, and in reality accidental, save for one passage, the
thought of which is borrowed from Augustine,1 that the
Atonement became a mere contrivance to save the honour of
God from the insult of man, and God Himself from the
reproach which would fall upon Him if His plan in regard
to the world miscarried.2 Aquinas had added to this external
view what amounted to a mechanical doctrine of the spiritual
nature in man, in the division which he set up between God
in nature and in grace, between man as natural and man as
made supernatural by the conferment of the "superadded
gift." Now, in Dante, steeped though he was in the thought
of these his great predecessors, from whom his own theology
was learnt, is the great return to a doctrine of God and of
the world conceived in terms of spirit, life, and, above all,
love. As has been said, Dante never speaks of the Fatherhood
of God except when he paraphrases the Lord's Prayer, and
in so doing replaces the Divine Fatherhood by sovereignty,
albeit of love and grace. His conception of the sovereignty
1 Cur Deus Homo, i. 12. 2 Ibid. ii. 5.

240 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
is, in outward form, peculiarly imperial. Yet beneath the
surface his conception of the Godhead, and of His relation
ship to the universe, is so profoundly fatherly, that it needs
the restoration of the Fatherhood of God to its original
supremacy adequately to account for the universe, as Dante
saw it, in its source, its spiritual constitution and conditions,
above all, in its final issue.
A love which issued in authority in Augustine, an
authority which eclipsed love in his successors, becomes in
Dante an authority only to be explained by looking back
afresh to its source, and finding that source to be spirit and
life, and to be both, because, above all, supreme, universal,
architectonic love. In passing on from the entrancing glory
of this new revelation, we cannot refrain from asking what
would have been the effect on subsequent Christian theology
and life, if to the grandeur, depth, and amplitude of Dante's
conception of the relationship of God to a creation and his
tory which are indivisibly one, because of the supremacy
throughout of love, could have been added the expression of
this highest truth in terms of that eternal and universal
Fatherhood which is its only sufficient explanation ; in terms
also of a Christology more fully scriptural and accordant
with Dante's sense of the supremacy in the universe of the
underlying love and the manifested Christ ?
THIED SECTION. — The Recovery of the Doctrine
of the Fatherhood of God. The Reformation
and Modern Protestant Theology
We enter now upon the final stage of our historical in
quiry. We have to consider, first of all, the effect wrought
by the Eeformation upon the conceptions held as to the rela
tionship of God to mankind, and then to trace the gradual
transition to the view which has become prevalent in recent
times, noting the most influential factors in promoting
change. Our principal concern will be with the most influential
teachers of theology, with their systematic thought, and with
the religious influences which shaped it.

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 241
But it is desirable, before speaking of individuals, to take
a short survey of the general conditions which affected
theological thought from the time of the Eeformation to
the end of the seventeenth century, the period in which
dogmatic expression was given to the theology of the
Eeformation. Such a survey will speedily reveal the fact of a profound
change, not only in the spiritual experience of God enjoyed
by believers in Christ, but also in the general doctrine of
the spiritual relationships in and through which it is experi
enced. It will also reveal the fact that, deep and far-reaching
as was the change in the experience and theology of personal
religion, there was by no means a corresponding change in
the general theological conceptions by which the universal
relations of God to men, and His dealings with them, are
explained. The supreme force of the Eeformation consisted in a
direct and personal experience of the forgiveness of sins, of
acceptance with God in and through Christ given to and
laid hold of by the faith of the believer in Christ. Such a
personal assurance of justification, of a sure standing before
God, had hardly been sought or enjoyed since the times of
the apostles. Both the need of such personal assurance and
the bestowment of it, are intimately bound up with the dawn
of that individuahsm which marks the most distinctive con
trast between ancient and modern times.
This new sense of justification before God, of acceptance
with Him, and of intimate access to Him through Christ,
awoke the exuberant joy and confidence of Luther, and
brought a new peace and satisfaction to those of more equable
emotional temperament than Luther. It was the motive
force by which the whole fabric of mediaeval ecclesiasticism,
superstition, and scholasticism was swept away.
It was inevitable that this new consciousness should again
bring into prominence those teachings of Scripture which set
forth the Fatherhood and fatherliness of God. The filial
spirit of behevers, awakened afresh, sought expression in
dogmatic theology.
Thus the Fatherhood of God once more asserts its claims
16

242 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
to recognition, and establishes more or less its position within
the theology of Christian experience.
Yet even there incompletely. And outside the realm of
personal religious experience hardly at all. The Fatherhood
is not treated as the supreme guide to the dealings of God
with men ; nor is it conceived to be universal. In Calvinism,
especially, the highest and determinant conception is that of
the sovereignty of God, and this in a pecuharly rigorous
form. The Augustinian doctrine is set forth with relentless
logic, and without any of those modifications which were
introduced by the influence of popular Cathohcism upon
Augustine. And as time went on, the awfulness, the severity,
and indeed the arbitrariness, of the Divine authority were
dwelt upon with uncompromising insistence by the successors
of Calvin. How was it that the new and gracious evangelical ex
perience of God in Christ not only failed to effect an adequate
transformation in the highest theological conceptions, but, on
the contrary, introduced a new severity into them ? And how
was it that that new severity prevailed until comparatively
recent times in the most widely influential Protestant theology ?
The main reasons appear to be as follows : —
1. In the first place, their own religious experiences led
the Eeformers back past the Aristotelian and Nominalist
scholasticism to the writings of Augustine. In his longing
after God, in his consciousness of sin, in his doctrine of the
helplessness of human nature, in his profound teaching as
to grace and faith, they found what was in deepest agreement
with their own consciousness. Augustine's general philosophy
of the relation of God to man in creation and salvation was
felt to be a satisfactory rendering of the foundation truths
of Pauline theology. The leading conceptions of Augustine
seemed, notwithstanding their deficiencies, to satisfy ahke
the need of God which was felt by the Eeformers, and
the sense which was also characteristic of them, that,
apart from a sovereign act of grace, they were unworthy
of Him. Hence, naturally, followed the adoption of the
general outlines of Augustine's doctrine of the sovereignty
of God, and this the more readily because the act

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 243
of grace which satisfied their need of fellowship with
God appeared, above all, as an act of sovereign conde
scension, 2. And, secondly, the Eeformers went beyond Augustine
in this respect, that with them the chief subject of theological,
as of religious, concern lay in the forgiveness of sins and its
conditions, in justification by faith, and in the assurance of
its possession. And the pardon of sins, taken in connexion
with the term justification (the forensic meaning of which
was pressed perhaps beyond its original sense), naturally
appeared to be an act of sovereignty — rightly so appeared,
although that is not its complete explanation. This
sovereign act, therefore, stood in the foreground, and was
the starting-point from which they constructed the formal
theology, which gave expression to their spiritual con
sciousness. 3. Again, the Bible was a newly found book, and its final
authority was quickly substituted for the ecclesiastical authority
which had been renounced.
But the key to the right understanding of the Holy
Scriptures was not fully grasped till recent times, namely,
the understanding of the law of development governing
revelation ; the sense of the human limitations imposed upon
it ; and, above all, the full apprehension of the centrahty and
finality of Christ, enabling the earlier stages of revelation to
be interpreted by means of the fulfilment in Christ, and not
Christ in terms of these earlier stages.1 Of course this
defect is not present to the full extent in the foremost
Eeformers. Luther's evangehcal consciousness and his daring,
running often to the extreme of rashness, led him to handle
the Scriptures in the light of his own spiritual experience, as
freely and fearlessly as he handled the utterances and tradi
tions of ecclesiastical authority. The authority of the books
of Scripture was for him determined by their spiritual worth,
and that again was measured by the extent to which they
contained what he felt to be the marrow of the gospel. The
sense of proportion in the interpretation of the Holy Scrip
tures was not wanting also in Calvin. But this can hardly
1 See Chapter IV.

244 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
be said of the ordinary exegesis of the sixteenth and seven
teenth centuries, which unreservedly read back into the Old
Testament the truths contained in the New, and used, without
any attempt at criticism, the governing ideas of the Old Testa
ment to construe the New.
Thus nothing is more remarkable in Eef ormed and Puritan
theology than the restoration of Old Testament forms of
thought as governing the understanding of the New Testa
ment dispensation. Not only did the patriarchs and leaders
of the Old Testament take the place of the dispossessed
saints of the Church, but the forms under which the dealings
of God with them were presented were treated as the sufficient
guide to His dealings with men in all times. In particular,
the Old Testament conception of the Covenant was not only
brought into undue and abstract prominence as the explana
tion of Old Testament religion itself, but the conception of
the New Covenant, found in the Epistle to the Hebrews, was
artificially elaborated and over - emphasised, till the whole
history of the dealings of God with mankind was set forth,
almost exclusively, under the form of a series of covenants ;
and, of course, in the Covenant the relationship upon which
stress was laid was the sovereignty of Him who ordained it.
4. In the next place, the pohtical influences which affected
theological thought must not be overlooked.
To begin with : the renunciation of the Papacy meant the
rise of a new nationalism, and the prominence of the kingly
office, not only as representative of the nation, but as the
highest form of human authority.
And immediately men were left face to face with one
supreme human authority, the nature, source, and limits of
that authority needed to be fixed by discussion and pohtical
action, wherever the new spirit of individualism extended to
the political sphere — as in England — and demanded civil
liberty. The concentration of attention upon sovereignty as the
supreme human relationship inevitably tended to bring about
a similar prominence for sovereignty as the supreme relation
ship of God to mankind.
And this the more, where the demand for civil liberty

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 245
was religious in its inspiration, and brought men into conflict
with the earthly king. Their refusal to obey the command
of the earthly authority was the reverse of lawless. The
claim to be free was, in reality, the demand to be free from
the tyranny of man, in order to obey the one absolute sovereign
God. It was the categorical imperative of duty which was
the inspiring motive. The inward sense of responsibility for
obeying, at all costs, the unconditional commands of God
brought into prominence the sovereignty of Him who thus
enjoined them. The necessity of contending with the earthly
sovereign for liberty to obey the heavenly, forced those who
entered upon the conflict to insist upon the absolute sovereignty
of Him whom they were constrained to obey, and upon civil
and rehgious freedom as the conditions of such obedience.
And this insistence upon the Divine sovereignty was not
weakened by the subsequent fact, that, having secured hberty
from the earthly sovereign, those who had won it came, for
the most part, to a common agreement as to what was
divinely enjoined upon faith and conduct, and proceeded in
their turn to impose it as a law upon the conscience of the
community. 5. And when this conflict passed into the stage of actual
warfare, the revived knowledge of the Old Testament filled
the imagination with sacred and heroic figures and struggles,
which stirred the martial spirit, and were readily seen to be
the analogies of the existing conditions.
The Puritans were God's Israel, and they, like their
spiritual ancestors, were fighting with the Philistines or Moab,
with Egypt or Assyria ; the more so because of the general
contrast in temper and morals between their own hosts and
those against whom they fought.
For these men, Jehovah was as much the God of battles
as of old ; and therefore, above all, He was King, and the
gift of His Spirit was the inspiration of a faith which was
evinced by uncompromising conflict, whether spiritual or mili
tary, with the world.
AU these causes operated to hinder men from apprehend
ing the Fatherhood of God as the supreme and determinative
relationship in which He stands to men in Christ.

246 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
6. There appeared to be equally strong grounds for
denying that Fatherhood to be universal. The men who were
conscious of the newly found relationship to God in Christ
stood apart, by this very consciousness, from the mass of their
fellow-men. These neither knew nor cared for any of these
things. The experiences of believers were their joy and strength ;
yet the world scoffed at them and persecuted them. They
were marked, therefore, as being, and were conscious of being,
an elect people. A great gulf parted them from the non-
elect. But they were conscious, above all things, that their
evangehcal experience came to them direct from God. He
had made them what they were. They had not chosen Him,
but He had chosen them ; and this by the forth-putting of
irresistible grace. In all this the will of God had been
sovereign. He had chosen to stand in a relation to them in
which He had not chosen to stand to the rest of mankind,
though the blame for this latter fact was laid upon men and
not upon God.
Moreover, as to the condition of the non-elect, the will
of God could not be inert. He must will at least the
present spiritual consequences of their sin as truly as He
willed the salvation of the elect. And no question could
be asked as to this, for " Shall the thing formed say to him
that formed it, Why hast thou formed me thus ? " Hence
the ultimate reality with which men have to do is sovereign
will : that sovereign will has decreed to confer sonship in
Christ upon the elect, but not upon the non-elect. His
Fatherhood is therefore, practically, a subordinate and also a
select relationship towards a chosen few.
7. Finally, the Eeformed theologians, for the most part,
took over the Thomist distinction between natural and revealed
rehgion, and made the former the starting-point of their
theology. Hence their general outlook was cosmological, and the
first step was to establish the existence of a First and Sufficient
Cause — as personal Will — for the natural creation. Of this
creation man was the last term, and the Divine Maker and

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 247
Orderer of the natural universe ordered the life of man by
law. Only towards the elect did He, by a final act of will,
institute, as we have seen, a fatherly relationship, though
doubtless this would have been fulfilled towards all had not
the fact of sin intervened. Thus the philosophy of God's
relationship to the universe and to the creation and govern
ment of man, reinforced the peculiar experience of sovereign
and distinguishing mercy, in making will the key to all God's
relationships and dealings with mankind.1
All these causes were at work to confine the new
evangehcal experience within the bounds of the old Augustinian
conception of sovereignty, modified, of course, more or less
by the conceptions which had in more recent times grown
up around sovereignty. We pass on to consider the leading
influences in the development of the theology prevalent from
the Eeformation to the nineteenth century. No new principle
has arisen within Eoman and Greek Cathohcism during that
period ; hence they may be excluded from our survey.
Luther
We begin, naturally, with Luther. What was the relation
of his teaching to the Fatherhood of God, whether as the
supreme relationship of God to believers in Christ, or as a
universal relationship in Christ to mankind ?
Luther was not, of course, a systematic theologian. In a
pecuhar degree his writings are throughout stamped with his
temperament and with the spiritual experiences through
which he had passed. The main sources of his theology were
the writings of Augustine, to whom he had been driven from
the " Aristotelianism " of his time, and, above all, St. Paul's
Epistles, esrjecially those to the Eomans and Galatians.
As to the spiritual experiences which shaped his theology,
a word will suffice here. Two things, above all, Luther had
been conscious in his earlier struggles of needing : redemption
from sin and death, and a sense of personal acceptance with
1 This last feature is a point of contact with Scotist philosophy ; but the
Reformed theologians, while they magnified the absolute will of God, rested it
upon the glory of His character.

248 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
God. The former depended, for him, upon the latter ; for the
sin which oppressed him, and the death which threatened
him, were the manifestation of that wrath of God before
which he trembled ; to escape from which he had sacrificed
his worldly prospects and entered the Augustinian cloister.
He needed, and eventually he found, the assurance of the
forgiveness of sins through the gracious dealing of God with
him in Christ ; not as the final prize awarded to his own
steadfast exertions, but as the gift of God, simply accepted by
faith — the starting-point from which all true service of God
must begin.
The hunger of heart after God, the sense-ef His accessible-
ness, the magnifying of faith, which characterise Augustine's
writings, made them a welcome guide to Luther. The
Catholicism of Augustine was a suitable vehicle for convey
ing his influence to Luther, and did much to account for the
conviction which marked Luther's efforts, that he was simply
endeavouring to restore the departed glories of the true and
ancient Church life ; although at the same time he wrought a
transformation by insisting that it was the Word of God
presented to" faith which was the vital matter in the
sacraments and ordinances of the Church.
And Luther's temperament, though his life had never
been disfigured by the vices of Augustine's early years,
brought him into deepest sympathy with Augustine's doctrine
of the enslavement of the will by sin, and of the total
inability for good of sinful human nature.
One feature he added which is not present in Augustine,
namely, the earnest desire, already mentioned, for a Divine
and personal assurance ^of_ the forgiveness qf_ sins, and of
justification before God, as the ground and condition of the
safety and fellowship with God which he sought. Where
Augustine asked and experienced a manifestation of the
Divine power, uphfting him above the enslavement of the
flesh into fellowship with God, Luther sought the same end
in the more completely evangelical way of the declared mercy
of God in Christ to him a sinner, freely forgiving his sins,
and filling him with the joyous confidence and peace of an
assured position in the presence of God.

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 249
The similarity and the difference between these two great
seekers after God enables us to express in a word the
peculiarity of Luther's theology. The general foundations
of Luther's theology are Augustinian, with the important
difference,~thafTwhere Augustine put .grace,.Luther put Christ ;
that where the former dwelt on the power of grace, the latter
dwelt jm_the mercy of Godin Christ. What Divine grace, as
he interpreted the matter, did for Augustine in uplifting, trans
forming, and energising his otherwise helpless nature, and in
thus enabling him to put on the Lord Jesus Christ, that Christ,
appropriated by faith, did for Luther by the assurance of
forgiveness, and by giving him, as a consequence, that con-
scioushess of spiritual liberty which for Luther meant power.
God for Luther was as indispensable as He was the
reverse for the current Catholicism, with its elaborate con
trivances for supplying a religion not only without God, but
as a barrier against God. For Luther religion was of value,
in so far as it brought men to God, or rather as it brought
God to men. For this is, beyond all, important in the
teaching of Luther, that faith is not a human effort by
which a man hfts himself to God, but is the means and power
by which Christ manifests Himself to man, and lifts him,
otherwise guilty and helpless, into the presence and life
of God. But involved in this is a further and most important
difference between Luther and Augustine. The God whom
Luther sets forth is God as manifested and known in Jesus
Christ, and in Him alone. Here is the pecuharity — in some
respects the strength, in others the weakness- — of Luther's
theology. He lays down in his Commentary on the Epistle
to the Galatians the canon, that " speculation as to the
majesty of God must be abstained from." l "¦ But Christian
and true theology, as I often admonished," he says, " does
not treat of God in His majesty, as Moses and other
doctrines do; it does not command us to scrutinise the
nature of God, but to acknowledge His will set forth in
Christ, whom He willed to take flesh, to be born, to die
1 "Canon observandus abstinendum esse a speculatione majestatis," Com
mentary on Galatians, i.

250 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
on account of our sins ; and that this should be preached to
all nations." 1
He dwells upon this with frequent and emphatic reitera
tion. "Nothing," he asserts, "is more dangerous, when we
have to strive against the law, sin, and death with God, than
that we should wander in our speculations in heaven, and
should consider God Himself in His incomprehensible power,
wisdom, and majesty, how He has created and governs the
world."2 " For God," he continues, " in His own nature, as He is
immeasurable, incomprehensible, and infinite, so is He in
tolerable to human nature." 3 " Begin, therefore, there, where
Christ Himself began, namely, in the womb of the Virgin, in
the manger, on the breasts of the Mother," etc.4 " And thus,"
he lays down, " when thou art concerned with justification,
and disputest concerning finding God, who justifies or accepts
sinners, where and how He is to be sought, then, in a word,
know no God outside that man Christ Jesus " ; or, as he puts it
later on, " beyond this incarnate and human God." 5
Hence Luther loves, above all things, as all his writings
and especially his hymns show, to dwell on the nearness, the
graciousness, and, if the expression may be allowed, the
homeliness of the " incarnate and human God." His protest
against seeking to investigate the majesty of God and His
1 ' ' Christiana autem et vera theologia, ut saepe moneo non ingerit Deum in
majestate, ut Moses et alia? doctrines, non jubet scrutari naturam Dei, sed
agnoscere voluntatem ejus propositam in Christo, quem voluit assumere carnem,
nasci, mori propter peccata nostra et hoc praedicari in omnes gentes, " Commentary
on Galatians, i.
2 ' ' Quare nihil est periculosius, cum agendum est in agone contra legem
peccatum et mortem cum Deo, quam nos vagari nostris speculationibus in cselo,
et considerare Deum ipsum in sua incomprehensibili potentia, sapientia et
majestate, quomodo creaverit et gubernet mundum," Commentary on Gala
tians, i.
3 "Nam Deus in sua natura, ut est immensurabilis, incomprehensibilis et
infinitus, ita intolerabilis est humanae naturae," Commentary on Galatians, i.
4 " Ibi igitur incipe, ubi Christus ipse incepit nempe, in utero Virginis, in
praecipi, in uteribus matris," Commentary on Galatians, i.
5 " Itaque cum versaris in loco justificationis et disputas de inveniendo Deo
qui justificat seu acceptat peccatores, ubi et quomodo is quaerendus sit, turn
prorsus nullum Deum scito extra istum hominem Jesum Christum . . . praeter
nunc incarnatum et humanum Deum," Commentary on Galatians, i.

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 251
relations to the universe is aimed against the theology of
Aquinas, which divided between natural and revealed theology,
and began with the former. The limitation of Luther's in
junction to discussion concerning justification is more appar
ent than real, for this is the one question which absorbs all
his thoughts and interest.
It is easy to forecast what, as a matter of fact, results from
all this for our subject. The God set before faith is for
Luther identified with the Christ-child and the crucified man
Jesus Christ. Here he reads all he is concerned to know,
namely, the love and mercy, the gracious accessibihty, the
redemptive purpose of God. All other matters are for him
inaccessible, unimportant, and uninteresting. In addition,
God apart from the redeeming Christ is "intolerable to
human nature," represents the awful majesty of the Judge,
from whom Luther shrank.
1. The graciousness — and indeed fatherliness — of God in
Christ is not, for the most part, expressed by Luther strictly
in terms of Fatherhood. The reconciled and reconciling God
is not seen apart from the divinely-human Christ, and He is
the lowly but almighty Redeemer. The graciousness of God
is seen in the wonder of His redemptive action, in the sharing
of our humble lot by the Babe of Bethlehem, in the smiting
of our foe in the deadly encounter of Calvary, in His freeing
us by the resurrection from our guilty dread and all our fears.
Naturally, in commenting on such passages as Gal. iv.
1—7, Luther speaks of the Fatherhood of God ; yet even there
he turns rather to that portion of the passage which deals
with redemption from the law, instead of dwelhng on the
Fatherhood of God as such.
2. Similarly, salvation is not conceived by Luther prevail
ingly under the form of realised and completed sonship, but
as redemption, forgiveness, acceptance, confidence, and freedom,
especially this last. This is pecuharly striking in his ex
position of Gal. iv. 1-7, where "the Spirit of adoption,
whereby we cry, Abba, Father," is treated by St. Paul as the
distinctive mark of behevers in Christ. Luther speaks much
here of the gift of the Spirit, of faith, of redemption, of
freedom from the law of sin and death, of being heirs of God.

252 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
All these blessings cluster for him around the gift of the
Spirit of adoption. He speaks of the filial cry of believers,
but he gives no exposition of the meaning of sonship, as the
form, above all others, which the Christian life assumes. The
freedom, confidence, and sense of heirship, which are so vital
to Luther's experience and so closely consequent on sonship,
engage his attention, rather than the nature of the relation
ship, which is their source.
3. Still less has Luther any doctrine of the universal
Fatherhood of God. Towards himself, apart from his faith in
Christ — the evidence of God's mercy to him — he thinks of
God's relationship as simply that of an angry Judge. And
what he thinks as to the relationship of God towards himself
apart from faith, he of necessity thinks as to His relationship
to all the world. Indeed, men generally are for Luther in
precisely the same position as the non-elect of Augustine. It
is true he is occupied with the positive content of the gospel,
with the Christ offered to faith, and not with the pre
destinating grace of Augustine, or with the decrees of Calvin.
But the ultimate fact is the same. That Christ is apprehended
by living faith is the gift of God, the mark of His pre
destinating purpose. Where the faith is not produced, the
predestination is absent. And where this is the case, God is
Judge and not Father.
4. Finally, it is obvious, from what has been already said,
that Luther did not seek to find the grounds of redemption in
any foregoing relationship of God to mankind involved in
creation, and bound up with the relationship of the Son on
the one hand to the Father, and on the other to the human
race. The fatherliness of God is identified with the manifesta
tion of Christ in the flesh, rather than treated as the ground
of it. And God's gracious deahngs with men in the Christ
whom they apprehend and accept by a faith which He works
within them, are seen as being simply in contrast with His
relationships and dealings with the rest of mankind, and not
as the fulfilment of a gracious relationship real in Christ for
all mankind, though not universally fulfilled. Thus Christ
may be said to be a limit, according to Luther's teaching, as
well as a revelation ; and the great Eeformer's general

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 253
influence is powerful in setting forth anew the substantial
fatherliness of God, rather than the form of His Fatherhood.

Calvin
To those who have only a superficial acquaintance with
the teachings of Calvin, it may be a surprise to find that no
other writer of the Eeformation makes such use of the Father
hood of God as does Calvin. Throughout the Institutes the
relationship of God to believers and their relationship to Him
is set forth, above all, in terms of Fatherhood and sonship.
For the first time, for ages, is this relationship taken seriously,
as that in terms of which the spiritual life must be expressed.
In the Institutes the knowledge of God is divided into
two parts, namely, the knowledge of God as Creator, and the
knowledge of God as Eedeemer.1
Under the former head Calvin shows that there is a
universal idea of God in mankind, as is proved by the
universahty of rehgion ; although this idea may be choked or
corrupted by ignorance or wickedness.2 Throughout this part
of the subject Calvin reveals how deeply he has been
influenced by the great Latin writers. In particular, he
frequently cites the De Naturd Deorum of Cicero, refers
once and again to Ambrose, and makes extensive use of
Augustine. Through the last he is led to the Timceus, and
thus we are brought back once more in Calvin to the main
stream of early Western theology.
Calvin dwells upon the fact that the invisible and
incomprehensible God is made known by His works, and
especially by His works in man. By these His government,
power, eternity, and goodness are made manifest.3 That
which can be known of God naturally by this means, as well
as that fuller knowledge of God which is accessible through
His historic deahngs with mankind, is yet most fully set forth
in the Holy Scriptures, which are the best guide to the
knowledge of God the Creator.4
1 Institutes, I. De Cognitione Dei Creatoris. II. De Cognitione Dei
Redemptoris. 2 Inst. i. 3, 4. 3 Ibid. i. 5. 4 Ibid. i. 6.

254 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
Throughout this part of the subject there is both agree
ment and difference between Calvin and Aquinas. They agree
in their distinction between natural and revealed religion, and
in their treatment of natural religion as confirmed by revela
tion. They differ in that the philosophical basis of Aquinas
is in Aristotle, whereas Calvin bases his theistic argument
rather on Cicero and the Timceus.
In setting forth the nature of the natural government of
God, which is discernible, though imperfectly, by reason, even
apart from revelation, Calvin lays great stress on " the
fatherly love of God towards the human race."1 This is
shown in that God provided the natural supphes for man's
needs before creating him. He goes on to say that " through
out the whole course of Providence, either the fatherly favour
and beneficence of God, or His judicial severity, frequently
shines out."2
The knowledge of this fatherly loving - kindness brings
comfort to the behever. " But when that light of the Divine
Providence," Calvin says, " has once shone upon a pious man,
now he is released and set free, not only from the extreme
anxiety and fear which pressed upon him before, but even
from all care, so that as he is rightly afraid of fortune, so he
dares securely to trust himself to God. Here, I say, is his
solace, that he understands that the heavenly Father so con
trols all things by His own power, so rules them by His
imperial authority and will, so governs them by wisdom, that
nothing happens except by His destination ; that, moreover,
he is received into His charge, committed to the care of
angels, and that neither the harms of flood, nor of fire, nor of
the sword can befall him, except so far as it has pleased God,
the Sovereign, to give place to them." s
The book ends, however, with the severer side of Calvin's
teaching, with his exposition of the way in which God makes
use of the deeds of wicked men, and bends their minds to
carry out His judgments on themselves and others.
In Book IL, on the knowledge of God the Eedeemer,
Calvin undertakes to explain what human reason perceives
1 "Paternus Dei Amor erga humanum genus," Inst. i. 14 (2).
. 2 Ibid. i. 17 (1). 3 Ibid. i. 17 (11).

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 255
when men come to the kingdom of God and to spiritual
enlightenment. He says that this latter " consists above all
in three things, to know God, His fatherly favour towards us
in which our salvation is grounded, and the reason of a life
which must be formed according to the rule of His law." J
This threefold knowledge is brought to men by the
illumination of the Holy Spirit.
The connexion of this life, wliich is filial in its conditions,
with Christ as its source and consummation, is thus set forth.
" Now since John teaches that life was from the beginning
from Christ, and that the whole world has fallen away from
it, it is necessary to return to that source, and therefore
Christ, so far as He is the propitiator, asserts that He is the
light. And, indeed, the heirship and inheritance does not
belong to others than the Son of God. It is utterly out of
keeping with this to regard any as in the place and rank of
sons who have not been grafted into the body of the only-
begotten Son of God." 2
Calvin's definition of coming to the knowledge of God as
our Father is as follows. " The first step to piety is to
recognise God to be our Father in order that He may watch
over us, may govern and foster us, until He gathers us into
the eternal inheritance of His kingdom. Hence that which
we have just said becomes manifest, that the saving knowledge
does not exist apart from Christ, and that therefore He was
set forth from the beginning of the world to all the elect as
the One to whom they should look and in whom their trust
should rest." 3
He goes on to say, further, that " the evangelical procla
mation is nothing else than to announce that by the fatherly
indulgence of God sinners are justified apart from their own
merit : and the whole sum of it is included in Christ." 4
Again, Calvin goes on to contrast the servitude of the Old
Testament rehgion with the Spirit of adoption spoken of in
the New, citing Eom. viii. 15.
His statement as to the election of believers in Christ is :
"The Father chose us in Christ before the creation of the
1 Inst. ii. 2 (18). 2 Ibid. ii. 6 (1).
3 Ibid. ii. 6 (4). 4 loid. iii. 10 (4).

256 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
world, that He might adopt us as His sons according to the
purpose of His will, and now we are accepted in His beloved
Son, in whom we have redemption through His blood." 1
Again, he insists that St. Paul says, " Now are we the
sons of God, freely and with confidence to cry, Abba, Father."
He proceeds to ask whether the holy fathers of the Old
Testament were included among the sons of God. His
answer is, that even they called Him Father by this right,
namely, that they trusted in Christ. " But because," he says,
" since the only-begotten Son of God was brought into the
world, the heavenly Father has become more clearly known,
therefore Paul assigns this as if a privilege of the kingdom of
Christ. This, however, must constantly be borne in mind,
that never was God the Father either of angels or men,
except in respect to the only-begotten Son ; and especially
those men whose iniquity renders them hateful to God are
sons by a gratuitous adoption, whereas He is the Son by
nature." 2
There is a constant insistence upon the knowledge of
God's Fatherhood as the form of the spiritual life be
stowed through and conditioned by the Son. A final
quotation may be made from Calvin's exposition of the Lord's
Prayer. Having emphasised the fact that we can only call God
Father in the name of Christ, he proceeds : " And so He calls
Himself our Father, and so He wills to be called by us : by
the so great sweetness of this name taking away from us all
distrust, since no greater affection of love can anywhere be
found than in the Father. And so by no clearer evidence
can His immense love towards us be witnessed than by this,
that we are called the sons of God. But His love towards
us is by so much the greater and more illustrious than all
the love of our parents, as He surpasses all men in goodness
and in compassion. So that if all the parents upon earth,
stripped of all sense of paternal piety, should desert their sons,
He will never be wanting to us, since He cannot deny
Himself." 3
These quotations amply demonstrate that in Calvin a
1 Inst. ii. 12 (5). 2 Ibid. ii. 14 (5). 3 Ibid. iii. 20 (36).

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 257
note is struck which has not been heard since Irenaeus.
But, indeed, the note of confidence is far more pathetic than
in Irenaeus, since there is a far greater power in Calvin to
appropriate for the use of life the individual reference of the
fatherly love of God, just as there is a completer realisation
of the Christian life as being in the form of sonship. The
spiritual content of the evangehcal life is for Calvin to be
found in God's Fatherhood and man's sonship ; both of these
manifested in and conditioned by the only-begotten Son, set
forth as the object of saving faith. That faith, again, for
Calvin is the work of the Holy Spirit, and the gift of the
Holy Spirit is the consequence and the proof of the electing
decree of God. The genuineness of the truly filial conscious
ness is, moreover, made by Calvin the supreme test of elec
tion. By it a spurious piety can be distinguished from the
true. He says : " But as a deeply rooted persuasion of the
fatherly love of God does not dwell in the reprobate, so they
do not solidly love Him in return as sons, but are influenced
by certain mercenary affection." x
It is, however, at this point that we pass from the world
of spiritual consciousness to that larger sphere which em
braces it. And here the matter is totally different. In the
realm of the internal consciousness of salvation, spiritual
experience is entirely moulded by trust in the fatherly love
of God in Christ, and by the filial response to it. But Calvin
is dominated by the love of law and by the sense of the
supremacy of will. Hence he must needs ground this con
sciousness, so tender and evangelical, in a supreme will, as
the source of his confidence. Moreover, hke Luther, he is
deeply impressed by the contrast between the regenerate and
the unregenerate, and be traces back this contrast to the
power of God in the former, and therefore to His will.
He goes back, as did all the Eeformers, from the conditional
philosophy of the Eoman ecclesiastics to the unconditional
philosophy of Augustine, and to the Epistle to the Eomans
read in the light of that philosophy. As the result of all
1 " At quemadmodum radicitus non haeret in reprobis de paterno Dei amore
persuasio : ita non solide cum redamant ut filii, sed mercenario qiiodam affectu
ducuntur," Inst. iii. 2 (12).
17

258 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
this there rises in the mind of Calvin the conception of the
absolute decree of God, and this dominates all his theology,
and is the background of all his spiritual consciousness. In
some respects, indeed, he reproduces the inconsistencies and
uncertainty of Augustine, as must needs be if the moral
responsibility of man is in any sense to be maintained. But
Calvin's general view sets forth will, order, and sovereignty
to be so supreme, that by rights there is no room for contin
gency, or for the existence, anywhere or at any time, of any
thing not absolutely determined by the Divine volition.
Hence the passage quoted above as to the trust of the pious
man in the ordering of hfe by the paternal sovereignty of
God has an almost stoical tone : it expresses calm unques
tioning freedom from care in things great and small, pro
ceeding from the belief that nothing will fall out of its
appointed order. In all this the Augustinianism of Calvin is
coloured by Cicero and the Latin Stoics.
The consequence is, that while in Calvin's doctrine the
sphere of evangelical experience is shaped by love, yet that
sphere is created within and dominated by a higher and
larger realm, in which sovereign will is supreme. It is true
that this view is not consistently held. God is a benevolent
Father, if all men would . but see this by faith. Those who
have faith do invariably see this, and what they thus see is
the truth. Those who do not see this, do not see the truth.
But then, as the result of an original sin which has inevitably
issued in their own individual transgression, they have not
been elected or empowered to see this truth. And the
difference between the man who is elected and empowered to
see it and him who is not, and therefore cannot see it,
depends entirely on the will of Him of whom no question
must be asked, " Why hast Thou formed me thus ? " Hence
absolute and, indeed, arbitrary will is supreme, and determines
the evangelical world in which the Fatherhood of God is
experienced. The choice of those who are elected that they may be
introduced to this world of love, may doubtless be interpreted
in terms of love ; but the rejection of the rest can only
nominally be interpreted, except as the result of an absolute

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 259
will, which, if the theory were completely logical, would be
held to be the cause of man's fall equally as of his creation
and redemption. This will, at the least, exercises the
sovereign right of refusing to redeem the non-elect ; and not
merely of refusing to redeem them, but of inflicting upon them
eternal torments for a moral condition which they did not
themselves cause, and from which only a (non-existent)
election could have delivered them. Hence the contradiction
in Calvin between supreme Fatherhood and absolute sover
eignty, between the universal and the particular. Yet, as we
have seen, Calvinism restored the Fatherhood of God to its
right place within the sphere of Christian experience.
Socinianism
The third type of teaching on our subject to be considered
in connexion with the rise of Protestantism is Socinianism.
A study of its philosophical principles will reveal the fact,
that while on the dogmatic side it is at the utmost extreme
from the Eoman Catholicism of the sixteenth century, yet the
philosophical basis of Socinianism is substantially that of the
Nominalist philosophers who were in the ascendant within
the Church at the time of Luther's revolt.1
Socinianism represents the religious aspect of the humanist
movement, especially the Itahan phase of that movement ; for
both the elder and the younger Socinus sprang from Italy,
although their work was carried on in Poland, which at this
period was in close intercourse and in deep sympathy with
the new life stirring in Italy.
The general influence of the Eenaissance was strongest and
most characteristic in Italy, of all the countries of Europe.
On its positive side, the humanist spirit stood for the growing
sense of the worth and interest of human life, regarded in its
ordinary and worldly, as contrasted with its supernatural,
relationships. Added to the study of the recovered classics,
to the pursuit of the new learning, and to the joy in recent
discoveries, in the opening up of new paths of human thought
and inquiry, there was in Italy a sense of proprietorship in
1 See Harnack, History of Dogma (Eng. trans.), vii. 144.

260 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
the old culture of paganism, and a desire to restore its ancient
glories. Coupled with this, on the negative side, was the re
action against that ecclesiastical authority which had darkened
and repressed human joy and made a virtue of an unrelenting
and irrational asceticism. Finally, in Italy the temper of the
movement was aesthetic. Literature, poetry, and art were the
interests chiefly pursued.
Such a spirit, while it made for theological and ecclesi
astical revolution, was adverse to profound reflexion upon the
nature of God and His relationship to the world. It could
do well enough with the shallower philosophy then current,
while it threw off the restraints of the ecclesiastical authority
which that philosophy served. Hence the Socinians adopted
the Nominalist doctrine of God, with its emphasis on His will
at the expense of His nature, while they rejected its doctrine
of the Church. The movement was intellectual rather than
religious ; of the understanding rather than the reason. But,
while rather a school than a Church, it was forced to organise
itself ecclesiastically, and to find a confession of faith, or a
declaration of theological conclusions, for its members. And
the Bacovian Catechism was the result.
We are concerned now only with the Socinian doctrine of
God in His relations to man, and with this as it bears on our
immediate subject.
1. The Eacovian Catechism describes God as " the supreme
Lord of all things." x It continues with the question : " And
whom do you denominate supreme ? " The answer is : " Him
who in His own right has dominion over all things, and is
dependent upon no other being in the administration of His
government." His dominion is said to comprise " a right and
supreme authority to determine whatever He may choose
(and He cannot choose what is in its own nature evil and
unjust) in respect to those matters which no other authority
can reach ; such as are our thoughts, though concealed in the
inmost recesses of our hearts ; for which He can at pleasure
ordain laws, and appoint rewards and punishments."
The Catechism proceeds : " What are the things relating
1 "Supremus rerum omnium Dominus," Sac. Cat. sec. iii. Of the Nature
of God.

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 261
to the nature of God the knowledge of which is necessary to
salvation? They are the following — first, that God is;
secondly, that He is one only ; thirdly, that He is eternal ;
and, fourthly, that He is perfectly just, wise, and powerful."
To know that God is, is defined as being " to know and be firmly
convinced that there actually exists a Being who possesses
supreme dominion over all things." And it is subsequently
stated that the power of God " extends to all things whatso
ever, or that do not involve what is termed a contradiction." 1
2. It is because of this supreme and free sovereignty that
God can and does forgive sins without the necessity of atone
ment, and indeed without any other conditions; any such
conditions being impossible, because imposing fetters on the
freedom of the Divine will. " But as it is evident that God
forgives and punishes sins whenever He deems fit, it appears
that the mercy wliich commands to spare, and the justice
which commands to destroy, do so exist in Him as that both are
tempered by His will, and by the wisdom, the benignity, and
holiness of His nature."2 That He has been pleased to
forgive men, God reveals by the prophetic ministry of Jesus
Christ. 3. Hence the whole stress is laid on the prophetic office of
our Lord Jesus Christ in the work of salvation, although
Socinus treated of His priestly and kingly offices in his work
De Servatore Jesu Christo in deference to the threefold division
current among the Beformed theologians. Yet the death of
Christ concerns not His priestly, but His prophetic office,
being the supreme witness to His doctrine, the most striking
manifestation of His love, and the means of binding men
most closely to Himself. Salvation comes to men by the
impartation of the knowledge that God, who is free to punish
or forgive as He will, wills to forgive. We accept this infor
mation, and conduct our lives in accordance with it.
What bearing has all this upon the Fatherhood of God ?
None, immediately. The Fatherhood of God is scarcely
mentioned in the Bacovian Catechism, and is treated as
relative to our Lord Jesus Christ. The use elsewhere made
1 Rac. Cat. sec. iii.
2 Ibid. sec. v. chap. viii. The Death of Christ.

262 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
of it by Socinus is simply in the exposition of passages such
as the Parable of the Prodigal Son, where the point involved
is the unconditional forgiveness which demands no satisfaction
on account of sin. The whole Socinian doctrine is based upon
the sovereignty of God, understood as the unfettered exercise
of supreme will, unhindered even by its own previous
decisions — a will which turns out to be, as Christ teaches us,
loving and gracious, or perhaps, in the Socinian version of it,
good-natured. Thus, as to the gift of eternal life, it is laid
down that " it is exceedingly credible that God will bestow it
upon those who serve Him, as a reward eminently suited to
His majesty, without which other blessings, though proceed
ing from God, are scarcely entitled to the name of a Divine
recompense." 1 It is true that the Catechism defines
evangelical obedience as consisting in this, " that after being
adopted by God for His sons, and endued with a filial spirit,
we conduct ourselves as becomes obedient children, doing with
our whole heart and with all our strength those things which
we know that our heavenly Father requires us to perform,
and giving all heed not to offend Him in anything." 2 But
how httle depth of meaning attaches to this is shown by a
subsequent answer, which says, " We read concerning believers,
that power was given them to become the sons of God, that
is, to become like God in immortahty ; although it is certain
they were not to render themselves immortal, but that God,
in respect to their immortality, would make them His sons." 3
Thus the doctrine of God's Fatherhood is only present in
an incidental way in the Socinian teaching, and is merely a
synonym for that beneficent creatorship the existence of
which was established by the worth of natural life, so highly
estimated by the humanists. It stands in no illuminating
relation to the nature either of God or of men.
Eventually, however, Socinianism as it passed into modern
Unitarianism gave prominence to the Fatherhood of God, and
to its universality in one particular respect. Its conception
of the Fatherhood has not indeed, except in the case of a few
1 Roc. Cat. sec. v. chap. v. 2 Ibid. sec. v. chap. x.
8 Sec. vii. This is probably, with Socinus, the equivalent of the deification
of the Greek Fathers.

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 263
exceptional thinkers, become more profound. But the most
characteristic fact of our Lord's consciousness is manifestly
His sense of the Fatherhood of God as the determining
relationship of His own life. With the growth of purely
naturalist doctrines of the Person of Christ, there has been
less and less room for treating this relationship as essentially
unique, and growing reason for conceiving it as typical of the
relationship in which God stands naturally to all mankind.
Hence in modern Unitarian thought the original restriction of
the Divine Fatherhood to our Lord has been abandoned, and
the Socinian sovereignty has been transmuted into the
universal Fatherhood, without, however, any substantial altera
tion in the apprehension of the relationship of God to man
kind being involved in the change.
Arminianism
We pass to consider briefly some of the leading influences
which have prepared the way for the theological transition of
the nineteenth century. And, in the first place, Arminianism
must be mentioned.
Speaking generally, Arminianism may be said to have
occupied a middle place between Calvinism and Socinianism.
For example, as concerns the great controversy respecting the
need of atonement in order to the forgiveness of sins, the
Arminians argued the necessity of an atonement, against the
Socinians ; but, as against the Calvinists, opposed the view
that such an atonement must be a full discharge of the debt
of sin. Two great considerations governed the Arminian polemic
against Calvinism, with its doctrine of the Divine sovereignty,
of unconditional election, and of irresistible grace.
The first was the concern to protect the freedom of man
as the condition of his moral responsibility — a matter difficult,
to say the least of it, for Calvinism. In this respect the
attitude of Arminianism was practically semi-Pelagian ; the
two facts of human responsibility and of the need of Divine
grace being harmonised by treating grace rather as the
necessary succour given to human free will in order to

'264 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
righteousness, than as the absolute and immediate cause of
all human goodness.
But, in the next place, Arminianism represented the
claim of human well-being on the Creator, who had of His
own free act called men into existence. Calvinism had treated
man as existing solely for the glory of God, and had not
shrunk from declaring that sin having entered into the world,
that glory would be most effectually served by leaving the
majority of men in their sins to meet eternal punishment.
Arminianism went to the opposite extreme, and treated God
as, on account of His love, existing to promote the well-being
of all His creatures. For example, Grotius in his celebrated
Defence of the Catholic Faith concerning the satisfaction of
Christ, against Faustus Socinus,1 says : " But because among
the attributes of God love of the human race stands first,
therefore God, though He could justly punish the sins of all
men by worthy and just punishment, that is, by eternal death,
willed to spare those who believe on Jesus Christ. But when
it was determined to spare them either by instituting or not
some example against so many and great sins, He most wisely
chose that way by which the greatest number of His attri
butes might be manifested at the same time, namely, both
His clemency and His severity, or hatred of sin, and His
concern maintaining the law.2
From the beginning to the end of this theology God is
regarded exclusively as the ruler of the universe ; the con
siderations by which His action is determined are govern
mental ; but the first of those considerations is concern for
the well-being of those who are governed ; and in order to that,
a conspicuous example must at once manifest the character of
God by showing His judgment of sin, and attract to Him the
worship and love of those who are to be saved. Subject to this
last necessity, satisfaction need not and should not be more
than sufficient to maintain the Divine government. It is
demanded, not by a Divine creditor, but by a ruler ; it is a
" relaxation " (relaxatio) and " not a payment in full " (solutio).
1 Defensio Fidei Catholicce de satisfactione Christi contra Faustum Socinum
Senensem. 2 Defensio, cap. v.

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 265
Thus the exclusively governmental views of Arminianism
expressly shut out the Fatherhood of God from view, as the
highest relationship and the ultimate spring of His action
towards mankind. Yet, indirectly, Arminianism laid stress
upon considerations which tend in the long-run to bring the
Divine Fatherhood into prominence. The respect for human
nature and the integrity of man's freedom, for mankind, for all
men, as the object of the supreme concern of God, expresses
a side of the truth which leads necessarily, in the end, to the
Fatherhood of God as the relationship in which alone the
glory of God and the salvation of man can be harmonised by
being brought into vital union with one another.
Leibnitz
A glance must be taken at the teaching of Leibnitz, who
represents philosophical opposition to Calvinism during the
eighteenth century. We are concerned especially with his
The'odice'e, or " Essays on the Benevolence of God, the
Liberty of Man, and the Origin of Evil." The object of the
work is to present a counter view to that of Augustine and
Calvin as to the sovereignty of God and the independence of
man, as to predestination and the rewards of sin ; especially
to present a view of the universe, its history and its issues,
which should be as optimist as those of Augustine and Calvin
were pessimist. According to the latter, the whole nature
and issues of the universe were shaped by the character of
God, were designed to manifest His glory, and were under
the absolute rule of His will, though the fact of sin was more
or less inconvenient to their general system of thought.
Leibnitz, on the other hand, takes an entirely opposite
view. " Our end," he says, " is to separate men from the
false ideas which represent God to them as an absolute
prince using despotic power, little likely to be loved and
little worthy of being loved." x " God," he lays down, " is the
prime reason of things ; for those which are finite, as is all
which we see and experiment upon, are but contingent, and
have nothing in themselves which renders their existence
1 Thiodicie, pt. i. 6.

266 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
necessary. ... It is necessary, then, to seek the reason for
the existence of the world, which is the entire assemblage of
contingent existences ; and it is necessary to seek it in the
substance which carries the reason of its existence in itself,
and which, by consequence, is necessary and eternal. It is
necessary also that this cause should be intelligent. . . . His
understanding is the source of essences, and His will is the
origin of existences." 1
This infinite and all-perfect intelligence saw eternally an
infinite number of possible worlds of finite existences in
relation to one another, which He could call into existence
by His fiat. Of that infinite number of possible worlds,
His goodness caused Him to choose the best and to create it.2
But the very fact that the existences composing this best
of possible worlds are finite, involves that physical and moral
imperfections are bound up with their finitude; evil being
for Leibnitz, as for Augustine, simply tbe negation of being.
The creation of this world meant therefore the necessary
existence of this evil, the magnitude, however, of which, as
Leibnitz labours to prove, has been exaggerated. Each
individual is free in the sense that no constraint is put upon
him to do or not to do, except in so far as his nature is
originally "inclined." Each nature having been created by
God as part of a harmonious whole, works out, according to
this original inclination, its destiny, without interference from
without; that destiny having been seen and provided for
from eternity by the perfect intelligence of God.
Here, then, the prevailing thought is, in a sense, that of
the sovereignty of God. But that sovereignty is limited to
the creation and sustentation of a world the conditions of
which are not imposed by the nature of God, but by the
possibilities inherent in an abstract nature of things, totally
independent of the character and will of God. The bearing
which the character of God has upon the result is simply
that His goodness and wisdom determine Him to select that
1 Thiodicie, pt. i. 7.
2 Ibid. pt. i. 8. As to an imaginary world without sin, he says, "Mais je
hie qu'alors il aurait ete meilleur, car il faut savoir que tout est Hi dans
chacun des mondes possibles," i. 9.

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 267
world which has most advantages and fewest disadvantages ;
in which, moreover, — as an indispensable condition of His
creating at all, — the advantages vastly outweigh the disadvan
tages. The Monadology to some extent supplements this view,
not, indeed, by remedying that externality of God which is
its greatest shortcoming, but by emphasising the spiritual
nature of the finite existences created by God, and therefore,
in a measure, their kinship with Him.
Such was the scheme by which Leibnitz removed the
pressure of the Divine sovereignty, and the burden of the
thought that God absolutely decrees suffering, from the
optimists of the eighteenth century. Such men found in his
system a welcome relief from the doctrines of Augustine,
revived in Eoman Catholicism by the Jansenists and in
Protestantism by Calvin. The influence of this teaching
went undoubtedly to prepare the way for the return to
prominence of the doctrine of Divine Fatherhood ; but under
stood only in the sense of a beneficent creatorship and
providence, — and of these, moreover, as limited by the
necessary evils of finitude in the beings so created, by a
beneficence which is concerned rather with the whole and
with the balance, than with the individual.
Methodism
Much profounder and more far-reaching has been the
influence, for our subject, of Methodism. Methodism, while
it sprang from the Anglican Church, and while Wesley
himself belonged to the High Church section of it, had its
theological roots in the old Calvinist Nonconformity, for both
Wesley's parents were of Nonconformist descent. Thus, so
far as evangelical doctrine is concerned, the Methodist view
of the fall and ruin of human nature by sin is substantially
the Calvinist doctrine, though belief in the universality of
saving grace modified the doctrine, so far as the total inability
of human nature is concerned. Added to this influence was
that of the serious and ascetic Churchmanship, represented by
the Serious Call of William Law, and, above all, that of the

268 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
Moravian pietists. Wesley's own spiritual experience under
these influences, and his logical faculty working on the
Scriptures in the light of these experiences, are the explanation
of his theological doctrines.
That which stands foremost and most distinctive in the
teaching of Methodism is the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. It
was by the nature of this doctrine and the prominence given
to it that Methodism was most clearly distinguished from
ordinary Enghsh religion in the eighteenth century. The
Anghcanism of that day had emerged from the ecclesiastical
discussions of the previous century in the twofold form of
Orthodoxy and Latitudinarianism, which were united in this
respect that they abhorred, above all things, " enthusiasm " in
religion, including under that term any professed consciousness
of, or belief in, direct and immediate fellowship with God.
Manifestations of the Divine presence had undoubtedly been
given to apostles and prophets at the first, but apparently
largely for the establishment and authentication of a Church
which was to enable men to dispense with such manifestations
for the future. Naturally, therefore, the Anglican divines,
with little or no sense of the spiritual constitution and needs
of human nature, occupied themselves with discussions of the
ancient evidences of Christianity and with discourses on the
practical virtues of ordinary life. On the other hand,
Calvinist Nonconformity had largely substituted confidence in
tbe electing decrees of God for the evangelical content of its
theological belief, and looked out upon the ignorance and sin
of the multitude with apparent indifference.
As against both these, Methodism emphasised, above all,
that the gift of the Holy Spirit is a gift to all time ; that He
manifests Himself to all men individually, however obscure
and sinful ; that He is the only means, and the all-sufficient
means, of their inward redemption from sin, through the
mercy of God and the merits of Christ.
But this new experience of and testimony to the work of
the Holy Spirit needed to be justified to opponents by an
appeal to the Holy Scriptures, the final authority not only
for the Methodists, but for the parties to which they were
opposed. It was the effort of Methodists to show that those

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 269
whom they controverted had departed from the plain sense
of the Scriptures, and failed to enter into the experiences
which the Scriptures set forth as typical of Christian life.
In demonstrating this, stress was necessarily laid on two
elements of New Testament teaching.
In the first place, the Spirit promised to believers for
ever is " the Spirit of adoption, by which we cry, Abba,
Father." Adoption into the relationship of sonship, in which
the Fatherhood of God is manifested, therefore assumed great
prominence in Methodist theology.
And, in the second place, the saving work of Christ by
the Spirit is, above all, that of regeneration, as a personal
and vital experience given to those who " believe on the
Lord Jesus Christ." And if adoption means the introduction
to the status of sons, regeneration, signifying the birth of a
new nature, involves birth into the nature and hfe of sonship.
Hence, on the side both of adoption and of regeneration,
the new emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit led of
necessity to a new emphasis on the Fatherhood of God
towards believers, and on sonship as the form of their new
life. Again, Methodism insisted much on " the direct witness "
of the Holy Spirit to our adoption as sons. By this doctrine
it fulfilled the Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith.
The assurance of justification was to be found not merely in
the declarations of Scripture, or in examining the nature of
faith and finding it to be sufficient, or even in the all-
sufficiency of the object of faith, but in the direct, express,
and personal witness of the Holy Spirit to the believer's
adoption. Thus the note of Methodist experience was that
of an immediate and joyous certainty, a deep, and even
exuberant, spiritual satisfaction, and all expressed in terms of
fihal consciousness ; all, therefore, bringing into the foreground
the Fatherhood, which is the correlate of sonship.
And, finally, Methodism testified in word and deed, still
more in the faith that inspired its preaching, to the
universality of the love of God, and of His will to save men
through Christ. As against Calvinism, the Divine love was
set forth as universal ; as against the Laodicean spirit of the

270 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
times, it was displayed in the intensity of its yearning
compassion, in the wealth of its sacrifice, and in its individual
regard. There, practically, the matter was left by the early
Methodists. The leaders of the great movement were
occupied with the directly practical work of preaching to all
the gospel, which was meant for all, and which was meant to
hft all to the hfe of sonship. They were not philosophers,
nor was theirs a philosophical age. Their experience and
their teaching went towards the remoulding of the doctrine
of the relationship of God to mankind, and made that
remoulding inevitable. Their work supplied both the necessity
and the material. But the accomphshment waited for a
season. The experience of Christian believers as characteristically
fihal, the love of God as supreme in Him and universal in its
range, the position and nature of sons as intended for all, — these
were the great truths constantly proclaimed by the Methodist
preachers. They have one presupposition, and only one,
linking them all together, and eventually manifested by them
all — the universal Fatherhood of God as the explanation of
His search after mankind and His gift to them, of the
capacity of all men to be saved, and of the predominantly
filial life of those who are saved ; in whom the original
purpose of God is realised, and therefore both as to its source
and its nature explained.
That presupposition, indeed, comes into sight once and
again, especially in the Methodist hymnology. It was, how
ever, for the most part a deduction waiting to be made, when
the time was ripe for reflexion upon the meaning of the
experiences revived in Methodism and of the fundamental
truths by which its work was inspired. The Methodist
experience of Fatherhood, the realisation of the universality
of that love which would lead all men to sonship in Christ,
carried with it the absolute necessity of treating the Father
hood as the supreme relationship of God to men, because filial,
and of treating it as universal, because it seeks all men for
itself, and puts at the disposal of all the means of arriving at
that sonship which is at once the mark of redemption and
the condition of all real life.

the fatherhood of god in church history 271
The Nineteenth Century
It has been during the nineteenth century that the
presuppositions of the gospel, just spoken of, have come fully
into sight, and that the Fatherhood of God has been restored
to its prominence in theology ; though, for the most part,
with some defects of presentation, which have prevented its
'complete manifestation as the highest and all - embracing
truth, able to find room for and to harmonise all aspects
and interests of the truth as these have been perceived from
age to age.
The causes of this restored pre-eminence have been, in part,
personal ; but still more due to general tendencies of theo
logical thinking, which no doubt have been exemplified, above
all, in the teaching of the leading personalities, but have
secured for that teaching a widely sympathetic response.
Chief among these personal influences may be mentioned
Maurice and, on a more popular plane, Kingsley in England,
Erskine of Linlathen and M'Leod Campbell in Scotland.
In the case of all these men, the most powerful imme
diate cause stirring them into activity was Calvinism in the
form of so-called Evangelicalism. One of the issues of the
Methodist revival was the reawakening of the evangelical
spirit in Calvinism, both within and without the Anglican
Church. And this reawakening had a twofold effect. On
the one hand, it was a powerful means of the deepening of the
Christian life. On the other hand, this very deepening led
many to the perception of the inconsistencies and shortcomings
of the Calvinist view of the dealings of God with men,
judged from the standpoint of what is involved in evangelical
experience itself. It was not only that the evangelical testi
mony to the love of God in Christ caused a revolt against the
limitation of its saving purpose, which was intense in propor
tion to the realisation of the depth and intensity of the Divine
love. In addition, the witness to the love of God made men
impatient of what seemed the artificiality of the highly
elaborated and carefully defined " plan " of salvation, which
seemed to lack the spontaneity and naturalness of love.
Again, when the love of God was treated as the source of His

272 THE fatherhood of god
redemptive action in Christ, it appeared necessary to go be
hind the Fall and beneath the fact of sin to discern and set
forth the original relations of the Godhead to mankind out of
which redemption arose, and by which both the nature of sin
and of redemption were determined. And, once more, the
insistence on the love of God made it necessary to arrive at a
more comprehensive and practicable religious philosophy of
the whole of life than that which was current, despite their
manifold philanthropic activities, among the Evangelicals.
It is unnecessary here to speak particularly of any of the
teachers referred to, except Maurice, the most original and
influential of them all, though attention must be called to the
conspicuous service rendered by M'Leod Campbell in his great
attempt to rescue the Atonement from Calvinist and govern
mental explanations, and to interpret it in terms of Father
hood — of the eternal relationship between the Father and
the Son.
The distinctive qualities which made the greatness of
Frederick Denison Maurice were his profound spirituahty,
his high metaphysical faculty, to which a striking tribute was
paid by so different a man as John Stuart Mill, and that
strong faith in the " light which lighteth every man," which,
combined with wide sympathies, led him to an eclecticism that
sought to recognise and harmonise the elements of truth
contained in all creeds and confessions, witnessed to by all
sects and schools of thought.
The character and theology of Maurice were moulded
by many different and even widely contrasted influences.
The son of a Unitarian minister of some position, whose
whole family ultimately abandoned Unitarianism (most of them
for Calvinist Nonconformity), Maurice to the end retained
certain Unitarian influences, although he never failed to give
strong expression to the revulsion which the Unitarian con
ception of God, of man, and of religion had aroused in him.
The inability to exhibit sacrifice as of the very life of God
because He is love, the denial of Divine intervention on
behalf of men, involved ultimately in the denial of the
Incarnation and of the miraculous, the absence of a sufficiently
serious conception of ethical purpose in God, — these elements,

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 273
together with the optimist view of human nature and the
inadequate account of faith in and fellowship with God, which
have always characterised average Unitarianism, raised a
revolt in Maurice's mind, not only against the particular
doctrines, but against the whole temper of Unitarianism.
In the second place, Maurice, like the rest of his family,
was brought under the influence of Calvinism. While his
whole subsequent life was a protest against the exclusiveness
and limitations of Calvinism, yet the Calvinist doctrine of the
sovereignty of the will of God, in itself, in its moral signifi
cance, and in its application to history, especially to its more
virile epochs and episodes, — as the ultimate explanation of
nature, man, and history, — made a profound and permanent
impression upon Maurice, and deeply coloured all his theo
logical teaching.
In the third place, Maurice was influenced by the writings
of Coleridge, and, through Coleridge, became acquainted with
some of the leading German thinkers, especially with Schelling
and Schleiermacher.
Next in order came the yet deeper influence of Plato,
to whose writings Maurice was introduced at Cambridge by
Julius Hare. From Plato it was natural to pass to the
teaching of those great Alexandrian Fathers whose doctrine
of the Trinity and the Incarnation was so largely moulded by
the philosophy of Plato.
Subsequently came the effect of the so-called Catholic
movement. With this, as represented by Newman and
Pusey, Maurice never had sympathy ; but it had a decisive
influence upon him, drawing his attention to and securing his
belief in the Catholic Church as a historic, visible, and Divine
institution, from the ideal of which particular branches, not
ably the Eoman Catholic Church, had more or less fallen
away. The stress laid by Maurice on the historic character of
the Catholic Church was made the stronger by the fact that
he was deeply interested, as were many of the more religious
men of his day, in the personality and teaching of Edward
Irving. Irving's later claim, that the true Catholic Church
had been reinstituted with new spiritual signs and restored
18

274 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
apostles, on the one hand, deepened Maurice's sense that such
a Church must exist as an external witness to the spiritual
constitution of humanity and to its oneness in Christ ; and,
on the other hand, strengthened his conviction that such a
Church must be continuous in its existence, must go back in
principle to the creation of man, must be finally revealed and
fully equipped in Christ, and must continue in unbroken
activity its historic witness to the spirituality and univer
sality of Christianity, however marred by human superstitions
and divisions.
Lastly, Maurice lived in the midst of the great national,
economic, and social movements which led up to and sprang
out of 1848. In that era of revolution and aspiration there
was absorbing interest to a mind like Maurice's, while there
was in it all, for him, increased need to find the presence of a
living Will, of a Divine principle of truth, manifesting itself
in outward events, and sufficiently comprehensive to include
all the national and social movements which go to promote
the fulness and perfection of human life in a universal order
establishing righteousness upon earth.
Such were the ruling influences in Maurice's view of life
and in his theology. He started with such conception of the
Fatherhood of God as he could find in Unitarianism. This
did not satisfy him, because the Father, as represented by
Unitarians, was not fatherly enough ; because the Unitarian
emphasis on second causes had barred out any adequate mani
festation of fatherly love ; and because the Unitarian view of
the nature of Christ diminished the value of the Divine gift
to mankind in Him, and therefore the greatness of the love
which was manifested in that gift. Maurice came to appre
hend the unique relation of Christ to God and to mankind,
and was led to embrace the theology of the Trinity and the
Incarnation, to which, in his mind, the influences described
above gave an Alexandrian colour. His deep spirituality, his
yearning after God, filled Maurice with the sense of sin,
experienced above all as a burthen of selfishness, from which
he needed to be delivered in order that he might enter into
that full life of God and man the principle of which is
revealed in the sacrifice of Christ, into that life of self-

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 275
sacrifice which is the bond of the spiritual order of human
life. Added to this was the permanent realisation of that
which he had at the first learned among the Unitarians, namely,
the intrinsic goodness and worth, according to their degree of
things natural, of the ordinary interests of human life.
Out of all this there came for Maurice the sense that
love is supreme in God, and in God is the source of the
universe, of man, and of history ; love, realised in the eternal
fellowship of the Trinity, manifest in the Incarnation and in
the Sacrifice of the Cross. Above all, this love is revealed as
a fatherly will, — here the influence of Calvinism may be
perceived, — the authority for conscience, the abiding force
in history, the underlying principle of the universe. This
fatherly will manifested itself in a kingdom the origin of
which on earth was, as was the case with Augustine's City of
God, simultaneous with the creation of man ; a kingdom
which became growingly manifest until it was consummated
in Christ, and was revealed in the Catholic Church, with its
creeds, sacraments, and worship, face to face with the world-
empire of Eome. The Divine office of this Church is to give
an everlasting witness to the unity of the human race in
Christ the Son of God, to its calling to enter into the life of
Divine sonship and universal brotherhood, and to the condition
of that life as being the spirit of the Cross.1
Thus, for Maurice, the truth of truths for every province
of life is to be found, as he says in his Lectures on Social
Morality, in " that theology which recognises a righteous
will, a fatherly will, as the ground of us and of the universe." 2
That sentence may be said to sum up Maurice's rehgious
philosophy, and to exhibit all the influences which, as has
been shown, shaped it. The reference to the supremacy
of a "righteous will" reminds us of Calvinism, while
the mention of the "fatherly will" suggests the original
Unitarianism, enriched by Maurice's peculiarly strong appre
hension of the doctrine of the Trinity. The phrase " the
ground of us " carries us alike to German transcendentalism
and to Platonic Christianity, while the addition " and of the
1 See especially Maurice's Kingdom of Christ.
2 Lectures on Social Morality, Lecture XX.

276 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
universe " introduces the comprehensiveness which embraces
nature, history, and the so-called secular life in one spiritual
whole. Salvation, finally, consists in the apprehension of the
Divine will as righteous and fatherly, and therefore in loyal
conformity to it as the ground of a life which can only be
entered into by filial love and self-surrender.
This emphasis on salvation as the apprehension of the
truth revealed in the historic Christ, who is the witness to
and the spiritual source of a life grounded in and patterned
after His own, because He is the eternal Son of the Father,
is the clearest sign of what may be called an Alexandrian
tone of theology.
This view, set forth with a somewhat indeterminate
utterance, which was in sharp contrast to the formal
definitions of current orthodoxy, seemed to a large proportion
of the men of Maurice's own time both incomprehensible and
dangerous, although it has since then largely permeated the
teaching of all schools of theological thought. The teaching
had some of the defects popularly attributed to it. It did
too exclusively insist, as had Clement of Alexandria, upon
salvation as hinging upon revelation, as wrought out there
fore by an apprehension which, while both spiritual and moral,
yet appears prevailingly intellectual. There were therefore
some elements of religion to which insufficient justiee was
done, and this insufficiency was perhaps most strikingly
manifest in Maurice's dealing with the Atonement. The
demand made upon man by God, although that demand may
be seen to be in principle fatherly, was insufficiently made
manifest, and the lack of this element affected the whole of
Maurice's theology. But, when these and all other necessary
qualifications have been made, it yet remains true that
Maurice's has been perhaps the most far-reaching and noblest
influence upon the doctrine of God in British theology in the
nineteenth century.
The causes, however, which have operated in the nine
teenth century to restore the pre-eminence of the Fatherhood
of God in Christian thought have been too universal to be
explained by individual influence, and too positive and far-
reaching to be interpreted as merely a reaction against the

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 277
harsher teaching of the past. This historical sketch may
fitly end by a brief mention of the principal of these causes
of theological change.
1. In the first place, the human element of the nature,
life, and work of Christ has been brought into prominence.
The human has been recognised as the manifestation, rather
than as the limitation, still less the contradiction, of the
Divine. And the growing study of the human in Christ has
shown it to be typical, above all, of the true and ultimate
relationship of humanity to God. The distinctive relationship
of God to Christ must, because of Christ's relationship to
mankind, be the distinctive relationship in which God stands
to man. 2. Under the influence of the modern recognition of the
laws of development in nature and in history, a truer
perspective of revelation has been found. The apprehension
has been reached of the fact that the Old Testament is
preparatory to Christ, in such wise that it is vitally prophetic
of Him, and yet, because prophetic, throughout incomplete.
The fulfilment must, in all respects, transcend the preparation,
although the worth of that preparation — its positive and
permanent meaning — is not thereby destroyed. Hence it is
in the hght of the fulfilment that the cause and nature of
the preparation must be understood. Our conception of the
relationship of God to man must be taken, primarily, from
the fulfilment, and not from the preparation ; and, secondarily,
from the preparation in its connexion with the fulfilment,
and therefore read in its light. This of course does not
involve the unscientific reading back of the New Testament
into the Old, but the recognition, in equal balance, of the
positive truth and the relative incompleteness of the Old
Testament ; the holding of its truth in the light of and for
the sake of the completely manifested truth in Christ.1
Thus what may be called a Christocentric interpretation of
revelation has accompanied the new emphasis on the typical
character of the humanity of Christ.
3. In the next place, a more serious use of the doctrine
of the holy Trinity has been made by the most distinctive
1 See Chapter IV.

278 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
and influential theologians. Such have not been content to
regard the doctrine as simply casting light either on the
immanent relations of the Persons of the Godhead, or on the
.modes of His manifestation in the salvation of mankind.
They have looked to find the stamp of the triunity of God
throughout the universe which manifests Him. In particular,
they have used the fact of the Trinity to explain the nature
and possibilities of the relationships of God to man ; and they
have done so the more confidently, because it was in and
through human nature that the holy Trinity was revealed
by the incarnation of our Lord. Thus the relationship of
mankind, created in and for the Son, to God has been seen
to be governed by the eternal relationship of the Son to the
Father. The universal significance of that relationship,
obscured as we have seen by Athanasius, has been restored to
hght. And to this restoration the influence of German
transcendentahsm — whatever may be its defects — has power
fully contributed.
4. Further, it has become apparent that, in the interpreta
tion of the ways of God with men, the starting-point must be
the Creation, and not the Fall ; God's original purpose, and
not the remedy for its miscarriage through sin; that the
work of redemption is grounded in that of creation, and
governed by it. The work of creation is explained in Christ,
who is the positive fulfilment of man ; and this fulfilment is
in the essential form of perfected Sonship. Hence Father
hood is demonstrated in Christ as being the original
relationship which gave rise to the creation, and realises its
aim in the consummation of mankind.
5. Meanwhile the most powerful tendency of theology,
influenced by the new perception of the law of development
as everywhere prevaihng, has been to conceive God in less
external and mechanical, in more immanent and vital,
relations to nature and to man, than had previously seemed
to be the case, at any rate since the influence of Aristotle
succeeded that of Plato in Christian philosophy. And this
vital relationship of God to mankind receives fullest and
most natural expression in terms of the Fatherhood of
God.

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 279
6. Again, the nineteenth century witnessed the reawaken
ing of manifold aspirations — political, social, economic,
intellectual, and aesthetic, — all of them recognised by en
lightened Christian men to be, in principle, natural,
necessary, and good. These movements in the practical
sphere have claimed and received recognition in the higher
philosophy and poetry. Theology has been forced to
interpret them, and, in interpreting, to sanction them, by the
light of the revelation of true manhood in Christ. A sense
of the naturalness, goodness, oneness, and harmony of the
comprehensive order of human life has by this means come
to men ; and they have become growingly convinced that
there can be no bare opposition between the human and the
Divine, between the natural and the spiritual ; that the truly
Christian must be heir to the whole of human life— able to
rule every part of it in harmony, for its perfecting in the
service of God. Again, the freedom, naturalness, and whole
ness of such a hfe can only be understood by means of the
Fatherhood and the fatherliness of God.
7. Finally, the humaner and more sympathetic tone of
thought which has marked the nineteenth century, and
created ideals of brotherliness, of social service, of the
education and redemption of all men, has of necessity
exercised a profound influence on theology. It has meant
the extension to all men, and to all the ends of life, of the
idea of Christian brotherhood and the freeing of that idea
from non- Christian restrictions. As man feels towards his
neighbour, so he inevitably conceives God as feeling towards
mankind. The manifold influences of modern life have
taught the neighbourhood and brotherhood of all men. A
new gentleness and sympathy have been awakened. And
such brotherliness has of necessity found its source and its
justification in the fatherliness of God. The source of what
is truest and best in me must be in Him ; therefore, if I am
brotherly, how much more must He be fatherly ! With the
sense that this must be so, has come the eyesight to per
ceive, in Scripture and elsewhere, above all in Christ, that
it is so.
While all this has been the case, it must not be forgotten

280 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
that the so-called Oxford Movement represented, in its leading
features, a reaction against these newer tendencies of thought
and sympathy. It is unnecessary to speak here of its eccle
siastical aspects. In theology and religious temper, however,
it was an attempt to overcome hberal tendencies in religion,
and to correct certain deficiencies of evangelicalism by revert
ing to antiquity under Bomanticist influence.
But the Movement produced no great doctrine of God.
Indeed its uncritical resort to the witness of the primitive
and undivided Church, under the guidance of the so-called
Vincentian Canon, " Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab
omnibus," prevented it from attaining a thoroughly consistent
theology, whether original or revived. In its search after
agreement, it was forced to overlook difference and to forgo
both selection and criticism. Yet, on the whole, the pre
occupation of Newman and Pusey with the nature and
conditions of justification, understood in a Eoman sense,
caused the influence of Western theology to predominate with
them, and led therefore to the ascendency, once more, of the
mediaeval doctrine of the sovereignty of God.
In later times the influence of Maurice has profoundly
affected the theology of the leaders of the High Church
party. The theological results of this modification have not
yet been wrought out, though it has brought about an
approximation to the spirit of the times which is in striking
contrast to the temper of the Movement as originally
inaugurated. Doubtless this new spirit has had its dangers ; the danger
above all, perhaps, of sentimentalism in all the concerns of
life. That sentimentahsm has invaded theology, and has
become the more marked by reason of its revolt against
harsh or artificial dogmatism. In so far as such a sentimental
spirit has prevailed, elements of spiritual and moral weakness
have been apparent ; the sovereignty of God and the
righteous ends which He seeks and demands in the hfe of
men have been obscured. Then whole tracts of theological
thought have been abandoned as unnecessary or unpleasant,
the essential truth of which should have been discerned and
restated in terms of the newer and less inadequate thought.

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD IN CHURCH HISTORY 281
Such a restatement is one of the great theological tasks
set before the twentieth century ; and with its accomphshment
the Fatherhood of God will be set forth in worthier expression,
and will be seen to be the relationship, above aU others,
which must determine all Christian thought that is true to
the life and teaching of Christ, or that offers a guide to the
purposes and dealings of God with mankind.

CHAPTER VI
THE VALIDITY AND CONTENT OF THE DOCTRINE
OF THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
In the last chapter we have traced the process by which
the doctrine of the Fatherhood of God, supreme in the New
Testament, was replaced for a thousand years by that of His
sovereignty, and have watched its gradual reappearance since
the Eeformation, till at the opening of the twentieth century
it has once more secured general recognition, and bids fair to
become what it originally was — the determining principle of
living Christian theology.
This prospect will be fulfilled or not, according as it is
or is not possible to give such living expression in terms of
the Fatherhood of God to the many-sided aspects of truth
which have found utterance in the theological systems of
the past, that not only shall there be no loss, but that each
aspect shall find a higher, and all together shall find a more
comprehensive and harmonious, statement as an expression
of the Fatherhood of God, than is possible under any other
conception. So far as the Fatherhood of God is the watch
word of a prevailingly sentimental rehgion which seeks to
antagonise and to exclude the severer elements of Christian
theology instead of to include them in a higher and more
satisfying whole, it will fail to satisfy the consciousness of
the more virile, whether within the Christian Church or
outside it. It must find due place for the sterner as well as
for the more sympathetic features of Christian teaching, if
it is to be true to Divine revelation, or to meet the needs of
the human mind and heart.
We come, therefore, now to the last and most difficult
stage of our inquiry. We have to examine the doctrine of the
282

VALIDITY AND CONTENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF 283
Fatherhood of God, and to find out whether it is thus com
prehensive ; whether, that is to say, it gives so final a prin
ciple for the interpretation of the nature of God, as revealed
in His relationships and dealings with mankind, as that by
it all the characteristic experiences of Him, which have in
all times been vouchsafed to men, are explained. We must
therefore, in the first place, subject the doctrine to closer
examination, in order to ascertain what is meant by it and
involved in it, how we have come by it, and to what extent
it represents not the mere poetry of religious sentiment, but
the truth, valid for the reason in construing the ways of
God. In short, we must determine whether the Fatherhood
of God is a principle of theological interpretation at all.
If the result of this prehminary inquiry be satisfactory,
we must then, in the second place, pass under general review
the main facts of the Divine manifestation in creation and
in redemption, in order to see how far they are an expression
of the Fatherhood of God, and how they should be stated in
its light. It will be neither possible nor necessary to make
this survey an exhaustive inquiry into all the doctrines of
the Christian faith. It will be sufficient if we can attain to
a general point of view, from which the main facts and the
dominant truths may be regarded. The concluding portion
of our investigation may therefore, perhaps, be most con
veniently considered under three heads, namely, the consti
tution, the redemption, and the consummation of the world.
These will be dealt with in subsequent chapters. Our first
concern is with the vahdity and content of the doctrine of
the Fatherhood of God.
Before entering on this subject, a preliminary word must
be said as to the great importance for all the interests of
religion — whether spiritual, rational, or apologetic — of attain
ing to as adequate a conception of the relationship of God
to men and to the world as is possible. And this is all
the more important in dealing with our subject, for the very
attraction of the Fatherhood of God, to many minds, is that
it seems to promise a relief from the strict inquiries and the
fixed definitions of formal theology. Men are apt often to
attribute the weariness caused by more or less artificial

284 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
schemes of theological thought to theology in itself, and to
deprecate all attempts at system, not only out of compassion
for the weakness of the flesh, but for the sake of the freedom
of the spirit. It is true that the theological faculty is not
universal, even among sincerely religious people, any more
than the purely scientific interest is prevalent with all those
who are practically famihar with the phenomena dealt with
by any particular science. The majority are content to
accept, to enjoy, and, in a measure, to conform themselves
to the message of the gospel as it has reached them.
But the human mind, as such, can never be thus content.
In the most earnest and thoughtful there will always be the
necessity of seeking a complete reflexion in thought of what
is presented in experience. Such will ever attempt to
piece together their various partial experiences in a systematic
whole, and, above all, to find such a statement of the nature
of God and of His relationships to the world as will furnish
a complete explanation of His dealings with man, and of
man's life both in itself and in its relations to the universe.
That great necessity — spiritual as well as intellectual — is the
ultimate justification of theology as a formal science.
Hence those have been in error who, for various reasons,
have mourned the passing of the simple and practical temper
of primitive Christianity, and have treated the rise of theology
as an unfortunate necessity, occasioned by the assaults of
paganism and the self-willed errors of heresy. The stage in
which Theology arranges her possessions in order to make
them look more attractive to those without, or in more com
bative mood seeks in her armoury to find weapons by which
to strike confusion into the armies of the aliens, is transitory,
and seldom, if ever, leads to any decisive victory. The real
work of theology is within and after all this. While the
polemic divines man the walls of the theological Jerusalem
and hurl argumentative challenges at the hosts around,
within the city there rise up from time to time men gifted
with prophetic vision, who give such positive, luminous, and
inspiring utterance to the truth, that the nobler and deeper
mind of the Church awakens to find a new satisfaction,
because it is explained to itself and all things are explained

VALIDITY AND CONTENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF 285
to it. A universe of higher and broader truth is revealed,
in which the antagonisms of the past are reconciled, and the
fighters on the walls suddenly find that their occupation is
gone, because a peace is established which they did not fore
see, and which they did comparatively httle to secure.
Such is the effect upon his age of the great theologian
who gives the rationale of faith for which his age has waited ;
who furnishes such an account of the rehgious relationship,
and of all that is involved in it, that the more thoughtful
of the times " find places to walk " in it. The distinctive
spiritual and practical impulses of a great and progressive
age tend to produce such theologians. When they appear,
they do indeed so absorb the life of their age that they par
take of its limitations ; but, subject to that drawback, in
evitable in an orderly development, they sum up the noblest
results of their times, and furnish the starting-point for still
further advance when the world is ready for it.
According as this work of theology is effectually done or
not, according as it shows a grasp strong and comprehensive
upon all the facts — Divine and human, as expressing the
Divine — held in true relation and in right proportion, will be
its beneficial effect upon practical religion or the reverse. It
is, quite true that the great inspirations which lead men to
further and fuller realisation of Divine truth spring out of
influences much deeper, and therefore more vital, than formal
theology, and that -such theology is great only in so far as it
gives utterance to such influences. Yet even here the very
forms in which the theology is expressed are of great practical
effect. Our historical study has shown us, for example, how
profoundly practical religion was influenced in regard to the
Fatherhood of God by the form in which the doctrine of the
Incarnation was presented by Athanasius, and by that in which
the doctrine of the Trinity was set forth by Augustine. It
is true that these great thinkers did but give classical ex
pression to the growing tendencies of their times. But they
developed and stereotyped these tendencies, and with such effect
that throughout the Middle Ages, as we have seen, the Father
hood of God was never thought of except in relation to the
Eternal Son, and even in regard to Him assumed the dreariest

286 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
metaphysical sense; and that Dante, though his poetry is
steeped in the love of God, could not find the obvious expres
sion of that love in Fatherhood, because his theological
teachers had hidden it from his eyes. And what is imme
diately apparent in so outstanding an example is equally
true in the obscurer realms of Christian life. The formal
theology, which seems to slumber in massive volumes read
by only the few, comes down from the shelves to colour cate
chisms, to provide the intellectual framework of sermons, to
set bounds to the spontaneous outpourings of devotion, and
to shape the temper with which Christian men regard the
strivings of their age. Hence those who have been the
apostles of new religious movements, and in so doing have
stirred the depths of human spirits out of the depths of their
own experience of God, have been compelled to become formal
theologians, first wrestling in argument, as did Luther with
the " Aristotelians " and as did Wesley with the Calvinists,
and then quietly constructing a reformed theological fabric
in which the new experience of God could live, and yet could
live as a fulfilment of the old. Theology is to practical re
ligion, save in rare creative moments, what the trelhs-work
is to the vine : the religion goes along the lines prepared for
its direction. And if a comprehensive theological statement is necessary
to rehgion, it is equally so to reason, the restlessness of which
dogmatists condemn when it demands ampler scope than
their formularies have provided for it. Eeason is indeed
to be suspected and condemned if by it is meant the con
ceited effort to be self - sufficient and the measure of the
universe. But it represents the noblest attributes of man
and pays the highest tribute to God, if by it is meant, as
should be the case, the humble, yet resolute and confident,
attempt to explore the truth of the world, in order to secure
inward harmony and the insight necessary to outward advance.
There is no greater danger than that our conception of God,
of His nature, and of His relationship to the world, should
be unable to find room for what our reason assuredly dis^
covers to be true in fact or aim. Eeason, always active, is
most alert in the greatest periods of history. Then it in-

VALIDITY AND CONTENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF 287
evitably happens that the new discoveries of reason are brought
to the old interpretations of theology. And when reason
becomes possessed of truth of which the current theology
takes no notice (and this is too mild a statement of what is
often the case), then first unrest, and internal division. The
new reason, in the flush of its victory, counts ¦ for more than
the old theology, and, unless some reconciliation takes place,
the discoverer becomes, in many respects, the victim of his
discovery. Then, in consequence of the discovery, a process
of criticism of the old dogmatic forms is set up, till that
which is exclusive in them — unable to contain and unfit to
give expression to the fulness of ascertained truth — has to
give way, probably after much batthng and many inconclusive
results. The strife is only ended when theology once more,
born anew and become prophetic, gives triumphant evidence
that it has assimilated the new material of reason, because
the latter was always akin to the substance of the original
and vital faith.
And thus the theological effort, after a completely har
monious conception of God and of His relationship to men,
has the highest apologetic value ; indeed, from this point of
view, there is little else that is worth while. The completest
statement of the truth is its fullest vindication. The world
of life is " exceeding broad," and, since every part of it pro
ceeds from God, therefore every part is in its degree neces
sary for the full interpretation of God. That conception
of God, therefore, will satisfy men ultimately as true, which,
while meeting the highest needs of the spirit, can stretch
with the least strain to all the parts of life, and involves the
least amount of inner contradiction. There is the greatest
need to me of a conception of God in His relationship to
me which corresponds to, includes, and explains my whole
consciousness of Him, of myself, and of my manifold relations
to the world. His relationship to me explains all the rest,
and, though it may be for ever impossible thoroughly to
explore it, yet my hfe will advance towards perfection only
in so far as I reverently seek to do so. The measure of
my success will be the measure of my inward peace and
harmony, of certainty and wholeness in moral action, of

288 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
confidence in faith. The knowledge of God so understood is
power ; it advances with the insight of faith ; it proves its
truth by showing itself as life and strength and peace.
We are to endeavour to show that the Fatherhood of
God, as revealed in and by our Lord Jesus Christ and
verified by believers in Him, is this supremely satisfying
truth, that it is the final and all-comprehending revelation
of Him to men.
We must begin by defining what we mean by the Father
hood of God. For this purpose, words may be quoted which
the present writer has used elsewhere. The Fatherhood of
God " necessitates our conceiving of the creation of mankind
as the calling into existence by God, out of His own life, of
beings at once kindred with Himself, and having a distinct
individuality of their own. But this, so far from exhausting
what is meant by Fatherhood, touches only its surface. The
calling into existence of such beings — kindred with Himself,
yet having personal independence — is motived by the love of
God ; introduces them into a world, a home, of love, which
environs their whole life ; and has, as its end; that fellowship
of mutual giving and receiving, that most intimate communion,
which can only be between those who are spiritually akin,
a fellowship which it is the object of fatherly education to
•perfect. The motive as love, the end as fellowship, the
method as the education of the home, all these are set forth
when we speak of the Fatherhood of God." J
The Fatherhood of God represents, above all, a spiritual
and moral relationship ; that spiritual and moral relationship
rests upon a natural basis as its necessary condition ; and
that natural basis springs from, has its essence in, and is
shaped by the fatherly love which gives it being. The doc
trine of the Fatherhood of God sets forth the spiritual rela
tionship in which He stands to them, the ends involved in
that relationship, and the methods by which alone these ends
can be brought about. To all these, love, creating for its
own fellowship, is the key. But it would be impossible to
realise these spiritual ends in the life of love and by the
1 Fernley Lecture on The Spiritual Principle of the Atonement, pp.
226, 227.

VALIDITY AND CONTENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF 289
training of the home, unless the natural basis on which all
rests were that of kinship between God and man — a kinship
which can only be the result of a fatherly love which gives '
the motive and fixes the ends of creation, and constitutes the
nature of the man created.
We may illustrate our definition of the Fatherhood of
God by contrasting it with two other conceptions in frequent
use, — that of God as ' Maker,' so far as the origin of man is
concerned, and that of God as sovereign, so far as His
authority and control over man, when made, are concerned.
We must subsequently discuss more fully the relations be
tween Fatherhood and sovereignty ; but meanwhile, in order
to a clear understanding of what is meant by the Fatherhood
of God, they may be set side by side.
The term ' Maker ' is frequently used to set forth the
relationship of God to the world. The phrase ' Man and
his Maker ' is by no means uncommon. While it may be
connected equally well with either the doctrine of the Divine
Creator in the Old Testament, or with that of the Divine
Artificer in Greek philosophy, it expresses most clearly the
external and mechanical conceptions which characterised the
theism of the eighteenth century. Taken in its Old Testa
ment sense, the term is of great significance and importance ;
though in the Scriptures it by no means stands alone. There
is here, indeed, an example of the way in which certain con
ceptions, which have a real, if a subordinate, office in setting
forth Divine truth, and are kept in their place and balanced
by other conceptions in Scripture, are often torn from their
context, and pass into a popular and exclusive use, which
makes them ultimately a hindrance rather than a help to
the knowledge of God. The term carries us back to that
most important epoch in the history of revelation, when the
Hebrew prophets, above all the author of Isa. xl.— lxvi., con
fronted those who either had no theory on the matter, or for
whom both gods and men were alike products of something —
impersonal and unspiritual — which lay behind them, and
proclaimed that God is one, and that He is the voluntary
source of all that exists, that men are in no sense independent
of God, and that He is in no sense dependent as they are ;
19

290 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
but that they, in common with the universe, owe all that
they are to the creative wisdom and might of His mind and
will. But it does not follow that because this is a most im
portant relative truth, therefore the term selected for this
particular purpose gives an adequate account of the motives
and methods of creation, or of the relations in which the
Creator stands to the created. Indeed the contrary is the
case. To say that God is our ' Maker,' or even our Creator,
gives no account whatever of His motive, suggests the
fashioning of an external product, and leaves that product,
comparatively speaking, unrelated to God ; although, doubt
less, the saying of Genesis, that man was made in the image
and likeness of God (Gen. i. 26, 27), as well as the whole
spirit of the Old Testament, go to correct the one-sidedness
of the term as commonly used. Confining ourselves — as in
considering this term we ought to do — to the origination of
man, the conception of Makership, as applied to God, fails to
render complete service to spiritual thought, by reason of
three defects — namely, its inability to explain the Divine
motive of creation, to exhibit the method of creation as vital,
and to make manifest that its result affords in itself the
possibihty, on the ground of kinship, of spiritual fellowship
between the Maker and the being who is made. The term
still conveys an important truth, but the whole truth can
only be seen when it is set back in its proper place in a
higher and larger whole. In contrast with this hmited con
ception, the doctrine of the Fatherhood declares that God is
Maker because He is love, that He makes by the impartation
of Himself, and that, because of that self-impartation, He
makes beings who are kindred to Himself.
So, again, when we pass from the origination of man to
the government which maintains and orders his being for its
appointed ends. Here the doctrine of the Sovereignty of
God succeeds to that of His Makership. But the doctrine
of Divine sovereignty simply declares the absolute authority
of God in commanding and His irresistible power in con
trolling man's life ; this authority and power being based
upon the perfection of His character, upon His creative act,

VALIDITY AND CONTENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF 291
and His sustaining providence. Here, again, all is true ; and
there are occasions when the whole emphasis may, for the
time, be naturally and fitly, or even necessarily, laid upon
these aspects of the relationship of God to men.
But, again, sovereignty must fall back into its proper
place as an aspect of a larger whole. And, again, the doc
trine of the Divine Fatherhood comes in with its richer con
tent to fill up that which is lacking in a conception which,
while true, is yet incomplete. The doctrine of the Father
hood lays the foundation of the Divine authority, not only in
the perfection of God and in His creative act, but upon these
as united in giving existence to a kindred nature, whose hfe
consists in growing up into the perfection of its Source. It
can be brought to that perfection only under the guidance
and authority of that Source ; but the all-important truth is
that that authority is not external, alien, or abstract ; that it
does not magnify itself by exacting the mere submission of
those who are under obhgation to obey it ; but that it is an
authority of which love is the origin and motive, and of
which more abundant life is the outcome — an authority
which attains its goal, if not in being superseded, at least in
being hidden from sight, because, in the full maturity of the
nature it has trained, law has attained its end in the per
fected hfe of love.
When the Fatherhood of God is thus introduced to in
terpret His sovereignty, then the methods of the Divine
authority must needs be seen to be those " educational
methods of the home," by which alone can fatherly authority
of this kind attain its ends. Such methods represent not
a mere external theory and practice of Divine education.
Like all the methods of the home, they are instinct through
out with the self-impartation of the father in the reinforce
ment of the life of his child. A method there is, but one
which is the fulfilment of the faint promise contained in the
training of the best earthly fatherhood ; a method of which
every part is a grace, and every grace the outpouring of the
very life of the Father, upholding, training, and perfecting into
fellowship with Himself the life of those who are to be His
sons. So much may serve for the illustration of our definition.

292 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
In the next place, we must ask in what way the Father
hood of God, as thus defined, is so presented to us as to
become the constitutive principle of our thought about God
in His relationship to mankind. In answer to this question
we must recall what the earlier stages of our inquiry suf
ficiently estabhshed : that the foundation of the doctrine is
wholly experimental, and according to the completeness with
which the original experience is reproduced is the survival, in
any full sense, of the doctrine. The apprehension of the
Fatherhood of God — adequately conceived — rests upon the
revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, and upon the verification
of that revelation in the hearts of His followers, through the
presence of the Spirit of adoption, " crying Abba, Father."
Further, when we go behind the letter of our Lord's revela
tion, we discover that that revelation, in turn, is the result
of our Lord's perfect personal apprehension of the Father- •
hood, owing to His unique consciousness of being God's Son.
Our Lord was not a winged messenger from heaven bearing
a dogmatic proposition that God is Father, and leaving it,
authenticated by external signs, for behevers to verify. He
grew up as a man, who was yet the " only-begotten of the
Father " ; His consciousness and His course were from first
to last inspired and guided by the experience of the love of
His Father. His whole life was a response to it. It is out
of that marvellous apprehension of Fatherhood and Sonship,
unshaken by all that seemed superficially to contradict it,
that the revelation of God's Fatherhood comes to us as the
supreme truth which expresses all that God is and all that
He will be to mankind in the Son of Man, who is the Son
of God. It is from this unique and all-determining consciousness
of Christ, extended to believers in Him, that the New Testa
ment writers carry away the doctrine of the Fatherhood* of
God, so that it becomes an independent and general propo
sition, embodying the highest truth as to His mind and
heart and will towards mankind, since the possibilities of
their nature are determined by their relationship to the
eternal Son of God. Just in the same way, as we have seen,1
1 Chapter IV.

VALIDITY AND CONTENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF 293
did the- doctrine of Jehovah's universal sovereignty, as Lord
of the whole earth, spring forth in Old Testament times,
from the conscious experience of His Lordship over Israel,
and over every member of the sacred community. Thus,
inevitably, the doctrine of the Divine Fatherhood is appar
ently cut from its roots in spiritual experience and made
a universal and abstract proposition, although its ultimate
justification must continue to lie in its experimental source.
And, when this general proposition has been reached, it must
be examined and tested, like any other general proposition, in
the light of the spiritual and natural facts of the world by
the exercise of human reason. It must be shown to be more
fully adequate than any other conception to set forth the
complete truth of God's character, to explain the secret of
man's nature, and to set forth the relations between both, than
any other doctrine that can be named. In the realm of
Christian dogmatics, with which alone we are here concerned,
it must establish this in regard to the facts of Christian faith
and experience ; in the realm of apologetics it must patiently
face the complex phaenomena of the world, and show that in
the Fatherhood of God — notwithstanding any appearance to
the contrary — we have yet the surest clue to the mystery of
all things. In this process, indeed, lies the proof of the truth of the
doctrine, if proof be the right word. The evidence is this,
that the consciousness of the Fatherhood of God was the
characteristic experience of the supreme spiritual personality
the world has ever seen or will see ; that that experience is
shared by men according as they enter into oneness with
Him; and that the full apprehension of the Fatherhood
completes all other experiences of God, deepening, fulfilling,
explaining them, and giving an added fulness of life and
power for thought and action to all who accept it ; — that it
is possible to take every other conception of the relations
of God to men which can be offered, from the lowest to the
highest, and to find all subsumed under the Fatherhood, all
completed and harmonised in it, while, on the other hand, it
can be subordinated to no other. It is in this completing,
including, and harmonising power of the doctrine of the

294 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
Divine Fatherhood, as compared with any other, that the
evidence of its truth and of its supremacy consists.
But, when all this has been laid down and admitted, it
yet remains to ask what measure of validity for thought has
the doctrine of the Fatherhood of God. It may be the best
and highest conception we have, or can have ; but to what
extent does it set forth the real truth ? Does it belong only
to the language of religious emotion ? Or is it simply a loose
external analogy, which has, at the utmost, poetic and not
philosophic worth ? Our answer is, that it is much more
than this ; but that, in contending that it is much more, it is
necessary to begin with an assumption and to end with the
acknowledgment that the doctrine of the Divine Fatherhood,
as figured out by human analogies, must, in most important
respects, fall short of the full Divine reality.
We must begin with the assumption that human relation
ships are grounded in and reveal the Divine ; that the whole
creation is a giving forth — according to the measure of every
part — into creaturely manifestation of that which is inmost
in God. This involves not merely the individual existences
and phaenomena, but also the relationships which unite them
in the systematic whole of the universe, and without which
they would not be what they are ; for it is as impossible
to find or to conceive an individual except in relationships, as
it is to find or conceive relationships without individuals to
sustain them. And this seems to carry with it one further
proposition, namely, that the manifestation of God is fullest
and most trustworthy in that which is highest, most dis
tinctive, and of the greatest worth in created life.
This is undoubtedly an assumption, but it is one which is
natural, and indeed necessary, if any rational explanation of
the universe is to be given at all. Agnosticism is, theoretically,
the refusal to accept this assumption ; practically, it results in
a so-called interpretation of the world by that which is
earliest in evolution and lowest in phsenomenal relationships,
instead of by that which is final and highest. The cause of
such agnosticism is rather spiritual and moral than intellectual.
It arises from the failure inwardly to maintain the tran
scendent worth and meaning of personality against the mere

VALIDITY AND CONTENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF 295
vastness and force of the outlying universe. This assumption,
which is necessary to any satisfying world-explanation, has
been instinctively made by the naive consciousness of the
past, and has been confirmed by all truly religious minds —
above all, by that experience which completes and interprets
them all, the spiritual consciousness of our Lord Himself.
Hence, if the principle thus assumed be correct, then not only
on account of our Lord's testimony, but also by reason of the
part which paternity plays in the world of hfe and especially
in its higher spiritual developments, we are driven to con
clude that no other relationship can compare with Father
hood as supplying a clue to that which is ultimate in the
motive, method, and end of creation. Certain it is that men
can never pass beyond it, for the conceptions of the human
mind are inevitably limited by the relationships of which it
has had or can have experience; the only question being,
whether those relationships, as they progressively unfold their
meaning, are a manifestation of world - explaining truth.
Equally certain is it that every other relationship is inferior
to that of Fatherhood, having a narrower content, a less vital
significance, and therefore a lower spiritual worth. And
this will be still clearer if we remember that in using father
hood as a human relationship to set forth the Divine, we
must transcend the earthly division of parentage between the
father and the mother, and endeavour to base our conception
of the Divine Fatherhood upon the comprehension in a larger
whole of all that is most glorious in fatherhood and most
gracious in motherhood. Holy Scripture itself encourages us
to do this when it conveys to us the Divine assurance : " Can
a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have
compassion on the son of her womb ? yea, they may forget,
yet will I not forget thee" (Isa. xlix. 15).
Our confidence in making this assumption is still further
strengthened if there are eternal relationships in the God
head, which are the archetypes of Fatherhood and Sonship.
It will be urged, later on, that the condition of God's Father
hood towards mankind is to be found in the truth of the
testimony of the New Testament, that the Divine Sonship
of our Lord on earth is the revelation of original relations in

296 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
the Godhead, constituting an eternal society of life and love.
We may therefore sum up by saying that if those relation
ships of the Godhead be inmost and eternal, if creation be
the uttering of that which is inmost in the Godhead, if,
moreover, the relationships of God to man must be those of
life and love, and not mechanical (for mechanism can never
explain a creature who is not mechanical), then for ever the
doctrine of the Divine Fatherhood must be our surest guide
to ultimate truth. Of course, being manifested in creaturely
and finite forms, it can only be an imperfect clue to what is
involved in the relationship of God to men. Yet, with all its
imperfections, it is more than a poetic figure. It is the final
message of a revelation in creation, which everywhere en
thrones love as the secret of life.
Yet it is equally necessary to acknowledge the "inherent
imperfections even in fatherhood, as it can be realised by
men, to set forth the relationship of God to mankind.
Another quotation from the work already cited may perhaps
be permitted. " So far as Fatherhood is concerned, the
following differences (and more might be named) show how
immeasurable is the interval between the heavenly Fatherhood
and its earthly type. The human nature which the earthly
father transmits to his child and shares with him, is derived
by both equally from God. The individuality of the child is
impervious to the earthly father. The father's authority is
delegated by God, is exercised within narrow limits, and is
justified only so far as it answers to the law of God ; and, in
like manner, the child's duty of obedience is limited by his
relationship to God and to the objects of His law. The
sphere of the common life of father and child, and its
conditions, is limited ; it is independent of the father's will,
its laws are beyond his control. The supremacy of the
earthly father wanes before the growing maturity of his
child. Above all, an offence either of father or child against
the other is, in addition, a sin against God, and sin can be
committed against God alone." 1
To speak more strictly, the conception of fatherhood
by which human imagination is hmited fails to set forth,
1 The Spiritual Principle ofthe Atonement, pp. 239, 240.

VALIDITY AND CONTENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF 297
firstly, the absoluteness, and, secondly, the immanence of
God. In the first place, it fails to set forth the absoluteness of
God. The human father, by the exercise of certain powers
delegated to him, comes to enter into a relationship which he
did not constitute, which is external to himself, and which he
cannot control. Father and son, in human life, become such
in a relationship the nature and limiting conditions of which
belong to the universe before, above, and after their par
ticular reahsation of it. But God, as the Father, while a
party to the relationship which He constitutes and into
which He enters with His creatures, is more : how much more
it is difficult to set forth and impossible to realise without
becoming as God. He is not merely a party to the relation
ship ; He constitutes it out of His own hfe. He is that
underlying reality which conditions all earthly life and all
human fatherhood. The man who, as a centre of individual
and independent hfe, enters into the fihal relationship with
God is not independent of Him, in the sense that an earthly
son becomes independent of an earthly father. In a mystery
which we cannot fathom, because we are men and not God,
God, who constitutes out of the essential reahty of His own
hfe the fatherly relationship between Himself and his
children, bestows independent creaturely life, with all its
responsibilities, upon those who enter into the relationship,
without breaking off that life from Himself, or putting it
outside Himself, in the sense that one human being is outside
another. He would cease to be God were this to happen.
Difficult as it may be to conceive, yet it is true that while
God respects the personality He creates and the relationship
He sets up, while He makes each man the possessor, within
limits, of that responsible power of choice and will by which
alone he becomes man, yet the whole of this creaturely
personal existence never becomes an external fact to which
God merely accommodates Himself. It remains an issue of
His own life, while, notwithstanding, it is endowed with a
personal independence (to use a somewhat unsuitable word)
which He steadfastly maintains.
Hence, in the second place, as of the absoluteness of God,

298 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
so of His immanence. God is immanent in man, whereas
human fatherhood does but foreshadow immanence, without,
under creaturely conditions, being able to complete it. There
is a nature common to the earthly father and son which
often makes the son approach to a repetition of the father,
and which normally puts him in specially close sympathy
with his father. Yet the personalities are distinct, and lie
outside each other. But as the heavenly Father constitutes
out of His own hfe the filial relationship and the creature
who enters into it, so He fills both with His presence.
Hence the incompleteness of the earthly embodiment of
Fatherhood. Yet, even in this respect, the emphasis which
human fatherhood lays upon affinity, upon reproduced
likeness and vital sympathy, makes it the best guide to
knowledge of the relationship of God to men. The perfect
indwelling of God represents the ideal fulfilment of what is
shadowed forth, so far as finitude will permit, in typical
earthly fatherhood and sonship. Immanence must needs
carry with it affinity, likeness, and sympathy ; and these, on
the other hand, are the indispensable conditions of that full
immanence which is possible only to God, and, in the case of
God, is only complete so far as the spiritual and moral nature
of man is entirely conformed to Him. Here we strike on
that greatest mystery of created life which is yet the surest
and least controvertible fact, that the immanence of God, by
which alone can physical existence and the laws of intelhgence
be explained, can only be completed in the realm of the
Spirit by the overcoming of a divergence of desire and will
from Him which, while it may be theoretically inexplicable, is
indubitably real.
With these two qualifications, then, the doctrine of the
Fatherhood of God must be pronounced to be a valid guide to
thought. A subsidiary question here arises. To what extent can
and ought the doctrine of the Fatherhood of God to be
applied to explain the motives and method which ruled in
the creation of all that is beneath man ? It is a need of
thought to find, despite all breaks, a consistent whole, ahke in
the causes and in the effects, which make up the universe.

VALIDITY AND CONTENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF 299
Is our ultimate explanation of the inferior phaenomena of the
universe to be mechanical, or at most physical, while we
reserve spiritual forces for those creatures who can adequately
respond to them ? Of course it goes without saying, that
the degree of fatherhood is measured by the possibility of
sonship, and that therefore, in the full sense of the word,
fatherhood can only be manifest when personahty appears.
And yet our Lord, laid stress upon the universality of a
fatherly care for the whole creation, which was manifested
according to the grade and worth of every order in it. " Are
not two sparrows sold for a farthing ? And not one of them
shall fall on the ground without your Father" (Matt. x. 29).
There is therefore a manifestation towards the whole creation,
from the lowliest to the highest, of that spirit of love which
is perfectly revealed in the Divine Fatherhood ; and, answering
to it, there is a creaturely response according to the dignity
and worth of each order of being in creation. We may at
least conclude, in the light of the Fatherhood of God, that
there is one creational method throughout the universe, the
method of self-impartation on the part of God, who bestows
on all His creatures, by a graduated advance, their existence,
their essence, and ultimately their individuality ; and that
this method completes itself in securing that measure of
creaturely fellowship and co-operation with God which cor
responds with the degree of His self-impartation to each.
We come now to consider the content of the doctrine of
the Fatherhood of God. What is revealed to us when we are
commanded to pray, " Our Father which art in heaven " ?
1. In the first place, the essential teaching of the doctrine
is, that love is supreme in the character of God, and is the
ultimate motive of His action ; that His nature is to bestow
Himself in a rich self-impartation, the satisfaction of which
lies in the return of those to whom He gives Himself to
fellowship with Him in the life and joy of His own perfection.
When we say " God is Father," we say " God is love."
A controversy has been carried on since scholastic times
as to whether there is one principle in the nature of God and
determining His action, or whether there are several. In
particular, are love and holiness, or perhaps righteousness,

300 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
independent of one another and separate springs of the Divine
action ? Opinions have been much divided on this very
abstruse subject ; but the balance has hitherto been in favour
of the separateness of the Divine attributes, which have
distinct functions, and limit one another, though of course
working in ultimate harmony, because subject to the Divine
will. This conclusion has been adopted recently by Dr.
W. N. Clarke in his Outline of Christian Theology. He dis
tinguishes between hohness and love, though he dwells upon
their close connexion. " God would not be holy," he says,
"if He were not love. Love is an element in the perfect
goodness — that is to say, love is an element in holiness." 1
And, later on, he remarks : " Love, we know, is a main element
in the character which holiness requires Him to act out. Or,
in other words, holiness requires God to act as love. The
action of love is a part of the action of holiness." 2 Here, then,
love is treated as one distinct element in the character of
God, and as subordinate to the hohness which is the source
and sum of all His perfections, including love.
This conclusion seems to be the reverse of the truth as it
is set forth in the doctrine of the Fatherhood of God, and
still more in the revelation of the eternal life of the Godhead
as a triune fellowship of love. And yet, in deciding this,
it is necessary to take due account of the complexity of
the fact.
In reality, while love is, in one respect, the simplest as
well as the greatest thing in the world, it is also the most
complex, and it is necessary to fix the relations between the
three great attributes — love, holiness, and righteousness. We
must begin by defining what we mean by each. Love is the
motive to self-impartation in order to the estabhshment of a
spiritual fellowship. Holiness is the name for the infinite
sum of the Divine perfections, regarded as being unapproach
ably perfect. Eighteousness represents that in the character
of God which causes Him to maintain and vindicate His own
perfection, and therefore also to maintain and vindicate the
integrity of the law of hfe which proceeds from Him.
To the love of God both His holiness and His righteous-
1 I.e. p. 99, sixth edition. 2 I.e. p. 100.

VALIDITY AND CONTENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF 301
ness are essential. Both within His own eternal hfe and in
His self -manifestation to creation God possesses and maintains
His own distinctive characteristics, His " thisness," if the
word may be allowed, — all that makes Him this and not
that — constitutes His perfection and holiness. In order that
God may be love, it is essential that He should be and should
guard what alone can be love. Therefore that He is love
involves necessarily that He is holy and righteous ; that is,
that He should have the eternal perfection of nature, without
which love is impossible, and that He should rigorously
guard it.
All this is apparent in human life, which reflects the
Divine. The more distinctive and typical the human person
ality, the completer the love. The possibility of love and the
many-sided richness of character, the worth of its " thisness,"
grow side by side. Perfect love is only possible where it can
manifest itself in and through a perfect character. It is only
the dim prophecy of love, touching as it often is, which is
manifested in the lower creation. We must come to man, and
to spiritual man, before we can find the conditions in and
through which love works and can show what it is. And,
having the character which is capable of love, it is necessary
at all costs to defend it. Above all, that is to say, we must
be righteous ; for love is destroyed when character perishes,
and when the loving subject becomes the tool of the loved
object. In order to be love, therefore, it is necessary that
God should realise that perfect hohness in and through which
alone can love be manifested in all its fulness, and that His
righteousness should guard the integrity of all who enter into
the relationships of love, and not least the integrity of the
source of love, Himself. To this extent the three attributes,
love, holiness, and righteousness, are distinct in function.
But this does not imply, nor even permit us to conclude,
that these three can be separated even in thought, much less
in reality. Still less does it warrant us in dethroning love
from its primacy in the Divine nature and making it but a
single star in the constellation of Divine glory. It is im
possible to think of attributes manifesting themselves on inde
pendent lines without a centre and unifying source. And

302 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
either love must be that unifying source or bare will. And
loveless will is unworthy of being worshipped, and cannot
realise itself in what is worshipful. Further, it is impossible
to advance from an isolated perfection to a principle of self-
imparting manifestation. Indeed the conception of isolated
perfection is unthinkable and irrational. Perfection, so far
as it resides in persons, is not an abstract quality, but a
response to, a life in fulfilment of, relations. Without those
relations it could not exist, and it is the nature of the
relations which determines the perfection rather than the
reverse. And that which creates the relationships in which
perfection may manifest itself is love. Surely this holds good
of God, and especially if it is a fact that the Godhead sub
sists in a Triune Society of love. In that case, it is certain
that the Divine holiness exists and is manifested in eternal
relationships, and that those relationships are constituted by
the love that determines and maintains all the perfections
which give effect to the hfe of love. All these are simply the
conditions under which love can subsist in its perfect f ellow-
ship of life. Thus, for those who hold the truth of the holy
Trinity seriously, and therefore consider all questions as to
the Divine nature in its light, it would seem more rational to
argue that since God exists eternally in the relationships of
love therefore He must be holy, than to attempt to proceed
by defining His attributes to the inference, which no such
definitions can justify, that He exists in an eternal society of
love. That this has not been realised is due to the faulty
procedure of theology since the distinction between natural
and revealed theology was introduced. A complete doctrine
of the nature and attributes of God has been laid out and
established ; and only when this has been completed in un
alterable hnes has the doctrine of the Trinity been introduced
in such a way that, while it is the distinctive revelation as to
the Godhead made in Christianity, it has often had no more
influence upon the doctrine of God than a mere afterthought.
Directly, therefore, we call God " Father " we pass away from
what can be defined by its own perfection, if there be any such
being, and, while recognising the separate aspects and offices
of love, holiness, and righteousness, give the primacy to love.

VALIDITY AND CONTENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF 303
2. But, in the second place, the Fatherhood of God conveys
the truth that love reigns ; that the Father, because He is the
source and end of the hfe He constitutes, is sovereign. In
fact, when the sovereignty of Fatherhood is carefully con
sidered, it casts all other sovereignty into the shade, not only
by reason of the greatness of its motives, but also because of
the awfulness of its sway.
Speaking generally, it may be said that the only perfect
fatherhood is kingly, and that the only perfect kingship is
fatherly. Each is perfect only so far as it includes the other.
The primitive history of mankind is hidden in great obscurity,
but it would probably be correct to say that developed
fatherhood and developed kingship made their appearance
together. The moment when fatherhood passes from being a
mainly physical to being a predominantly moral relationship,
is the moment when its true kingliness appears; and the
beginnings of wider sovereignty lie in parental and patriarchal
rule over, first, the family, then the tribe, and, lastly, the
association of tribes with their foreign admixtures, treated
expressly, however, as having entered into relations of family
and kinship.
Hence, even among men, no authority is so perfect and
absolute as that of typical fatherhood. And in two ways.
Firstly, because the supremacy of love secures that the sub
stance of fatherly law corresponds to the nature and promotes
the well-being of the child. And, secondly, because of the
practical omnipotence by which the father secures respect for
his commands. And this is, above all, true of the absolute and immanent
Fatherhood of God. It should go without saying that the
Divine authority is not lessened because of the fatherly
motive which inspires it, nor because a fatherly and vital
relationship gives the ground for it and lays down the ends it
seeks to attain. The very perfection of the fatherly motives
and ends, as well as the immanently vital nature of the
relationship, are the guarantee of the absolute sovereignty
which gives effect to them. For the authority of God is not
a mere external authority of laws imposed upon men from
without. The law of the Father is, by reason of His imman-

304 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
ence, within us and around, our very life, the foundation of
our nature, which in idea and principle is a manifestation of
the Father. Therefore there is within us, in what we call
the laws of our nature — spiritual, moral, intellectual, and
physical — and around us in our environment, in the largest
meaning of that word, a self-asserting and natural law of our
being, which is at the same time the principle of God's Being.
And this law represents Fatherhood both conditioning and
inspiring our being, that we may be guided to perfect life.
The Fatherhood of God therefore means the Father
regnant. The emphasis must be laid in turn both upon the
subject and upon the adjective. It is the Father who reigns.
Therefore His law is a law of grace and love from beginning
to end. Even that which is sternest in its nature and ad
ministration is ordained in the interests of love and life.
And the Father is regnant ; for He calls into existence, con
stitutes, and maintains a world which is absolutely and
irrevocably controlled by His own perfection, and controlled
in the interests of that spiritual life which love creates and
would perfect. Love reigns, therefore, by law in the interests
of life. Hence he who runs counter to the fatherly prompt
ings and ends of life must needs feel the pressure of the
kingship which has constituted his nature after this fashion,
and no other. Law springs out of life, and hfe out of love,
and law inflexibly upholds the ends of love.
Thus Fatherhood and sonship explain the meaning of the
sovereignty of God. When this relationship is fully under
stood, it supplies the means of harmonising the two great
opposing principles of Calvinism and Arminianism, which in
opposition become one-sided and even false. The Calvinist
principle made the glory of God supreme, but conceived that
glory as consisting in determining as He would the destinies
of His creatures, and, at least apparently, sacrificing them to
secure its ends. On the other hand, the Arminian principle,
that God's end is, above all, the well-being of His creatures, if
it magnified the benevolence of God, did so in a way which
went far to treat God as a means to His creatures' end. It
is when the full meaning of Fatherhood and sonship is
realised, and when it becomes the principle by which we

VALIDITY AND CONTENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF 305
interpret the dealings of God with men, that we can perceive
the real unity of the two ends. The glory of God is the
supreme principle ; but it is the glory of the Father, and the
glory of the Father consists " in bringing many sons to glory."
We can magnify God's authority only in the free response to
it that finds our own well-being in conforming to its laws,
which are those of hfe and love.
It is this essential spirit of true religion which is so
imperfectly recognised by all teachers who do not apprehend
how essential to its highest forms is the experience of personal
fellowship with God. For example, Mr. F. H. Bradley finds
the secret of rehgion in this, namely, " That it hes generally
there where we feel that our proper selves in comparison are
quite powerless or worthless. The object over against which
we find ourselves to be of no account tends to inspire us
with religion." 1 Later on he speaks of " moral prostration "
as implied in all religion, though he points out that for moral
prostration a perfect object is necessary, else the very fear
would be mixed with contempt or dislike. Such a description
of rehgion, while it contains certain true elements, ignores
the fihal spirit which enters into the prostration of true
worship, and causes that the worshipper, in knowing himself
to be of no account, learns that he is of every account to
God. Thus prostration before the infinite Perfection is fol
lowed by exaltation ; the worshipper hears the Divine com
mand, " Son of man, stand upon thy feet, and I will speak
with thee" (Ezek. ii. 1). And yet his obedience to the
uplifting word is not the contradiction, but the perfection, of
humility. In the hght of what has been said as to the relationship
of Fatherhood to sovereignty, this seems the most fitting
place to lay down that the Fatherhood, with its correlate of
. Sonship, is the highest term given in the Christian rehgion
for the interpretation of the world. The Eitschlian school
is unanimous in laying stress upon the conception of tbe
" kingdom of God " as the supreme term by which the
Christian rehgion is to be understood. Christianity, accord
ing to this view, is, above all, the means for bringing about on
1 Appearance and Reality, p. 439.

306 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
earth the kingdom of God, and in proof of this proposition
stress is laid upon the prominence, in our Lord's teaching, of
the doctrine concerning the " kingdom of God," or the " king
dom of heaven." Kaftan, in his work on The Truth of the
Christian Religion, lays down two alternatives for the inter
pretation of Christianity. The first is the Logos idea, which
ruled the earlier Christology of the Church, and by the use
of which Kaftan — in common with the other Eitschlians —
considers that the Church went astray. The second alterna
tive is that of the kingdom of God, to which, as being the
conception of Christ, we are invited to return, and in giving
effect to which Christianity will find its appointed task. It
is pointed out that the conception of the Logos is, above all,
intellectual, and lays the main stress upon the conception
that Christ is the revelation of Divine truth, the Eeason,
and the Word of God ; whereas the conception of Christ
as being the supreme agent for realising the kingdom of
God on earth, with its order of righteousness, is, above all,
moral. Kaftan further points out how, as we have already seen,1
the emphasis laid on the Logos idea threw the Incarnation
into the shade, making the eternal Logos, and not the his
toric Christ, the subject of supreme concern for Christianity.
On the other hand, the conception of the kingdom of God as to
be realised on earth is, he contends, above all, the true account
of the historic religion brought about by the manifestation of
Jesus Christ in the flesh.2
The subject might be discussed in relation to the facts
of Christianity in the next chapter, but it is more intimately
connected with the living ideas of Christianity, and there
fore may more fitly be considered here.
It is sometimes replied to these arguments that Christ's
doctrine of the kingdom of God was only provisional, that it
was a necessary but temporary accommodation to Jewish
modes of thought, and forms the transition from the Old
Testament to that final teaching of Christianity by the
1 Chapter V.
2 See Kaftan, The Truth of the Christian Religion (Eng. trans.), i., especially
pp. 89 and 97.

VALIDITY AND CONTENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF 307
apostles, which only became possible when our Lord had
finished His redemptive work.1
Such an answer is in many respects unsatisfactory. It is
for many reasons impossible to treat our Lord's teaching as
merely provisional, even though we may hold that its mean
ing could only be completely unfolded by His Spirit after His
work had been fulfilled. So extreme a contention, even if
some countenance seems at first sight to be given to it by St.
Paul, obviously contradicts the most explicit teaching of St.
John. The historic revelation given by our Lord must be
held to be the authoritative germ from which all subsequent
Christian teaching has sprung, however greatly it may have
been developed by the subsequent history and by the spiritual
influence of our Lord. Nor was it an accident that the con
ception of the kingdom of God was prepared for the use of
Christ when He came. Finally, our Lord, while adopting the
conception, transformed it, as we have seen,2 by reveahng the
Divine Fatherhood of the heavenly King.
But in reality the alternative offered by Kaftan is false
and misleading. Neither the Logos idea nor that of the
kingdom of God is the highest concept for the interpretation
either of Christ or of His religion. Each falls into its place
as part of the larger and higher whole of Sonship, corre
sponding to the Fatherhood. If the Logos idea accentuates
the revelation of truth, and that of the kingdom the attain
ment of spiritual and moral ends, the higher concept of Son-
ship places foremost the fellowship of love and life. But
that fellowship involves subordinately that the Son should be
the Logos, reveahng the Father, and also that He should
reveal Him not only in word, but in reahsing the kingdom of
His Fatherhood first in Himself and then in the world. To
attach all importance to the conception of the truth, is to
end in abstractions and in a prevailingly intellectual type of
religion. To give weight only to the conception of the king
dom, is to be lost in a historical process, and to narrow religion
to moral and social enthusiasm. In the former case, thought,
1 See, for example, a striking letter from the late Dr. Dale to Mr. F. H.
Stead, The Life of R. W. Dale, p. 665.
2 Chapter III.

308 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
in the latter will, becomes the distinctive characteristic of God.
In the result, man loses his individuality, if the revelation
and reception of truth be exclusively dwelt upon. He becomes
too much a mere means to an end, if the reahsation of a
future kingdom be alone insisted upon. But all is brought
into order and proportion when Fatherhood and Sonship are
treated as the highest and determining principles. Then the
Incarnation becomes all-important as the hving manifestation
of an eternal relationship ; then the Son eternally and tem
porally utters in His fihal life the Divine truth, and realises
the Divine will. Then Christ is seen to be the living em
bodiment both of the truth and of the kingdom, while He
enables men to apprehend the truth and to promote the
kingdom, according as, through His Spirit, the life of sonship
brings them into fellowship with the Father.
Since, therefore, the Divine Fatherhood comprehends
sovereignty, men become the subjects and servants of the
kingdom in so far as they become sons. As the Fatherhood
is the explanation and motive of the Kingship, so is the
sonship the explanation and motive of the kingdom. The
Fatherhood then issues in sovereignty, but is the supreme
term by which the sovereignty is interpreted, supplying its
motive, method, and end.
3. In the third place, this regnant Fatherhood is the
source of all the other functions which can be ascribed to
God, and explains them.
Those functions may be brought under a twofold division :
on the one hand, Eevelation, perfected in a self-communication
of God which leads to salvation ; on the other, Lawgiving,
which is completed in judgment.
It is impossible here to deal with these two subjects
exhaustively, but an indication may be given of the relation
ship in which they stand to the Divine Fatherhood, and the
light it sheds upon them.
In the first place, as to Eevelation, it may confidently be
said that only by following the lines of the Fatherhood of
God can a rationale of it be found.
Dogmatic theology, influenced by an exclusive conception
of God's Makership, often pursued the mistaken course of sup-

VALIDITY AND CONTENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF 309
posing that man was created a complete and self-contained
being, and that then steps had to be taken externally to put
him in communication with the Author of his being. More
or less cogent reasons were urged to prove the antecedent
probability, that God would not leave His creatures to perish
in ignorance of His will, and evidences were collected to
show that, as a matter of fact, He had not so left them.
But, satisfactory as all this might seem, it suggested as many
difficulties as it solved. The gulf of externality, which had
been artificially set up between God and man, could only
be bridged by anthropomorphic images which failed to stand
the test of more philosophic examination. The history of
revelation became inexphcable ; and men urged the question,
to which no satisfactory answer could be given, why revela
tion could not have been given complete at once, and in some
external form which would have compelled universal assent.
And, finally, revelation as thus conceived found no room for
the richness of that human content which marks it through
out the Holy Scriptures, and was hardened to connoting
simply the communication of infallible dogmas about God,
authoritative commands from Him, and predictions of His
future deahngs, which could not have been humanly foreseen.
No doctrine of God's sovereignty, as such, can overcome the
insuperable difficulties thus raised.
But once accept the doctrine of the absolute and im
manent Fatherhood of God, and all becomes immediately
clear. God and man are not merely external to one another ;
revelation is not an abstract gift, separate from the vital
spiritual processes by which man comes to his maturity.
Above all, revelation is not primarily the communication of
abstract propositions as to the nature and will of God, or as
to the nature and duty of man. Eevelation is fundamentally
the self-manifestation and impartation of God in and to men
who are so vitally akin to Him, so entirely constituted by
Him and filled with His presence, that the very individuality
which distinguishes them from Him is, above all, a power to
recognise and to obey Him. The revelation of God and the
spiritual development of man are woven together in vital
texture ; God's fatherly nature being to impart Himself in

310 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
ever fuller measure to the heart of man, till knowledge is
completed and issues, step by step, in conformity of character
to Him, and man's nature being so intrinsically filial that it
grows only by apprehending and responding to the truth of
God. In that vital process of Fatherhood and sonship, all
propositions to guide the mind as to the nature of God, and
all precepts to govern their conduct, are implicitly contained.
But they issue from a source deeper than the intellect, and
it is the reality beneath and within them which causes them
to be beheved and obeyed.
Thus another difficulty is at once solved. If revelation
be the natural and vital unfolding of the Father in and to the
apprehension of His sons, then we have the means of fusing
— what otherwise lie apart and out of harmony — God's revela
tion of Himself to men, and man's discovery of God. Eevelation
is a gift ; but it also involves a discovery. For example, what
Isaiah learned as to God, he learned because God taught him ;
but God taught him only because he was so quickened —
spiritually, morally, and mentally — that he made discovery of
the truth, in which and by which his spirit hved. To divide
between moments and acts of Divine revelation and moments
and acts of human discovery about God, is unsatisfactory,
however true it may be to distinguish between the first
entrance of new knowledge and the examination by which
its full content and consequences are afterwards explained.
Man has been active at the moment of his greatest re
ceptivity ; and it is well if he continue receptive throughout
his researches into that which he has received. The two
sides, however, are brought together when Fatherhood and
sonship are called in. The revelation of the Father is the
condition of all true life in those who are made for sonship.
This revelation must always come first. But it is not ex
ternal. It is made in, to, and through the filial life, which
is constituted and perfected by it. Thus every revelation
becomes a discovery, and every true unfolding of individuality
in man becomes a new faculty for apprehending and setting
forth some aspect of the truth of God.
Secondly, side by side with revelation, perfected in in
spiration, goes Lawgiving, completed in judgment.

VALIDITY AND CONTENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF 311
Only a word is necessary about the lawgiving, for it is
obvious, from what has been said about the righteousness and
the sovereignty of God, that it consists in the laying down
of those vital conditions in the nature of things which are
essential to the life of love, and in bringing them home to
the conscience of man as commands which carry with them
the sense of obhgation to fulfil them. The law, grounded in
the life of God, conditions the life of man, and through that
hfe reveals itself to and instructs the conscience.
But the judicial function, which completes the legislative
and satisfies justice, needs more detailed consideration in
relation to the Fatherhood of God. It is often treated as
being the detached servant of justice considered as a self-
existent abstraction. And this tendency is strengthened by
the use of language about " the demands of justice," and so
forth. The true meaning of such language must be con
sidered in Chapter VIII. in connexion with the Atonement.
From the standpoint of Fatherhood, however, the judgment
which satisfies justice is simply the executive, or retributive,
action which secures the ends of love ; the ends, therefore,
of that hohness which is, as we have seen, the indispensable
condition of love.
When we say that God must be just, we should mean
that, as the condition of His being love, He must maintain
the integrity and consistency of His own holy character, and
therefore must maintain the consistency and integrity of that
constitution and order of the universe, especially of the free
personalities in it, which proceeds from Him, and has no
other nature and end than to manifest Him and to respond
to Him. God cannot maintain the integrity of His own
character, and therefore of His love, under the conditions of
Creatorship, without upholding and enforcing the integrity
of the creaturely life which He has originated. The two are
one. Men may appear able to maintain the integrity of
their own character, while indifferent to the conduct of their
fellow-men. But the appearance is deceptive; for, directly
other men are brought into immediate contact with me in
the complex and manifold relations of life, I can only main
tain the integrity of my character by demanding and enforcing,

312 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
to the utmost of my power, integrity in them. There is no
surer way of losing character than the cowardice which
shrinks from demanding character in others. But if the
maintenance of human integrity is bound up with the attempt
to maintain the integrity of society throughout all the re
lationships of life, how much more must this be true of God,
in whom all men " live, and move, and have their being " !
The Fatherhood, therefore, which is immanent and regnant,
which constitutes the ends and guides the processes of life to
their goal in love, must assert itself to maintain and enforce
its own integrity — not as a mere indwelling possession, which
is impossible, but as the bond of life and order among all
created beings. It must therefore, when the mystery of
free will and sin has introduced variance from the Divine
purpose and nature, manifest itself in that retributive' action
which visits upon men their departures, not from abstract
law, but from the law of God's Being and their own.
Thus all true Fatherhood — Divine still more than human
— has its judicial side. It may be in abeyance, or it may
come forward into sharp and even exclusive manifestation.
Yet, even when it is sharpest and most exclusive, it is — if
true to its office — dominated by the fatherly motive, and
exercised simply to vindicate and to secure the integrity of
the family bond, in the sacred interests of hfe and love.
To sever at any time the claims of justice from the interests
of life and love, is to destroy justice by perverting it to un
reason and cruelty ; and, on the other hand, nothing can make
justice so rigorous and unsparing as the fact that the safe
guarding of life and love is committed to its care.
If this be anything hke a true account of Fatherhood
in relation to sovereignty and judgment, it is proved how
eminently comprehensive and virile the Christian conception
of the Divine Fatherhood becomes. It is not a doctrine for
sentimentalists, the watchword of a recoil from the rigours
of undue theological severity. It bears within itself the
substantial truth of that sterner teaching purged from that
which is irrational and cruel, disproportionate and unspiritual.
When this is appreciated, the Fatherhood of God is seen
to bear within itself, in the fulness of its comprehensive

VALIDITY AND CONTENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF 313
meaning, all that the sentimental, intellectual, and ethical
elements in religion can rightly seek. The heart which
yearns for love, the intellect which seeks in life the expres
sion of Divine truth, the character which demands the ful
filment of righteousness, all find their true satisfaction. And
all can find it only in unison, and in the vision of the Father
hood which brings about their unison. Eehgious thought
and life, founded upon any one of these, in isolated exaggera
tion, becomes one-sided heresy, and ultimately destroys itself
by irrationality and insufficiency. This is equally true of
sentimentality, mtellectuahsm, and rigid morahsm. Only
the Fatherhood of God, truly apprehended, preserves the
truth, unites the strength, and satisfies, in its Divine harmony,
the claims of all three.
4. Once more, the doctrine of the Fatherhood of God
makes good the worth to God of mankind, guarantees the
individuahty and permanence of the individual, and lays
down the principles by which the relations of the individual
to society must be for ever immanently controlled. It is the
only doctrine of the relationship of God to mankind which
can in itself afford guidance as to any of these. Historically,
it has been just in proportion as the doctrine of the Divine
sovereignty has verged towards that of Fatherhood that the
sense of the worth of the individual, apart from the com
munity, and of his permanence — that is, his immortality — has
dawned on man. That man is dear to God, and that once
dear to Him he is eternally dear, is a truth which is only
brought home and sustained fully by the Fatherhood of God,
and, where this is not fully reahsed, by the supremacy of
fatherliness in the conception of God. The evidence of im
mortality will never stand mainly in the nature of man, but
ever in what is known of the nature of God.
A relationship of Divine sovereignty over men does
nothing to assure men of their permanent significance.
They may be simply instruments of the Divine will, flung
aside when their work is done. But if Fatherhood and son-
ship be the key to man's being, then it is the assurance of
his well-being both here and hereafter. For then each in
dividual is a concern to God, and a concern, not as a mere

314 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
instrument or means, but as an end. The purposes of God
are concerned not with what is wrought out through man,
but primarily with what is wrought out in man. In be
coming himself, man serves the ends of God ; and those ends
are preserved only by the preservation of the men in whom
they live in the spiritual realisation of abiding sonship.
And the Fatherhood of God, taken in conjunction with
the sonship of man, and therefore with his individual worth
and permanence, supplies the means of interpreting and
directing the common life of men. The universal Fatherhood
of God, towards each man and towards all men, constitutes
the organic ground of human society. The sons of God are
bound togetner by nature in a community of love, for the
fulfilment of which both the individual worth of each man
and the social end of all true action must be held in equal
balance. The brotherhood of man does not depend upon,
though the development of its consequences may be pro
moted by, the theoretic recognition of it. Its foundation lies
deeper than man's knowledge of it. The conditions which
make a community possible, and which for ever interrelate
the progress of the individual and that of the community,
lie in the immanence of God, who, as Father, constitutes
the life of men in love. That God is in each and also in
all as an " energy of love," which having gone forth from
Him returns in a filial and social nature, is the truth which
explains the common life and fellowship of men.
In the life of men, as in that of God, love is complex
as well as simple. It holds together the seemingly opposite
poles of self - fulfilment and self - bestowment, each being
realised only through the other. Leaving for a while the
exceptional cases where these principles appear to clash, the
two are generally and of necessity balanced in the true
human life, which demands alike true social relationships for
self-realisation, and the realisation of the individual in order
to the well-being of society. Man's life, because of its ground
in love, consists in self -bestowment ; but it must needs be
that he have something of his own to bestow, for in the
absence of it the possibility of love is destroyed. But love
must have the first place, and he who bestows himself best,

VALIDITY AND CONTENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF 315
by realising in service the gifts which have been bestowed on
him by God, will, in so doing, come to the best and fullest
individuality. Such appears to be the general content of the Father
hood of God.
We come now to the further but necessary inquiry : What
are the eternal conditions in the life of God which make
His Fatherhood and its supremacy towards His creatures
possible ? It is impossible that we should completely reach
the truth on this subject by unaided speculation, though even
speculation has made a fair guess in searching into the problem.
But at least, if the eternal reahty be manifested, reason will
be able to recognise its correspondence with and explanation
of the temporal facts.
It is clear, then, that the Fatherhood of God was first
revealed in any full sense to mankind in the personal con
sciousness of our Lord Jesus Christ. As He experienced it
and set it forth, it was not something which came into being.
It was the unique and original relationship in which God
stood to His only-begotten Son. In St. John's Gospel we
learn that this original relationship is eternal, and that it is
completed by the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Father
and the Son. It is this threefold relationship which the
doctrine of the holy Trinity endeavours to set forth.
As we look into the essential meaning of the mystery of
the Divine hfe thus revealed, it supphes exactly those con
ditions which solve the problem how God, because of His
Fatherhood, can call into being a potentially filial world. To
be Creator means to be Father, to be Father means to be
Love. And, before God could act as Love in time, He must
have existed as Love in eternity. But love is social. It can
only exist in the society of personal and adequate objects.
There can be no love without fellowship ; no f ellowship
without persons. A being who could exist in eternal solitude
must be loveless ; and it is impossible for a being complete in
loneliness to become love. Therefore the doctrine of the
holy Trinity is not a bare and unrelieved mystery. It shows
how the nature of God is eternally such that it can give
existence to creatures originated in, by, and for the Divine

316 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
love and for its fellowship. It may well be that the term
" Persons " is insufficient, and by reason of finite and, still
more, of modern associations unsuitable to set forth the three
Subject-objects of the Divine fellowship. Those who contem
plate the mystery of the conjoint immanence of God and the
distinct personahty of man should be helped thereby as far
towards a conception of the existence of a Trinity in unity
in the Godhead as it is possible for the finite mind, at least
on earth, to arrive. And if so, then it comes about that the
doctrine of the Trinity, which, as revealed, rests upon the
historic manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ, becomes for
thought the fundamental condition by which the relations
between the manifested Christ and God, and between mankind
and God, can be discerned by reason to be possible.
If, then, the Godhead exists in the eternal fellowship of
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, we have to ask
whether the relationship of Fatherhood towards man repre
sents that of the Godhead as one, or that of the Father in
the holy Trinity alone. What is the relationship of each of
the three Persons to man and to the Fatherhood in which
God stands to man ?
Undoubtedly the Father, known and revealed by the in
carnate Son, is treated by the New Testament as the first
Person in the holy Trinity. The Son is the eternal mani
festation and reflexion of the Father, and it was through
Him and in Him and to Him, according to the New Testament,
that the world was created. His Sonship is the type, the
ground, and the means of man's. Once more, the Holy Spirit
is the Divine Agent by whom our spiritual life in the Father
and the Son is realised.
Are, then, these complex facts of man's Divine relation
ship all to be included under the conception of the Fatherhood
of God ? And if so, in what way ? We have seen in the
previous chapter that Augustine brought about a great change
in the way in which this matter was conceived by the theology
of the Church. Up to his time great stress had been laid
upon the distinctive relations in which the three Persons of
the Trinity stand to man ; and so distinct a primacy was given
to the Father, as the eternal Fount of the Godhead, that no

VALIDITY AND CONTENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF 317
share in the Divine Fatherhood towards man was left to the
Son or to the Holy Spirit. Augustine, in his earnest endeavour
to sweep away everything which could give an appearance of
subordination to the Son, practically ignored the distinctive
relations of the three Persons of the Godhead to man,
destroyed the primacy of the Father in the Divine dealings
with mankind, and, confining the Trinity to the inner life of
the Godhead, substituted sovereignty for Fatherhood in its
external manifestations.
Between these two views we have to seek a solution
which does more complete justice to the teaching of the
New Testament and to the facts of Christian experience.
The following statement may perhaps serve towards this
end. The Godhead exists in the unity of the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Spirit. The source is in the Father ;
yet He never became Father, but is so eternally, His Father
hood being in relation to His Eternal Son. Fatherhood,
then, is the determining relationship within the Godhead ; but
this involves neither essential inferiority nor subsequent or
created existence in regard to the Son. Proceeding from
the realm of the Divine hfe in this eternal fellowship, the
hfe of the Godhead is reflected in the creation which God
calls into existence, and in such wise that what the three
Persons of the holy Trinity are eternally to one another is
manifested in their several offices, first of all, in creation,
and afterwards in redemption. The Father is the originating
source of love, creating beings made in and for love ; destined,
therefore, for that sonship in which alone the life of creaturely
love can be fulfilled. The Son reveals this purpose of love,
and becomes the ground of its realisation, so that in Him and
through Him and to Him are all things, receiving by their
relationship to Him the communication of the fatherly pur
pose and the filial impress which enables them to respond to
it. This work of the Son in reveahng and realising the
fatherly purpose of God, by calling into existence in union
with Himself a filial world, is effectuated by the Holy Spirit,
who secures by His own inspiration the filial response by
which men cry, " Abba, Father." It is thus that creation and

318 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
redemption generally have resulted from the triune co-opera
tion of the Godhead in love. By offices which manifest the
peculiarity of their distinctive life in the Godhead, the three
Divine Persons have given effect in creation and redemption
to a purpose which is supremely fatherly. They have given
effect to it in constituting, redeeming, and sanctifying the
nature of sons ; in eliciting a fihal response to God, not only
in word but in deed, not only in deed but in a nature signed
within and without with the characters of sonship. Thus the
triune action of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit —
manifesting the eternal love which was the motive of creation,
and producing a world of created love to correspond to the
love of the Creator — has given expression to the Fatherhood,
which is eternally supreme in the Godhead, and prepared the
filial response which alone corresponds to it.
Therefore we must couple the full view of the triunity
of the Divine action, which Augustine had, with a more
complete conception than he had, of the way in which all
that action conspires, as the New Testament teaches us, to
implant and to complete the nature and hfe of sons, and
therefore by consequence to reveal the supremacy of the
Fatherhood, which is the only foundation and source of the
life of sons. Thus the whole triune manifestation of God,
while it appears divided as we look separately at the distinctive
work of each Person, by characteristics peculiar to each, so that
we come to the Father, in the Son, and by the Spirit, yet is
fatherly. Hence the Fatherhood, which is the eternal source
of the relationships within the Godhead, pervades the action
of the Godhead as He manifests Himself in the world of crea
tion, and gives its characteristic, in the life of sonship, to the
whole created life, which issues from and corresponds to the
Fatherhood of God. Thus a carefully conceived view of the
triunity of the Divine nature and action, so far from setting
aside the Fatherhood of God and substituting sovereignty
for it, as did the theology of Augustine, only serves to bring
out into stronger rehef how entirely God, in the unity of
the three Persons of the Godhead, is fatherly, that men may
become sons. And this, not because the Son and the Spirit
can themselves be addressed as Father, but because it is theirs

VALIDITY AND CONTENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF 319
to manifest the Father in creation and in redemption, and to
secure the filial response to Him.
One other subject remains to be investigated, in order to
complete our survey of the doctrine of God, revealed by His
fatherly name. It is the relativity of the name and of the
relationship, and what is involved in that relativity, as com
pared with an absolute. There are two classes of names
given to God, — those which set forth what He is to His
creatures, and those which attempt to set forth what He is
in Himself. When we call Him " the Father," we obviously
use a name belonging to the former class. The same is true
of the name Jehovah, if we understand it as " He that causes
to be." Even if it be taken to mean " He that is what He
is," yet that self-determined consistency refers, not so much
to His own interior life as to the unchangeableness of His
purposes as embodied in the covenant with His people.
When, however, we take the name " God " and define it by
an enumeration of Divine attributes, we are endeavouring to
obtain a name for what the Divine Being is in Himself in
dependently of His relations to His creatures. The same is
perhaps true of the Hebrew name " Elohim," though in that
case imperfectly; for the perfection of God in Himself is
set forth by means of the reverent fear and worship which
that perfection produces in His creatures.
Is it, then, any disparagement of or sign of incomplete
ness in the name, Father, that it is relative ? The answer to
this question must be reached by considering how we arrive
at any professedly absolute name or definition of God.
Directly we reflect on the subject, it becomes evident that
any such result is simply an abstraction from what God
manifests Himself as being to the mind, heart, and conscience
of mankind in relationship to Himself. The human mind
has no power even to conceive the nature of any being,
except so far as it manifests itself in relationship to it. It
may even be concluded that that which stands in no possible
relationship to man through the order of the universe is
unreal. If, then, our conception of God and of His perfection
be, in any true sense, knowledge, it must be because He
stands in such relations to men that through them He dis-

320 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
closes, if not the whole of His perfection, at least so much
as the human mind is capable of apprehending. Although
the absoluteness and immanence of God involve that He
transcends and embraces the relationships into which never
theless He enters, yet only in and through the relationships
into which He condescends to enter can He be known,
and only by those who correspondingly stand in those re
lationships to Him. The revelation so given may and does
enable men to attain a more or less satisfactory description of
God as the all-perfect Being, and to fill out the positive con
tent of what is called perfection. Yet the source of the
whole description is to be found in the revelation which God
has given of Himself in and through real relations, as being,
for example, perfectly loving, righteous, wise, and mighty.
What, then, we conceive God to be in Himself is simply a
summing up of that which He has shown Himself to be to us,
to our fellows, to our ancestors, and, above all, to the great
spiritual teachers of mankind.
It was the fashion of a certain school of religious philo
sophy in the middle of the nineteenth century to disparage
our knowledge of God, because it is and must be relative.
Groping after the truth that God transcends and Himself
constitutes the relations into which He enters, Hamilton and
Mansel denied to man all real knowledge of God, because
knowledge imphes a relation, and God is absolute, that is, free
from all relations. The doctrine of philosophical Agnosticism,
as set forth by Herbert Spencer, Huxley, and others, is the
direct result.
Closer examination reveals the confusion, and indeed
absurdity, of this view. What is an absolute Being ? Cer
tainly in the finite world the nearer the approach to unre-
latedness the nearer we come to nothingness, and in the
spiritual life to idiocy. The higher a being rises in the scale
of existence, the wider, more intimate, and more complex
become the relationships into which he enters. Indeed
greatness may be defined as the result of an exceptional
capacity for relatedness ; whereas to escape from relatedness
is to vanish into nothingness, so that the logical " It is " is
equivalent in existence to " It is not." Hence bare and

VALIDITY AND CONTENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF 321
unrelated Being, so far from deserving to be arrayed in the
robes of superstitious reverence, is beneath regard. Bare
being existing outside all relationships and incapable of
reveahng itself in relationships is something in the world of
logic, but nothing in the world of reality. It would not be
to the glory of God that He should be absolute in this sense.
He must have an object adequate to Himself and reveal Him
self to that object, even if the process takes place within His
own all-comprehending life. His glory is to exist in all those
relationships to creation by which He makes Himself known
as love ; though it must ever be borne in mind that, unlike
what is the case with His creatures, these relationships are
constituted by Him and not for Him ; that therefore He is,
though we cannot comprehend it, the relationships themselves,
as well as what He manifests in them.
To speak of God as " the Father," therefore, sums up the
highest and fullest knowledge of Him. The name stands for
the whole of that manifestation in love in which is contained
the revelation of all that He essentially is.
But if the universal Fatherhood of God sets forth His
relationship to mankind, how are we to deal with the
difficulty that it is not correlative in the world as we find it
with an equally universal realised sonship ? In the New
Testament, God, as we have seen, is set forth as the universal
Father ; but men are not treated as in equal actuahty God's
sons, even though they may be so potentially. A distinction
is made according as the Spirit of God's Son does or does not
cry in their hearts, " Abba, Father ! " And the history and
experience of the world shows us many good men the form
of whose rehgion has not been completely fihal, and many
bad men who have persistently violated, in temper and con
duct, all that could have made them such. How then, in the
first place, is God the Father of one who does not respond to
Him as son, whether through imperfection of spiritual appre
hension or through deliberate sinfulness ? And in what ways,
if God be Father to such, does the lack of fihal response
affect the manifestation of His Fatherhood to them ?
1. As to the first question, — that of the existence of the
Fatherhood towards those who fail to give a filial response, —

322 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
the answer must be given that the only Fatherhood of God
to mankind of which the New Testament knows anything
has its ground in the relationship of mankind to the Eternal
Son. The Fatherhood of God is therefore towards the
human race as having the ground of its being, the law and
life of its nature, in the Eternal Son. The Son therefore
lays down the original constitution and determines the final
possibilities of human nature. According as men stand in
their normal and complete relationships to Him who is
" the way, the truth, and the hfe," they " come unto the
Father." Hence the universahty of the Fatherhood of God does
not depend upon, or involve, an equally universal actual
realisation by men of the life of sonship. The Fatherhood
exists towards the Son as the ground of human life, the law
and end of human being. It exists towards mankind as
eternally and ideally grounded in the hfe of the Son of God.
It finds its manifestation in and to a human nature the
fundamental hnes and the spiritual possibilities of which
have, owing to its constitution in the Son of God, the fihal
impress. Thus the filial life, when completely reahsed in
mind, temper, and conduct, is seen to be the fulfilment of
original possibihties, the satisfaction of original needs, which
express the essential characteristics of human nature as such.
That nature is completely realised only in believers in Christ,
and in proportion to the perfection of their faith is it per
fected in all its aspects and effects. And in them their
highest attainment is simply an approach to the mind and
hfe of the incarnate Son, — the ground, the means, and the
type of their sonship, — and is brought about by the indwell
ing of His Spirit. Thus the eternal and adequate fact corre
sponding to the universal Fatherhood of God is not its more or
less perfect realisation in this or that man, but the fellowship
of the Son of God as the eternal Head of tbe human race, its
representative before God, the source and principle of its
spiritual and natural hfe. Towards Him the love of the
Father goes forth eternally in its fulness, and towards the
race in Him ; while the full manifestation of that love be
comes the portion of each human individual, just when and

VALIDITY AND CONTENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF 323
so far as he enters in the Son into the full reahsation of that
hfe of sonship which alone is truly life.
The Fatherhood of God, therefore, does not become such
towards the individual man at the moment when he enters
into the consciousness of sonship. It is simply reahsed by
him. From the very first the deahngs of God have been a
manifestation of fatherly love towards the whole human race,
and towards every member of it who in turn appears to
occupy his place in it. This manifestation goes far beyond
all human analogies, because fatherly love, with the life and
law proceeding from it, does verily form the very nature of
the human race by virtue of its creation in and by the Son.
The Father fills, rules, and quickens all nature in the Son.
It is what it is only because of the eternal Fatherhood and
Sonship, the reality and presence of which is the underlying
fact of all human, and of all other than human, existence,
however imperfect at any moment in any man may be the
conscious realisation of it. This ultimate fact therefore
determines the whole course of human history, so that it
necessarily becomes an increasing manifestation of fatherly
love, securing the response of human sonship.
2. We come on, then, in the second place, to the mani
festation of the Fatherhood of God, where the filial response
is incomplete or non-existent. In considering this, it is
necessary to remind ourselves how all-inclusive is the relation
ship of Divine Fatherhood. We have seen that it comprises
all the offices in which God has been experienced as standing
to men, whether as Sovereign, Eevealer and Saviour, Lawgiver
and Judge. All these have their motive, unity, and end
fixed in the love of the Father, who creates and redeems men
that they may enter into His fellowship. We must remember,
further, that the Fatherhood is a vital and immanent, not
merely an external, fact. And, once more, we must bear in
mind that it is possible for human experience and life, im
plicitly or explicitly, to read into concepts as to the relation
ship of God to mankind, by way of description, much that is
not contained in their strict definition. The formularies, and
even the spontaneous utterances, of religion are not a perfect
guide to its intrinsic spirit.

324 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
Let us take, first, the case of those whose hearts, as the
saying is, " are right with God," but who, through the various
limitations of human individuality, and through these as
further limited by the conditions of a particular stage in the
world's history, or an imperfect ecclesiastical environment, do
not predominantly and completely apprehend the relationship
realised by religion as that of Fatherhood and sonship. And
let us start from the conclusion that such a failure of appre
hension is a falling short of the Christianity of the New
Testament, and involves certain spiritual as well as intel
lectual shortcomings and disadvantages. Such, for example,
has been more or less, and with many subordinate variations,
the condition of spiritual apprehension in Old Testament, in
mediaeval, and in Puritan times. In these cases God, who
by hypothesis is perfectly Father to men, has been appre
hended by them as sovereign, and responded to rather as
loyal servants than with the full intimacy of sons. On the
other hand, cases must equally be borne in mind where senti
mentality has apprehended and responded to a conception of
the Divine Fatherhood, wliich has excluded many elements
which are essential to its full truth.
It is necessary here to confine our inquiry within the
bounds of Hebrew and Christian history. But we must not
forget the wider divergences which present themselves directly
we enter the greater sphere of comparative religion, even when
we exclude such forms of non-Christian religion as have
evidently proceeded from perversions of the religious sentiment
accompanying moral and mental deterioration. Though it is
impossible here to discuss these, the considerations by which we
deal with the difficulty raised by phases of Christian thought
and life are in principle relevant to the religions which lie
beyond, when they are not such as must be dealt with patho
logically, and throw a measure of light even on this latter class.
The truth of the matter is, that the types of spiritual
apprehension which have characterised stages of religious
history or sections of the Christian community, do specially
reahse some real aspects of the Fatherhood of God and do
respond to them, although such apprehension and response
in various degrees fall short of the " breadth and length and

VALIDITY AND CONTENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF 325
depth and height," and therefore, by reason of incompleteness,
tend to one-sided exaggerations. The one-sided limitations of
men mean more than a defect which leaves all else unaffected.
They involve the positive development into a specialised and
pecuhar individuality of that which is present and active.
Such characteristic peculiarities of temperament, accentuated
by historic epoch and spiritual environment, mean a special
sensitisation in some directions and the lack of it in others.
They involve, therefore, a pecuhar power to apprehend and to
respond to certain aspects included in the Fatherhood of God,
and the inabihty to apprehend and respond to certain others
equally present in the complete reahty.
But it is not sufficient to point out that human defects
involve a positive and distinctive determination of human
character and of its spiritual apprehension, and that that
distinctive peculiarity makes men sensitive to particular
aspects of the Divine Fatherhood. It must further be urged
that God ordains that it should be so, and that His own
manifestation of Himself is determined in order to satisfy the
particular spiritual condition of those to whom it is made, in
order to enable them to fill their place and discharge their
office in the gradual evolution of the world's life. And it
must further be admitted that general advance may, at least
sometimes, only be purchased by particular retrogressions.
This is involved in the vital process of the world, and the
revelation of God to and in men conforms itself to this fact.
The defects, for example, in Augustine's theology, from the
standpoint of a complete rendering into thought and hfe of
" the truth, as truth is in Jesus," were the conditions under
which alone could a living and effective message from God
go forth to Eoman and mediaeval life, taking into account
their inherent and inevitable imperfections. And substantially
the doctrine set forth — despite exaggeration and shortcoming
— does declare something which is permanently true of the
Divine Fatherhood and vitally part of it.
The same explanation holds good in the classic example
of Puritanism, with its one-sided insistence on the sovereignty
of God, accompanied by a virility of purpose and action which
wrought out our modern liberties.

326 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
And what is true of stages in the world's development is
equally true of survivals and reactions. In the case of true
and faithful men, limited by their own individuality and not
sinning against light, these represent a fatherly accommoda
tion on the part of God in manifesting to men such aspects
of His Fatherhood as they are capable of apprehending and
responding to.
And the explanation is completed by the statement that
the experience of God and of the life of salvation commonly
surpasses the forms in which it is expressed ; that, for ex
ample, except in periods when the sense of guilt rested
heavily upon men's consciences, and rightly so, there has
seldom been a time when the doctrine of God's sovereignty
did not convey much of His fatherliness as well as that
particular function of it, and when the response of service
was not essentially inspired by what was really, if not con
sciously, the spirit of sonship.
3. We come on, then, in the third place, to the con
sideration of the case where, in addition to imperfection of
spiritual apprehension, there is present an actively bad will,
either selfishly set upon its own ends, irrespective of the will
of God, or even in marked hostihty to what is known to be
right, and, in the extreme case, to what is clearly recognised
as being Divine. Such is the condition of human nature as
under the bondage of sin. This fact of sin is at once the
most obvious and terrible of facts, and the most difficult to
explain. It represents the power of the finite individual to
rise up in rebellion against the absolute and perfect life
which conditions the whole. It is the contradiction of God
in a world filled by the Divine Presence and grounded in the
life of the Eternal Son. And yet the hostility must never
be explained away as only apparent, for to do so is to out
rage the spiritual consciousness in order prematurely to
resolve an intellectual difficulty.
Immediately the bad will appears, it obviously puts its
possessor in an altogether new relationship to the Fatherhood
of God. We are not concerned here to discuss all the con
sequences to the individual, or to the race, of the entrance of
sin. Suffice it to say that we have here a refusal to recog-

VALIDITY AND CONTENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF 327
nise alike the loving Source, the absolute authority, and the
beneficent end of the Divine law, and consequently a refusal
to respond with trust and loyalty to the Divine Fatherhood.
Yet that refusal does not set it aside. The external law,
which conditions man's life, and even the immanent law,
which ordains the outhnes of each man's nature, is still
fatherly. Yet the manifestation of the Fatherhood of God
to such a man is shut out, and, because shut out, is turned to
wrath ; for the wrath of God is simply the love of the
Fatherhood denied its purpose by rebellion.
What must happen has been made clear by what has
already been said as to the holiness and righteousness of God.
The very fatherliness of the Divine authority is the cause of
its destructiveness where the sinful will is present ; for man
sins, and may contract the invincible habit of sinning, against
his own nature, which is the presence within him of the
Father in the Son. The man who sins against his own
nature, which is in reahty God's life within him, is smitten
by that very nature, which, being God's hfe, is yet God's
love, and is invincible. A man cannot destroy himself
peacefully in this universe. The whole, which runs up into
him, takes vengeance on him ; but that vengeance is ex
plained by the fatherly love of God, manifested in the fihal
ground of human nature, which was created in the Eternal
Son. If the Fatherhood of God were destroyed, so would be
the penalty of sin ; for sin is the refusal of a son to be a
son, and the consequent loss of his sonship, in a universe where
there is no place for anything but sonship. Take away the
Fatherhood of God as the explanation of men's being, and
the world is reduced to spiritual chaos, in which anything
may happen, including that the sinner should escape scot free.
But once beheve that God is eternally and universally Father,
in such wise that the lines of true life are irrevocably fixed
by His nature, and then, as we are taught in the Book of
Broverbs, the man who hates wisdom — the wisdom of appre
hending and corresponding to the eternal and Divine conditions
of his own spiritual being — loves death (Prov. viii. 36).
In loving death and making himself one with it, he is de
stroyed by those very forces of hfe which are within him as

328 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
well as without. And yet the irresistible might of those
forces, and their inexorable certainty, are directly due to the
Fatherhood of God.
We have now reviewed the doctrine of the Fatherhood
of God, so far as it directly relates to His nature and His
relationship to mankind.
Our account, however, would not be complete did we not
consider it as a means of interpreting the world and hfe,
and as a guide to the true ideals of human conduct and
training. 1. In the first place, it may be laid down that the truth
of the Fatherhood of God supplies the most effectual means
for harmonising the various aspects of the world, and espe
cially of human hfe, in a consistent whole. In particular, it
enables thought both to recognise and to transcend the dis
tinction often presented to us between nature and the
supernatural outside man, and between nature and grace
within him.
Let us consider, first, the general distinction between the
natural and the supernatural. When we conceive nature as
contrasted with the supernatural, we represent to ourselves
a system of fixed forces operating under laws supposed to be
in themselves universal and inflexible ; and we imagine this
system to exist independently of the higher conditions and
objects of spiritual and moral life. Nature, as thus defined, is
what is left of the universe when that which is spiritual and
moral has been subtracted from it. We are not here con
cerned with those who deny the existence of the supernatural
altogether. Then when nature has been thus conceived as a
system lying below spirituahty and morality, and in itself cut
off from them, it is treated as the counter of the supernatural,
and attempts have to be made to set up again the relationship
which has been broken, and to settle the terms on which the
natural and the supernatural coexist.
In fact, however, what we have set up, and now try to
harmonise, is an artificial and unreal, and therefore, if treated
too seriously, a misleading contradiction. We know, and
can know, nothing of such a purely physical and non-spiritual
world. It does not exist. To suppose that it could, is, in

VALIDITY AND CONTENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF 329
thought, to expel God from the world, which He constitutes
and fills, and to treat the residuum by what are no other
than materialist principles. Even so far as we ourselves are
concerned, we know nothing of any universe which is not a
whole presented in and to a spiritual consciousness — if nothing
more than the consciousness of the man who perceives it, is
influenced by it, and responds to it. So far from it being
easy in thought to detach this consciousness from the whole
and then to suppose that it remains as before, it is much easier
philosophically to preserve the spiritual and to blot out from
our conception of reality the purely physical and natural,
which is its instrument, than the reverse. For purposes of
analysis, we may abstract any part of the undivided whole of
the universe, may fix our attention upon it, and draw infer
ences as to it. We may separate man from nature, and both
from God. Further, it is essential to personal hfe to dis
tinguish itself from the impersonal, or the incompletely
personal, and relatively instrumental, and, similarly, to sepa
rate in thought the world from God. But the world, thus
regarded in isolation, never did or could really exist in this
isolated state. It subsists only in the spiritual, which is
God ; it unfolds its meaning only in and to the spiritual,
such as men. The universe never did exist, or can exist, in
any part, except as an object for, as an instrument and abode
of, the Divine consciousness, as God proceeded to realise in
time His eternal spiritual purpose. Therefore, when we take
nature and set it over against the supernatural, as though it
were enclosed apart from it, while our action may be justified
by some immediate interest of thought, yet the separation
has no final vahdity, and must eventually be transcended by
a reflexion which unifies the whole.
Thus the greatest thinkers have insisted that the super
natural is in reahty the largest nature, and that what we
commonly call nature is but a province of it; and, in the
case of miracles, they have argued that what seems to con
tradict the customary order of the part belongs to and serves
the larger order of the whole. The principle which has been
behind this explanation has been that, while for practical
purposes men may set up a restricted conception of nature,

330 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
and may refuse to contemplate any power of modification, yet
such insistence is simply the irrational emphasis which sets
up an artificial abstraction, and treats it as the substance,
while the rest of reality is but shadow.
Of course it is possible to fall into the other extreme.
We may select the so-called supernatural aspects of existence
and life, and may so concentrate attention upon them as to
ignore the more mundane elements of reality. To do so is to
fall a victim to an irrational pietism, which is capable of
taking as its standard of belief the principle, " Credo quia
impossibile," and of ignoring, in its practical interests, whole
departments inseparably bound up with the complete well-
being of human life.
In either case we are pressing to the extreme of an
impossible division what, for certain purposes, is a useful
distinction in thought. Within our experience there is no
supernatural without the natural, and no natural without the
supernatural. The conclusions drawn from either. part, when
isolated in thought from the whole, must be revised by a
diligent effort to set back the part once more in the whole,
and to treat it as an aspect which is qualified by the whole
to which it belongs.
Under the conception of the Divine Makership and
sovereignty, the mind may rest in the conception of the two
parts as external to one another, and as possibly in collision.
And thus both theoretic and practical error may be promoted
by an inadequate conception of the relationship of God to the
world. The Fatherhood of God, properly understood, both
compels and enables us to conceive the universe of truth
and life prevaihngly from the standpoint of wholeness, and
not from that of division.
2. Substantially, the same explanation applies to the
distinction between nature and grace, especially when these
are viewed as " states " in which men live. We have seen
that the doctrine of Augustine practically took as its starting-
point the conception of mankind as totally ruined and morally
helpless because of sin, but yet as possessed of a self-contained
nature, which was complete for secular purposes, being of
course derived from God as Creator and, so far as really

VALIDITY AND CONTENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF 331
existent, good.1 To this ruined and secular nature there
came from the Divine and supernatural realm the sudden and
effective succour (adjutorium) of grace, which, as a forth-putting
of the power of God, set this spiritually and morally helpless
being on his feet. We have seen how this account is ex
plained by Augustine's own experience, and by the conditions
of the age in which he lived. It is also not internally con
sistent ; for though man is treated as complete for natural
and secular purposes without the gift of grace, yet Augustine
in his City of God traces the evil social and political con
sequences of the Fall from God in the spiritual world, and
foreshadows the downfall of the secular order, as based on
self-will, by the judgment of God. This can only be conceived,
on reflexion, as taking place because such a secular life is
really unnatural, and therefore, in God's world, ultimately
impossible. Yet, whatever inconsistencies may exist and admissions
may be made, the impression conveyed by this doctrine of
human nature is that of a race, complete for the ends of
secular life, yet helpless so far as spiritual life is concerned,
until a special intervention of God takes place on behalf of
this man or that, that intervention taking the form of the
exercise of power.
This explanation is indeed true to certain aspects of
Christian experience, and has a relative validity. But it is
only relative, and it is in many respects fundamentally
incomplete. In particular, though there is in many respects
an irreconcilable opposition between the doctrine of grace as
the unconditioned exercise of Divine power and that of
grace as conditioned by sacraments, yet, conceived simply as
dynamic, there is a close connexion between Augustine's
view of the nature and exercise of grace and the magic view
of mediaeval times.
This general account, with whatever minor modifications it
1 As has been seen, Augustine took so poor a view of ordinary secular
existence, that efficiency for its purposes signified little to him. And of
course this view of secular apart from spiritual efficiency cannot be carried out
consistently. It appears in a more practicable, though not more really satis
factory, form in the doctrine of Aquinas. See p. 216.

332 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
may be presented, rests upon a totally impossible basis. It is
impossible to harden and round-off human nature into a
complete whole — minus all spiritual parts — and to call it
man, without turning the fact of salvation into an un
accountable miracle. If a complete man can be found who is
yet purely natural and enclosed in a secular whole, how does
he become raised to the power of a Divine hfe ? Both parts
of the doctrine are faulty, the account of sinful nature as
secularly complete, and the account of grace as mere dynamic,
coming to enlarge and transform this nature from without.
And the mistake arises once more from pressing a distinction
of thought till it becomes an impossible chasm in hfe.
It was in respect of this error that Wesley and his
co-workers in the eighteenth century did the greatest service
in setting forth the true character of grace and its relationship
to nature. The main features of the Augustinian view lived
on in Calvinism, though in some respects modified by the
doctrine of justification by faith. On the other hand, the
typical Anglican of those degenerate days seemed scarcely to
recognise grace and the supernatural at all, save as the fading
glory of a departed day. Generally speaking, it was sufficient
for him if men hved blameless hves under proper moral
instruction, and with due observance of the rites of the
Church. The essential doctrine of Wesley was that of the universal
love of God as the supreme fact concerning human life — a
fact which carried with it the assurance that all men, however
sinful, were called to, might be rendered capable of, and could
only be completed in, the life of God's sons. Thus every one
to whom Wesley or his followers preached was not merely
fallen from Divine sonship, but one still made and destined
for the sonship from which he had fallen, incomplete without
it, and yet able by the help of the Spirit of God — acting
through tbe revelation to his heart of the universal love of
God — to return, in and through Christ, to the wholeness of
nature which he had lost by sin. And, in preaching this,
Wesley no more trifled with the reality and heinousness of
the Fall and of sin than did the Calvinists. On the contrary,
his emphasis on human freedom enabled him to emphasise

VALIDITY AND CONTENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF 333
the guilt of sin to a far greater extent than could the
Calvinist with his behef in the eternal and absolute decrees
of God. From the Methodist view thus set forth it is possible at
once to advance to a view of the relations of the " state " of
nature to that of grace, and to a view of grace in itself
which preserves the truth in the Augustinian view, while
ridding it of its one-sided incompleteness.
Under this larger Methodist conception the state of
grace is simply the state of human life completely reahsed, or
on the way to complete reahsation, in all relationships, Divine
and human. It is the completed manhood of those who have
been set in those true and normal relations to God which
have been disturbed and atrophied by sin. Until that com
pleteness Godward is brought about, it is impossible for a
man to be complete for any purpose or in any relationship of
his hfe. There is no complete secular hfe with the Divine
relationship blotted out. It is impossible to separate human
nature into two divided capacities, one for God and the other
for the world, and to hold that one may be complete while
the other is incomplete. And what is impossible in regard to
the individual is also impossible in regard to the community.
It is impossible to construct and maintain a Godless civilisa
tion, and it is equally impossible to construct and maintain a
" city of God " in indifference to what is taking place in
secular society. There is but one complete human nature,
namely, the filial, which must be completed and manifested
in all the relationships of human life. Of that completely
fihal nature all human hfe is either the promise or the
decay. Only this fulfilled manhood has the key to any and
every part of human life and its relationships, heavenly or
mundane. When, then, from this completed whole of a normal
human life the relationship to God is abstracted, there is no
longer a real man left, any more than when the supernatural
is abstracted and so-called nature only remains, this is the
real universe. Of course it may be done for particular
purposes, and in the case of particular objects or particular
men. It is possible to single out a block of granite and to

334 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
treat it as representing an unspiritual and lifeless world,
leaving out the fact that it lies in the bosom of the earth,
and that the earth lies in the bosom of heaven and of God.
So it is possible to single out sinful men in whom the
spiritual relationships are deformed or unfulfilled, and to
treat them as representing human kind, leaving out of
account the fact that such a human kind, unredeemed by
God and therefore unredeemed by the presence of His saints,
has never existed, and never can exist, in the world. Such a
procedure, though necessary for certain purposes and in a
measure true, cannot be pressed to a rigorous interpretation
of what human life essentially is, or be justified by the
history of what human nature has actually been. To press
such a proceeding too far, is to set up a self-contained whole
of human nature in which it is theoretically impossible to
find an avenue for the approach of God. It is imphcitly to
deny the Divine Fatherhood, which needs as its condition a
nature that makes sonship possible and that can be redeemed
for it. Salvation, then, into a state of grace is simply the
realisation of that completeness for all human uses in and
through the Divine for which human nature was planned
by God. Our Lord's saying, " That which is born of the flesh is flesh,
and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit " (John iii. 6), may
be objected, as pointing to the possible existence of two types
of men, distinct and self-contained, one of which is com
petent for the purposes of fleshly, and the other for those
of spiritual, hfe. But it must be remembered that neither
" flesh " nor " spirit " can be treated as a synonym for man ;
for man is obviously the union of both, though on the side
both of the one and of the other there may be defects verging
upon the total extinction either of the one or the other.
Moreover, our Lord Himself, as we have already seen,1
recognises certain men as being " of the truth," antecedent to
their coming to Him, and as the cause of their coming. An
antithesis is set up between what we owe ministerially to the
fathers of our flesh and what we owe to " the Spirit," or, as the
Epistle to the Hebrews says, to the " Father of spirits " (Heb.
'Chapter II., p. 22.

VALIDITY AND CONTENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF 335
xii. 9). And we are told that, in the case of sinful men, what
causes them to hve as " spirit " is nothing less than rebirth ; as
distinct a new beginning as is physical birth. But we must
always remember that physical analogies, owing to their
necessary hmitations, can only imperfectly set forth the
higher realities of the spiritual world. And thus, while we
not only recognise but insist that human nature under sin
has become such that in order to complete it in the realisa
tion of Divine relationships it must pass through a spiritual
experience so decisive as to be called in St. John " rebirth "
and by St. Paul " resurrection," we must not exaggerate what
is meant till we fall into contradiction. Moreover, in order to
a birth there must be some one ready to be born ; for a resur
rection to take place there must be some one to be raised.
And thus we must not so strain our Lord's words as either
to suppose that a man can be complete for the purposes of
secular hfe without spiritual aptitudes or affinities, or to treat
spiritual birth as possible without a spiritual nature, de
rived from " the Spirit," as the antecedent condition of its
possibility. And this brings us to the new conception of grace as the
Methodist movement enables us to understand it. Harm has
been done, notably by Augustine, in identifying grace too com
pletely with the category of cause, understood as effectuating
power. The text which has just been considered attributes
tbe new birth to " the Spirit," and the Spirit has much larger
content than mere dynamic. It includes it, of course, but it in
cludes it as the natural and subordinate consequence of the
manifestation of the glory of God, in truth and grace, to the
spirit of man, resulting in his awakening. The power of the
Spirit, which enables men to attain to the full actuahty of
Divine sonship, is the outcome of the manifestation of God to
every faculty of their spirit, as love, truth, and life. " I am
the way, the truth, and the life ; no man cometh unto the
Father except by Me," our Lord said at a later time. Christ
supplies to the man who hstens to His voice and enters upon
Him the guidance and support, the illumination and quicken
ing, which enable him to apprehend and to return the love of
God. This apprehension and response is the coming to the

336 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
Father by Him. And the whole process sums up the phaeno
mena of the new birth, and contains the secret of the power
which occasions it. Eegeneration is not the working of an
irrational power upon men's lives, whether with or without
conditions. It arises through a gracious apprehension of " the
truth, as truth is in Jesus," which awakes by the Spirit the
cry of joyful recognition, " Abba, Father ! " and thus once
more fulfils that normal Divine relationship without which
man is ruined for all the functions and ends of true, that is,
" eternal " life, whether Godward or manward, whether in
time or for eternity. This is what the early Methodists
meant by describing their new experience as a " stepping into
liberty." The phrase set forth the buoyancy, the spiritual
power, the sense of heirship, which belong to those who come
to realise their sonship. The true expression of that " liberty "
is the humble, yet commanding, entrance into all the relation
ships of a complete human life, for the first time possessing
it, because possessed of all the fulness of the Divine hfe.
The whole is explained, and can only be explained, by
means of the Fatherhood of God, and of the imphcit sonship
of man, which redemption restores and fulfils.
If all this be true, it follows that human life is completely
reahsed only as a whole laid out on harmonious hnes ; that
nature is built on the hnes, exists for the ends, and fits in as
part of the whole, of grace. There can be no intrinsic opposi
tion between the two. The statement that God began in
nature what He completes in grace, — which may be taken as,
roughly speaking, a true account of the history, — means that,
as is the case with all true development, the nature of the
end governs the beginning, and is immanent in it ; that the
grace which crowns man's life in completely realised spiritual
relationships gave law to the first creative act which destined
man for this fulness of life, implanted its possibihties within
him, and so fitly framed together all the powers of his nature
that each has its place — temporal or eternal — in the ordered
whole of a Divine life.
Since sin entered into the world, a crisis there is in man's
hfe. On the human side it is expressed by the term con
version, on the Divine by that of regeneration. But beneath

VALIDITY AND CONTENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF 337
the crisis can be seen the underlying continuity. That which
is born, as part of nature, is carried up, preserved, and com
pleted in that which is born anew. Both the crisis and the
continuity must equally be borne in mind. Here we have to
do, however, not so much with the abnormal, introduced by
sin, as with the normal as it is completed in perfect saintli-
ness. And this presents a perfect harmony between all that
is of nature and all that is of grace ; between all that consists
in Godward and all that consists in manward relationships.
Of course our human nature, as it at present exists, is so far
removed from the ideally normal that there are in it varying
displacements and exaggerations, defects and excesses, which
destroy perfect harmony and proportion between all the parts
and the whole. But this does not prevent us from discerning
behind the manifold human deformities of imperfect and sin
ful character, with all their unruhness and disorders, a perfect
answer to the Divine Fatherhood in human sonship as possible.
And this perfect answer is to be gained, not by suppression but
by expression, by the completing and perfecting of every part.
Even the abnormal is not for the most part corrected by being
suppressed, but by being brought to occupy its right place
and proportion, neither more nor less, in the completed whole
of all-round human life.
The work of Christian education and disciphne is so to
correct the abnormahties introduced by sin, by both its heredi
tary and its individual effects, as to give expression to this
Divine whole of human hfe. There are cases of spiritual
pathology where our Lord's precept, " If thy right hand offend
thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee," etc., must be foUowed.
But the main stress must be laid upon the cure of human
nature, by calling it forth in all its parts under the influence
of a faith which reahses the full meaning of the fihal re
lationship to God in Christ. Thus all prevailingly ascetic
views of the Christian life, which have aimed at reaching its
perfection by the mortification or maiming of any of the
faculties, relationships, or interests of human life, have, in
their various ways, offended against the supreme truth of the
spiritual life. They have erred by an exaggeration which has
made of a limited and prudential precept an absolute and un-

338 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
conditional duty, if the highest Christian life is to be attained.
They have confounded powers with the abuse of them, have
severed the supernatural from the natural, and have set up a
false ideal of saintliness as consisting, not in completed man
hood, freed from unspirituality and excess by the perfect
development of the supernatural relationship controlhng every
part, but in an attenuated life caused by the elimination of
functions and interests which are all necessary to the complete
manifestation and maintenance of human nature. In the
hght of the Fatherly and filial relationship as originating and
presiding over the whole development of human hfe, all
such prescriptions for the advancement of Christian life stand
condemned. Of the truth of this judgment the life of Christ is a
convincing proof. Both His conduct and His teaching were
entirely free from the ascetic spirit. He shows the absolute
agreement between the eternally Divine and the normally
human life, for He reveals God by fulfilling manhood. He
has contact with life at every point, without losing, but, on
the contrary, completing His spiritual command over the
whole. He manifests a liberty which proceeds from perfect
purity of heart. His life is a perfect and orderly human
development, in which family and friendly affection, respect
for worldly order, recognition and service given to all human
needs, are displayed.
The life of Christ, while in a sense a life of self-renuncia
tion, is, above all, a life of self -fulfilment. The self-renunciation
consists in His complete self -surrender to His Father's will ;
and this is the condition of His own and of all human self-
fulfilment, by reason of the filial life, which is the very essence
of true human nature. Directly the filial nature is treated
seriously as the inmost reality of truly human life, it becomes
clear how grievous is the mistake which sets up self-renuncia^
tion and self-fulfilment as contradictories. Self-renunciation
then becomes the denial of things to oneself for denial's sake,
self-fulfilment the grasping of things for oneself for the sake
of having them. And each of these contraries is false. True
self -fulfilment in human nature is fulfilment as God's son ;
and to be God's son means the absolute surrender to our

VALIDITY AND CONTENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF 339
Father, as the secret of the unfolding of a life which in
surrender to the Father is fulfilled in every part.
Thus our Lord finds a heritage even in the sufferings
which form the most difficult problem in human life ; and St.
Paul, truly in accordance with the mind of Christ, says, " Let
us glory in our tribulations " (Bom. v. 3). Herein is the final
and most difficult test of the wholeness of human life and of
the harmony of all its parts.
Only the doctrine of Fatherhood and sonship as the guide
to all parts and experiences of human life can explain this
vital wholeness and harmony — above all, this fulfilment only
through perfected self-surrender. If the conception of God's
relationship to man be that of the artificer to his work,
or the sovereign to his subject, it is at least possible to
imagine distinctness and even incongruity between the various
elements of human hfe. Above all, it is possible to imagine
a possible contrariety between the life of the Creator and
that of the creature, the interests of the one not being those of
the other. It is that conception which has sometimes in
spired mad rebellion against God, when the idea of His
sovereignty has been so magnified as apparently to threaten
the life of His creatures. That which saves from all such
exaggerations is to see in the positive life of Jesus the
revelation of hfe in its perfect harmony, wrought out under
the sense of the Fatherhood of God and in fihal response to
Him ; to understand also that that perfect revelation is the
revelation of truth for the whole world, at once making all
true human nature a seamless robe woven out of the hfe and
love which are the truth of God.
The Fatherhood of God and the filial nature of man being,
then, the ultimate truth, we get the ideal of perfect Christian
life as consisting in the complete expression of a life which is
founded in self-devotion and issues in self-fulfilment. Such a
life finds room in the manifold richness of spiritual life for
the cultivation and exercise of all the natural powers, and
makes the true Christian ideal not incompatible with generous
culture. Of course, culture is not Christianity. Within
certain limits, culture may be without moral goodness, and
spiritual and moral goodness may be without culture. But it

340 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
is easy to exaggerate this, until it sets forth a falsehood rather
than the truth. A very real moral element enters into all
true culture. The sustained effort of the human mind to
arrive at the knowledge of truth or the perception of beauty
is not merely intellectual, but involves, to a certain and it
may be to a considerable degree, the exercise of moral faculties.
When a child dihgently learns his lessons, he receives thereby
not merely intellectual culture, but moral discipline ; not,
indeed, sufficient for all the purposes of common life, — still
less for all the purposes of Christian life, — but still much
more than a merely intellectual exercise.
On the other hand, the full realisation of sainthness
involves thoughts about God and true thoughts about Him.
In so far as the thought of God is inadequate or erroneous,
some damage, at least, is done to the spiritual life. To deny
this is to deny altogether the influence of Christian truth
upon Christian character. Therefore, even in sainthness, all
else being equal, the more the intellect is trained and furnished
with adequate data to form true conceptions of God, the
better ; and thus an intellectual element enters into all true
rehgion. Further, if true rehgion is to manifest all its beauty and
power, it must be completely abreast of the general progress
of the world. The intellectual element in it must keep pace
with the growing and widening experience of mankind, the
whole of which is providentially intended to throw its
measure of light upon the character and ways of God. An
intellectually belated religion is never the highest expression
of Christianity to any age. Especially is this the case when,
as generally happens, this belatedness is due not merely to
intellectual but also to moral causes, as, for example, indiffer
ence to, prejudice against, cowardice in facing, new issues
raised by the progress of the world. To this extent, at least,
do moral and intellectual elements — connected with culture
— run up into godliness.
It is this presence of intellectual and moral elements in
their religious faith which has made the most conspicuous
saints of history its prophets. Of course this does not alto
gether hold of the more modest forms of sainthness which'

VALIDITY AND CONTENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF 341
have shed abroad the radiance and graciousness of a devoted
Christian hfe. Yet, even in the case of such, part of their
power to reach and influence the heart of men has come from
the fact that, at least in their great spiritual conceptions of God,
they have not been behind their times. The elements of truth
in genuine religion, and its influence in producing truthfulness,
would suffice to secure this. But the most influential saints
have had the power to express in word and deed the highest
knowledge of God available in the age wherein they lived.
And if the power to think those thoughts of God, which
are in keeping with the true progress of the age, is an element
in the highest rehgious life, then, all other things being equal,
these thoughts of God will be more adequate, according as
they are influenced by many-sided knowledge of the times.
Hence the serious mistake of those Christians who think to
serve the cause of Christ by disparaging ordinary knowledge
and education, and who treat the full reahsation of human
life in all its powers as though it had nothing to do with
rehgion. Certainly these things are not religion in them
selves, but they have much influence upon our power to
apprehend, in all their fulness, the ways of God. And the
richer and fuller human thought and culture become, tbe
greater the need so to appropriate all that is best and truest
in them, as to show that all these things belong to Christ,
who is the truth in all worlds, because all worlds have been
created by Him, and in Him, and to Him.
Some consideration must be given, however, to those
cases where the full carrying out of the Christian life seems
incompatible with the pursuit of culture, where men have to
choose, apparently, between self-sacrifice and self-fulfilment.
There are undoubtedly extreme cases where utter self-devotion
is carried out at the cost of neglecting the ordinary intel
lectual and aesthetic interests of human life, even when an
aptitude for them is present, or of denying the ordinary
domestic affections. And there are opposite cases, where the
pursuit of these may not only make the more heroic tasks
of hfe impracticable, but may involve the denial of inward
capacities for undertaking them.
The theoretic solution of such extreme cases is pronounced

342 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
impossible by moralists.1 The case would be stated, from the
standpoint of mere morality, thus. The end of human
action is the satisfaction of desire, the endeavour to secure
or repeat some experience which promises to satisfy a want ;
the place of each man in the great hierarchy of human life
being determined by the dignity and worth of his prepon
derating wants. With some men, more altruistic than their
neighbours, the most imperative want is to satisfy the emo
tion of sympathy, and in order to satisfy it such men may
be impelled to extinguish all other tastes and desires. How
is a man to decide, when his sympathy impels him to forgo
all that would make him intellectually, aesthetically, perhaps
socially, a completer man, in order to fulfil some missionary
calhng, involving the sacrifice of these advantages ? May
not his greater service be purchased at the cost of that by
which he becomes really serviceable ?
From the standpoint of the doctrine of the Fatherhood
of God the problem is stated in a false way, because the
starting-point is not that of faith in the primary reality of a
direct personal relationship between God and the human
spirit. As shaped by the experience of God's Fatherhood
and of man's sonship, the instinctive deliverance of the
rehgious consciousness is, that life is not to be directed to
wards the satisfaction of desires, but towards the fulfilment
of what is assigned as the task and duty of life ; and that
the truest self-fulfilment is the fulfilment of the filial con
sciousness and character. Doubtless, abstract and lower
possibilities may have to be sacrificed, at least for the pre
sent. Human life is so short, and its opportunities are so
hmited, that abstract possibilities have to be negatived by
every act of choice, and not only in the serious dilemma
which we are considering. " Tempus brevis, ars longa " ; and
it is impossible for any man to fulfil himself in all the
directions for which he has aptitudes, in the short span of
threescore years and ten. But no man who is fully animated
by the fihal spirit can be permanently damaged even though
he live his whole life among lepers, and in so doing lose most
1 See, for example, Bradley, Appearance and Reality, chap. xxv. ; Taylor,
The Problem of Conduct.

VALIDITY AND CONTENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF 343
of the fruits of whatever liberal education he has enjoyed.
The things forgone are as nothing to the eternal manhood
gained. In the gaining of that manhood is the deathless
possibihty of eventually making up all other loss, for the
truly filial mind is ever young and ever growing. The tem
porary maiming of lower powers can be repaired in God's
many worlds hereafter, if the essential truth of the filial
spirit be preserved and perfected. Moreover, in the moment
of critical decision, often impossible on the grounds of theory
or calculation (for it is generally beyond a man's power
accurately to assess the serviceableness of his life either in
retrospect or in prospect), yet in the faith of Fatherhood and
sonship, the crisis is inwardly resolved by the response of the
filial spirit to the revelation of the mind and will of God.
There is an inward stirring towards an inward manifestation
of the course which will enable God's will to be fulfilled and
His servant's work to be accomplished. The truly filial
heart is not left to go astray ; in proportion to the complete
ness of the response to God, " Not my will, but Thine, be
done," is the guidance to a sure decision, which saves self-
completion from being selfish, and self-devotion from being
permanent impoverishment.
A concluding word may be said as to the ideal which the
Fatherhood of God affords of the spirit in which human
affairs should be administered. Man's regulative conduct
towards his fellows should aim at avoiding alike the rigidity
of an authority corresponding to bare sovereignty, and the
sentimentality which misrepresents itself as being fatherly.
If our account of the Divine Fatherhood be true, its influence
as a guide to human conduct will not encourage softness in
policy or administration, either in public or in private affairs.
Authority will be strengthened rather than weakened, while
it will be exercised in full regard to the humane ends which
it is intended to serve. The perfect union of the virile and
the humane is one of the greatest needs, alike in public
temper and in government, as well as in private affairs.
Our survey of what is contained in the doctrine of the
Fatherhood of God is now complete, and we pass on to study
its manifestation in the constitution and history of the world.

CHAPTEE VII
THE SPIRITUAL CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD
In the last chapter we have considered what is involved in
the doctrine of the Fatherhood of God as it is revealed in the
New Testament ; how far it can be considered as a guide, in
a strict sense, to the truth of the relationship of God to men ;
what is contained in it in regard both to the inner life of the
Godhead and to its outward manifestations ; what light it
sheds upon human nature and upon the practical ideals of
religion. We have been considering the doctrine as a doctrine.
We now pass to the study of God's actual dealings with
the world as they have been wrought out in giving effect to
His Fatherhood. It is impossible, within our limits, to
consider this subject with the fulness which might be
expected in a compendium of theology. It is sufficient for
our purpose to treat of the three great stages of God's
dealings as they are made known to us ; remembering, as we
do so, that, while we may thus separate them for examination,
they are parts of an indissoluble whole. In the course of
this examination an indication will be given of the point of
view from which those elements and aspects which are
passed over lightly are regarded. In the first place, God
has constituted the world — has created, preserves, and orders
it — in relationship to Himself and to His purposes. In the
second place, He has redeemed mankind from sin, through
the incarnation, sacrifice, and exaltation of our Lord Jesus
Christ. And, in the next place, upon the basis of that
original constitution and of the redemption in Christ Jesus,
He is preparing, by the dispensation of the Spirit, that final
consummation of all things in which the goal of His purposes
in creation and redemption shall be reached.

THE SPIRITUAL CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD 345
We have, then, to consider these three stages in their
relationship to the Fatherhood of God as revealed in Christ,
and incidentaUy their relations to one another as governed by
that relationship.
In this chapter we shall confine our inquiry to the first,
namely, the spiritual constitution of the world.
The facts which make our starting-point are as follows.
In the fulness of the times our Lord Jesus Christ appeared,
uniting God and man in His own Person, revealing and
accomphshing a ministry of reconcihation between God and
man. The relationship to God in which He appeared, and
by giving effect to which His whole life was lived out, alike
in its individual perfection and in its world-renewing power
was the relationship of Sonship, manifesting and responding to
the Fatherhood of God. It was in human nature normally
constituted that He manifested that Fatherhood and Sonship.
In thus manifesting it, He stood in such relationship of
solidarity to the whole human race that He called Himself
the " Son of Man." The pecuhar gift which He bestowed
upon all who received Him was " the right to become the
sons of God " (John i. 1 2). In coming to that sonship, they
approached, by His own Spirit and in Him, to the glory of
perfect and typical human nature which was manifest in
Him ; they came thereby to the full realisation of their
own nature, and without thus entering into the spirit of son-
ship they were incomplete. The positive side, nay more,
the active means, of their redemption from sin and from all
evil was simply the bringing them into the light and life of
sonship. And with sonship came the sense of heirship over
the world and all experiences in it, which, while it receives
such marked expression in St. Paul's Epistles, is common in
principle to all the apostohc writers.
These are the outstanding facts made manifest in the
gospel. What do they involve and set forth in regard to
the nature and motives of God's action in creating and con
stituting the world ? What do they reveal as necessarily
involved in a world thus created and constituted ? The
redemption and consummation of the world being brought
about by the manifestation of the Son of God in a typical

346 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
human life, what is thereby revealed as to the antecedent and
essential constitution of a world which can be perfected in
this and in no other way ? It is obvious, to begin with, that
thus to conceive the universe in the light of what is manifested
in the gospel, necessitates our attaching new importance to
the facts of the holy Trinity and the Incarnation, not merely
as being important for redemption, but as being equally
important for understanding the original nature and constitu
tion of the world thus redeemed ; indeed, as being thus potent
in redemption because of their relation to creation.
In this respect Christian theology has suffered grievously
since early times, and in two ways.
In the first place, while the truth of the holy Trinity and
of the Incarnation has been revealed in the New Testament
prominently in relation to the redemption of man from sin,
yet the redemption of man is not kept separate from his
creation. In the New Testament, as we shaU shortly see, the
nature and conditions of creation lay down the nature and
conditions of redemption. Owing, however, to the sharp
separation which dogmatic theology in its more abstract
phases has set up, there has been a very full doctrine of the
relation of the holy Trinity to redemption, but there has
been no similarly full doctrine of the relation of the holy
Trinity to creation. And the doctrine of redemption itself
has been impoverished by the failure to perceive how the
action of the Godhead in redemption was based upon and
determined by His characteristic activity in creation. Of
course this could not be altogether left out of account ; and
hence reasons have always been given, even in forms of
theological teaching least satisfactory in connecting creation
with redemption, why the Son, rather than any other Person
in the holy Trinity, should undertake the work of redemption ;
and these reasons have generally included not only His
relations within the Godhead, making it especially fitting that
the Son should be sent, but also His relations to mankind,
making it especially possible for Him so to become their
representative as to accomplish their salvation. But aU this
has not been so thoroughly worked out as to do justice to the
teaching of the New Testament on the subject.

THE SPIRITUAL CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD 347
In addition to, and largely because of, this neglect of the
deeper teachings of the New Testament as to the relations of
the holy Trinity to creation, certain philosophical modes of
thought have been introduced into Christian theology which
have stiU further hindered men from perceiving the full truth
on this subject.
We have seen what an important change passed over the
theology of the Church when the influence of Plato was super
seded by that of Aristotle. With Athanasius, for example,
the doctrine of the holy Trinity was all-important for the ex
planation of the world as originaUy created. The intensity of
his opposition to Arius was in the interests of a true doctrine
of the spiritual constitution of mankind, however imperfectly
Athanasius may have carried such a doctrine out, as much as
in those of a true doctrine of the Godhead, and a true inter
pretation of the New Testament witness to our Lord.
But the theology of the Middle Ages, which separated
natural from revealed theology, practically apportioned
creation to the former and redemption to the latter. Then
creation was explained by the conceptions of Aristotle, not
by those of St. Paul and St. John.
Hence, graduaUy, the conception of creation became
prevailingly mechanical. God became the great Artificer,
producing out of nothing the material upon which He
wrought, arranging within it, according to later thought, a
system of comparatively self-sufficing " second causes," so as
to enable the great cosmic system to run on, like clock
work, without any interference from Himself. Exception was
generally made of occasional miracles, wrought to attest a
revelation introduced from without, and needing such attesta
tion in part because the revelation and the system of the
world were apparently contrasted both in principle and in
purpose. Having set up such a self-contained and mechanical
world by means of such conceptions, where is there room to
give effect to that revelation of the vital relations of the holy
Trinity to the universe which are the characteristic message
of the Epistle to the Colossians and of the Prologue to the
Gospel of St. John ? The roots having been thus destroyed
in thought, when the doctrine of the holy Trinity appears in

348 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
its full importance for redemption it wears a somewhat
unnatural look, because it stands out of aU apparent relation
to the inmost constitution of all things.
Once grasp, however, the full doctrine of the Fatherhood
of God as it is contained in the New Testament and mani
fested in the Incarnation, and, with the remembrance that
human nature can only be consummated by the manifestation
of the Son of God and redeemed by entering into His son-
ship, it becomes necessary once more to return to the pro-
founder Christian theology, and, above all, to the New Testa
ment itself, in order to rediscover that the fact of the holy
Trinity, which is so fully manifest in the redemption of the
world, is also the only satisfactory explanation of its creation
and constitution.
The New Testament — especially the two great writings
to which reference has been made — treats the universe as a
totahty — an interrelated order of things — made through, in,
and to the Son, in such wise that nature culminates in and is
the heritage of man, who is in essence and capabihty filial,
and is therefore capable of receiving, manifesting, and being
consummated by the Son of God. That man's nature
should only be perfected in sonship, and should give through
out and all along the promise of sonship, this is to say that
the eternal relationship subsisting between the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Spirit in the interior hfe of the Godhead,
has, so to speak, overflowed, so that it might permeate the
life of the universe which the Triune God has called into
existence. In short, the relationship of Fatherhood and Son-
ship, which is eternal in the Godhead, constitutes the motives
of creation, lays down the Divine relationships in which its
life must be unfolded, fixes its nature, potentialities, and end,
and must necessarily do so, because the Eternal Son is to be
made manifest in it and to it.
Thus the Epistle to the Colossians — more fully than even
the Prologue to St. John's Gospel, though the principle con
tained in both is the same — becomes the new Genesis, and
our explanation of the world must begin now, not merely
with " In the beginning God created the heavens and the
earth," but with that great proposition as every term of it

THE SPIRITUAL CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD 349
is filled in with the full meaning which is contained in the
revelation of the Son of God " made flesh." St. Paul knew
that this was the case, and it is the bearing of this truth
upon Christian doctrine and philosophy that it is so necessary
for us once more to reahse.
St. Paul's great declaration is that "in Him were all
things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things
visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions
or principalities or powers ; all things have been created
through Him, and unto Him ; and He is before all things, and
in Him all things consist" (Col. i. 16, 17).
The following propositions are involved herein : —
1. That Christ, as the Son, is the culmination of the
world, gathering together aU things unto Himself.
2. That because Christ, the Son, thus consummates and
possesses the world, therefore He interprets its meaning and
manifests its inmost life.
3. That, in order to all this, the world is a continuous
and interrelated whole ; spiritual in its ground and purpose,
vitally connected in all its parts, the lower being preparatory
and subservient to the higher, each stage lying not merely
outside what is above it and in contrast to it, but being
assumed by it ; and all, from lowest to highest, subsisting for
ever in the Son, who gives them the law of their being and
coherence. 4. Finally, that the Son, who thus consummates, unifies,
and interprets the whole universe, which subsists in Him, is,
in the unity of the Godhead, the means as well as the law
and end of its creation.
We must investigate these propositions in order.
I. Christ, the Son, is the culmination, the end, of all
things — " All things have been created unto Him." It is
nothing short of the universe of which Christ is the culmina
tion. Just as each lower stage of existence is assimilated by
and serves tbe ends of that which is above it, so " all things "
are subordinate to Christ, and serve the purposes of His life.
They are " unto " Him, exist in reference to Him, and cul
minate in Him, not as the last milestone of a journey, but in
complete subservience to His ends.

350 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
It is particularly necessary for us to examine this founda
tion, because we have, in accordance with the teaching of the
New Testament, rested the whole weight of the doctrine of
the Fatherhood of God on the teaching, and ultimately on the
consciousness, of Christ. If Christ is central, the Consumma-
tor of the life of the world, then the great affirmation of His
hfe is also central. It can only be displaced by dethroning
Him. If He be not central, then it is safe to add that
neither is the " our Father " which He proclaims.
Here let it be premissed that it is impossible to explain
the universe philosophically without including Christ and all
that for which Christ stands in that which is to be explained.
To explain things is to read their immanent secret, and
therefore it is of the greatest importance to start with the
complete whole, which has to be explained.
The created universe, as we immediately know it, is
composed of physical, sentient, and human existences. To
say the least, the most distinctive and influential of these
human existences is Christ. He represents three things — the
transcendent religious personality of history, the worth of the
religious principle itself in human nature, and the " quickening
Spirit " by which the continuous satisfaction and expression of
the rehgious principle in men is brought about and made
powerfuUy operative in the progress of mankind. The world,
therefore, which has to be explained is the world which in
cludes Christ, and which is satisfied and inspired by Him.
In the manifestation of personality — the highest result of
the world's development — Christ stands supreme. And,
correspondingly, the subjective faith in Christ has been the .
highest, the most deeply and universally influential, act of
men, by whatever generaUy accepted standard of values it is
judged. It is therefore futile for any purpose of final explanation,
to deal with the world or any part of it without regard to
this its crowning fact. There can be no complete philosophy,
Christian or otherwise, which professes to explain the whole
world, without including Christ and all that is involved in
Him; allowing Him simply to come in as an afterthought,
after the serious part of the work has been carried out.

THE SPIRITUAL CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD 351
But it needs an act of faith thus to treat Christ as of
final and central significance for the world ; an act of faith
in Him and — for the two are inseparable — in the importance
and validity of the rehgious principle which finds its expres
sion and satisfaction in Him.
Before, therefore, we begin to explain the world, we have
to decide whether we are prepared to take our stand as
recognising and acting on this central significance of Christ, —
whether, that is to say, we will so practically affirm the
vahdity of the testimony of rehgious faith, that He who fully
manifests it and satisfies it, must, because of this, have central
and decisive meaning for the universe in which He appears.
It may at first sight be supposed that such an initial act of
faith is in itself unphilosophical. As a matter of fact, all our
philosophical starting-points are acts of faith ; and the deter
mining factor is the choice as to which of the manifold
elements of experience shall be selected by and receive the
weight of faith.
Just as there are those who will not affirm the central
significance of Christ, so there are those who will not affirm
the determining value of the deliverances of human self-
consciousness. Because they refuse this affirmation of faith,
they are driven into a philosophy of materiahsm or agnos
ticism, which itself, when we search deeply enough, rests
upon acts of faith ; that is to say, on primary assumptions
made by the selection of certain elements in experience as
being those to which decisive weight is to be attached.
Every affirmation is indeed an act of faith, and he is the most
comprehensive philosopher whose acts of faith, that is, whose
primary assumptions, bring him into completest and most
harmonious relationship to aU parts of human experience —
physical, intellectual, moral, and spiritual; who, because he
assimilates and responds to every part, is able to do justice to
the whole in his final explanation.
The question of the central significance of Christ is in
deed vital to all decisions concerning the central significance
of man, and of the deliverances of his spiritual conscious
ness. The man who denies the first, hesitates about the
second. Such hesitation about the primary worth of human

352 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
personahty, and the trustworthiness of its deliverances, is an
artificial and paralysing afterthought — a refusal theoretically
to justify what practically we are compelled every day, and
for aU purposes of life, to assume. Such a hesitation may be
accounted for, because the imagination is overwhelmed by the
vastness of infra - human life and of cosmic forces, and
therefore doubts the competence of the human mind to draw
any conclusions beyond the narrowest range. But, in truth,
whether this attitude is brought about by a shock from with
out or by paralysis within, and the two are often conjoined,
it represents the diseased loss of the primary intuitions of
mankind, and of the power to trust to them. It presents in
strict truth the highest and most appropriate case for a true
faith-healing ; that is to say, for the supply of the inspiration
which causes men to trust and to act upon those fundamental
instincts and intuitions of human nature which pass un
questioned in normal times and among normal men, and must
ever, when shaken, tend to regain their ascendency, because,
though an assumption, they are the only assumption upon
which human life, in its full range, can be permanently based,
and can be seen to be consistently rational.
For those who will make this general affirmation, the
evolution of the religious life is the supreme fact of human
history — the one fact which has the deepest and most lasting
significance. And Christ, who completes that evolution in
Himself and by His Spirit, cannot be dismissed from con
sideration or condescendingly granted a secondary place in
the world to be explained. He becomes the starting-point
for all true understanding of the world and of human life.
It is this primary act of faith as to what Christ stands
for in the spiritual life of men which is the preparation for
faith in any particular statement as to what He was and did.
It is quite impossible, for example, to start with the pre
misses and temper of materialism, and to be coerced by
external evidence into faith in, say, His resurrection. A
materiahst universe cannot be the scene of an event like the
resurrection ; and it is therefore useless to attempt to argue
from the generally godless and unspiritual to the particularly
miraculous. If such a process ever seems to lead to convic-

THE SPIRITUAL CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD 353
tion, it will be because, in its course, intuitions and convictions
are awakened which contain imphcitly within themselves the
downfall of all the principles with which the inquiry began.
To beheve in Christ, Divine and Eisen, we must begin with
faith in Christ as the culmination of human history, as the
Supreme Personahty, who satisfies that which is deepest,
noblest, most distinctive and influential in human nature — the
religious principle. Once enthrone these assumptions of
faith — the only assumptions by which human life and history
become, in any sense, reasonable — and they still express them
selves naturally in St. Paul's great saying, " Unto Him are
all things." The process may be summed up thus : The end
of all things is spiritual life ; the manifestation of spiritual
life is in man ; man is what he is, as spiritual, in virtue of
rehgion ; rehgion is what it is made by Christ.
Thus we get our starting-point that Christ is central, not
as a poetic dream, but as a substantial fact ; and this because
He embodies and reveals that which alone makes the exist
ence of the world worth while, according to any standard of
worth which spiritual beings, as spiritual, can entertain.
But if this be so, Christ is unique, not merely intrinsi-
caUy, but in virtue of those relations in which He consciously
stood to God and to mankind. And these, as we have seen,
are expressed by Fatherhood, Sonship, Brotherhood. With
the estabhshment, therefore, of the general trustworthiness
and centrality of Christ, the trustworthiness and centrality are
estabhshed of those spiritual relationships in which Christ
subsisted, and by which His life became what it was.
All this suffices to take Christ out of the realm of the
accidental into that of the eternal, and to make His appear
ance not a merely remedial entrance from without, but a
completing and consummating presence within, the system of
the world. It is not necessary for us here to discuss the
abstract question whether the Incarnation would have taken
place if man had not sinned. Whatever may be the truth as
to this, at least the method by which Christ undoes evil is
by the completion of good, not merely by means of His
effect upon others, but by His own perfect embodiment of
the good. It is for us impossible to conceive of a perfect
23

354 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
world without Christ in it, filling the place which He did,
and does still occupy. And this whoUy apart from the sal
vation from sin which He brings. Would John have reclined
on His breast, or Mary have sat at His feet, with less ecstatic
devotion had they drawn near to Him to receive the full
secret of eternity and of God, apart from the presence in them
of any disease needing to be healed ? The more we search
into it, the more evident it becomes that Christ is vitally
necessary, not merely as a Dehverer but as a Fulfiller ; that
the basis of His dehverance is to be found in the fact that
He fulfils ; and that He fulfils only because He is in place
just where He is. It is of course possible to conceive totally
different conditions of life in man. But the conception is so
entirely apart from all experience as to possess absolutely no
value as a guide to truth. Christ is not a stranger from afar,
seeking to accommodate Himself to an alien life, but the
necessary and natural consummation of human life, because
it has belonged to Him, and He to it, from the beginning.
He can therefore naturally manifest Himself in it, and can
build up His redemptive work upon a normally and eternally
representative position. At every point of Christ's redemp
tive activity we find something positive thus underlying it,
and giving to it its full significance — something which is in
place, and which reveals Him as the Consummator " unto
whom " all things exist.
II. But Christ is the culmination of a world which is a
continuous whole, and therefore He interprets the whole,
which He completes.
The consciousness of Christ, as set forth in the Gospels,
is unique. He possesses an original and pre-existent Son-
ship, and others partake of sonship only so far as they par
take of Him. What has been called the " value-judgment "
of Christian experience, gives to Christ a unique and Divine
place in the spiritual consciousness of men. For this very
reason, therefore, Christ has a unique place in the world
as its consummation and interpretation. Let us consider
this contention in detail.
The world is a continuous whole. It is possible for us to
set up in thought three apparent wholes, of which only one is

THE SPIRITUAL CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD 355
real. In the first place, we may conceive of the universe
apart from man, as we imagine it was before man made his
appearance, and would be without spiritual spectator or
subject, human or Divine. We perform such an act of
abstraction when we speak of nature. In the second place,
we may consider the world as completed by man, but apart
from Christ and all that is involved in Christ. We may then
use the intellectual faculties of man as the guide to an
inteUectual explanation of the universe as it appears without
reference to the religious faculty and all that is involved in
it. This is done in the case of the ordinary philosophy of
perception. This, though a higher and wider whole, is still
an abstraction. And, thirdly, we may take the world with
man in it as he is consummated and revealed by Christ,
and by the testimony of that spiritual consciousness which
has reference to Christ.
The abstraction involved in the first and second cases is,
of course, perfectly legitimate and even necessary for the
purposes, in the first case, of natural science, — in the second,
of philosophy ; but the whole with which each deals is not
the whole of the world as it reaUy exists.
If now we look at the whole which contains within itself
these narrower circles, we shall see that its process is a
gradual ascent, which manifests throughout the union of
affinity and contrast, blending continuity with new de
partures. There are many instances of what may be called a breach
with the past, as, for example, when life makes its appear
ance ; in a lesser degree, when new orders of life come upon
the scene ; finally, when man appears, and when, in the
highest sphere, man is consummated by Christ. But each
of these is not an inconsistency or the introduction of irrational
confusion. The breach with the past is in order to a tran
scendent new beginning, which belongs to a higher realm, and
has a larger range than anything to be found in the universe
at its previous stage of development. Yet the new beginning,
at each stage, gathers up into itseh the past from which it
breaks free, and uses the past with its content as the instru
ment of its higher, broader, and fuller existence. This,

356 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
roughly speaking, is what we perceive happening throughout
from the original fire-mist to Christ.
Taking, then, first the lowest part of this whole, — that
which is purely physical, — it becomes apparent, as soon as we
reflect, that it is throughout relative to spirit ; that it is
impossible even to conceive what it is apart from the con
sciousness to which it is an object.
Further, this physical whole, which is an object to the
spirit, and is thereby included in the whole of spiritual hfe,
is subservient to the spirit. There is nothing in the realm of
nature as we know it which does not minister to the life of
spirit, and may not be, either now or in the future, utilised in
pursuit of the deliberate purposes of the spirit.
In the next place, the universe, in all its parts, is a
coherent whole. Without this fundamental assumption, the
impulse of scientific inquiry would be destroyed. To prove
and set forth this coherence is the motive of every scientific
man. He feels unrest so long 'as any part of the universe
remains unexplained as a consistent portion of the universal
world-order. He has the sure confidence that only sufficient
investigation is required, to show that what may now
appear chaotic is in reality part of a rationally coherent
system. Finally, this coherent whole of nature is completed in
the fihal hfe of man, and man is potentially the heir of all
things. The world finds its unity in man. He is at once
part of it and above it. He must be both the one and the
other, in order to make any use of it. In this natural com
bination of unity with the world and distinction from it lies
the condition of man's mastery over it.
Thus the law of evolution is as laid down by St. Paul :
" Howbeit that is not first which is spiritual, but that which
is natural ; then that which is spiritual " (1 Cor. xv. 46). But
the two do not exist in separation. The spiritual spirituahses
the natural, the natural naturalises the spiritual. The
natural, when the spiritual first appears, starts out as being
in contrast with it, a counter to it, a platform for it. Yet
this natural, which thus stands out on the appearance of the
spirit as being in contrast to it, is utilised by the spirit,

THE SPIRITUAL CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD 357
and is therefore shown to be at bottom akin to the spirit.
Even the contrast which is involved in it is overcome by the
continuity. And not the least part of the service which
nature renders to spirit is that its presence and reaction stirs
the spirit to distinguish itself from nature in an ever-increasing
degree, from the first dawn of intelligence up to the heights of
sainthness. By exercising this influence, nature is revealed as
being the necessary groundwork of spiritual life.
Further, the higher in the world, as it makes its appear
ance there, brings with it the interpretation of the lower.
The world is not explained by isolated and external oracles
about it, but by the revelation within it, and in organic union
with it, of something which belongs to it and yet transcends it.
Nature becomes exphcable by man, with bis spiritual con
sciousness ; man becomes explicable by Christ. The whole,
therefore, is explained by the presence within it of One who
transcends it and yet is one with it. Indeed the measure of
His transcendence is to be found — as is the case with all true
natural transcendence — in the measure of His unity with it.
Transcendent, yet in solidarity with the whole, Christ mani
fests in it a supremely interpretative Divine relationship —
that of Fatherhood and Sonship. Christ's relationship to
God must be taken in union with His universal relationship
to the world and man. Man completes nature, Christ com
pletes man. Christ stands in unique filial relationship to
God, but, at the same time, in such a relationship to the
world that His Divine Sonship cannot but have universal
significance for the world.
Our Lord's consciousness cannot be self-enclosed. It is
the consummation of a continuous whole. That whole has
prepared the way for Him, and is taken up into Him, that it
may serve the purposes of His higher and larger life. Just
because it prepared the way for Him and is taken up into
Him, He necessarily throws light upon the constitution and
nature, the ends and relationships, of the continuous whole of
the world. As in the case of nature and man, it may all be
seen in contrast to Him, and the contrast is real ; but yet it
is subordinate. He, too, is Lord of the world, because He is
both above it and within it, distinct from it and yet of it ;

358 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
and therefore, in the last resort, the contrasts are taken up
into and dominated by the affinity.
Hence the explanation of the world is simply to be found
in Christ. His Sonship is unique ; but it is a Sonship which
perfects the human race both objectively in His Incarnation,
and subjectively as men receive sonship from Him and share
it with Him. And, in coming into the world, Christ finds
and takes to Himself a nature which has been carefully
prepared to express in its consciousness the filial ; and the
preparation of that nature, received through His mother, is
the result of the entire evolution of the world from the
beginning. The human nature of Jesus Christ would not
have been what it was had one single line of the foregoing
evolution been different. The " flesh " in which He appeared
is prepared to manifest Sonship, and therefore the Sonship
which is manifested in the prepared " flesh " of Jesus Christ
explains the evolution and the nature of the world.
It is therefore impossible to confine Jesus Christ within
Himself and say that His Sonship is a secret belonging to
Him and to His followers, but that it cannot be used to shed
hght upon the constitution and meaning of the world in all
its parts from the beginning. On the contrary, assuming the
unique and yet patent facts of Christ's relationships to God
and to mankind, there is found therein the natural and
necessary explanation of the inmost meaning of the world as
a continuous whole, completed by the Incarnation. For the
Incarnation brought the Son into the midst of the world by
means of a nature in organic union with the world, and so
prepared within it from the beginning, that it could not have
been what it was had the previous evolution been different.
Thus Christ is the World-Illuminator and Interpreter, by the
very fact that He is the World-Consummator.
III. We are now prepared to advance to the next position,
namely, that " in Him all things consist." We may amplify
this as stating that all things are grounded in the Son, are
related to Him, inhere and cohere in Him.
This great fact and truth cannot be learned by human
speculation, although, as we have seen,1 the ruling philosophy
1 Chapter V.

THE SPIRITUAL CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD 359
of the time of St. Paul did construct a doctrine of the rela
tionship of God to the world which was a remarkable
approximation to the doctrine of St. Paul and St. John, and
supplied the forms in which the apostolic doctrine was pre
sented in the Greek theology of the - Christian Church.
Christian theology has advanced from the opposite
extreme to the starting-point of Greek philosophy ; not
from an abstract doctrine of the means by which God can
be brought into relationship to the world, but from the tran
scendent personahty of Christ and His unique influence upon
the spiritual hfe of men, with what is involved in both. It
was the realisation of these facts by the Spirit which enabled
— nay necessitated — St. Paul to arrive at the great proposition
of the text. And a closer consideration of it in the light of
the revelation contained in our Lord's consciousness shows how
complete an explanation is contained in it of all that we know
of the constitution of the world.
The truth is here assumed of those eternal relations in
the Godhead which we have seen, in the last chapter, to be
essential to the truth of the Fatherhood of God seriously
conceived. These relationships being assumed, we are taught
that all things are grounded in the Son, owe their life and
coherence to their inherence in Him. The doctrine taught
herein reveals that the eternally Filial in the Godhead is the
Divine ground on which creation rests, causing it to proceed
from God, to indwell in God, and to return in filial response
to God ; thus giving to the whole creation a measure of
filial hfe in proportion to its worth, so that the place of each
being in the sphere of existence is determined by its capacity
for and its realisation of aU that is contained in the filial.
Let us review the facts of the world, in order to see how
complete an explanation of them is thus furnished.
1. In the first place, as we have seen, the universe is
relative to spirit. In perception, mind orders nature. We
know the world only as we perceive it. For it to be different
we must become different. It is impossible to set aside the
importance of those spiritual faculties by which alone we
receive and order, are affected by and construct into a system,
what we experience as the external world.

360 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
As the world of things is relative to spirit in per
ception, so it is a natural and true inference to beheve
that it is relative to spirit in its original constitution. The
fact that it is received by the human mind, ordered and
interpreted according to fixed laws which are spiritual and
rational in their nature, is only explained by the fact that
both the conditions of the world perceived and those of
the mind perceiving it are eternally laid down by an
original and Divine constitutive Spirit, ordering all things
and presenting them to human faculties, which are a finite
manifestation of the infinite and eternal Spirit who is their
source. 2. All spirits which thus exist in a constitutive relation
ship — so far as perception is concerned — to the material
world so-called, are related to one another as a community.
All spiritual existences are kindred.
3. Yet these spiritual existences subsisting in community
are finite. They are neither self-contained, self -explained, nor
self-sufficient. They bear the consciousness of their own
limitation and dependence within them. They bear within
them, also, the need, and the power which always accompanies
need, to break forth from their limitations into relationships
carrying them beyond themselves and above that which is
accidental and dependent into union with the Infinite and
Absolute. Thus the ground, the home, the end of their
limited existence is found by them in the perfect existence of
God. Hence the life of the whole community of finite spirits
is ' rooted and grounded ' in God.
Yet, while the life of creaturely spirits is in God, it
proceeds from Him and returns to Him. As individuals they
are in God, and yet they are relative to God and, in a sense,
objective to Him. And the explanation of their indwelling
thus in God, and yet possessing a hfe which is relative and
objective to Him, — proceeding from Him into quasi-independ-
ence and yet constrained to return to fellowship with Him as
their source and end, — is that, by nature, they consist in and
are constituted by the Divinely Filial, the Son of God. It is
by their relationship to the Son that they at once subsist in
God, and yet that their subsistence in Him is a proceeding

THE SPIRITUAL CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD 361
from Him and a return to Him, which is the essential form of
the perfectly filial life.
Once escape from the miserable inadequacy of deistic
philosophy, with its mechanical externalism, to the realisation
of the inherence of all things in God and the ceaseless out
going of the Divine life throughout the whole creation, and
then St. Paul's statement that the Divine in whom all things
inhere is the Son, going forth from the Father and returning
to Him, supphes the only complete explanation of the facts of
the world as we behold them from a truly spiritual and
rational standpoint.
And this is an explanation which relates to the universe
as a coherent and systematic whole, running up into man.
When we return from man to the lower parts of this system,
we find that they are either preparatory or instrumental to
the life of sonship in which man is perfected. Looked at in
some aspects they foreshadow that life, while in others they
serve it. But in either aspect they are relative to sonship,
and find their explanation in it. Hence nothing in the whole
system, which either prepares the way for or serves the ends
of sonship, can be excluded from the eternal hfe of the Son.
In this fact lies the explanation of the phaenomena which
present themselves to us in the world. Speaking broadly, the
whole creation prepares the way for, foreshadows the meaning,
and serves the ends of sonship. Yet, when looked at in its
individual aspects, it is seen to be composed of finite, acci
dental, multiform, incomplete, and even disordered existences.
But, notwithstanding this, as a whole it maintains law and
order, subsists in unity, has abiding stability and spiritual
significance, and steadily serves the purposes of that unfolding
spiritual life which is the goal of its evolution. How is it
that it does all this ? — that it combines unity and stability
with an increasing progress, which shows how spiritual is the
source and nature of the law and order binding all the parts
together ? The explanation is, that the Son, as the eternal
realisation of filial perfection, so constitutes the universe that
His law is imposed upon it as the inward principle of its own
free life ; and that, in consequence, it cannot be other than rela
tive to that filial life which consummates its gradual develop-

362 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
ment. The immanence of all things in the Son explains how
they hve under and by a law of evolution, which causes them
to prepare the way and with " earnest expectation " to wait
for " the revealing of the sons of God " (Eom. viii. 1 9).
IV. We reach, then, the final proposition, namely, that
" all things have been created through Him."
The fact that the Son is the Consummator, the Eevealer,
the Eestorer, and the constitutive principle of all things,
forces the apostle to advance to an additional position. To
use Aristotle's enumeration of causes, the Son is the final
cause of the world, fixing its end ; He is its formal, and in a
sense its material cause, determining its constitution and
nature. Therefore He is also its efficient cause : " all things
have been created through Him."
But He is the efficient cause of the world, with a dis
tinction which is marked by the preposition " through."
The Son's creative office is defined by His relationship to the
creative Godhead. As His life in the Godhead is filial, so
His function in creation is filial. He is not set forth as the
ultimate source in the Godhead of creation, but as the
mediating cause ; and it is by understanding this force of
the apostle's statement that the unity of the Godhead can
be preserved in thought.
With this limitation, St. Paul's declaration is that the
end and law of the world is also its source ; that the eter
nally filial is the cause of the filial in time.
Herein lies the explanation of the possibility and reahty
of the Incarnation. The Son can become man in the fulness
of the times, because He is the originator and fashioner of
the nature which receives and manifests Him. That nature is
not outside Him, apart from Him, still less in contrast to Him.
It comes into existence " through " Him, and consists " in "
Him, and therefore is, from the first, in idea and nature
fitted to reveal its source.
This is the irresistible logic which proceeds from the testi
mony of Christ to Himself, and from the experience of what
He is in the spiritual life. The Son, manifest as a Divine
Person in human nature, carries out in His ministry of re
demption a Divine office for mankind. He inaugurates a new

THE SPIRITUAL CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD 363
beginning in the spiritual life of humanity, as the One who
is able, and who alone is able, to communicate to others, in a
personal relationship to Himself, that which intrinsically and
eternally belongs to Him alone. Yet that which is His own
peculiar secret, and which is shared by other men only in so
far as they enter into a pecuhar relationship to Himself by
His Spirit, is yet the fulfilment of all that which — in His
light — is seen to be the innate potentiality of human nature ;
so that, while this new beginning in Him is unique, it is at
the same time the realisation of indwelling possibilities which
are universal, and the fulfilment of the whole spiritual pre
paration of the world. Into that spiritual preparation all
things enter according to the measure of their worth. The
natural history of the world is inseparably bound up with its
spiritual history as means to end. Nature is in every part
and always subordinate to the Spirit, and the Spirit is the
Spirit of tlie Son.
Therefore St. Paul is inevitably led on, understanding
Christ's relationship to spiritual experience, and the relation
ship of spiritual experience to the constitution of the world,
finding the Son to be the constitutive principle of all things,
to see in Him the eternal creative means through whom all
things have been called into being, endowed with such a
nature that He can fill them, can be manifested in them, and
can finally consummate them by His incarnate presence.
The Son, that is to say, cannot be what He is as the Con-
summator and Eedeemer of the world, if He does not hold
that relationship to it as Creator, neither more nor less, which
is described in the text. Once grant the spiritual significance
and continuity of all things, and St. Paul's declaration will
appear to be, not merely a natural, but the necessary, deduc
tion from the facts.
Of course the relationship of the eternal life of the
Godhead to the world of the finite and temporal must always
be the most difficult subject of speculation, owing to the
limitations of human faculties. AU our thought concerning
the origin of the universe must of necessity be a regress
from what we find actually contained in it. Our best guide
to its origin will be found in its nature. There can be no

364 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
surer argument that ' God created,' than is to be found in
the fact that ' man reigns,' when all that is contained in the
latter proposition is understood. The testimony of the
spiritual consciousness in man, alike to his supremacy in
nature and to his dependence on an infinite source which
must needs be of like nature with his own (for dependence
in any real sense involves kinship), contains all the premisses
of the theistic argument.
Further, once realise the two great facts of spirituality
and continuity, the relation of all things to the Son, and from
this starting-point we are able in a similar way to reach back
to the creative start of the world, and to behold there the
Son mediating the whole. The facts which become manifest
in spiritual history are only explained when the Son is
realised as being eternally in the Godhead, and going forth
from Him as the creative means through whom all things
exist, and from whom they receive alike the form of their
being and the unceasing impulse to fulfil a life which is con
summated in the perfect manifestation of Sonship.
Hence this inference of St. Paul, made the starting-point
of our thought, clothes what would be otherwise the com
paratively bare conception of creation with spiritual signifi
cance, and gives to it the lifelikeness of a completed explanation.
Not that the questions which have always vexed human
speculation as to the relations between creative and created
hfe can be set at rest. Man can never thus be the measure
of God. But St. Paul's teaching redeems the conception of
creation from the external and mechanical — from the deistic
notion of the world as a practically independent effect. Once
bear in mind that the world is created through, in, and unto
the Son, and immediately creation becomes a spiritual and
vital function of the Godhead, and the finite is seen to be not
an artificial product, but a vital procession from the Infinite.
The world, thus created, is seen to be necessarily spiritual in
its nature and ends, because it subsists in God ; to be governed
not by external ordination, but by the Divine indweUing, so
that it fulfils throughout the whole course of its evolution
the spiritual relationship of its start. Thus, while difficul
ties remain for thought, and must ever remain, the meaning

THE SPIRITUAL CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD 365
and tendencies of the world are more adequately explained
by this new Genesis of St. Paul than by any other theology
or philosophy ever taught by men.
The Son is, then, the End, the Law, the Source of the
world. He has completed it by appearing within it as the
incarnate Son, and by bringing men, in Himself, to the reah
sation and enjoyment of sonship.
What, we must now ask, is involved in all this ?
1. In the first place, the supremacy of the fatherly
motive and relationship in creation.
The relationship of the world to the Son cannot be what
it is, without carrying with it that the controlling relationship
in which God stands to the world is that of Fatherhood ; that
the motive by which He has created, governs, and guides the
world to its appointed end is fatherly.
The fact wliich consummates history — the Incarnation —
reveals perfectly Fatherhood and Sonship ; reveals, moreover,
the continuity of the process by which preparation has been
made for it in the world. The motive which has been at
work from first to last is therefore made clear. Creation,
constituted through, in, and unto the Son, can only be
creation as the work of the Father, and as intended to satisfy
His fatherly heart of love.
This reasoning is conclusive, if our starting-point be made
good, that Fatherhood and Sonship set forth the eternal
relationship between the First Person of the holy Trinity
and the Second.
When we speak of the Son of God, we are not referring
merely to the incarnate Son, but to the Son — existing as such
— eternally " in the bosom of the Father."
It seems clear that the Second Person in the Godhead
could only live in time and history in precisely the same rela
tionships to the First as those in which He eternally subsists.
To suppose a change in relationship would involve some measure
of dislocation, or at least, if the human relationship be not the
same as the Divine, some imperfection of expression of the
Divine through the human. Only in so far as His human life
gives expression to His eternal life in the Godhead can it be
said to be a natural and complete manifestation of God.

366 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
In particular, it is a mistake to take St. John's name,
"the Logos," — which, however valuable, is a one-sided title,
having only a limited content, — as though that, and that only,
sets forth the eternal relationship between the First and
Second Persons of the holy Trinity. This course is sometimes
taken, in the hope of avoiding some of the speculative difficulties
involved in the relationship of eternal Fatherhood and Sonship.
And attempts are then made to show that, wherever the rela
tionship of Sonship is spoken of in the New Testament, it
refers to the Second Person of the holy Trinity as incarnate.
So, for example, in the very valuable and suggestive work
by Dr. D. W. Simon, entitled Reconciliation by Incarnation,
it is laid down : " The Logos was designated ' Son of God ' as
incarnate. Prior to Incarnation He was simply the Logos :
this is the only designation applied to Him in His intra-
Divine relationship in the Scripture. The references in the
Epistle to the Hebrews are to His relation to the Father as
incarnate, not prior to Incarnation. The Trinity was con
stituted, let it be here again said in passing, by three personal
or personific factors, each eternally coexistent, and as such, to
use the technical term, not merely modal but ontological.
The name Son and Father, on the other hand, are modal or
oeconomic, i.e. they refer to the relation which arose in con
sequence of the Incarnation of the Logos. Jesus the Christ
was the Son of God ; there is no warrant, however, for
designating the Logos the Son of God, and for thus repre
senting the relationship of the Father and Son as an eternal
and immanent Divine relationship." x
Such a position is open to the following criticisms : —
(1) When it is said that the designation applied to our
Lord in His intra-Divine relationship in the Scripture is that
of the Logos, it must be borne in mind that the only New
Testament writer who uses this name is St. John, and that,
in the case of his Gospel, the name is only found in the
Prologue. Therefore the name has by no means the weight,
as an exclusive designation, which it would have had if it had
been adopted by all the New Testament writers ; still more if
it had been used by our Lord Himself.
1 Reconciliation by Incarnation, pp. 327, 328.

THE SPIRITUAL CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD 367
(2) As we have already seen,1 the designation Son is a
higher, deeper, and fuller name than that of Logos. It is
impossible to deduce the fact of our Lord's Sonship from His
being the Logos ; but, on the other hand, it is easy to arrive
at the conclusion that He is the Logos from the fact of His
being the Son.
(3) If, further, it is intended by the use of the designation
" the Logos " to get over the supposed difficulty of applying
the idea of Sonship in the form of " eternal generation " to
our Lord's eternal relationship, exactly the same difficulty
belongs to the conception of the Logos, understood in its
Christian sense, not as a poetic personification of philosophy,
but as a name which is strictly " personal or personific."
The designation " the Logos," as St. John uses it, con
veys the sense of intellectual filiation, the filiation of the
Word, which expresses the Divine mind and makes known
the Divine will. Directly tbe Word is understood as being
" personal or personific," its relation to the mind eternaUy
uttering it is substantially fihal.
Here, then, is all the difficulty of the conception of
eternal filiation ; but it is restricted to an intellectual view of
God, unless we further amplify the designation, as St. John
himself did in his First Epistle, and speak of " the Word of
Life " (1 John i. 1) ; a proceeding which shows how little
warrant we really have for supposing that the name " the
Logos " is the only designation for our Lord's preincarnate
relationship, even in St. John's writings. History, moreover,
shows us that, wherever exclusive stress is laid upon the name
" the Logos," there is the certain danger of losing sight of the
personality, since it is difficult to apprehend a relationship
essentially filial on purely intellectual grounds. And, side
by side with this tendency, it becomes impossible to avoid
giving a prevaihngly intellectual aspect to religion, and to the
relationship of God to the world.
Thus damage is done to the conception of religion, without
escaping any of those difficulties as to eternal filiation which
have led to the abandonment of the name " the Son."
(4) Again, the designation " the Logos " is at least equally
1 See Chapter VI., p. 307.

368 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
figurative as the name " the Son." We are certainly as much
guided by human analogies in attributing an eternal Word to
the Godhead as an eternal Son. In both cases, that which is
manifest in human life is treated as an indication of what is
eternal in the Divine life. We have already discussed the
validity of this proceeding. Let it now be understood that
whatever imperfection necessarily attaches to it must equally
apply to the one name as to the other.
(5) Finally, it must be borne in mind, that to take the
title " the Logos " as the one indication of the nature of the
eternal relationship of the Second Person to the First in the
Godhead, is to leave the incarnate relationship unexplained.
Our Lord was manifested as " the Son " ; but if Sonship be not
the form of His eternal Divine relationship, then His mani
festation in Sonship is not explained by the eternal nature of
the Godhead and by the relationships therein subsisting.
By the Fatherhood of God towards the incarnate Son it
must at least be understood that God is the loving source of
the human nature of Christ, imprinting His love upon that
nature and bringing Christ thereby into perfect fellowship of
love with Himself.
What is there in all this that may not be, nay, which
must not necessarily be, eternal ? The name by which our
Lord, manifest in human nature, is designated, is intended to
signify that the original relationship between Him and God
is that of perfect love. Yet, while this is emphasised in
regard to the incarnate relationship, the dismissal of the
relationship of Fatherhood and Sonship from the eternal
life of the Godhead has weakened therein the primacy of love.
A name has been substituted which represents a reality of
great importance, without doubt, to the intellectual life of
God and to the intellectual apprehension of His relationship
to the world, but which cannot possibly cover the whole truth
about Him; and which, especiaUy, while well fitted to set
forth the relation of the Second Person to the thoughts and
purposes of the First, is essentially unfitted to set forth the
relationship of love subsisting between both. How is it
possible, by any process which does not introduce the thought
from without, to reach the doctrine of the gospel that " God

THE SPIRITUAL CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD 369
is love '' from the statement that within the Godhead is an
eternal and personal Word ?
If, then, this view were true, we should have in our
Lord's incarnate relationship a deeper, fuller, richer relation
ship to God than that in which He eternally subsists. And
this is impossible, not merely because it is inconceivable that
our Lord passed from a poorer into a richer relationship to
God, but also because the poorer relationship is made the
basis of the richer one. The whole creation inheres and
coheres in the Logos ; but, as it manifests what is contained
in that inherence, it turns out to be the richer and fuller
relationship of sonship. It is impossible that the narrower,
less spiritual and rehgious relationship should be the eternal
foundation of the fuUer, more spiritual, and more rehgious.
For every reason, therefore, of consistency and harmony
of thought, it seems necessary to regard the relationship in
which the Second Person of the Godhead was made manifest
as being the revelation of that in which He eternally subsists,
and to regard the relationship in which He appeared by virtue
of the fundamental characteristics of His human nature, as
explained on the ground that what the Second Person is
eternally to the First, lays down the law and the constitution
of human nature, simply because by its creation it inheres in
the Son. Therefore the Son's eternal relationship to the Father is
manifest in the Incarnation, because the human nature in
which He became incarnate is originaUy grounded in Himself,
and is under the necessity of displaying and serving just that
relationship to God in which the Son — its source, ground, and
end — eternally subsists.
Thus the inner relationships of the Godhead govern the
outer. The original and vital relationship in which all things
stand to the Son, carries with it the original and universal
Fatherhood of Him who is manifested in and through the
Son. For there is no manifestation of the Father save in and
through the Son. He is thereby shown to be the Father ;
for the whole life of the Son, who as the Son is the ground
of creation, is governed by the relation in which He receives,
returns, and manifests the love of the Father, All life, all
24

370 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
relationships to God, are contained in the Son, but in sub
ordination to His Sonship, and therefore in subordination to
the Fatherhood, which is the correlative of His Sonship.
Thus the grounding of the universe in the Son carries with it
its creation by the Father for purposes which can be realised
in and through the hfe of One who can never, and in no part
of His activity, be other than Son.
Hence grace is the foundation of nature. The Incarna
tion, as the end, explains the beginning; for the end cannot
be thus wrought out unless it has determined the beginning.
And it governs the beginning, because " God is love " ;
because the Son stands eternally to the Father in a relation
ship of love, which necessitates that all that He receives
and returns, effectuates and reveals, should be the Love which
is Life. 2. In the second place, the creation of all things in and
through the Son involves the filial constitution of human
nature. This has been substantially made good already, but it
requires a somewhat more detailed consideration.
We have seen that our Lord's Sonship represents ahke
His eternal and His incarnate relationship to the Father.
His coming into the world is, further, a manifestation of God
in a human nature which makes Him akin to mankind, and
is the consummation of a previous continuous development
of human life and character in relation to God. From these
facts we gain the result that human nature, in its idea and
principle, is capable of sonship ; and that failure to reach it
means either unfulfilled or perverted development.
(1) In the first place, as we have seen, the Son of God
would have no adequate revelation in human life, if the per
fection of that hfe were not in accordance with His own
eternal relationship to the Father. The truth of His own
human nature is its realisation of Divine Sonship. But
that Sonship cannot be confined in idea to the incarnate Son.
Distinctive and supernatural as was His entrance into human
life, He yet enters it as organically one with the race, not
only in His eternal relationship to it, but as tbe Son of Man.
Therefore what is necessary to the truth of His own human

THE SPIRITUAL CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD 371
nature is equaUy true — not in actuality, but in idea and
principle and potentiality — of mankind, which is akin to
Him. (2) And this is verified by the fact that we recognise
in our Lord's human perfection the ideal of what all men
ought to be, and the promise of what God wills to make
them. Such a revelation and promise involve that the realisation
of sonship through the Spirit is the calling into perfect
actuahty of possibihties, present from the first, although they
have been unfulfilled and even perverted.
It may be hastily supposed, indeed, that human nature is
human nature, quite irrespective of the precise form of its
relationship to God. This is aU that is sometimes meant by
saying that our Lord appeared in human nature and gave us
an example of what perfect human nature is. And then an
account is given of the particular virtues which His character
and conduct displayed. And such an abstract consideration
may leave it to be supposed that human nature might exist
in intrinsic perfection in varying relations to God.
But on closer examination this wiU be seen to be im
possible, for any being is what it is only in and through the
relationships which dominate its hfe. We can only describe
a human being by means of the network of relations into
which he enters, and by understanding their nature. And
any variation of the relationships entered into and fulfilled,
varies the development of the being who undergoes the
change. There is therefore no abstract human nature as
such. It appears as a concrete fact in certain relationships.
The only relationship in which Christ was able to appear as
perfect man was in that of Divine Sonship. By this very
fact it is shown that human nature can only be fulfiUed in
the same filial relationship, and that it is the innate possi
bility of entering into it by the Spirit which makes human
nature what it is.
(3) It is because of this, that whUe the manifestation of
the Son of God in the flesh makes a new beginning, it is yet
a completion of the development which has gone before. As
we follow this course of thought we shall find reason to

372 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
believe that only one world could possibly be created by God,
being what He is, and that this world. The view which
imagines that out of an infinite number of possible worlds
God chose to create this particular one, does homage to an
abstract freedom of God which is no reality. It may con
ceivably be true as to details, for we do not yet know how
far the details of the constitution of nature and man are
inextricably bound up with tbe main principles which under
lie creation. But, at least, those main principles are the only ones
which could be selected by God, existing in the eternal
fellowship of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The
creation of a universe in and through the Son could only be a
universe in which the Son's relationship to the Father should
be the constitutive factor of all life and being. A world
thus created must be a world in which the measure of the
filial is the measure of being, life, and worth — a world in
which the measure of turning away from the filial is the
measure of sin. Indeed, creation in the Son seems to involve
that there is a necessary form of relationship to God for
every creature, which, according to the measure of its capacity
for receiving the Holy Spirit, becomes perfectly filial. Such
a common form of relationship to God unites the humblest
atom to the loftiest Son of God. This form of relationship
combines dependence upon the immanent presence and power
of God with a relative independence which involves a being-
for-self, or for that rudimentary centre of life or of physical
force which is the dim foreshadowing of self. It involves,
further, that all such beings exist in organic relations to all
that is, so that the life of each is interrelated with the life
of all things, and is maintained by ceaseless interaction with
all things. Thus there is an impartation of God to every
existence according to the measure and worth of its being,
and each, however narrow may be its limitations, is both
self-contained and related in God to the sum-total of creation.
Thus, probably, even a thing is in reahty something more
than a thing, if we fully understood it. And as the fuller
impartation of the Spirit of God, in and through the Son,
caUs into being the loftier forms of existence, the measure of

THE SPIRITUAL CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD 373
their greatness is their power to fulfil this common form of
relationship to God with the filial spirit of which it is
prophetic, so that they exhibit, in completeness, the perfection
of dependence with independence, of being-for-self with
Divine and universal fellowship and service. This general
view of creation, of its universal principles, and of its neces
sary standard of life and worth, seems necessitated by any
sufficiently serious doctrine of the creation of all things in
and through and unto the Son, and of the Son's final appear
ance revealing God to men in and through the manifestation
of perfect Sonship. It seems also to be verified by the facts
of the world as we find them.
Everything, therefore, in the world which comes short of
or which departs from this ideal of perfect sonship is, so far
as it comes short or transgresses, not a promise but a limita
tion. It represents, at the best, the imperfection of a pre
liminary stage ; at the worst, a spiritual fall, and can be no
guide to the underlying principles or the finally operative
forces in the world's history. From the lowest to the highest
phaenomena of the world many things are apparent which are
obviously inadequate to, and, when we reach the plane of
human hfe, contradict the truly filial hfe. Such, for example,
are the predatory instincts of the lower animals ; above all,
the selfishness and sin of man. But, directly we take these
as evidence of principles supreme in human hfe, we are
deceived by the false and passing show of an incomplete or
perverted development, which ever tends to be superseded by
a completer life, reahsing more f uUy the possibilities implanted
in the whole by reason of its relationship to the Son of God.
The more we examine into phaenomena, which appear to
contradict the principle that the filial is the measure of all
true hfe, the more we shall find that underneath them that
principle is at work, and that everything which cannot be
finally harmonised with it is but a limitation, and not the
manifestation, of a final principle of life.1
1 We are not concerned here with the ordinary questions of Christian
evidences, but, in illustration of what has been said, and in order to turn aside
possible objections, it may be well to say a word as to those aspects of nature
which shock sentimentalists, and which seem to them incompatible, not merely

374 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
3. Because of the fatherly motive of creation and of the
filial constitution of the world, the whole serves the manifes
tation of the sons of God.
The filial is so based upon the universal promise and
nature of things as to be safe throughout the evolution of
that nature. The Incarnation is not a bright gleam to be
soon overcast, a poem contradicted by the realities of life and
the conflicts of existence. It inaugurates a new departure
on a higher and larger scale, but one as surely based as the
preceding epochs of development. Once introduced, this new
departure is safely and permanently established in the life
of the world. History becomes the record of its unfolding,
not, of course, without vicissitudes and limitations. But the
filial hfe becomes, by the Spirit, ingrained in the human
nature, which has once received it and been put upon its
with the filial constitution of the world, but with the Fatherhood of God.
Such are, above all, the predatory habits of the lower animals. The following
considerations should be borne in mind in regard to this matter.
1. We are occupied with phaenomena which are non-moral, and it is by
importing inapplicable moral standards of judgment that the difficulty is, for
the most part, created.
2. In the second place, as has often been shown, these habits serve useful
ends in the general economy of nature as it has been constituted.
3. These phaenomena cast no shadow upon the happiness of creation.
Moments of danger are little foreseen or remembered in any sense that involves
pain. The animal "takes no thought for the morrow."
4. Further, the presence of danger has developed protective instincts and
faculties in all orders of animals, the exercise of which, save in comparatively
rare moments of extreme danger, contributes to the enjoyment of life.
5. Finally, even those animals which are most predatory are social within
their kinds, though not outside their kinds.
Therefore these phaenomena are not a contradiction to the principle which
governs the world, but a limitation in its manifestation — a limitation that, on
the whole, is turned to the service and betterment of forms of life, which fill a
useful part in the economy of the whole.
The moral insensibility of the forces of nature which now and again destroy
vast numbers of men, can in large measure be explained by the same reasons ;
and the problem which remains is solved if we accept the Christian revelation
that this life is but the dawn of human existence.
With the wilful wrong-doing of sinners other considerations enter, which
cannot be discussed here. The only way in which they affect belief in the
Fatherhood of God is by raising the question, Why did God permit sin ? And
this is answered when we remember that freedom is essential to sonship, and
the bestowment of it, therefore, with all its responsibilities, is essential to
Fatherhood.

THE SPIRITUAL CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD 375
level.1 That which all along was implicit has now become
exphcit with the manifestation of the Son of God, and with
the outpouring through Him of the " Spirit of adoption."
Hence the preparation for the ever fuller manifestation of
the eternal purpose of God. There is no contradiction of
the essential meaning of the past, but a further development,
and that development is as sure of ultimate predominance as
were the previous stages of development ; and, for the same
reason, in every case, namely, that each stage gives expression,
according to its place in the series of unfolding being, to
the fundamental hfe which is in and unto the Son.
Such is the spiritual constitution of the world as it is
finally revealed by the manifestation in it of the Son of God,
who is both its beginning and its end.
But before we pass from this chapter two subjects must
be interpreted in its light ; and the consideration of them
will serve as a transition to the next.
1. The first is, the nature of sin.
We cannot, of course, deal here with the subject histori
cally ; that is, with the way in which sin entered into the
world and affected mankind. But what has been found as
to the constitution of the world, and therefore as to the
relationships and nature of mankind, will enable us to see
from various points of view what is the essential meaning
of sin. We may treat it as a violation of relationships, as the
perversion thereby of nature, as a missing the mark of true
life, and therefore as the falhng into disharmony with the
whole, as the loss of man's place in it, this being determined
by the ends which it and he were created to serve.
In every one of these aspects sin may be considered as a
temper, as manifested in conduct, as coming into actuality
through volition, and as becoming a permanent condition —
sinfulness. It may be considered in relation to the individual
and also to the race. As an act of a responsible being, sin
carries with it guilt. Man is answerable for the evil he
works, he becomes hable to the punishment which, in a
1 This, of course, does not imply that sonship becomes "natural," but that
the "dispensation ofthe Spirit" once inaugurated is unfailingly carried out.

376 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
world created in and by the holiness of God, must visit those
who contradict and persist in contradicting the holiness which
gives the law to all life.
It is unnecessary here to enlarge upon all these aspects ;
but the results reached in this chapter bring into strong
relief the essential elements of sin, whether looked at in
inward principle or in outward manifestation, whether in act
or in condition, whether as individual or as universal and
coUective. (1) In the first place, it represents the violation, in
inward principle and in outward conduct, of the relationships
in which and for which man was made. The Fatherhood of
God, in and through the Son, is the relationship which gives
the motive and constitutes the nature of creation. Sin, with
its distrust of the goodness of the Divine authority, with its
indifference to, or even its energetic resistance of, the Divine
love, with its transgression of commandments, the whole
purpose of which is to indicate the only lines upon which hfe
can be maintained by being true to the relationships in and
for which it was made, — sin is, above all, the unfilial, and
therefore unnatural, response to fatherly love.
All the elements of sin may undoubtedly be described as
distrust of, rebellion against, disobedience to, the Divine
Euler ; but we miss much of the real depth of its meaning
when we substitute the sovereignty of God for His Father
hood. The Fatherhood of God guarantees that the source of
His law is His love, that its end is life, that its appeal is to
our very heart and nature. None of these things is neces
sarily true of sovereignty, considered as such, and therefore
sin, that it may appear in all its heinousness and unnatural-
ness, must, above all, be defined in the light of the Fatherhood
of God. (2) It follows, further, from this that sin is the violation
of the relationship in which men stand by nature to the Son
as the ground and law of their being. It is the contradiction
of the filial spirit of dependence, the refusal reverently to
listen to the voice of the Holy Spirit, whose presence and
influence within normally - constituted human nature is the
witness that human life abides in the Son of God. It is our

THE SPIRITUAL CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD 377
life in the Son of God which makes the law of our spiritual
and moral being at once part of ourselves and above ourselves,
commanding our obedience, setting before us our ideal, and
giving us light, from moment to moment, on the acts of
spiritual and moral choice which we ought to make.
Sin is the rejection of this inner light, the brushing away
of this proffered help. In the light of the New Testament,
it is a rejection not only of the Father, but of the Son, and
therefore of the Spirit.
(3) Hence sin assumes the aspect upon which both the
Old and the New Testament lay such stress, that it is a
" missing the mark." The violation of the spiritual relation
ships, in and for which man was made, throws him out of the
course of that divinely - ordered development by which he
was progressively to realise the nature of his own life, and
thereby to manifest the ends for which the world has been
grounded in and directed by the Son of God. In this light
aU cases of stunted or perverted spiritual development, all
cases of reversion to lower types by giving prominence and
permanence to lower tendencies, and so dethroning the higher
— aU falhngs into the realm and under the sway of what is,
in the narrower sense, natural, as against the spiritual — are
to be understood.
(4) But a nature which violates the relationships in and
for which it is made, and fails therefore to pursue the end
for which it is intended, becomes thereby disordered and
corrupt. Sin, in the hght of the Fatherhood of God, is the
transgression of the laws of life, which spring from love, and
therefore there sets in the reign of inner lawlessness and
corruption, under the sway of the principle of selfishness,
which is the negation of love, and therefore the enemy
of life. (5) Further, as the result of this fall from the true
relationships of life, this consequent loss of power to pursue
its true ends, and this corruption of human nature in itself,
comes dethronement from that spiritual lordship of the world
which is exercised only in proportion to the spirit of sonship.
The connexion, as everywhere stated by St. Paul, is " if sons,
then heirs." With the loss of sonship goes the possibihty of

378 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
heirship. Man becomes the tool and victim, instead of the
possessor, of his earthly life, and this in varying degrees
according to the extent of the reign of sin in his heart.
(6) Lastly, it foUows from all this that sin brings man
into disharmony with the whole of life. The universe is
constituted in the Son of God. He gives to all things their
nature and their end. To fall out from true relationships in
Him is therefore to fall out with the life and spirit of all
things. The world therefore becomes the minister of the
wrath of God- — the energy of which is His holy love — upon
those who violate the essential spirit of all things. The
universe is grounded in the Son of God ; it exists in vital
and organic relationship to man. The fall of man from his
proper place in it by sin introduces chaos into his life, and
turns what should be the co-operating forces of the universe
into avenging spirits, which, so long and so far as he stands
out in discord from the whole, cannot but inflict upon him the
penalties with which the true life regnant must visit the
false. Therefore the Fatherhood of God, thus understood as
giving the law to and fixing the ends of the universe in the
Son, establishes the vital character of a retribution propor
tionate to the offence of sin — a retribution operative through
the spiritual and immanent forces of the whole upon him who
stands out from the spiritual relationships in and for which
he was made. These can never be set aside, nor can their
inexorable energy be abated, so long as the universe remains
constituted in and for the Son of God. Hence, once more,
we are brought to see that there is no other way of insisting
on the sovereignty of God so effective as that which is pre
sented by a true apprehension of His Fatherhood ; the Father
hood, however, being manifested in such conditions, by the
enforcement of a claim, without the making good of which
neither Fatherhood nor Sonship, neither love nor life, can be
maintained. 2. A second consequence of the spiritual constitution of
the world becomes apparent, namely, the way in which the
Incarnation is the appointed and necessary means of the
Eedemption of mankind.
We have seen that the manifestation of the Son of God

THE SPIRITUAL CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD 379
in the flesh is the culmination of human history, and that,
while it marks a new departure, it also exhibits the continuity
of a Divine unfolding of the meaning of the world in the
attainment of its end. There is in the Incarnation the
perfect manifestation of the Divine in the human, the final
realisation of those relationships between God and man
without which neither the universe nor man can be explained.
The Incarnation is not a vening, but an unveiling, of God.
It is the coming out of tbe Son of God into historic mani
festation in His own world, and in a nature which by all the
conditions of its creation and constitution is from the very
first His own. We are enabled, therefore, to perceive how
the Son incarnate stands related not merely to the fulfilment
of the original end of creation, but also to the reparation of
its downfall through sin.
(1) In the first place, it is evident that our Lord is no
outsider coming to the rescue of downfallen human nature.
However subhme may be the picture of the compassion of
the Divine Son of the Eternal Sovereign which brought Him
from heaven to earth to the help of mankind, it fails to do
full justice to the facts. There is an original relationship
between the Son and mankind which binds up His hfe— not
by the bonds of external necessity, but by the perfection of
His own spiritual nature — with the hfe of mankind, making
Him the eternal Self of ourselves, and therefore the eternal
Head and Eepresentative of our race. His Incarnation is
indeed an immeasurable condescension, all the greater because
of the guilt and ruin of sin ; but yet it is not the passing into
a separate or an alien world. It is the filling with His own
Presence of a nature which has ever been His own.
(2) Because of this original relationship, the Son eternally
lays down for mankind the laws and ideals of human life, as
fulfilled only in those true relationships to God which have
their source and ground in His own relationship within the
Godhead. Therefore, when He becomes incarnate, He mani
fests in ideal perfection a human life thus fulfilled in its
true relationships to God. His hfe on earth is the faithful
reflexion of His eternal life in heaven, and therefore it is the
perfect expression of that filial life for which we were made

380 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
in Him. Thus in His incarnate life He fulfils all righteous
ness ; righteousness being the law of the Divine character im
pressed upon the nature of man, and so binding upon him.
(3) Hence our Lord secures at last the full realisation in
human history of the true life which sin destroys. He is the
truly Divine, yet perfectly human, reaffirmation of that which
sin denies. It is in that reaffirmation — on the part both
of God and man — that His redemptive work begins, and
by the completion of it that His redemptive work is con
summated. All His atoning work is simply founded in and
carried to its completion by His persistent reaffirmation,
first in spirit and then in doing and suffering, of that
true hfe which sin has contradicted and destroyed. He
makes this reaffirmation in those relations of sohdarity with
the whole race which His relationship to it as its original
ground and end involves. He makes it under those conditions
of physical nature and of human society which the entrance
of sin into the world has brought about — those general con
ditions by which the righteousness of God has marked the
unrighteousness of mankind. He makes it in union with,
and through making it is, so to speak, in command of that
Divine Spirit by whom all that He is and does can be repro
duced in the race which through that one Spirit is akin to
Him. Once let the Son of God, incarnate, completely reaffirm
in spirit, character, and conduct the perfection of human life
in its Divine relationships, under the penal conditions of man
kind, and atonement first and regeneration next are the
divinely natural results.
(4) For, lastly, it is involved in what He is to God and
what He is to man that nothing which the Son is, or does,
or suffers, is His alone, but that all is for our sokes. It is,
in the first place, representative, fulfilled on our behalf and
instead of us ; and, in the second, spiritual, containing the
possibUity of being spiritually reproduced within us, because,
as St. Paul says, " The Lord is the Spirit." This reproduction
within us is by means of the combined effect upon us of His
historic ministry of atonement and salvation, and of the inner
influence which He exercises upon us by the Holy Spirit,
who, while He is the gift to us sinners obtained through our

THE SPIRITUAL CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD 381
Lord's Passion, is yet, because of our creation in the Son, the
Spirit of our original life, by whose indwelling alone it is that
man, not only as redeemed, but as created, can be explained.
Such is the provision, in the eternal Divine relationships
and in the spiritual constitution of the world, by which the
redemption of mankind can be effected. With this we pass
to the consideration of Eedemption as seen in the hght of the
Fatherhood of God.

CHAPTER VIII
THE REDEMPTION OF MANKIND
We pass on to consider in this chapter the Fatherhood of
God in relation to the Eedemption of mankind. This must
be regarded in two aspects, namely, the Atonement offered by
our Lord on account of the sins of the world, and the sub
jective reconcUiation of men to God through the ministry of
Christ and of the Holy Spirit.1
We have seen that our Lord so embodies the ideal per
fection of the human race that in His incarnate life He
reaffirms the law of righteousness, which has been violated
by sin, and reaffirms man's adhesion to it. This reaffirma
tion is the foundation of the whole of His ministry of
redemption ; it is the spirit which fiUs it. Further, this
reaffirmation was made under all those general conditions
which have been brought about by the entrance of sin into
the world, personal sinfulness in our Lord only being ex
cepted. Moreover, this reaffirmation was made not for
Himself alone. He stands in such eternal relationship to
mankind, and completes their spiritual development by His
Incarnation in such wise, that in whatever He does and
suffers He represents them, and that the spiritual meaning
of His work can be reproduced in them by His Spirit.
Finally, all that He is, does, and suffers in His incarnate,
equally in His pre-inoarnate state, is in the unity of the
Father and of the Holy Spirit.
These main facts must provide the basis of any satis-
1 It is impossible to deal with this subject exhaustively here. The reader
may be referred to the Author's work, The Spiritual Principle of the Atone
ment, for a complete treatment of the subject from the same standpoint as that
taken in these pages. 382

THE REDEMPTION OF MANKIND 383
factory doctrine of the Atonement. An examination of its
nature, as determined by them,- will bring to light both its
general necessity, and also the necessity that it should be just
what it actually was.
1. In the first place, the relationship which governs the
Atonement throughout must be the relationship of Fatherhood
and Sonship.
Christ is so related to God and also to mankind that
what He does God does, and equally that what He does man
does. But this statement is not sufficient. The form of His
relationship to God and to mankind is such that what He
does is the manifestation of the Father in the Son, and is the
manifestation of the Father in relation not only to Himself,
but also to mankind as standing in organic relationship to
Himself. All the experience of the Son must therefore be
explained by the Fatherhood of God towards Him, and
towards mankind in Him. And, on the other hand, the Son
is so related to the Father and to mankind, that His response
to the Fatherhood of God is a perfect expression of the filial
spirit, not on His own account alone, but as embodying the
true and essential life of mankind in its divinely-ordered and
ideal relationship to God.
These facts must therefore supply the principles which
govern the Atonement, whether it is looked at as a personal
dealing between the Father and the Son, or whether we
extend our survey so as to include its features as meeting in
a certain way certain Divine demands made on mankind in
order to the forgiveness of sins.
The Atonement cannot for a moment fall outside, still
less be inconsistent with, the relationships to God and to man
kind by which the whole of our Lord's life is constituted.
Whether as a personal dealing between the Father and the
Son, or as an offering presented by the Son in order to meet
the demands of God upon mankind, the Atonement must,
from first to last, be determined by the Fatherly and filial
relationship. And this must be tbe case, both because this
relationship is supreme and all-embracing as between the
Father and the Son, and also because it is the relationship in

384 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
and by which mankind was originally constituted in the Son.
To set up any necessities of Atonement, or to lay down any
principles or methods of it, which are incompatible with this
fundamental and all-embracing relationship, properly under
stood, is therefore shown from the first to be impossible.
Nothing which is done or suffered by Christ can fall outside
the realm of this Divine relationship, which is the governing
fact not merely for Himself, but for mankind as constituted
in Him. The final test of all possible doctrines of the Atonement
is, therefore, whether they can be seen to arise naturally and
by a spiritual necessity out of the all-determining relation
ship, or whether they cannot. In so far as that is doubtful,
they themselves are in doubt. Whatever else may be obscure,
this is made perfectly clear, that the Atonement must be an
ideal fact, giving full effect to the Fatherly and filial relation
ship, as its existence and manifestation are affected, but not
set aside, by the entrance of sin. Should it be objected that
this relationship is set aside by sin, the answer is that, sin
notwithstanding, Christ entered into the world in this rela
tionship, and, while in it, was in spiritual solidarity with
mankind. This is a plain proof from the facts of His nature
and history, that Fatherhood and Sonship remained the
relationship by which the deahngs of God with mankind
were determined.
2. If this be so, the Atonement must be understood as a
personal dealing with the Father by the Son on behalf of
mankind. It is the great act by which the Son at once sets
forth the mind and will of the Father, and offers a perfect
response to that mind and will on behalf of mankind.
Hence care must be taken in treating the Atonement as
though it concerned abstract considerations. Such explana
tions are offered, for example, when it is said that the death
of Christ satisfies the demands of justice, or, as Dr. Dale
expresses it, " the Eternal Law of Eighteousness."
When it is said that God could not forgive sins tiU
justice had been satisfied, the statement contains an essential
and important truth. But it is beset with the danger of
treating Justice as an abstract deity apart ; as something

THE REDEMPTION OF MANKIND 385
outside the nature of God and of man, and independent of
their relations one to the other. Justice is a personification.
It represents a spirit in the universe, which watches over and
exacts payment of what is due. In case of debt, and of
debt incurred by guilty transgression, it exacts payment and
a penalty in addition, by which satisfaction is made to the
majesty which has been outraged, and to the interests which
have suffered.
Let us concede at once that there is such a principle
working in the universe. But it is a principle and not a
person. And principles are realised only in persons, for they
are, after all, only the persistent aims which persons consti
tuted in a certain way set before themselves. The working
of principles must therefore be understood and criticised as
they live in persons, and as they are, or ought to be, shaped
by the nature of those persons and the ends set before them.
The claims of justice among men, for example, are the
claims which can be enforced by the law or the social action
of the community for securing that the relationships which
are vital to the weU-being of society shall be maintained, and
that conduct infringing them shaU be repressed. The content
of what is just — of what, therefore, justice claims — is de
termined by the nature of the persons composing the com
munity, by the relationships in which, as the result of that
nature, they stand to one another, and by the various condi
tions which are necessary in order that the persons possessing
such a nature may live together in harmony and efficiency in
such relationships.
Directly, therefore, we seek to discover what are the
actual claims of justice in human society, whether as to law
'or as to penalty, it becomes necessary to seek the explanation
in the nature, relationships, and ends of the men who may
or may not in their actual character and conduct fulfil its
requirements. It is from the general features thus disclosed
that the conception of abstract social justice is arrived at, and
it is from the organised judicial activity of the community
that the conception of abstract justice as sleeplessly watching
and visiting right and wrong in it is derived. In human
affairs it is the more natural and necessary thus to speak of
25

386 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
justice as an abstraction, because the combination of promise
with imperfect fulfilment in human character and relation
ships is such that a more perfect state, which actual conditions
more or less disappoint, is always in some degree conceived
of. In the case of God, however, there is of course no such
difference between the ideal and the real.
It is obvious that men are not the source either of their
own nature or of the relationships in which they stand.
And therefore it is clear that justice or righteousness is not
an artificial convention made by them. It is constituted by
the nature of the universe, of which men are a part. And
the nature of the universe is constituted by the nature of
God, involved in the eternal relationships between the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit. God, being such a God, — all-
perfect, as existing in these eternal relationships, — must in
creating, by reason of His perfection, bring into existence a
world the nature and relationships of which are determined
by His own perfection. Ultimately, therefore, that which
justice demands is that which maintains the nature and
relationships of things as they are constituted by the perfection
of God. The perfection which justice maintains and vindi
cates does not exist outside the Divine nature. It consists
of the personal qualities of the Godhead, as existing in the
eternal relationships of the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit. That perfection gives the law to creation, which,
while it abides in God, has an existence of its own, and
therefore stands in definite relationships to Him. Thereupon
a law of righteousness is set up, the end of which is to
maintain spiritual existences in true relationships to God.
That law must be upheld for the sake of creation itself, for it
is the law of its life ; but, above aU, for the sake of God, for
otherwise His perfection would be destroyed. It is upheld by
all the spiritual and material forces which go to reinforce its
authority in the case of creatures who are free to depart
from it. It is upheld under the sanction of the death which
visits those who depart from the law of life.
Therefore justice, or righteousness, which is a more com
prehensive term, lives in God and gives law to the universe as
grounded in God. His character is its content ; His will

THE REDEMPTION OF MANKIND 387
vindicates its claims. Upon its maintenance depends the
integrity of the eternal fellowship within the Godhead Him
self. When a world has been created, which, while in a
measure independent, is yet penetrated through and through
with the triune relationships of the Godhead, the maintenance
of righteousness involves a dealing between the Father, who
is the creative source of the world, and the Son, who is its
creative ground and end. Thus the dealing, which sets forth
and vindicates righteousness, which satisfies the claims of
justice, is not in reality a dealing by God with external
abstractions, but is a deahng within His own hfe of the three
Persons, in whose nature righteousness is grounded, and by
whose activity it is made the foundation of created life.
Hence all vindication of righteousness in and on behalf of the
creation must be a vindication by the Son, who constitutes
and controls the world, in personal dealing with the Father,
in whose fellowship He constitutes and controls it. And it
must be a personal dealing which, while it is within the life
of the Godhead, is yet completed in that incarnate state, by
assuming which the Son fulfils His union with mankind, and
therefore His power to represent them.
3. It follows that the end of an Atonement which is
determined by the Fatherly and fihal relationship must itself
be Fatherly. An Atonement demanded and offered within
the limits of the Fatherly and filial relationship must be
determined as to its object, methods, and meaning by the
Fatherly end. And the end of Atonement thus determined is
the restoration to fihal fellowship of those who have fallen
from it.
But in order to such restoration there must be, first of
all and above all, a vindication of the sanctity of the relation
ship which has been infringed. The demands of the law of
that relationship must be brought into full light and enforced,
and it is the office of the Father thus to assert and enforce
them. It is in the necessity of such an assertion and enforce
ment that the necessity of Atonement in order to forgiveness
lies, The way to the restoration of the fellowship of love is
through such a reassertion of the filial law as to bring about a
truly filial reparation from those who have violated it. The

388 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
demand for such a satisfaction must necessarily proceed from
the Father, and must manifest His Fatherhood in the full
depth of its meaning and in the entire range of its functions.
Three features must be clearly visible in the Fatherly
demand for Atonement.
First and foremost, it must be clear that the ultimate
motive of it is the love that seeks the return to itself of those
who have wandered, but seeks their return upon those condi
tions which alone make such a return spiritually real and
effective. The very greatness of the love will be the measure
of the strictness with which that love demands recognition of,
and conformity to, the only conditions which make its satis
faction possible. However love may yearn for its object, it
will abate none of these conditions. Indeed, the more it
yearns, the more it will insist upon them.
Thus, secondly, the Fatherly love which demands satis
faction in order to the restoration of filial relations will
manifest itself as sovereignty, upholding the law, and
demanding the reparation to the law, which is the indispens
able means of honouring it when it has been broken. The
love which seeks wiU show itself as the sovereignty which
demands. Looked at as an abstraction, there may seem to be
something of severity in the sovereignty and of rigidity in the
demand. But such is only a surface appearance, and all that
is necessary in order to counteract it is that men should set
back the sovereignty and the demand into the whole of which
they are part, and should read their meaning in the context
of that whole. The action of the Sovereign in demanding
honour to the law is not for the sake of the sovereignty and
the law in themselves, but for the sake of that of which they
are the eternal safeguard.
This very end, however, necessitates the enforcement of
Fatherly supremacy as such. It was a true insight which led
the Calvinists to assert the priority of the " glory of God "
over aU other ends to be attained through the history of the
universe. And this not merely on account of the priority,
the absoluteness, and the perfection of the Creator, who has
made all things to serve His own ends and to display His
own perfection, but because the more closely the Fatherly

THE REDEMPTION OF MANKIND 389
and filial relationship in itself is examined, the more clearly it
will be seen that there can be no filial well-being which is not
in subordination and self-surrender to the Father in whom
sons have their source. The glory of the Father, made the
end of His sons, is the prior condition of the blessedness of
sons as such. And therefore the Father, in making the
demand which honours His Fatherhood, is demanding that,
without the offering of which the sons themselves cannot be
blessed. Thirdly, a love thus manifesting itself in the sovereignty
which upholds law, must be completed in the judgment which
visits the transgression by which the law is set at naught.
Hence a God without wrath is a God without mercy and
without love. But the love is behind the wrath and within
it, is witnessed to by the wrath, and makes the wrath the
instrument of its purposes, until wrath can be laid aside for
the unrestrained exercise of mercy.
These three features, then, must be displayed in the
perfect Fatherhood which demands the Atonement ; and it is
by these three, taken in this order, that its nature must be
determined. When thus understood, it becomes evident that
the Fatherly end for which the Atonement is demanded
necessitates that the nature of the Atonement should be
such as in itself to be the earnest and the effective means of
restoration. It must involve a spirit which, while suffering
from wrath, submitting to judgment and becoming obedient
to authority, in and through all these responds and returns to
the love which only commands, judges, and smites that it
may restore those who have wandered to itself.
4. Hence an Atonement which rests upon and is offered
within the limits of the Fatherly and filial relationship, and
secures the Fatherly end, can only be offered by the truly
fihal mind and wUl. Begard, therefore, must be had through
out to the presence of these.
It is impossible to make the Fatherhood of God the
relationship which determines the Atonement, without the
spiritual and ethical features of it becoming the elements
which determine its value. Other elements it may and must
have, as we shall see later on, but the efficacy of the Atone-

390 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
ment depends upon the way in which aU these elements are
used to bring about and to express perfect filial correspond
ence with the Fatherhood of God, in all its aspects, functions,
and purposes, as these are affected by the fact of sin.
Submission to the chastisement, which carries out the
Divine judgment, must be there, and obedience to the com
mands of sovereignty, as those commands are issued in the
providential course of life, and, above all, in the general con
ditions under which a completely filial life is placed in this
world. But submission to judgment and obedience to sovereignty
are part of, and are taken up into, that full response to the
manifestation of Fatherhood which consists in the return of
filial trust and self-surrender to the love that seeks, above all,
the restoration of sons to itself.
Thus the obedience is rendered under a perfectly filial
motive ; the offering of self is a complete and loving sur
render, in faith, submission, and reparation, to the authority
which asserts the supremacy and sanctity of the law of
righteousness. This submission places tbe offerer in perfect
unison with the authority which asserts, meets a demand
with an offering, turns a chastisement into a sacrifice. Such
is the spirit which responds to a fatherly demand for atone
ment, and it is by the perfection with which this spirit is
present that the adequacy of the atonement must be judged.
5. Further, the atoning offering thus presented by the
filial mind must be consummated in, under, and through
those penal conditions which are the indispensable means
used by the Father to bring home the meaning alike of
righteousness and sin.
All true fatherhood has, as has been seen, its judicial
side. In carrying out its judicial function, therefore, father
hood imposes penalty upon transgression. The more abso
lutely sovereign the fatherhood, the more it is under the
obligation to impose such penalty. There may be cases of
filial wrong-doing among men where this obligation on the
father does not hold good, because judgment on such wrong
doing wiU be inflicted by other means than those of the
father. But, in proportion as the fatherhood is supreme and

THE REDEMPTION OF MANKIND 391
all-embracing, the principle is essential, and is essential, above
all, to the spiritual ends which fatherhood sets before itself.
Departure from the law of the father, which secures the well-
being of his sons, must call forth the father's wrath, which is
the guardian of righteousness and life, and must issue in a
condition of punishment. This condition of punishment
must set forth the sanctity of the law which has been broken,
and the iniquity of the conduct that has broken it. And it
is only in and under these penal conditions that the expiation
of the offence can be made.
Such expiation involves submission to the penalty and
suffering from it. But it involves further, that in the sub
mission to the suffering there should be a recognition of the
righteousness of the law that has been broken, of the hein-
ousness of the conduct which has broken it, and of the
rightfulness of the authority which vindicates it. Only
through such a spiritual attitude can the return be made
and the reparation perfected, and only under these penal
conditions can this attitude be reahsed and expressed. The
inflicting of penalty is the only way to mark sin, and the
endurance of penalty is the only way to express the spirit
which confesses and puts away sin and returns to righteous
ness. All this, whUe generaUy true, holds good in regard to
God, and to God not merely conceived of as sovereign but as
Father. His Fatherhood does not set aside the necessity that
penal conditions should enter into His deahngs with a sinful
world, or even into His dealings with His Son acting on its
behalf. The Fatherhood of God strengthens rather than
weakens this necessity, for of aU relations the fatherly can
least throw off its jurisdiction. The difference, which is
brought about when Fatherhood is seen to be behind and
within sovereignty, is simply to give a larger meaning, more
salutary and necessary ends, to the infliction of penalty, than
would otherwise be the case.
The penal conditions imposed by the Father upon man
kind on account of sin have their relations to the individual ;
but, stiU more, they represent the general experience under
which the sinful race is brought, of which therefore every

392 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
individual member of that race has his own share. It follows
that for the Son Himself to enter into our nature and to take
His place in the world as the Head of mankind, meant inevi
tably that He must enter into our nature under the penal
conditions pertaining to it ; and that in His life and death
He must voluntarUy submit to and feel the whole weight of
those conditions, and in an infinitely greater degree because
of the perfection of His nature. And this is, above aU, true
of the experience of death, in which the penal conditions
under which mankind are brought culminate, and in which is
especiaUy brought home the reality of sin.
6. In Atonement, conditioned by Fatherhood, there must
be the co-operation of the Father in love and grace.
The bearing of penalty on account of wrong-doing, and
the offering of filial submission in so bearing it, is never, even
among good men, a condition imposed upon the son to which
the father is himself indifferent. While the wrath of the
father finds expression in the penalties which he imposes,
yet his love is within both the wrath and the penalties, while
his heart is engaged in securing the response from his son,
by which normal relations can be restored. In the fatherly
infliction of penalty, in the demand for confession and peni
tence, it is still true that, while the son " was yet afar off,
his father saw him, and was moved with compassion "
(Luke xv. 20).
Despite the wrath and the penalty, it is most true that
the father suffers with the son, and that he prepares and,
indeed, is the main cause of the son's return in penitence and
submission. This compassion and grace in human fatherhood
is the faint shadow of what we may expect to find in an
atoning deahng of God with mankind. We should expect to
find that the very dealing intended to set forth and bring
home the heinousness of sin should also be a deahng of such
grace and mercy as to show that the weight of our sin hes
upon the Father's heart, and that He Himself, by the full use
of all His spiritual resources, prepares and brings about our
restoration. 7. Lastly, the Atonement is offered on behalf of a race
which, while it is a community in such spiritual solidarity

THE REDEMPTION OF MANKIND 393
that the Son of God is its representative Head for ever, is also
composed of individuals. Therefore, in the light of the prin
ciples which fatherhood lays down, we should expect that the
offering which is made on account of sin should be so essentially
representative, not only in the Person of Him who makes it,
but also in its spiritual qualities, that it can be brought into
direct spiritual relationship to each one of us, so as to appeal
to our heart and to order our consciousness of God, of right
eousness, and of sin. It must be something which can be
appropriated by us, the spirit of which can be reproduced in
us, so that, while it is a great representative act on our behalf
and in our stead, it may be so made our own as permanently
to embody in ideal perfection the spirit in which we as
penitents seek to approach God. Although beyond our reach
to offer, it must be something with which we can identify
ourselves, something the spiritual meaning of which is in
such wise the expression of the truth within us, that the
atoning act offered on our behalf may become in very deed the
perfect spiritual act of the race, and may be, as it were,
repeated by the faith which appropriates it. It must be so
reproduced by the faith which appropriates it, although it
is appropriated as the offer of God's free grace to us in
Christ. Such would seem to be the general conditions as to the
nature, ends, and principles of tbe Atonement laid down by
the Fatherhood of God. We may now pass on to see how
entirely this general account is verified in the New Testament
as being a description of what was realised in the Passion of
our Lord. If we take them in order, we shall find confirma
tion of each of them in the narratives of the Gospels and in
the doctrine of the Epistles. Indeed there seems to be no
teaching of the New Testament which does not fall under one
or another of them.
Nothing more need be said as to the fact that our Lord's
life and death were determined by His filial relationship to
God, for this subject has been exhaustively dealt with
already. But let us take the remainder of the conditions which
have been laid down.

394 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
Throughout the Gospels, and especially in the Gospel of
St. John, we find disclosures of our Lord's inner spirit, and
from first to last it is filled by the content of His personal
relationships to the Father. There is not the slightest trace
anywhere that our Lord's mind was ever influenced in the
least, whether in life or in death, by abstract considerations.
To such there is no answer whatever in our Lord's conscious
ness as it is revealed to us. Whatever claims are made
upon Him are made by the Father Himself, and spring out
of His Fatherly relationship. The study of the Gospel
according to St. John shows clearly how our Lord's mind was
occupied throughout by the personal dealings between Him
self and the Father. Especially is this brought out by the
great discourse at the Last Supper, culminating in the high-
priestly prayer recorded in John xvii. Our Lord is entirely
concerned in entering upon His Passion with the maintenance,
in life and death, of perfect fellowship between Himself and
the Father. Throughout He has apprehended and fulfilled,
and He confidently claims that the Father will fulfil, the ideal
attitude which should pervade the Fatherly and filial relation
ship between them. " I glorified Thee on the earth, having
accomplished the work which Thou hast given Me to do.
And now, 0 Father, glorify Thou Me " (John xvii. 4), is the
burden of His consciousness. " Therefore doth the Father
love Me because I lay down My life, that I may take it
again" (John x. 17), is the expression of the inner motive
which constrained Him to die. " Nevertheless not My will,
but Thine, be done " (Luke xxii. 42), is the spirit which con
summates His life and governs His Passion. Whatever else
we may find present in His death, we must make this purpose
of perfect correspondence with the Father's will supreme, if
we are to give any effect in our theology to the unchanging
consciousness of our Lord. And, after all, the record of His
consciousness of the Passion is our highest, indeed our only,
means of finding out what it was in itself.
When we pass from our Lord's consciousness, as revealed
to us in the Gospels, to the Epistles, the same note is present.
The greatest stress throughout is laid upon the spiritual and
ethical qualities which enter into our Lord's sacrifice. St.

THE REDEMPTION OF MANKIND 395
Paul declares in the Epistle to the Eomans, that " as through
the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even
so through the obedience of the one shall the many be made
righteousness" (Eom. v. 19). To the Philippians he says of
our Lord, that " being found in fashion as a man, He humbled
Himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death
of the cross " (Phil. ii. 8). In the Epistle to the Hebrews,
whenever the writer passes from the ceremonial associations
of our Lord's death, he lays the greatest stress upon its
spiritual qualities. We are told, for example, " Though He
was a Son, yet learned He obedience by the things which He
suffered" (Heb. v. 8). Again, when the vital difference
between our Lord's sacrifice and the Levitical sacrifices is
pointed out, it is by the quotation and adaptation of tbe
great passage from the 40 th Psalm : " Sacrifice and offering
Thou wouldst not, but a body didst thou prepare for Me ; in
whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin Thou hadst no
pleasure : then said I, Lo, I come (in the roU of the book it
is written of Me) to do Thy wiU, 0 God" (Ps. xl. 6-8).
St. Peter, in his First Epistle, gives a prominence to our
Lord's sufferings, as such, which is not found elsewhere in the
New Testament. Writing to a suffering Church, the apostle
lays great stress upon our Lord's kinship in suffering. In so
doing he glorifies the Cros3, which had once been an offence
to him. Yet St. Peter dwells upon the spirit which was
manifest in Christ's sufferings. He says : " Christ also
suffered for you, leaving you an example, that ye should
follow His steps : who did no sin, neither was guile found in
His mouth ; who, when He was reviled, reviled not again ;
when He suffered, threatened not ; but committed Himself to
Him that judgeth righteously" (1 Pet. ii. 21-23). While
concerned to set forth Christ as the atoning Bearer of suffer
ings, he emphaticaUy insists on the temper in which those
sufferings were endured, as giving to them their spiritual
worth. So, in the Apocalypse, the vision of the Lamb upon Mount
Zion, surrounded by the first-fruits of the Bedeemed, repre
sents the triumph in heaven and on earth of what may be
termed the lamblike spirit. This is clearly shown by the

396 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
description which is given of the spiritual and ethical qualities
of the glorified company (Eev. xiv. 4, 5).
Yet, on the other hand, throughout the New Testament
the greatest emphasis is laid upon our Lord's endurance of
death, and of death in itself. " He died for us " is the
simplest and most inclusive statement which can be made as
to our Lord's atoning work. That He should die was indeed
the goal of our Lord's life, in His own view of it. At the
Transfiguration we are told that Moses and Elijah " spake of
His decease which He was about to accomplish at Jerusalem "
(Luke ix. 31). All the New Testament writers concur in
insisting upon the necessity that our Lord should " taste
death." And, when we come to our Lord's apprehension of death,
we find abundant evidence of how terrible an experience it
was. The question whether our Lord came under penal
conditions in His death cannot be decided merely by dis
cussions of what is involved in the dogmatic statements of
Scripture, still less by scientific evidence as to the nature of
death and its place in the economy of the world. Such a
discussion generally takes the following course. It is urged
on the authority of Scripture, that death, at least so far as
the human race is concerned, was not part of the original
order of nature, but was introduced as a consequence and
punishment of sin. To this it is replied that death has been
present from the beginning ; that the economy of the world
would be quite impossible without it, and that man is
necessarily subject to it on account of his animal nature.
When the force of this objection is felt, it is met either by
treating the presence of death from the beginning as being
due to an anticipation of sin, so that, sin being foreseen, the
arrangements of the world were made accordingly ; or by the
view that death took on new aspects on account of sin.
There is value in all such discussions, but they are hardly
decisive. The determining consideration is, after all, the
way in which death as a visitation was apprehended by our
Lord Himself, and the correspondence of His apprehension of
it with a very deep and real spiritual experience of mankind.
The optimist way of speaking of death, now current in

THE REDEMPTION OF MANKIND 397
certain quarters, does not accord with the revealed experience
of our Lord upon the cross. The darkness of death, in its
fullest meaning, feU upon the very heart of Christ and called
forth the cry, " My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken
Me ? " If it be suggested that this cry was due to a momentary
weakness, the answer is that, even if this were the case, it was
the experience of death that produced it, and was designed to
produce it. It was through the weakness produced by death
that the intrinsic meaning of the death He died was brought
home to the heart of Christ. Therefore we have in the
consciousness of our Lord abundant evidence that if the
fulfilment of spiritual obedience is important in respect of an
Atonement offered to the Father, so also it is important that
that Atonement should be offered in and through the experience
of a visitation which can only be called penal. And thus
only can the insistence throughout the New Testament upon
death and suffering as the experience through which Christ
made Atonement be understood.
The New Testament everywhere asserts that the endur
ance of this death of unspeakable suffering by our Lord
was the offering of a sacrifice — the sacrifice of Himself.
He " through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot
to God " is the statement of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb.
ix. 14). We are also told that by our Lord's will of obedi
ence " we have been sanctified through the offering of the
body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb. x. 10). Hence the
penal conditions were the passive element of what was
yet an active obedience. It was because the sufferings
were accepted in the spirit of sonship, in order that that
spirit might be maintained, and were then turned to serve
the ends of Fatherhood for the salvation of the world, that
they were acceptable to God. The active and passive
obedience of perfect Sonship were conjoined throughout our
Lord's life and death. And thus death was made the means
of His complete and final self - surrender to the Father,
standing in place of mankind and offering Himself up on our
behalf. Again, we have seen that the co-operation of the Father
in love is a mark of fatherly atonement, and that co-operation

398 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
is manifest throughout the Atonement of our Lord. Our
Lord's offering of it makes Him well-pleasing to the Father.
His sacrifice is not apart from the Father ; He is the gift of
the Father. " God so loved the world, that He gave His only-
begotten Son, that whosoever beheveth in Him should not
perish, but have eternal life " (John iii. 16). The Son is con
joined with the Father in the demand, the Father is conjomed
with the Son in fulfilling it. All that our Lord does and
suffers is in the unity of the holy Trinity. Human thought
struggles to reach a complete statement of this, but must needs
fall short, because it can never be adequate to the life and works
of God. But it must reach out after all these elements of the
complete truth, and endeavour to combine them. To suppress
any one of them, is to make our account of the Atonement
unnatural and false. The Atonement, as has already been
said, is sui generis, and surpasses the highest earthly fore-
shadowings of it. But there is a foreshadowing of it in the
dealings of earthly fathers with their children. And it is
safe to say that whatever in spirit or method is vital to the
latter, must in some way reflect the dealings of our Father in
heaven. And thus the co-operation of the father in bringing
about the atonement which yet he demands, is an earthly
analogy, which suggests, but is infinitely surpassed by, the
truth that " the Father hath sent the Son to be the Saviour of
the world" (1 John iv. 14).
Finally, it is the characteristic view of St. Paul's theology,
that our Lord's sacrifice is appropriated and reproduced by
faith in those who are saved by it. The apostle's conception
of our Lord's ministry of reconcihation cannot be appreciated
as a whole, without justice being done to his experience of
being " crucified with Christ." The atoning act of Christ,
while complete in itseff, is a universal act, performed on
behalf of mankind, and therefore it stands in a permanent
and typical relationship to the experience of all behevers.
They cannot beheve, as St. Paul understands it, without being
brought into such a spiritual relationship to Christ's death as
that its essential spiritual quahties are reproduced in them.
Its spiritual principle, is so transferred by the Spirit of Christ
to their hearts and made theirs by faith, that it becomes the

THE REDEMPTION OF MANKIND 399
sign and power of their own death to sin and hfe to righteous
ness in penitent self-surrender to God. From all this we
may conclude that the New Testament doctrine of the
Atonement is determined by the Fatherhood of God, and
represents the complete response to the Father by the
sinless Son on behalf and under the conditions of a sinful
world. Two other points remain to be brought out.
1. In the first place, the general doctrine just outlined is
in harmony with all the figures under which the Atonement
is represented in the New Testament. Special mention may
be made of the figure of Bansom, and also of those sacrificial
figures which are contained particularly in the Epistle to the
Hebrews. These figures have to do with analogies, which are
not in themselves subject to the Fatherly and filial relationship
which we have seen to underlie the Atonement ; but they are
not incompatible with it, and can easily be brought under it.
The first conceives salvation as redemption from the power
of evil. Christ's death provides the ransom-price. We shall
consider shortly the subjective side of redemption as the
reconciliation and restoration of ahenated men to God. The
essential meaning, however, of the figure before us is that
man is given over, in consequence of his sin, to come under
the dominion of powers of evil, which, while they represent a
spiritual thraldom, are also a judgment of God upon sin.
That man should pass under the dominion of sin and the
curse, is a penal consequence of his rebellion against God.
Our Lord's death is a ransom, inasmuch as it frees men from
this subjection to evil. But this is effected by removing
the judgment upon them as sinners. That they should be
ransomed from evil, is the natural consequence of their being
made once more at one with God. It cannot, therefore, be
understood except as the consequence of that setting right of
the relations between God and man which we have considered,
and it issues from the forgiveness of sins. Hence the effect
of Christ's death as a ransom comes second in order, being
dependent upon the dealing with God by the Son on behalf
of mankind, which restores the spiritual. relations that sin has
broken, and sets men free from a slavery that exists because,

400 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
and so long as, the true relations in which men should stand
to God are impaired.
Similarly, the sacrificial figures of the New Testament
may easily be brought into harmony with the doctrine
founded on the spiritual relations actually subsisting between
God and mankind in the Son.
The ritual of the temple, with its sacrifices and sprinkling,
sets forth in outward show the means by which spiritual
relationships, impaired by sin, are restored. The entrance of
men, as purified members of the congregation, into the out
ward temple, and the purification of the holy place itself by
the blood of atonement, sets forth, in pictures, restored fellow
ship with God, the means by which it is brought about, and
the social consequences which follow. The external is but
the shadow of the spiritual, and the final explanation of the
spiritual can be found only indirectly and imperfectly in tbe
shadow. It must be sought in the positive revelation in
Christ of what the true spiritual relationship between God
and man really is. The nature of the means taken for its
restoration must depend upon its essential nature.
It is therefore a mistake to seek the final explanation
of the Atonement in the analogies of the Old Testament
ceremonial. They are imperfect pictures of it, but the great
reality explains the picture far more truly than the picture
the reality. Furthermore, it is necessary once more to remember that
the Atonement is sui generis, that God's Fatherhood embraces
all the relationships subsisting between Him and us, and that
His dealing with mankind involves such vast concerns, that
whUe in principle it may be brought to the utmost simplicity
and even homeliness under the associations of fatherhood, yet
that His Fatherhood is so august and all-comprehending as to
need many-sided analogies to set its dealings forth.
2. The second point to be noted is, that the main lines
of our explanation include the substance of all the leading
explanations of the Atonement which have been given in the
Christian Church. First in order of importance stands the
doctrine of satisfaction. That doctrine has been presented
in many forms. There is its original form as shaped by

THE REDEMPTION OF MANKIND 401
Anselm, which treats the Atonement as a reparation made to
the outraged majesty of God ; as a repayment to God of that
which sin has robbed Him of, with the addition of a com
pensation to His majesty for the affront which has been put
upon it. There is the Calvinist view, according to which
the exact payment of the debt of penalty remitted to the
elect takes the place of honour done to the majesty of God.
There is the governmental doctrine of Grotius and of the
Arminians, which sets both the foregoing analogies aside,
and regards the Atonement as intended to bring home the
enormity of sin in the interests of spiritual order, by marking
God's sense of it and affording a recognition of it on behalf
of man. And, lastly, there is the account of Dr. Dale, which
treats the satisfaction rather as offered than as demanded by
God Himself, and as offered by Him to the eternal law of
righteousness, the claims of which are independent of the will
of God and are recognised by God Himself.
All these accounts have a measure of truth, but the truth
in them is conserved and placed on its true foundation when
the essentiaUy Fatherly and fihal nature of the Atonement is
borne in mind. The satisfaction is then seen to be made not
to regal majesty, but to that primacy and authority of the
Father upon the integrity of which the whole well-being of
the universe depends. The discharge of the debt owing to
God is not the payment, whether in pure suffering, or in
suffering the value of which is enhanced by the dignity of the
Sufferer, of an equivalent for penalties remitted, but is the
restoration to God, under the penal conditions brought about
by sin, of the spiritual life which sin has withdrawn from
Him. By that restoration all governmental interests are
secured, and without it no respect for such external con
siderations, even if possible, could be effective. And, finaUy,
the law of righteousness to which satisfaction is offered is not
an abstraction, but stands for the nature of that perfect
relationship between the Father and the Son into which
mankind enters on the ground of their creation and constitu
tion in and for the Son ; so that the Atonement is a reparation
for the sake of the great spiritual bond which explains and
upholds the spiritual constitution of the universe. The
26

402 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
essential meaning of all these explanations is therefore pre
served, but in a more lifelike whole, when that which lies
deeper than them all is taken into account.
As to the offering itself, there have been elaborate
doctrines of our Lord's active and passive obedience, and of
the bearing of each of these, taken separately, upon atonement
and justification. In later times the distinction has been
seen to be unnatural, and increased stress has been laid upon
obedience as, in itself, the vital element in the Atonement.
In some accounts — notably in that of the late Dr. Westcott —
emphasis has been laid upon the fellowship of Christ with the
race in His sufferings, and upon His death as the culmination
of a discipline to which He was exposed both for His own
sake and for ours. And this is involved in the whole con
ception of our Lord's obedience as rendered in a normally
constituted human nature. The only qualification that need
be made is, that the discipline is in order to the obedience,
and that the end of the obedience is the presentation of the
perfect sacrifice to the Father.
In the same way, an element of truth is present in those
accounts of the Atonement which dwell chiefly upon the
vicarious suffering manifested in it, and treat it as the
supreme proof and appeal of love, which can only be perfected
in sacrifice. The truth, in this view, must needs be recognised
when we bear in mind our Lord's original relationship to our
race, and the consummation of that relationship in the In
carnation. The Son of God bears mankind for ever in His
heart, upholds men by His life, and restores them by entering
into their lot and enduring its evil out of the fulness of His
Divine-human sympathy.
Once more, there is the explanation of the Atonement
which regards it as the great spiritual means by which the
self-realisation of man is brought about. It is the ideal
expression of the true attitude of man towards God and the
world ; the means also by which that attitude is reproduced
in believers. This element of the truth is recognised when
justice is done to St. Paul's doctrine of the spiritual union of
believers with Christ in His death and resurrection.
We may therefore conclude that the explanation of tbe

THE REDEMPTION OF MANKIND 403
Atonement which is to be found in the Fatherhood of God
and the Sonship of Christ, while the simplest and most
natural, is the most comprehensive, demands for its full
setting forth the essential principles of previous accounts,
and harmonises them. At the same time, it strips them of
those exaggerations and imperfections which have disfigured
them, because they have taken a part for the whole, and
have treated that which is subordinate as though it were
supreme. A glance must be taken at the work of redemption as it
brings about the reconciliation of men to God — that subjective
change in their attitude to God which is wrought by the work
of Christ and by the ministry of the gospel made effectual by
the Holy Spirit. To this subject St. Paul refers when he
says to the Corinthians, " We are ambassadors therefore on
behalf of Christ, as though God were entreating by us : we
beseech you on behalf of Christ, be ye reconciled to God "
(2 Cor. v. 20).
Such a subjective effect is wrought by our Lord's life and
death and resurrection as an indissoluble whole, the meaning
of which is brought home to men in the dispensation of the
Holy Spirit.
In the first place, there is a redemptive significance in
this whole of our Lord's hfe and death and resurrection
considered as revelation. In regard to this the words of Dr.
Hort may be quoted : " ' Working out ' the righteousness and
forgiveness of God, and ' revealing,' are the same. Eevelation
and Eedemption are always hand in hand ; the Eevelation
is the means by which the Eedemption accomplished once for
all is made effectual through knowledge." x Christ's life and
death, in the first place, make known the secrets of God, the
purposes and promises of God to men, as they are conveyed
in and through the relationship of the Son to the Father
and to mankind. They are revealed in the process of their
accomplishment ; for revelation and fulfilment are in the
Divine method inseparable, being joined together as two
aspects of the same reality. That which is revealed is
revealed by being fulfilled; that which is fulfilled is so by
1 Hort, The Way, the Truth, the Life, p. 212.

404 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
being made manifest to and in men. Thus, throughout, our
Lord's work is at once the accomphshment and revelation
of Eedemption. In its subjective effect upon us, the work of Christ
accomplishes our redemption by reveahng God, and by the
manifold spiritual influences which the revelation of God
exerts upon us in and through His Spirit.
The beginning of the redemption of sinful men, and
therefore of our Lord's work, as the source and embodiment
of a divinely redemptive activity, is the reinforcement of the
authority of God. It is of the highest significance that our
Lord's first preaching was the message, " Eepent ye ; for the
kingdom of heaven is at hand " (Matt. iv. 1 7). This
call connected His teaching and influence with John the
Baptist. But it brought home the claims of God, and
summoned men to recognise and to adjust themselves, above
all in character, to those claims. This is the meaning of
repentance. And the recognition of the authority of God is
the first requisite of the filial mind. Especially is this the
case where the return to the fihal mind from the self-will of
sin is concerned. The spirit of penitent self-surrender,
although it may be brought about by the awakening of
spiritual desires seeking satisfaction, comes foremost, and is
uttered in the confession, " Father, I have sinned."
But the authority asserted so as to overcome the self-will
of man is the authority of the Father, whose love is manifest
in the promise upon which the call to repentance is based :
" The kingdom of heaven is at hand." As the description of
that kingdom is completed in our Lord's teaching, it is set
forth as the kingdom of blessedness, in which the Father
is manifested to the heart of His children in the grace of
forgiveness and in the fellowship of love. For this is the
essential meaning of the kingdom as revealed by our Lord.
It is the revelation of the Father in all the fulness of His
Fatherhood, in and through the Son. The blessedness of
salvation understood in the light of the Fatherhood is not
found in any self-contained well-being, even if prolonged for
ever, but in the restoration of that feUowship of love which
makes all the blessings that grow out of it and are secured

THE REDEMPTION OF MANKIND 405
by it a thousandfold precious, as being its outward signs and
seals. Such a call to repentance, growing to such a revelation
of the Father and of the blessedness He offers, at once rouses
the conscience, awakens the desire of the heart, and changes
the perverse judgment which has misconceived God under
the influence of that " mind of the flesh " which " is enmity
against God" (Eom. viii. 7).
Such was the effect originally wrought, such is the effect
continuaUy wrought, by the preaching of our Lord. But not
by His preaching in word only, but by His preaching
illustrated and set forth by the ministry of love, in which He
showed forth the love which His words described. This
ministry of His works was completed in the words by which
He revealed the Father, and both in their inseparable union
are the material which to the end is used by the ministry of
the Spirit in bringing men to acknowledge, to desire, and to
know the Father.
And the foundation which is laid in the hfe and ministry
of our Lord, as the revelation of the Father to the spirit of
man, in its unity of conscience, heart, and mind, is completed
in the Divine appeal of the Cross — the supreme appeal ahke
to conscience, heart, and mind. Without the foundation laid
in the ministry of revelation, the appeal of the Cross could
not be understood ; without the breaking of the precious vessel
of love upon the Cross, the ministry, as an appeal to the
human spirit, would have been ineffective. But together the
ministry and its completion in the Cross make an unchanging
and irresistible appeal to men to return in repentance and
faith, in desire and self-surrender, to the Father, whose love
is thus displayed in and by the Son.
The ground of that appeal, moreover, is not limited by
the Cross of Christ. The Cross is the inauguration of that
dispensation of the resurrection and of the Spirit in which
all the truths of Christ's hfe and death are confirmed, glorified,
and made spiritually effective in that ampler world revealed
to faith as the eternal reality and earnest of the kingdom of
the Father. The agents of that eternal and invisible kingdom
are the apostolic ambassadors who proclaim forgiveness of
sins in Christ, and whose proclamation is made good by the

406 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
revelation of the Father, in the life, death, resurrection, and
exaltation of the Son, and by the gift of the Holy Spirit in
the Son. There is thus revealed to sinful men a home of
love, opened to them through the infinite grace and com
passion of the Father. The entrance to that home is through
the forgiveness of sins offered to and accepted by penitent
faith. Thus a message is brought by the Spirit to the heart
of man, which, while it is so august in its source, its nature,
and its issues that it may fitly be called an embassy, yet
owes its constraining and attractive power to the wealth of
Fatherly love which it makes known.

CHAPTER IX
THE CONSUMMATION OF ALL THINGS
In this chapter the last stage of our inquiry is reached.
Most of the subjects which have to be dealt with as con
ditioning, or bound up with, the consummation of all things,
might with equal propriety be regarded as the completion of
Eedemption. But they have to do with redemption as both
brought about by and resulting in the positive fulfilment of
the possibilities of spiritual life. On this ground alone,
therefore, we are justified in treating of them here.
But, further, such spiritual fulfilment is the condition and
earnest of the " restitution of all things." An examination
of all the apocalyptic predictions, both of the Old and of
the New Testament, will clearly show how entirely the final
transformation of the universe is made to depend upon the
complete realisation of spiritual conditions. It is impossible,
therefore, to separate the consideration of the ultimate result
from that of the causes upon which it depends.
Hence the consummation of all things may be held to be
inaugurated by the Eesurrection of our Lord, and to be pre
pared for by the dispensation of the Holy Spirit, though it
will only be completed by the appearance of " new heavens and
a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness" (2 Pet. iii. 13).
We have to inquire in what relationship the whole of
this work of consummation stands to the Fatherhood of God.
It is impossible to take more than a brief survey of the
general view of the New Testament, showing its relation to
spiritual experience, and the place in that experience of the
Fatherhood of God.
1. In the first place, we must consider the Eesurrection
of our Lord. •107

408 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
The Eesurrection was the reward of our Lord's atoning
obedience, and the inauguration of His redemptive kingdom.
It was the first-fruits of the renewal of all things, and the
evidence that that renewal will be brought to pass. The
Eesurrection was therefore the Divine vindication of our
Lord, looked at in its personal aspects. It was the answer to
that spirit of obedience which said, " Not My will, but Thine,
be done " ; to the trust which, notwithstanding the darkness of
the Passion, cried, " Father, into Thy hands I commend My
spirit." So far as our Lord's work was concerned, the Eesur
rection proclaimed its acceptance by the Father. To mankind
it was the assurance of justification, and the guarantee that
all good men and all good things are safe in the care of God.
The more closely it is examined in all these aspects, the
more clearly it will be seen that the testimony of the Eesur
rection is, above all, to the Fatherhood of God. St. Paul's
statement in the Epistle to the Eomans is that Christ was
" declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the
Spirit of holiness by the resurrection of the dead " (Eom. i. 4).
And in his sermon at Antioch in Pisidia the apostle treated
the declaration of the 2nd Psalm, " Thou art My Son, this
day have I begotten Thee" (Acts xiii. 33), as fulfilled by the
Eesurrection. It was as the Father that God vindicated the Son, ac
cepted His filial obedience, and set the seal of Fatherly
approval upon His work. And it was as the Father that
God gave, through His dealings with the Son, an assurance as
to the future to the hearts of all men. While, therefore,
the Eesurrection has the greatest personal significance as
towards our Lord Himself, there is contained in it a revela
tion of the Fatherly heart of God which is of universal
application. The Bassion of our Lord, while it stands alone and sounds
depths of suffering into which no other can enter, is yet
representative in the sense that in it were present, in utmost
intensity, all those elements of spiritual and moral, as well
as physical, suffering, which seem to unbelieving men to be
the negation of God. In the case of our Lord not only did
these not shake His faith, but they were the occasion of its

THE CONSUMMATION OF ALL THINGS 409
most perfect manifestation in His dying words, " Father, into
Thy hands I commend My spirit." That last utterance is
the more remarkable as showing the triumph of unwavering
trust over the agony of unspeakable horror which wrung
from Him the cry, " My God, My God, why hast Thou for
saken Me ? " In this confident surrender of Himself to the
care of the Father, our Lord gave representative expression
to that spirit of faith in mankind which rises above the
superficial appearances and the momentary happenings of the
world to lay hold confidently, in spite of them all, on the
love, the righteousness, and the power of God.
This final and perfect expression of trust was therefore
a chaUenge to the Father, on behalf of mankind, to make
full revelation of His Fatherhood. That challenge is seen to
be all the more irresistible when we reflect on the personal
consciousness, the character, the revelation, and the circum
stances of Christ as constituting an indivisible unity. Our
Lord's consciousness was, from first to last, that of Sonship,
and His character was determined by His absolutely filial
wiU. Out of the depths of His own unique consciousness
He, for the first time, revealed to mankind the Fatherhood of
God as the interpretation of all life. The apparent contra
diction offered by His experience to His consciousness and His
message becomes all the more startlingly dramatic. And yet
throughout the contradiction His consciousness and His testi
mony persist. This unique combination, it may reverently be
said, created a supreme opportunity for God. This supreme
perfection of the fihal spirit, made the basis of a final revela
tion, and yet so tragically contradicted from the first, called
for a correspondingly supreme manifestation of the Father
hood in which Christ trusted. This urgent call, on behalf not
only of our Lord, but of all men in so far as they strive to
believe, supplies the divinely convincing reason of the Eesur
rection. Without it, such faith as has been described may
well seem to be a sublime and beautiful, but yet an unverified
and even discredited, imagination. When we take full account
of our Lord's conscious relationship to God, of His relation
ship to mankind, and to the typical experiences of human
life, the Eesurrection is seen to be not only in place, but even

410 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
necessary to any full confirmation and perfect development of
faith in the Fatherhood of God.
The unique importance of the Eesurrection in the world
of spiritual life is therefore the measure of its probability
for those who believe that the perfecting of the spiritual life
is the highest end for which the universe exists, and who
believe, further, that for such perfecting the unveiling of the
heart of God, as the only ground of confidence for mankind,
is indispensable. This unveiling is brought about by the
Eesurrection. By the dealings of the Father with the per
fect representative of mankind, an assurance is given to all
men of the individual and aU-sufficient Providence of God,
of His determination to secure the permanence and the
prevalence of His kingdom in the permanence and perfecting
of its subjects, and of His purpose to make the history of the
universe, not that of a transitory phase, but of a growing and,
in the end, eternal fulness of life. " Because I live, ye shall
live also," is the Divine logic of the Eesurrection. The
manifestation contained therein of what God is to Christ,
contains implicitly the manifestation of what He is to all
men in the Son. It is proclaimed that He is perfectly Father
to His Son, that He watches over His life, receives and
answers in love to His trust and obedience, treasures the
preciousness of His devotion, and so orders the universe as to
make it the home in which perfect spiritual life is permanently
secured, and is advanced, even through death, to the full
measure of its eternal influence.
Thus the Eesurrection extended to the vision of man the
range of hfe, and changed its centre to the unseen and
eternal. It altered men's attitude to the darker experiences
of existence, and enabled them clearly to perceive that all
these may serve as a discipline in order to the permanent
ends of perfected spiritual life. Thus in the light of the Ee
surrection men stepped into a new spiritual certainty, a new
sense of eternity, and a new power of trust in and, therefore,
of surrender to God. And the whole of this change, which
is unspeakably important for the development of all the
highest and holiest ideals of life, was due to the assurance
given in the Eesurrection that God is " the Father of spirits,"

THE CONSUMMATION OF ALL THINGS 411
watching over them in love, seeking to bring them to the
fulness of spiritual life, and to maintain them in it for
ever. It was necessary that that assurance should be given,
not merely to the spiritual consciousness, but in the realm of
the physical world, for it is the pressure of the physical
world upon the spirit which is the most powerful cause of
perplexity and doubt. The faith of the Eesurrection was, as
is universally admitted, necessary to the very existence of
Christianity, and of all those spiritual influences which Chris
tianity embodies. The fact of the Eesurrection is necessary
to justify the extension of Christian faith to embrace the
final reconstitution of the universe, so that it may become the
adequate instrument and environment of perfect spiritual life.
But, in addition, the fact of the Eesurrection is necessary to
give the full revelation, once for all, of the supremacy of
spirit over the material, and of the instant presence and
power of the Father throughout every province of existence.
Paradoxical as it may at first sight appear, it is yet true that
through, and only through, the extraordinary event of the
Eesurrection can mankind be fuUy assured of the presence of
the Father in the ordinary course of events, in which no such
occurrence takes place. Thus the opportunity was taken,
once for all, of giving an ample assurance in the great crisis
of spiritual history of the Fatherhood of God.
2. The Eesurrection of our Lord is followed by His
exaltation, and by the Dispensation of the Holy Spirit as the
counterpart of that exaltation. It is most important to bear
in mind the close connexion between these two. The rela
tivity of the Holy Spirit and of His work is everywhere made
manifest throughout the New Testament. His nature and
activity are revealed in relation to the Divine activity of the
Father and the Son, and to the spiritual effects which He pro
duces on believers. He is "the promise of the Father"
(Acts i. 4), " the Spirit of Christ " (see, e.g., Eom. viii. 9 ;
1 Pet. i. 11). He is "the Spirit of the truth," bestowed in
order that He may guide us "into all the truth" (John
xvi. 13), the truth being looked upon as "the way" of our
spirits, and therefore not as abstract, but as the truth for us,

412 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
to which our spiritual apprehension, insight, and character
are to become conformed. He may be termed the Spirit of
the kingdom ; " for the kingdom of God is not eating and
drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy
Ghost" (Eom. xiv. 17). Other examples of His relativity
might be given. Thus the Holy Spirit is so one with Christ
in His exaltation that He manifests and verifies the heavenly
life of Christ, both in its life-giving and in its illuminating
power ; iUuminating because life-giving, life-giving because
illuminating. Through Him "grace from God our Father
and the Lord Jesus Christ " is bestowed, men are enabled to
enter into hfe " in Christ," and are thereby brought into
fellowship with the kingdom of God.
Thus, as St. Paul tells the Ephesians, " He that descended
is the same also that ascended far above all the heavens, that
He might fill all things" (Eph. iv. 10).
Ascension above all the heavens is the condition of the
spiritual filling of aU things. Apart from the exaltation of
Christ and the spiritual vision of it, with all that is involved,
the work of the Holy Spirit cannot be carried on. On the
other hand, without the work of the Holy Spirit, if that can
be conceived, the exaltation of Christ — however objectively
real — would fade away from the hearts of men as a beautiful
but baseless dream. The union between the two is not, how
ever, that between a merely external fact and a merely
internal dynamic, if there are such things. Both the fact of
the exalted Christ and the power of His Spirit work through,
and are brought together by, the great spiritual ideas and
ideals which are revealed in the fact and are inspired by the
Spirit. It may be said that the exaltation of Christ is
followed by the corresponding exaltation of the spiritual in
man, and is so because the content of the exaltation of Christ
awakens and satisfies, by the Holy Spirit, the great permanent
spiritual needs of men.
It is obvious that among these needs are the assurance
of immortality, and therein of the permanence and advance
towards eternal fruition of the spiritual interests embodied in
spiritual individuals. Such demands of the spirit are deter
mined by infinitely higher considerations than a desire for

THE CONSUMMATION OF ALL THINGS 413
length — or even for content — of existence in itself. Above
all, the exaltation of Christ and the opening of the kingdom
of heaven in Him to all behevers satisfies the heart ; because,
while the superiority of the spirit to the shocks and buffets
of a material world is proclaimed therein, there is offered,
above all, the assurance of the supremacy of love in the
universe, and therefore of the permanence of the fellowship
which love sets up. Without the exaltation of Christ and
the assurance contained in it of immortahty and heaven, no
such supremacy of spirit or of love is established, and the
desire for it is the demand of the heart made by and for the
Father to be satisfied of, and with, His Fatherly love. Thus
the message of the love of God proclaimed by the gospel and
that of " life and immortality " confirmed one another. It was
the spiritual content of the hope of immortality which made its
evidence so convincing and its reception so satisfying. And
this spiritual content is bound up with the truths revealed in
the exaltation of Christ. It was as the Son that He was
exalted, as King and Head also of those who, through Him,
become sons of God. Thus there was given in the heavens a
supreme manifestation of Fatherly love at once Divine and uni
versal, yet having a gracious meaning for each individual life.
For the first time the human spirit found an environment
large and congenial enough to satisfy all its needs. And once
more we find that the effect of the exaltation of our Lord and
of the glorifying of the truth as it is in Him, which supplies
the material to the Holy Spirit for His work, is simply the
perfect manifestation of the Fatherly and filial relationship as
supreme over and in the history of the world, and as draw
ing 'all men, in Christ, within the embrace of an everlasting
love. 3. The same predominance is found when we pass from
the more general aspects of the exaltation of our Lord and of
the work of the Spirit to the more specifically individual
aspects of salvation.
The selective conditions of the Holy Spirit's activity
baffle our inquiry. " The wind bloweth where it listeth, and
thou hearest the voice thereof, but knowest not whence it
cometh and whither it goeth : so is every one that is born of

414 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
the Spirit " (John iii. 8). But it is important not to conceive
the process of salvation as merely dynamic, issuing from the
bare decisions of will. The beginning of the full experience
of salvation comes from the bestowment of " the Spirit of
adoption, by which we cry, Abba, Father ! " that bestowment
being accompanied by the change of regeneration, or, as St.
Paul terms it, resurrection. The two are inseparable, and it
is impossible to say that either is the cause of the other. It
is the regenerating power which enables men to receive " the
Spirit of adoption," while it is the gracious intimation thus
made which brings the new birth into full actuality. Yet
the element of knowledge — which is more than inteUectual
apprehension — and the stirring of the heart by the Spirit
crying there must not be overlooked. The work of salvation
is wrought out by the revelation within the heart of the truth
of God and the truth of man as contained in the cry, " Abba,
Father," conditioned as it is by the redemptive work of Christ
issuing in the forgiveness of sins.
The experience of salvation, the advance towards the
complete realisation of the Christian life in its essential spirit
and in its outward conduct, is measured by the fulness of the
consciousness of sonship and by the steadfastness and con
sistency with which expression is given to it. It may be
said with truth that every description of the Christian temper
and all injunctions to Christian virtues contained in the New
Testament are attempts to give full effect to the filial spirit
contained in the cry, " Abba, Father."
Of course, other figures are used. For example, the Old
Testament term " sanctification " has a considerable place in
the New Testament. But for a man to be sanctified to God,
means that he is brought, through self-surrender, to realise those
relations for which God claims him on the ground of creation
and redemption. What is involved, therefore, in sanctification
in general, or in its particular apphcation to the various
departments of the Christian life, must be determined by the
real character of the relations in which man stands to God in
Christ. That is to say, we have to do, in the last resort, not
with abstract phrases about being " set apart " to God and
the like, though these have real meaning and suggestiveness,

THE CONSUMMATION OF ALL THINGS 415
but with the substance contained in this setting apart, and
with the means by which it is effected. And from every
quarter of the New Testament comes the answer, that son-
ship is both the form and the power of a consecrated, or
sanctified, life.
4. One particular experience of the spirit of sonship
must, however, be singled out as having special prominence
given to it in the New Testament by all the apostolic writers.
It is found most fully developed in St. Paul's Epistles, in his
doctrine of heirship and its connexions : " If children, then
heirs" (Eom. viii. 17; Gal. iv. 7).
But it occurs also in the great saying of St. John :
" Beloved, now are we chUdren of God, and it is not yet
made manifest what we shall be. We know that, if He shall
be manifested, we shall be like Him ; for we shall see Him
even as He is " (1 John hi. 2).
St. Beter expresses it when he says that Christians are
begotten again "unto a living hope by the resurrection of
Jesus Christ from the dead unto an inheritance incorruptible,
and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven "
(1 Pet. i. 4).
It is substantially the underlying thought of our Lord's
last discourse in St. John xiv— xvii, and is contained in His
assurance, " Fear not, little flock ; for it is your Father's good
pleasure to give you the kingdom " (Luke xii. 3 2).
All this is not merely apocalyptic. The expectation of
the future is indeed present throughout. It is, as we have
seen, the only condition under which the ideals of the
Christian hfe can be fulfilled. But the expectation of the
future is occasioned by the throwing out and forward of that
which is given and implied in an inward experience of the
heart. The sense of heirship is the inner verification and the
personal result of the exaltation of Christ, as witnessed by
the Spirit and as forming the earnest and pattern of the
believer's eventual glorification. The consciousness of sonship
is accompanied by a sense of spiritual command over all
worlds, over "life and death, things present and things to
come." That sense of command is a gift from God Himself,
and represents the fulfilment of the claim upon Him which

416 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
His Fatherly love itself establishes. The heirship is not for the
distant future merely, but for the present : its reality is proved,
not in prosperous circumstances only, but in the experience
of " suffering with Christ." Those who thus suffer with Him
are called upon to rejoice in tribulations, " knowing that
tribulation worketh patience ; and patience, probation ; and
probation, hope ; and hope putteth not to shame ; because
the love of God hath been shed abroad in our hearts through
the Holy Ghost, which was given unto us " (Eom. v. 3—5).
This inner experience that the world even now serves the
purposes of spiritual life, and thus reveals that it is through
out subject to those purposes, is the condition and supplies
the standing justification of the Christian hope of ultimate
glorification with Christ. The reasonableness of that hope
can only be estimated in the light of the great spiritual pre
suppositions which create and sustain it. Its evidence is not
with the astronomer or the physiologist, but with the saint.
No amount of discredit thrown upon it in the physical sphere
can in the least degree weaken either its persistence or its
validity in the spiritual. Nor could any amount of evidence
in favour of it, drawn from the physical sphere, weigh at all
in comparison with the intuitions and instincts which are im
planted in the hearts of believers as part of their experience
of sonship in Christ.
In that life of Divine experience and hope, believers are
joined together in the feUowship of the Church. Eelation-
ships in the Church are moulded by the supreme Divine
relationship, the knowledge of which brings men into the
Church. Therefore brotherhood, as the result of common'
sonship, is the law of life within the Church, and fellowship
as the result of common heirship.
5. But the Christian hope, as outlined in the New
Testament, is not merely the hope of personal immortahty
and of perfected spiritual fellowship, but extends to the
renovation of all things. It includes the general resurrection
of the dead, and a universal uphfting and transformation of
all the conditions of natural life. This expectation pervades
the New Testament, but has its fullest expression in Eom.
viii. and in the Apocalypse. As it is set forth in Eom. viii.,

«

THE CONSUMMATION OF ALL THINGS 417
the consummation of all things represents the bringing of tbe
whole creation up to the standard set for it by the perfected
life of the sons of God. The transition from the hope of
personal immortality to these expectations of a universal
transformation is made by means of the relation of the body
both to the spirit and to the universe. The body, which is
the instrument of the sons of God, is temporarily left under
the bondage of corruption. The apostle's hope of redemption
demands, in the light of the resurrection of our Lord, that no
part of human nature should ultimately be so left. But the
body is also the link between the spiritual Ufe of man and
the physical nature of the universe. And the evils to which
the body is exposed run throughout physical nature, and are
a mark of the community of the whole. There can be no
transformation of the body without a corresponding trans
formation of the universe, and therefore the ultimate con
summation for which the apostle looks, embraces, as part of
the perfected life of feUowship conferred on the sons of God,
the redemption of every part of their nature from mortahty
and the reconstitution of the universe, so that it may become
the adequate home and the permanent instrument of perfected
spiritual hfe, and may find in this its own emancipation, in
sympathy with the sons of God.
And this renovation of all things, which is consequent
upon " the manifestation of the sons of God," returns once
more to the spiritual from which it started. According to
the Apocalypse, it is completed by, and is in order to, the
appearance of the holy city, the heavenly Jerusalem, as the
home of the perfected society of life and love. The whole
doctrine of the consummation of all things shows it to be
dependent upon, and instrumental to, the manifestation of
spiritual life, perfected in filial love.
And life, so perfected, is ecstatic. The rapture of its
blessedness must needs turn all speech into song, for the
exaltation which, under our present earthly conditions, belongs
only to the rarest moments is now habitual. But the ecstasy
is the result of perfected spiritual relationships, and of the
means, now perfected, for giving complete and harmonious
expression to them.
27

418 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
Substantially, it wiU be seen that the prophecy and ex
pectation rest upon an intuition of spiritual experience that
the spiritual and the natural can never be separated from one
another, that the natural is subservient to the spiritual, and
must therefore finally follow the fortunes of the spiritual. If
this be true, there can be only one goal of history, namely,
the final and complete ascendency of the spiritual throughout
the universe. The spiritual, when finally and fully revealed,
must constitute and shape the universe to be for ever in
keeping with its own glory. That glory is the fulness of a
Divine Fatherhood, finally manifested in the perfecting of
sons in eternal fellowship with God and with one another.
This prospect, in whatever terms it may be stated and
whatever images of inspired poetry may be used to set its
glory forth, is substantially simply the utterance of the in
most instinct and of the surest intuition given, in Christ, to
the sons of God. And these represent the highest point of
the development of all things reached up to the present, and
indicate both the lines upon which that development is still
proceeding and the only destination which can fulfil the
purpose revealed in the creation and redemption of the world.
How such a consummation will be brought about, when
it shall come to pass, and what it shall be in concrete detail,
— all these things are hid from our eyes. All forecasts are,
and can be, only shapes thrown upon the screen of the future
by great spiritual forces. Even as divinely inspired, they
can be but poetic glimpses of a reality which will exceed
them all. It stands to reason that that reality can be but
imperfectly pictured by means of any experience of the pre
sent order of things. All that the spiritual consciousness, as
taught by the exaltation of Christ and quickened by the
indweUing of His Spirit, can confidently affirm, is not the
How, or When, or Where of these things, but the That.
This assurance of a final consummation, which while
it passes man's power to conceive is yet dependent upon
spiritual conditions, is a vital part of the content of Christian
experience. And it is no doubtful sign, but is the voice of
spiritual and cosmic development, speaking through its highest
conscious product. It affirms, as part of that highest con-

THE CONSUMMATION OF ALL THINGS 419
sciousness, the supremacy of spirit in nature, and therefore
the spiritual possibihties of nature. It further affirms the
incompleteness of the present expression of this supremacy
and of these possibilities. It affirms, finally, that so deep,
abiding, and central is the spiritual reality that the present
incompleteness is destmed ultimately to pass away, in order
that fuU outward effect may be given to the eternal truth.
The presentation of this great affirmation in and by men
naturally and necessarily centres in man, his world, and his
future. That he must have a sufficient and abiding universe,
fitted to his spiritual conditions ; that he belongs to this
universe, and cannot, even in imagination, be transported to
another ; that therefore he is to look to its transformation,
and not to its abandonment, as a waste product, in order to
the creation of a new one, — aU these propositions are bound
up with the hope of the consummation of all things, as set
before us in the New Testament.
Every manifestation of the power of man over nature in
every department of human life brings a certain, though
weak, confirmation of this great affirmation, or rather stirs
the spirit to a more confident assertion of it. It inspires and
directs the whole activity of those who give full effect to it,
so that they labour for the progress of society, for the im
provement of human environment, and for the subjugation
of nature, both as thereby foreshadowing and co-operating
with the action of God, and as realising the life of spirit on
all sides and in all relationships. But ultimately it rests
upon the philosophy of a spiritual experience, which proclaims
that as is the spirit so is its world ; that therefore, as the
spiritual is supreme, its world must ultimately be in complete
conformity with the relationships and powers of the spirit.
It must be repeated that the evidence of all this is not
to be found scientifically in physical things, considered as
physical. Nor can its refutation be found there. If the
constitution of the world be according to the facts manifested
in the Incarnation, and if redemption be the bringing of men
into a real life of sonship, — as being that for which their
nature was originally planned and prepared, — then all the
rest follows as a matter of course. And it is established not

420 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
by a mere logical process, but by the unfaihng witness of a
spiritual life, which, based upon the realities manifest in the
Incarnation and in redemption, represents, so to speak, the
process of evolution become self-conscious, proclaiming whence
it came and whither it goeth.
Hence the Divine visions of the New Testament must be
interpreted in the hght of the spiritual constitution of the
world in the Son of God, in the hght of the facts and
history of Eedemption, and in the light of the sure intuitions
of the spiritual consciousness which founds itself on Christ.
In this final consummation the supremacy of the Fatherly
and filial relationship, eternal in the Godhead and the ground
of creation, has its crowning display. It will be the
" appearing " of the Son, the " manifestation of the sons of
God." Without such a consummation, the evidence, the
manifestation, and the satisfaction of the Fatherhood of God
would ahke be incomplete.
If, then, the requirements of the Fatherly and filial
relationship furnish the principle by which the consummation
of aU things is determined, then that relationship is the
principle both of inclusion and exclusion, both of life and
death. " If any man have not the Spirit of Christ " — the
Spirit of adoption — " he is none of His " (Eom. viii. 9). The
Son admits to His kingdom only those who do the will of
His Father which is in heaven (Matt. vii. 22, 23).
In the world perfected in filial life, and blessed because
the filial life is perfected, there is no room for the unfihal.
Thus the judgment which determines fitness or unfitness for
the blessed life is not arbitrary or accidental. It gives effect
to existing and all-determining spiritual conditions. The last
word that can be uttered of such a universe as this is : " The
Father loveth the Son, and hath given .all things into His
hand. He that believeth on the Son hath eternal hfe ; but
he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath
of God abideth on him" (John iii. 35, 36).

LIST OF PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE
SPECIALLY CONSIDERED

Gen. ix. 8-17
xii. 1-9 .
xvii. 1 .
xvii. 1-14
xxvi. 1-6
xxviii. 10-22
Ex. iii. 6
iii. 15
iii. 17
vi. 3
xix. 4
xx. 2
xx. 2, 3
xx. -xxiv.
Deut. iv. 19
iv. 32
v. 15
vi. 4, 5
xxviii.xxx. 1
Ps. xlvi.
lxii. 12
xl. 6-8
Ixviii. ciii. 13
Prov. i. 7
i. 20-33
viii. 36
Isa. i. 2
i.-v.i.-xxxix. ii. 1-4
ii. 19
vi.vii. 3
vii. 18, 19
vii. 20 .
vii.-ix. 7
viii. 7-10
x. 5
xi. .

101,

136,

125-
103,125,

128,

PAGE 106 99
100105 9999
100110100
110102101 107107101 101
101 101 115115116 30
395116 138136136327 113
126
-129 127128126
126127127129
126127129

Isa. xiii.-xxiii.
xix. 19-25
xxxiii. 13-24
xxxv.
xxxvii. 21-23
xl. 1, 2 .
xl. 4, 5 .
xl. 8
xl. 12-26
xl. 28 .
xl. 31 .
xl.-lxvi.xiii.xiv. 1-7 .
xlix. 15 .
liii.
Ix. 11, 12
Jer. ii. 1
iii. .
iii. 4
xvi. 14, 15
xvii. 12-17
xix.xxi. 1-10
xxiii. 5 .
xxxi. 31-34
Ezek. ii. 1 .
xl.-xlviii.
Dan. vii. 13
Hos. i. 10 .
ii. 12-15
ii. 14, 15
ii. 16
xi. 1
xi. 8-10
Amos iii. 1
iii. 2
iii. 3-8
Micah iv. 1
iv., v.
vi. 1-8

PAGE
. 127
104, 127
. 126
. 128
. 127
. 129
. 129
. 129
. 130
. 102
102, 131
102, 110, 128-131 . 131
. 129
. 295
. 131
. 130
. 110
. 132
. 113
. 132
. 134
. 132
. 132
. 133
. 133
. 305
. 135
. 46
. 124
. 124
. 110
. 108
113, 124
. 123
110, 120
. Ill
. 120
. 103
. 134
. 134

421

422 PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE SPECIALLY CONSIDERED

PAGE

PAGE
Nahum i. 2, 3 . . . .135
John vi. 40 . ¦"'¦
Matt. iv. 1-11 .
44, 45
viii. 28 .
. 14
iv. 17
. 404
viii. 29 .
. 14
v. 45 .
48, 53
viii. 31-36 .
. 55
v.-vii. .
33-36
viii. 41 .
. 48
vi. 6
. 27
viii. 42 .
. 47
vi. 8
. 53
viii. 44 .
. 47
vi. 9
. 27
viii. 58 .
. 17
vi. 26 .
. 52
x. 8
. 22
vi. 32 .
. 53
x. 14 .
. 22
vii. 11 .
. 53
x. 17 .
52, 394
vii. 22, 23
. 420
x. 17, 18
. 56
x. 29 .
. 299
xi. 40 .
. 51
x. 29, 30
. 53
xiii. 3
. 52
xi. 27 .
13, 16, 19
xiv. 6 .
1
9, 27
28, 42, 54
xii. 50 .
. 16
xiv. 20 .
. 54
xvi. 23 .
. 50
xv. 1-10
. 55
xvii. 5 .
. 13
xvi. 13 .
. 411
xviii. 14
. 52
xvi. 32 .
14, 52
xix. 26 .
. 51
xvii. 4 .
56, 394
xxii. 21 .
. 51
xvii. 5 .
. 17
xxvii. 46
. 14
xvii. 25, 26 .
. 55
xxviii. 19
25, 26
Acts i. 4 .
. 411
Mark i. 11
. 13
xiii. 32, 33 .
73, 408
i. 12, 13
44, 45
xvii. 28, 29 .
37, 38
ix. 7 .
. 13
Rom. i. 4 .
73, 76, 408
xi. 22 .
. 51
ii. 12-29
. 84
xv. 34 .
. 14
ii. 16 .
. 85
xv. 39 .
. 14
iii. 21-31
. 85
Luke ii. 49
. 13
iii. 25, 26
. 84
iv. 1-13 .
44, 45
iv. 5
. 85
vi. 36 .
. 52
v. 1, 2 .
. 86
ix. 31 .
. 396
v. 3-5 .
. 416
ix. 35 .
. 13
v. 10 .
86, 88
ix. 58 .
. 47
v. 19 .
76, 395
xi. 11-13
. 53
viii. 7 .
. 405
xii. 24 .
. 52
viii. 9
. 411
xii. 32 .
53, 415
viii. 14-17
74
xv. 11-32
36, 37
viii. 15 .
20, 86
xviii. 27
. 51
viii. 15, 16
. 18
xxii. 42 .
. 394
viii. 17 .
. 415
xxiii. 46
. 14
viii. 19 .
66, 420
John i. 3 .
. 17
viii. 19-21
. 74
i. 12
. 19
viii. 29, 30
. 75
i. 13
. 21
ix.-xi. .
. 78
i. 14
15, 17
xi. 32 .
74,75
i. 18
. 17
xiv. 17 .
. 412
iii. 5
. 21
1 Cor. iii. 22, 2S
. 76
iii. 6
21, 334
viii. 6
. 38
iii. 8
. 413
xv. 46 .
356
iii. 16, 18
. 17
2 Cor. i. 3 .
. 25
iii. 16 .
. 25,
51, 53, 398
iii. .
. 78
iii. 17 .
. 17
iii. 18 .
. 77
iii. 21 .
. 22
v. 18-21
. 88
iii. 36 .
. 420
v. 20 .
. 403
iv. 21-24
'. 2<
5, 27, 42, 51
vi. 18 .
. 77
v. 20 .
. 52
Gal. i. 15, 16
. 77
vi. 28, 29
. .50
iii.-iv. 7
78-84
vi. 32-59
. 55
iv. 1
. 21
PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE SPECIALLY CONSIDERED 423

PAGE

PAGE
Gal. iv. 1-7 :;, .
Heb. x. 5-10 .
. 90
iv. 4, 5 .
19, 20
x. 10 .
. 397
iv. 5-7 .
. 86
xii. 7 . . .
. 90
iv. 6
18, 20
xii. 9 . . .
41, 90
iv. 7
. 415
Jas. i. 17 .
. 41
iv. 9
. 84
i. 27
. 18
iv. 26 .
. 89
iii. 9 . .
. 18
Eph. i. 2, 3
. 65
1 Pet. i. 3 .
25, 91
i. 3
25, 87
i. 4 ...
. 415
i. 3-6 .
. 70
i. 11
. 411
i. 4
. 69
i. 17 . . 18, 29
, 30, 41, 91
i. 5
20, 69
ii. 9, 10 .
. 91
i. 9, 10
. 69
ii. 21-23
. 395
ii. 18 .
28, 42, 71
2 Pet. iii. 13 .
. 407
ii. 19 .
71, 88, 89
1 John i. 2
. 58
ii. 21 .
. 71
i. 1, 2 .
. 59
iii. 5
. 69
ii. 1
. 58
iii. 6
69, 71
ii. 2
. 58
iii. 9
. 69
ii. 15
. 60
iii. 11 .
. 69
ii. 15-17
30-32, 42
iii. 14, 15
38-41
ii. 16 . . .
. 60
iii. 14 .
. 71
ii. 23 .
. 59
iii. 17 .
. 71
iii. 1 . . .
18, 57, 60
iii. 17-19
. 71
iii. 2
. 57
iv. 10 .
. 412
iii. 5
. 58
iv. 15, 16
. 71
iii. 8 . . .
. 47
v. 18-20
. 29
iii. 9 . . .
21, 58
Phil. i. 2 .
. 72
iii. 9, 10
. 58
ii. 1-11 .
. 72
iii. 10 . . .
57, 58
ii. 8
. 395
iii. 23 . . .
. 58
ii. 15 .
. 72
iv. 2, 3 .
. 59
iii. 4-14.
. 73
iv. 7
21, 58
iii. 20 .
. 89
iv. 9
17, 58
Col. i. 2 .
. 63
iv. 10 . . .
. 58
i. 12, 13 .
. 67
iv. 14 . . .
25, 60, 398
i. 13
64
iv. 15 . . .
. 59
i. 14
67
v. 1 .
21, 58
i. 15
. 64
v. 2
. 57
i. 16
. 64
v. 4 .
21, 58
i. 16, 17
66, 349 et seq.
v. 5
. 59
i. 18
. 64
v. 18
21, 58
i. 19
. 64
v. 20 .
. 58
i. 25-27
. 69
Rev. i. 6 .
. 92
ii. 9
. 64
iv. 8
. 92
ii. 15 .
. 68
xi. 17 . . .
. 92
iii. 1-4 .
. 63
xiv. 1
92
Heb. i. 1, 2
. 89
xiv. 4, 5
. 396
ii. 10 .
. 89
xv. 3
. 92
ii. 11 .
. 91
xvi. 7 . • ¦
. 92
iii. 6
90
xvi. 14 .
92
v. 4, 5 .
. 90
xix. 6 . .
. 92
v. 7, 8 .
. 90
xix. 15 . ¦ •
92
v. 8
395
xxi. 1, 2 . .
92
vii. 28 .
90
xxi. 22 .
92
ix. 14 .
. 397
INDEX

Abraham, 99-100.
Adoption, 19-21, 69-70, 86-87, 414.
Albertus Magnus, 215.
Alexandria, the Church of, 163 et seq.
Ambrose, 180, 181, 184, 185, 253.
Amos, Book of, 109, 110, 120-122.
Anselm, 209, 210, 213.
His Cur Dens Homo, 193, 213, 401-
402.
His Monologion, 211-212.
His Proslogion, 211.
Apocalypse, the, 92.
Apologetics, 8-10, 283-288.
Apologists, the, their task, 148.
Aquinas, Thomas, 209, 215-22U
Aristotle, and the later Schoolmen,
213-214.
His influence on Thomas Aquinas,
217, 218, 219.
Arminianism, 144, 263-267.
and the Atonement, 401.
Aryan religions, 108, 117-118.
Ascension, the, 412.
Asceticism, and the Christian ideal,
337-338.
Athanasius, and the universal Father
hood of God, 143, 176-180.
De Incarnatione Verbi, 177, 178,
179.
Contra Arianos, Oratio I., 177, 179.
Oratio II., 177, 178.
Oratio IIL, 179.
De Synodis, 178, 179.
Athenagoras, 152.
Atonement, the, 382-403.
Augustine, his influence on the West,
143, 183-184.
The influences shaping his life and
thought, 184.
His doctrine of God, 185-190.
Bearing of his experience of redemp
tion on his theology, 190-191.
His doctrine of sin and grace, 191-
192.
and predestination, 192-193.

Augustine, The City of God, 194-197,
331.
His doctrine of the Trinity, 197-199.
His religious temper, 199.
His doctrine of grace, 330-331.
Limitations of his theology, 325.
Basil the Great, 179, 184.
Bernard of Clairvaux, 223-225.
His tract De diligendo Deo, 224,
225.
Bernard of Clugny, 208.
Beyschlag on the meaning of' the
name "the Father," 23.
Boethius, 168, 210, 214.
Bradley, F. H., Appearance and
Reality, 305, 342.
Calvin, 143, 144, 253-259.
The Institutes of, 253.
Calvinism, Arminianism and, 263-264,
304-305.
Leibnitz and, 265.
Methodism and, 267-269.
Reaction against, in Nineteenth Cen
tury, 271-272.
Maurice and, 273.
and the Atonement, 401.
Campbell, J. M'Leod, 145, 271, 272.
Candlish, Dr., on the Fatherhood of
God, 6.
Canon Law, 207.
Cicero, DeNaturd Deorum, and Calvin,
253.
Clarke, Dr. W. N., Outline of Christian
Theology, 300.
Clement of Alexandria, 169-173.
His Exhortation to the Greeks, 170,
171.
The Pcedagogne, 170, 171.
Clement of Rome, 149, 150.
Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, 273.
Colossians, the Epistle to the, 62-68.
Corinthians, First and Second Epistles
to the, 76, 77.
421

INDEX

425

Covenant, the, as affecting the theology
of St. Paul, 78-84.
in Old Testament religion, 105-
113.
Crawford, Dr., on the Fatherhood of
God, 5-6.
Creation in relation to Redemption,
278
and God, 347-348, 363-365.
Cyprian, 180.
Dale, Dr. R. W., on Eph. iii. 14, 15,
39.
on the Kingdom of God, 306, 307.
on the Atonement, 384, 401.
Dante, his De Monarchia, 203-205.
The Divina Commedia, 205, 206,
227-240.
The Convito, 206.
Deuteronomy, Book of, 101, 102.
Diognetus, the Epistle to, 150.
Donatio Constantini, the alleged, 201.
Duns Scotus, 209, 220-221.
Education, Christian, its ideal, 337.
Empire, the holy Roman, 202-203.
Ephesians, the Epistle to the, 68-71.
Erskine, Thomas, of Linlathen, 145,
271.
Father, the, as the name of God, 22-
32.
Fatherhood, the, of God —
The modern spirit and, 1, 279.
towards Christ, 13-18.
towards believers in Christ, 18-22.
set forth in the New Testament as
universal, 32-48.
in our Lord's teaching, 50-56.
in the teaching of St. John, 56-60.
in the teaching of St. Paul, 60-89.
in early Christian thought, 149.
Definition of, 288.
The revelation of, 292.
The doctrine, its proof, 292-293.
Human analogies and, 294-295.
its absoluteness, 297.
its immanence, 298.
and creation, 298-299.
and sovereignty, 303, 308.
and revelation, 308-310.
and lawgiving, 311.
and judgment, 311-312.
and immortality, 313-314.
and human brotherhood, 314.
Relativity of, 319-321.
towards mankind as grounded in the
Eternal Son, 321-323.
its manifestation, 323-326.
as affected by sin, 326-328.

Fatherhood, the ideal of human life
supplied by, 337-343.
and atonement, 383-393.
and redemption, 404-406.
and the resurrection of Christ, 409.
and the final consummation, 418-
420.
Forgiveness of sins, 67, 405, 406.
Francis of Assisi, 225-226.
Galatians, the Epistle to, 77.
Gnosticism, 153, 154, 170-171.
Grace and nature, 279, 330-337, 370.
Gregory of Nazianzum, 179.
Gregory of Nyssa, 179.
Grotius, his Defence of the Catholic
Faith concerning the satisfaction
of Christ, 264.
Hamilton, Sir W., on the relativity
of the knowledge of God, 320.
Hare, Julius, 273.
Harnack, History of Dogma, 186, 188,
196.
Hebrews, the Epistle to, 89-91.
Heirship, the, ofthe sons of God, 415-
416.
Holiness in relation to love, 300-301.
Hort, Dr. F. J. A., on salvation and
sonship, 53.
on Christ as the way to the Father,
54.
on revelation and redemption, 403.
Hosea, Book of, 122-124.
Huss, John, 227.
Huxley, T. H. , and Agnosticism, 320.
Incarnation, the, and our Lord's
Sonship, 368-370.
and the filial constitution of human
nature, 45, 369.
and redemption, 378-381.
Irenajus, 152-162.
His work Against Heresies, 155 et
seq.
Irving, Edward, 273-274.
Isaiah, Book of, 103.
i.-xxxix., 125-129.
xl.-lxvi., 129-131.
Jehovah, meaning of the name, 110-
111.
Jeremiah, Book of, 131-134.
Joel, Book of, 135.
John, Gospel according to St., on the
Sonship of our Lord, 16-18.
on rebirth, 21, 22.
The place of the Fatherhood of God
in his teaching, 56-60.
John Scotus Erigena, 211.

426

INDEX

Jonah, Book of, 135.
Judgment, Divine, 311.
Julius of Eclanum, 190.
Justice of God, the, 311-312.
Claims of, 384-387.
Justification, 85-87.
Justin Martyr, his First Apology,
151.
His Second Apology, 151-152.
Kaftan, The Truth of the Christian
Religion, on the Logos idea and
that of the Kingdom of God, as
the means of interpreting Chris
tianity, 306-309.
Kingsley, Charles, 145, 271.
Latin Christianity, its characteris
tics, 180-183.
Lawgiving, Divine, 310, 311.
Leibnitz, 265-267.
His Thtodicie, 265-266.
The Monadology, 267.
Logos, doctrine of the, and the inter
pretation of Christianity, 305-308.
and Sonship, 365-370.
Love, its supremacy in God, 299-302.
Luther, 143, 144, 247-253.
His Commentary on the Epistle to the
Galatians, 249-252.
Makership, the, of God, 289-290.
Manichoeism, and Augustine, 184,
185.
Mansel, on the relativity of the know
ledge of God, 320.
Marcion, 159.
Maurice, Frederick Denison, 145, 271,
272-276.
Mead, Professor, on the meaning of the
name "the Father," 23.
Methodism, 144, 145, 267-270.
its doctrine of Grace, 332-336.
Micah, Book of, 103, 134.
Nahum, Book of, 135.
Nature, and the supernatural, 328-
330.
and the spirit, 359-360.
human, its filial constitution, 43-
47, 370-373.
Newman, J. H., 273-280.
Noah, the covenant with, 106, 107.
Nominalists, the, 209, 221-222.
Old Testament, the, its relation to
the New, 94-97, 277.
Development of universalism in its
religion, 97-105.
and the Atonement, 400.

Origen, 173-176.
De Principiis, 173.
Oxford Movement, the, 280.
Passion, our Lord's, 396-397, 408-
409.
Paul, St., on adoption, 20-21.
on death and resurrection with
Christ, 22.
The place of the Fatherhood of God
in his theology, 60-89.
so-called forensic elements of his
teaching, 84-88.
Pelagius, 190.
Peter, the First Epistle of, 91.
Philippians, the Epistle to, 72-73.
Philo Judseus, 169.
Platonism, and Christianity, 164-169.
and the Schoolmen, 209-210.
Predestination in St. Paul's theology,
75-76.
Proverbs, Book of, 135, 136.
Psalms, Book of, 136-141.
Puritanism, 244-245, 325.
Pusey, E. B., 273, 280.
Ransom, the death of Christ as, 399.
Realists, the, 209.
Reason and religion, 285-286.
Reconciliation with God, 403-406.
Redemption, and the Fatherhood of
God, 67-68.
and tbe Incarnation, 378-381.
and revelation, 403, 404.
as subjective, 404-406.
Reformation, the influences condition
ing its theology, 241-247.
Regeneration, "re-birth," 21-22, 414.
Religion, natural and revealed, 215,
246-247.
the true spirit of, 305.
its intellectual elements, 339-341.
as supreme fact of history, 352.
Renovation, the, of all things, 416-
420.
Repentance, 404.
Resurrection, the, of our Lord, 407-
411.
the general, 416-417.
Revelation, 308-310.
and redemption, 403.
Righteousness, Divine, in relation to
love, 300-301.
Ritschlianism, and the Kingdom of
God, 305-308.
Romans, the Epistle to the, 74-76.
Satisfaction, the doctrine of, 400-
402.
Sanctification, 414-415.

INDEX

427

Schelling, 273.
Schleiermacher, 273.
Schoolmen, the earlier and later, 208-
209.
Schultz, Old Testament Theology,
106.
Self-renunciation and self - fulfilment,
338-339, 341-343.
Semitic religion, 108.
Sermon on the Mount, the, 33-36.
Simon, Dr. D. W., Reconciliation by
Incarnation, 88, 139, 336.
Sin, in the light of the Fatherhood of
God, 375-378.
Socinianism, 144, 259-263.
Racovian Catechism, the, 260-261.
The De Servatore Jesu Christo of
Socinus, 261.
Son, tbe, as pre-existent, 17.
as the "only-begotten," 17.
Mankind constituted in, 66.
as the culmination of human history,
349-354.
and world-interpretation, 354-358.
as ground of the world, 358-362.
as Creator, 362.
as Redeemer, 378-381.
Son of Man, the title, 45-47.
Sonship, our Lord's consciousness of,
12-14.
Spiritual glory of our Lord's, 14-16.
Our Lord's pre-incarnate relation
that of, 64-65.
Our Lord's, its bearing on the uni
versal Fatherhood of God, 65-
66, 277.
The highest concept for the interpre
tation of Christianity, 307-308.
Eternal, 365-370.
as the fulfilment of creation, 372-
374.
and atonement, 383-393.
and heirship, 415-416.
and blessedness, 419-420.
Sovereignty, the, of God, 87-88, 290-
291.
in the Old Testament, 113-141.
and Fatherhood, 303.
Spencer, Herbert, and Agnosticism,
320.

Spirit, the Holy, as "the Spirit of
adoption," 18, 20, 77, 160, 255-
257, 269, 413-414.
and our Lord, 363, 380-381, 391.
the Dispensation of, 411-415.
Stoicism, and the Logos doctrine, 169.
and Calvin, 258.
Synoptic Gospels, the, on the Sonship
of our Lord, 14-16.
Tatian, his Address to the Greeks, 152.
Temptation, our Lord's great, 44-45.
Tertullian, 180, 181, 182.
Timceus of Plato, Justin Martyr and,
151.
its influence on Christianity, 165—
168.
on the negativity of evil, 168.
and the earlier Schoolmen, 210, 214.
Calvin and, 253, 254.
Thessalonians, the First Epistle to, 61.
Trinity, the Holy, 315-316.
and creation, 277-278, 346-348.
and the love of God, 301-302.
and the Fatherhood of God, 316-
319.
Unitarianism, 262-263.
and Maurice, 272-273, 274.
Universe, the, and Christ, 350.
a coherent whole, 354-356.
its law in the Son, 361.
Valentinus, his system, 154, 155.
Victorinus, 180, 184.
Vincentian Canon, the, and the Trac-
tarians, 280.
Wars of Jehovah, Book of the, 116.
Wendt, on the meaning of the name
"the Father," 23.
Wesley, John, 267, 268, 332.
Wessel, John, 227.
Westcott, Dr. Brooke Foss, on the
Atonement, 402.
Wrath of God, the, 85, 327, 390-391,
420.
Wyclif, 227.
Zephaniah, Book of, 135.

PRINTED BY MORRrSON AND GIBB LIMITED, EDINBURGH

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08868 0005