Universal Fatherhood

There was nothing new, then, in the message in so far as it related to “the kingdom” and the “higher righteousness.” But the third sphere remains. We are told that “the gospel is the knowledge and recognition of God as the Father;” and more definitely still, that God’s Fatherhood is the main article in Jesus’ message.” That is, of course, the relationship of Father as existing between God and all mankind, for no other is recognized in Dr. Harnack’s scheme. Now here a strange problem presents itself, but it concerns Prof. Harnack personally. Any one with a concordance at hand can ascertain that, unless it be the relationship between God and men in virtue of creation, the Bible knows nothing of universal

erhood; and further, that this relationship

formed no part of the Gospel “message.” Indeed there was no need for such a “inessage;” for men were not yet sufficiently “cultured” to know that the race had been evolved from “a primordial germ” through a nearer ancestry of “anthropoid apes.” Even the heathen recognized fatherhood in that sense. The Apostle

Paul, therefore, in addressing Athenian idolaters, could appeal to it, adopting the very words of their own poets, “For we are also his offspring.” And the Jew already possessed the truth of Fatherhood in a far higher sense, in connection with the covenant.

There was nothing new, therefore, in the conception of the Divine Fatherhood, any more than in that of “the kingdom” or of “the law of love.” But what was characteristic in the teaching of theNewTestament — was- that Divine -graee — admitted those who were in a arr he to a relationship which depended neither on creation nor yet on the covenant, but on a new birth by the Divine Spirit. That this sonship was strictly limited to those who weré-tiis born again is the plain teaching of the fo “Gospel. But no more emphatic denial of the figment of universal Fatherhood in this sphere will be found in the fourth Gospel than is contained in the following words recorded in the first : — “No one knoweth the Son save the Father;

*In taking the Sermon on the Mount as addressed to

the multitude, Dr. Harnack overlooks the first verse of Matt. v.

neither doth any one know the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal Him.”* The fact is that Prof Harnack studies the Bible with a mind s so entirely prepossessed. by what he expec find there, that he reads into the Gospels a doctrine which they expressly condemn, and fails to find what lies open on the surface. But more than this. In addressing those who are described as “born again by the living and eternally abiding Word of God,” the Apostle Peter reminds them that the God of whom he speaks is “the Father who without re-Bue of persons judgeth according to every man’s work.” But Dr. Harnack is far too refined oe his readers by warning them that men are sinners j ent, A cynic, surely, might suggest, therefore, that our family relationships would supply a figure more accurate and more apt than Fatherhood to describe the God of his scheme of “Christianity.” He is rather like the favourite uncle who has no share in the discipline of the home, but whose kindnesses and gifts to the children,

* Matt. xi. 27.

naughty and good alike, endear him to them all!