EXAMINATION OF PROFESSOR CRAWFORD'S WORK ON THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD.*
IT was not without some
hesitation that I resolved to attempt so full and formal an answer to Dr.
Crawford as I have now prepared. On first looking into his book I rather shrank
from the task, chiefly because I feared that the dust raised by stirring so
many points of detail as he handles might obscure the general question at
issue; nor has a more careful examination altogether removed this fear. But,
considering Dr. Crawford's high standing and merited repute, as well as the
fact that he meets me openly, with the weight of his avowed name, I have felt
it due to him that I should not mix up his elaborate criticism with such
anonymous censures as I may have to deal with,t but should give it a place by
itself. Hence this reply, which, I venture to hope, will not be found more
likely to interrupt friendly relations between us than his own free strictures
on my statements and opinions.
One thing that disinclined me at first
to.this course, I may as well frankly say, was the studious endeavour,
apparently, to create a prejudice from the outset by ostentatiously proclaiming
the alleged novelty of my views. "Novel opinions"
* The Fatherhood of God considered in its General and Special Aspects; with a Review of Recent Speculations on the Subject. By Thomas J. Crawford, D.D., Professor of Divinity in the University of Edinburgh. William Blackwood & Sons, Edinburgh and London, 1866.
(preface, p. vi.), "a new theory" (p. 3), "principles very novel and startling" (ibid.), "novel and peculiar position" (p. 11); these and similar expressions, occurring at the very beginning of his book, before any proof has been led, are surely fitted to place me at a great disadvantage, by the use of an art of controversy unworthy of Dr. Crawford, - the art indicated in the homely proverb, - " Give a dog a bad name," etc. Of course Dr. Crawford was at full liberty to bring against me the charge of novelty or innovation, and to substantiate it as he best could. But he must have known that I somewhat earnestly disclaimed the charge, and that I had at least made some effort to disprove it, both in my lectures as delivered, and in my original preface to them when they were first published. In these circumstances, he was scarcely entitled to parade so confidently this imputation of a new theology, as if it were conceded on my part, or might be quietly taken for granted on his part. I do not propose to take up this matter in the present Preliminary Essay, for it might distract attention, and so embarrass the discussion of the great subject under review. I shall dispose of it, so far as I think it needful to advert to it, in a supplementary note.~ Meanwhile I address myself, as I best may, to the work of examining Dr. Crawford s objections to the teaching of my lectures.
PART FIRST.GEINERAL
FATHERHOOD OF GOD.
Tnis is the author's title; implying, as he avows, a
distinction between "The fatherhood of God in relation to all men as his
intelligent and moral creatures," and his fatherhood "more particularly in
relation to those who are the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus".
In neither of these aspects has it occasioned "heresy" or "schism ;" having
"hitherto been in a remarkable degree exempted from the speculations and
controversies of theology. A comparatively small space has ordinarily been
allotted to it in our articles of faith and systems of divinity. And for the
most part it seems to have been regarded as a theme better fitted for popular
impression or appeal, than for scientific investigation and discussion."
So he begins his treatise. He does not blame me for disturbing this
peace of the church, though apparently he throws upon me the responsibility of
raising "speculations and controversie" fitted to do so. I shall have occasion
afterwards to vindicate myself against any charge of presumption which may on
that account be brought against me, especially in the light of the author s
strange relegation of this "theme" from the study to the pulpit. Meanwhile I
ask attention to his two distinct fatherhoods.
1. "In regard to the
more general aspect of this doctrine, the prevalent opinion of the Christian
church has ever been that all mankind may be held to be the children of God" -
let the cautious phrase be noted: "may be held to be the children of God " on
what grounds ? - first, "as deriving their existence from him ;" secondly, "as
created after his likeness;" tbirdly, "as still retaining some traces of his
image though grievously defaced and distorted by the fall ;" and fourthly, "as
largely partaking of his providential care and bounty" (pp. 1, 2).
2.
As regards "the special aspect of this doctrine," all agree that believers "are
children of God in a higher sense than other men." But some "apparently hold
this higher sonship to be a mere restoration of the primal closeness and
fulness of that relation which subsisted between God and man prior to the fall,
while others speak of it as to a great extent a new relation, resting on
grounds peculiar to itself." All however agree as to "the parties to whom it
belongs," and "the inestimable blessings which result from it" (p. 2). That is
the creed of Christendom, against which, it seems I "promulgate a new theory"
(p. 3).
Now I might fairly deny that I do any such thing. If I am
allowed to stand among the latter of the two admittedly orthodox schools, as
regards "the special aspect," I am as sound and old-fashioned as my critic
himself . I venture, indeed, to question if a relation resting on the grounds
on which he places the original relation of man to God does really imply
fatherhood, in any reasonable or scriptural sense, in any definite sense, in
any sense reaching beyond the vaguest figure of speech. And I farther venture
to connect the sonship of believers with the sonship of him in whom they
believe, somewhat more closely and personally perhaps, - though I do not admit
that generally, - .than some divines are accustomed to do. Let Dr. Crawford,
however, have his way. Let it be "a new theory," of which he gives the
substance in these words :" That the relation which God sustains to his
Eternal Son is his only true and proper Fatherhood, and that it is only by
their partaking of that relation that angels and men become the sons of
God" (p. 3) ;- terms to which no formal objection can be taken, except that
they are fitted to present it at the very outset in the barest possible form,
with none of the limitations and qualifications which the course of my argument
on the incarnation and the "bringing in of the first-begotten into the world"
(Heb. i. 6) is fitted to suggest. I pass from that to the author's view of the
first sort of fatherhood which he ascribes to God.
1. Dr. Crawford
begins with the argument from reason. He postulates or assumes, first, "the
personality of God;" and secondly, his "affinity to us " the first, as against
the Pantheists; and the second, as partly at least against what he holds to be
the teaching of Mansel. "God is a living person, and He has a true affinityto
us" (p. 4). I am not now concerned with his criticism on Mansel, but only with
his own doctrine, to which, of course, I assent; for otherwise I see not how
any real relation of intelligence, sympathy, and moral truth can subsist
between God and us. I accept also his inference. (p. 10) that we have thus, on
the one hand, "a sufficient basis for concluding that God actually possesses
those qualities essential to the perfection of human nature, which reason and
revelation alike teach us to ascribe to him;" and on the other hand, a no less
sufficient warrant for believing that he really and truly sustains towards us
such relations, analogous to those which subsist between man and man, as the
actual course of his dealings with us may be found to indicate, or the positive
declarations of his inspired word may be found to reveal" (p. 10). All this is
plain enough, and vague enough too. For now "the question comes to be, Is
fatherhood thus attributable to him? Have we satisfactory grounds, from reason
and from revelation, for ascribing to God the characteristics of a father, and
for holding that he sustains the relation of a father," towards "the human race
?" (p. 11).
I might object to this alternative mode of putting the
question, as if "to possess the characteristics of a father," and "to sustain
the relation of a father," were one and the same thing. Reserving the
objection, I proceed to the main point at issue between us. Dr. Crawford
regrets that, "at the outset of my argument, no definition or description of
fatherhood should have been given." He cannot accept the reason I assign for
this omission, "that the duty of defining or describing the relation in
question is incumbent on those who assert it as a natural relation, and not on
him who denies it." And in reference to my complaint, that "for the most part
the asserters of it decline the task, and are more inclined to deal in vague
generalities," he offers this explanation, that "having never till now any
opponent to contend against, they did not see the necessity of giving any
precise or logical definition." "They thought that the simple application to
God of the word Father' would be sufficiently understood, as ascribing to
him a relation to his intelligent creatures somewhat analogous to that which
subsists between an earthly parent and his children" (p. 12).
Somewhat
analogous! It is a general enough phrase. Nor is it made much more precise by
what follows -"Had any one disputed their doctrine 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. And," he adds with
exquisite simplicity, "I need scarcely say that the word, as thus defined, is
certainly applicable to God, with reference to all mankind." Certainly, I
reply. Such a universal fatherhood as that I do not care to call in question.
But is there any relation of any sort defined or described here ? - anything to
determine on what footing the two intelligent persons are to stand to one
another, or what principle is to rule and regulate their mutual dealings with
one another? I attempt, at least, in my first lecture, by a sort of exhaustive
analysis or induction, to bring out the exact bearing of intelligence in the
creature on his position towards the Creator. It makes him a proper subject of
moral government; of government by laws addressed to the reason and conscience,
and enforced by sanctions which the reason and conscience may approve as
suitable and right. I presume that it did so in the case of the angels; and I
do not see how in their case it could do more.
They had no experience or
analogy to suggest any other relation than that of moral ruler to responsible
subjects, the sense of which is implied in their being created intelligent and
free; nor had man when he was first made and when God began to deal with him.
There is no vagueness here; all is definite and precise. A well-defined
relation is constituted, and one that at once places the intelligent creature,
simply as such, on a footing of far truer and nobler affinity to his Maker than
Dr. Crawford's description of sonship, even if stretched to the utmost, will
allow. He stands out as one with whom the most high God may confer as in some
sense an independent person; to whom God says, Thou shalt or thou shalt not,
and who himself in reply can say, I will or I will not. That is his high
standing; a standing which admits of intercourse on terms all but equal; into
which all conceivable kinds of mutual confidence, sympathy, and esteem may be
infused; and which, moreover, being framed and fashioned, as all creation is,
in the mould of the sonship of the Creative Word, may pass easily and
gracefully, as that sonship is unfolded, into a real participation with him in
whatever of his sonship the incarnation, with its service and its sacrifice,
proves to be compatible with the state and circumstances of a creature and a
subject.
This view covers, or rather does more than cover, all that is
in the so-called original and general fatherhood of God. And it meets Dr.
Crawford's rejoinder to my argument. For as I draw from intelligence, as the
attribute of the creature, the inference of moral rule on the part of God and
moral responsibility on the part of the creature, so Dr. Crawford considers
himself entitled to infer from love, as the attribute of the Creator, a
distinct relation of paternity. The manner in whiçh he does so is
somewhat strange (p. 19, etc.) he "assumes that God is love ;" and that "in the
exercise of that love he has brought into existence a race of intelligent and
moral beings, with reference to whom he must equally have been disposed to
manifest his love and to maintain his rightful authority." And he "assumes yet
farther, that these rational and moral creatures, as bearing the image of him
by whom they are made, have something more to distinguish them from his other
creatures beyond the bare fact of intelligent responsibility', -
that they have the capacity of knowing, loving, desiring, trusting, serving,
and enjoying him." The italics here are surely most unfair. He must mean to
represent me as denying his "something more;" as if "intelligent
responsibility" did not in its very nature involve, not only the capacity, but
the obligation, of "knowing, loving, desiring, trusting, serving, and enjoying
God ;" - as if that were not its very essence.
But I acquit him of
intentional misrepresentation. For he labours throughout, as it seems to me,
under an utter inability to comprehend the dignity and glory of service;
voluntary service of one absolutely supreme and infinitely worthy; such service
as man was made for at first, and is remade for at last, in the Son and by the
Spirit. My meaning in the words which he unwarrantably isolates and misapplies
is simply that, as regards any definite relationship constituted by creation,
what distinguishes angels and men from God's other creatures is "the bare
fact of intelligent responsibility." That bare fact, however, I regard as
carrying in it a position towards God greatly in advance of Dr. Crawford's
description of the fatherhood; and so far from being reluctant to "concede" Dr.
Crawford s "supposition," - so far from "holding the image or likeness of God
to consist in anything so barely intellectual and so coldly judicial as a mere
capacity of understanding the divine will, and feeling a sense of
responsibility under it, " - I hold the divine will itself to be the law of
love, and the divine image in the creature to be the harmony of his moral
nature with that law, understood and owned by him as the law of his
creature-relationship to the Creator.
The truth is, Dr. Crawford
confounds nature and relation; not perceiving apparently that while the
obligation which our relation to God and to his will or law imposes is
fulfilled through the conformity of our nature to his, that conformity is not
itself the. relation.
Hence, of necessity, his whole subsequent
reasoning on this point is of the vaguest possible sort (p. 20, etc.) It
proceeds entirely on the assumption of God's general benevolence, or his being
love.. Of course, since that is his essential characteristic, he will be moved
to bestow upon his intelligent creatures, his moral and responsible subjects,
simply as such, all gifts and bounties compatible with their position. Dr.
Crawford seems to think, or at least he would lead ofhers to think, that I lay
an arrest on the flow of God's goodness towards those whom he has made in his
image, because I consider them to be originally subjects only, and not sons. I
go no farther in that direction than he does himself. He says, "The
circumstance that God is our Father, as having created us, does not imply that
we have any right or claim upon him beyond strict legal justice" (p. 24). I say
the same, and it is all that I say, though I set little value on a fatherhood
that implies no more, and in fact call itno fatherhood at all. And I go as far
as he does in asserting "an evident excess and exuberance of divine bounty - a
constant and overflowing fulness of beneficence - far beyond aught that mere
equity or justice on the part of a sovereign ruler could have dictated, and
such as can only be satisfactorily accounted for by ascribing it to the care
and kindness " - "of our Father in heaven " - so he puts it ; - "of our
sovereign ruler, the God whose name and nature is love," -so I venture to
finish the sentence.
Can a ruler not be kind and generous without being
a father also? Or is God, as a father by creation, more kind and generous than
is consistent with his prerogative as a ruler? Dr. Crawford must admit that God
dealt with angels and men, as originally made in his image, legislatively and
judicially. If he chooses to call his dealings of another sort with them the
dealings of "our Father in heaven," I might not much object, were it not that
such language tends in my view to detract alike from the original honour of
created subjectship, and from the ultimately higher honour of adoptive sonship.
2. The argument from Scripture is meagre enough, if the point to be proved
is fairly considered. For the idea of a general fatherhood introduces, as I
have shown, into the original relation of intelligent creatures to their
Creator an element not given in the necessary a priori intuition of
reason and free will,- like the sense of rule and responsibility,- but
confessedly springing out of an a posteriori analogical inference from a
human tie, which did not exist, and could scarcely be conceived, when angels
were tried and fell, or when man himself was tried and fell. To support such a
theory, strong scriptural evidence is surely needed. What Dr. Crawford alleges
is of the weakest sort.
He quotes, as Nos. 1 and 2 of his proofs, two
texts, the one from the Old Testament, the other from the New, which, severed
from the context, may have a sound somewhat in his favour, though the sense is
quite away from his purpose. The first text is Malachi ii. 10" Have we
not all one Father? Hath not one God created us ?" (p. 34). This looks like a
strong assertion. It is to be observed, however, that, read in the light of the
context, the force of the prophet's appeal turns, not on the universal
fatherhood of God as regards mankind generally, but on his special fatherhood
with reference to his chosen people Israel And that fatherhood is made to rest
on their being made or constituted his people through redeeming grace and by
creative power; for so the phrase is to be understood here, as it is also in
Isaiah xliii 1 - " Thus saith the Lord that created thee, O Jacob, and he that
formed thee, 0 Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee; I have called thee
by thy name; - A fatherhood of this sort towards Israel as such that is,
towards the nation in its collective capacity admitted, or rather proved, to be
declared in Old Testament passages, such as those afterwards quoted misapplied
by Dr. Crawford (p. 64). And this of Malachi is simply one of these.
The
other text is Heb. xii. 9, where God is called "the Father of our spirits," in
contrast to "fathers of our flesh" (p.35). Here, again, the whole argument of
the apostle has respect to believers, and to believers exclusively. Nor is any
such psychological doctrine as Dr. Crawford imagines intended to be taught as
to "our corporeal frame proceeding by ordinary generation from our earthly
parents, and the nobler part of our constitution - the immortal soul - being
directly communicated by the Creator, so as to be in a peculiar sense his
offspring." That may or may not be true; and it may or may not be proved by the
other texts referred to. But Paul had too much sense, and was too thorough a
master of tender and persuasive reasoning, to be giving a lesson in natural
psychology to mourners needing spiritual consolation. Plainly his appeal is
more simple and touching. You reverenced those who were your natural parents,
when they corrected you, often unwisely and in haste. Much more may you submit
to him who is your Father in a far higher, in a truly spiritual sense,- your
Father in a sense that allies your spirits to himself as a Spirit,- and all
whose dealings with you are ordered accordingly.
Dr. Crawford's third
scriptural argument is founded on "the account given of man's original
creation, as made in the image of God, after his own likeness " (p. 36,
etc.) To give it even the semblance of logical reasoning, he is obliged to
assume the very point to be proved,- the original fatherhood of God as respects
his intelligent creatures (p. 38). And even then, all that he infers is that,
on such an assumption, "creation after his image must be held to bear on
his relation to the subjects of it, as implying not only intelligent
responsibility, but also that congeniality of disposition which will animate
them with"- what? does the reader suppose - an assurance of real sonship like
the sense they have of real obligation ?- " with childlike confidence and
affection," making it "their chief joy to dwell with him in close fellowship,
and in all things to honour and imitate and obey him." Of course, I admit and
hold quite as much as this, if not even more, to be implied in the relation of
an intelligent creature, simply as such, to the great Creator, and it is not
worthy of Dr. Crawford to be putting the question between us so persistently on
that issue; at least it would not be worthy of him if he could be supposed to
apprehend the distinction between community of moral nature and the
constitution or adjustment of mutual and reciprocal personal relationship.
It is partly, I suspect, this very confusion of ideas that makes Dr.
Crawford exult so much in the dilemma between whose horns he thinks he has
fixed me (p. 38, etc.) I hold (Lecture V.) that "regeneration or the new birth"
has "a prominent place in the manner of entrance into that divine sonship which
is peculiar to believers," because it is the implanting of the seed of a new
life, consisting in likeness to God. Therefore, he argues, I am inconsistent in
not allowing that creation after God s likeness at the first involves sonship.
I may have occasion to return to this topic in a more suitable connection.
Meanwhile, even if I held - which I do not - that the new birth, or new
creation - for I do not object to that figure (p. 40) - did no more than
restore the broken image of God in the soul to what it was before the fall, - I
have never said that by itself alone it constituted sonship. Dr. Cmwford's
dilemma is therefore at fault.
I leave Dr. Crawford's fourth argument,
- that from the Our Saviour's genealogy in Luke iii. 38, - to stand as against
the remarks in my volume, with these two observations. In the first place, he
who finds the assertion of fatherhood in this genealogical tree, at any of its
stages, as a real, conscious relationship, - or indeed as anything but a link
in the chain of succession from age to age, - might almost equally well find it
in a line tracing one of an inferior race of animals to its divine source ; the
present representative being "of his predecessor" - he again being "of his" -
and so on to the first of the family, "which was of God." And, in the second
place, I hold it to be unfair to mix up with a criticism on my very brief
exposition of the text in Luke, as if it formed part of it, a discussion of the
general question, which occurs quite apart, and which I can only relevantly
deal with by relegating it to its proper place.
I proceed to the fifth
scriptural argument, that derived from Paul's pleading at Athens (Acts xvii.
26-29). And even here I need do nothing more than avail myself of Dr.
Crawford's own exposition. "Admitting that Paul's immediate object was to
expose the absurdity of rational beings ascribing their origin to what is
irrational, it does not therefore follow that this is the only inference which
can be logically drawn from the statement that we are the offspring of
God'. This was the only inference, as it so happened, which Paul at the time
was concerned to draw from it. To have drawn from it anything else, or anything
more, would, as the objector himself" - meaning me - "affirms, have been
out of place'. But by thus deducing from it the only conclusion which his
purpose required, he evidently recognises it, not as a mere rhetorical figure,
but as the announcement of a real relation between man and God; and warrants us
in like manner to deduce from it such farther conclusions, suited to our
purpose, as may be reasonable and legitimate" (p. 52). Surely this is something
strange and new in exegetics. The sole question is about the sanction which, by
quoting this verse of a heathen poet, Paul may be supposed to give to a
universal fatherhood, and not at all about the conclusions which others may
draw from it. He quotes it for a purpose, in an argument ad hominem. He
does not quote it as inspired; nor does his quoting it make it inspired. Even
if it had been a text of Scripture that be quoted, his authority could not be
pleaded beyond the precise design for which he quoted it or the use to which he
turned it. Of course, in such a case, we are free to turn the text to other
uses, and to plead it as divine in doing so. But it is our own judgment which
we exercise; we cannot bring in Paul as responsible. Here, however, we have not
a text of Scripture at all, unless Paul's citation of it is believed to
canonise it. We have simply an uninspired verse of poetry, of which that
consummate master of oratory avails himself most happily on a special occasion
and for a special purpose. And neither his comment nor the verse itself can be
legitimately brought forward as of divine authority, beyond the special
occasion and the special purpose. Dr. Crawford's admission therefore confirms
my interpretation; and so the question between us falls.
There remains
only the argument drawn from the parable of the prodigal son (p. 53, etc.); in
regard to which I would be content to leave the decision, as between Dr.
Crawford and myself, to any one carefully reading over again my remarks, in the
light of his criticism. I must still insist on the danger of bringing a
parable, circumstantially interpreted, to prove a doctrine not otherwise
established; and I venture to retain my opinion that to make such a use of this
parable is not in the best taste. Plainly the point in it, and the only point
in it, at all relevant to the occasion, is the Father's way of treating the
returning prodigal, as the model of the way in which anyone claiming the
position of the elder son ought to treat him. That point the Lord brings out in
the most emphatic possible manner; and he does so, be it remembered, in the
course of a ministry designed, in large measure, to reveal God's fatherhood,
and to prepare men s minds for the perception of that truth in its highest
sense. Pressed too closely, in all its details, the parable, as Dr. Crawford
must admit, may be pressed into the service of error on the vital doctrine of
the ground of a sinner's reconciliation and acceptance. I submit that, whether
my comment approve itself or not to competent judges, it is at least more in
the line of safe exposition than that which Dr. Crawford would substitute.
And here I have a word or two to say on Dr. Crawford s closing remarks
as to the vast practical importance of the tenet of a general fatherhood,
chiefly in its bearing on our appeals and invitations to sinners (p. 59, etc.)
We lose, it seems, a mighty lever-power, when we let go that tenet. It gives us
a hold on them for which nothing can compensate, whether we try to convince
them of guilt or persuade them to return to God. I very much doubt this, as
regards both of these ends. As to the first, when he and I go to plead with a
brother still in his unconverted state, what have we respectively to say, so
far as this subject of the fatherhood is concerned? He dwells pathetically on
the folly, baseness, and ingratitude of departing from one who is a father, in
virtue of his creating, supporting, protecting, and nourishing all of us (p.
12). I, too, dwell on the same considerations, with equal pathos, if I can,
when I speak of the right which, as our maker, God has to rule us, and the
claim which his Un-numbered benefactions and his unwearied patience and
benignity give him upon us. And then, over and above all that, I ask my brother
to see, in the light of the Son's revelation of the Father, what the Father
originally would have had us to be, if only we had stood the reasonable test of
subjection to him as our ruler ;- and what he will have us to be now, if only
we accept the Son as first placing us on a right footing with his Father as our
ruler, and then sharing with us his own filial standing in the Father's house,
and all the fatherly love of which in his Father's house and heart he is the
object. For moving to repentance also, not less than for convincing of sin, I
cannot but think that I have at least as good a purchase as my friend. I do not
indeed address sinners indiscriminately as "those who are sons of God by
creation ;" nor do I address, as he most erroneously represents me as
addressing, in a special manner, "those whom it is God's purpose to make his
sons by redemption" (p. 57). I have nothing to do with "God s purpose," as
regards adoption, any more than as regards justification, or sanctification, or
any other of the benefits which God holds out in the gospel freely to all who
will receive them in and through his Son. To all sinners alike I make offer, in
the Father's name, of the Son, as his free gift to all who will accept him. And
I commend the offer by urging the assurance that with the Son the Father
"freely gives all things ;" and among the all things, this above all, that they
who are the Son's become sons as He is, and "because they are sons, God sendeth
forth the Spirit of his Son in their hearts, crying, Abba, Father."
End of the refutation of the opening part of "The Fatherhood of God" Now read it!
Home | Biography | Literature | Letters | Links | Photo-Wallet