The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1897-10-09


must die, SO the nation perish not, .
aud die not for that nation only, but
should gather in one the children of
God scattered abroad. Special fa-
voritism is taught and shown by such
hymns as this:
" Twas the same love that spread tn
feast
That sweetly forced us in
Else we had still refused.his.grace
And perished in our sin. ~
These have cast glamour over the
eyes of such as Dr. Henson and Prof
G. F. Mead of Hartford Theological
Seminary that they can see none other
but adopted children. They wish to
escape the deductions flowing out of
Gods Fatherhood. And we must
admit that they, as Augustinians
"pure and simple" are more consist
tent than a molluscan Calvinism that
changes the emphasis over from
Gods will to the weak will of sorely
tempted man. And we must admit
that such as DR.. Henson and Prof.
Mead do clearly see, that in the uni
versal Fatherhood is involved final
universal salvation from sin and uni
versal obedience of the children.
They believe in the salvation from
sin and obedience of every one of
Gods adopted children. They rest
on the Fatherhood for the salvation
of the adopted few. By gazing SO
continuously upon the adopted chill
dren, the glamour hides from their
vision, the natural children who are
not the few but the many.
Just as deep thinkers in the So
called orthodox churches as DIR.
Henson and Prof. Mead say: "He
who is no son by nature can never
become son by adoption. Before
the child can become the adopted
of any man, he must be the real son
of some man, and 80 if it was only
by adoption that God became our
Father and we his sons, then we
could never in any true sense be
his son, nor he in any true sense our
Father. ."-The Place of Christ in
Modern Theology, page 800, DR..
Fairbdirn.
have read carefully DIR. Atwood's
criticisms on Prof. Mead's paper and
they are excellent. From the in
sight I have got from the sew
eral quotations, l would Judge
the paper would be in keeping
coming from deist, treating up
on anthropology to convince us we
are all orphans. A theologian that
spends his energy to prove that
God is not the Father of all men ,.
had better get deeper insight into
the history of man, his comparative
ignorance, weakness and necessities;
and true study cf anthropology
leading to the fact that " the spirit of
man goeth upwards" would guide
the theologian in the study of God
on the line laid down by his divine
representative. He leads the mind
upward to the Eternal Father by
bringing to our minds the attributes
OF the best of human fathers; then
calls our attention to a Father in
finitely transcending human father
hood in perfectness and eternal
goodness.
Can Prof. Mead get no higher in
sight into Gods Fatherhood than to
talk of the "male parent'" Male
parent is an image of the animal man.
Father is symbol-not figure
meaning in man the exercise of every
moral duty embraced in the word
fatherhood. If one of our tLeolo-
gians had been on Mars Hill before
those keen, shrewd philosophers of
Athens, he would have arranged his
speech to suit his audience. He
would have talked of the supreme
nomathete, without parts and pas
sions, dwelling in pleroma of light
inaccessible to man. To have called
the attention of philosophers to the
Fatherhood eff God would have been
too unphilosophical. Paul did not
think SO. He comes right to the
point: 4" For in him we live, move
and exist, for one of your own poets
has said, We are his offspring"
The other day l called the atten-
tion of lawyer-a Baptist-to what
DIR. Henson had said. HE was right"
he replied. "We become the chill
dren of God by adoption" l asked
him to read from the 18th chapter
of Acts, % $50, which after reading
he candidly admitted Paul taught as
we'll as Greek poets that all mankind
are Gods children. Disobedience
does not change his relation to his
children. Their disobedience and me-
cessities more imperatively call forth
the activities of the universal Fatbo.