2. The position and authority of the father as the head of the family is expressly assumed and sanction- ed in Scripture, as a likeness of that of tlie Almighty over his creatures, an authority — as Philo remarks — intermediate between human and divine (Philo, rrepi ■Yoriwi> n/o/c, § 1). It lies, of course, at the root of that so-called patriarchal government (Gen. iii, 16 : 1
FATHER
496 FATHERS OF THE CHURCH
Cor. xi, 3), which was introducton' to the more defi- nite system? that followed, and that in part, but not wholly, superseded it. AN'hen, therefore, the name of "father of nations" (cn^l^X) was given to Abram, he was thereby held up not only as the ancestor, but as the example of those who should come after him (Gen. xviii, 18, 19; Kom. iv, 17). The father's blessing was regarded as conferring special bene(it,but his male- diction special injury, on those upon whom it fell (Gen. ix, 25, 27; xxvii, 27-40; xlviii, 15, 20; xlix); and so also the sin of a parent was held to affect, in cer- tain cases, the welfare of his descendants (2 Kings, v, 27), though the law forbade the punishment of the son for his father's transgression (Dent, xxiv, IG ; 2 Kings xiv, G ; Ezek. xviii, 20). The command to honor par- ents is noticed by the apostle Paul as the onlj' one of the Decalogue which bore a distinct promise (Exod. XX, 12 ; Ephes. vi, 2), and direspect towards them was condemned by the law as one of the worst of crimes (Exod. xxi, 15, 17 ; 1 Tim. i, 9 ; conip. Yirgil, ^^n. vi, 609 ; Aristoph. Ran. 27-4-773). Instances of legal en- actment in support of parental authority are found in Exod. xxii, 17 ; Numb, xxx, 3, 5 ; xii, 14 ; Deut. xxi, 18, 21 ; Lev. xx, 9 ; xxi, 9 ; xxii, 12 ; and the spirit of the law in this direction may be seen in Prov. xiii, 1 ; XV, 5 ; xvii, 25 ; xix, 13 ; xx, 20 ; xxviii, 24 ; xxx, 17; Isa. xlv, 10; Mai. i, G. The father, however, had not the power of death over his child under the,Mosaic law (Deut. xxi, 18-21 ; Philo, I. c).
From the patriarchal spirit also the principle of re- spect to age and authority in geiieral appears to be derived. Thus Jacob is described as blessing Pharaoh (Gen. xlvii, 7, 10 ; conip. Lev. xix, 32 ; Prov. xvi, 31 ; Philo, I c. § 6).
The authority of a father was thus very great in patriarclial times; and although the law of Moses re- quired the parent to l)ring his cause of complaint to the public tribunals (Deut. xxi, 18-21), all the more real powers of parental character were not onl}' left unimpaired, but were made in a great degree the basis of the judicial polity which that law established. The children, and even the grandchildren, continued under the roof of the ftither and grandfather ; the}' labored on his account, and were the most submissive of his servants. The property of the soil, the power of judg- ment, the civil rights, belonged to him onlj', and his sons were merely his instruments and assistants. If a family be compared to a body, then the father was the head, and the sons the members, moving at his will and in his service. There were exceptions, doubt- less, but this was the rule, and, with some modifica- tions, it is still the rule throughout the East.
Filial duty and obedience were, indeed, in the e3'es of the Jewish le'iislator, of such high importance that gi-eat care was taken that the paternal authority should not be weakened by the withdrawal of a power so lia- ble to fatal and barbarous abuse as that of capital pun- ishment. Any outrage ai^ainst a parent — a blow, a curse, or incorrigilile profligacy — was made a capital crime (Exod. xxi, 13, 17 ; Lev. xx, 9). If the oflTence was public, it was taken up by the witnesses as a crime against Jehovah, and the culprit was brought before the magistrates, whether the parent consented or not ; and if the oflence was hidden within the paternal walls, it devolved on the parents to denounce him and to re- quire his punishment.
It is a beautiful circumstance in the law of Moses that this filial respect is exacted for the mother as well as for the father. The threats and jiromises of tlie legislator distinguish not the one from the other ; and the fifth commandment associates the father and moth- er in a precisely equal claim to honor from their chil- dren (see Cellerier, Esprit de la L<f/isla(ion Mosa'iquc, ii, 69, 122-129). Comp.WojjAN.
Among IMohammedans parental authority has great weight during the time of pupilage. The son is not
allowed to eat, scarcely to sit, in his father's presence. Disobedience to parents is reckoned one of the most heinous of crimes (Burckhardt, A'otes on Bed. i, 355; Lane, Mod. Eg. i, 84 ; Atkinson, Ti-avels in Siberia, p. 559). — Kitto, s. V. ; Smith, s. v.
Father (God the) was usually' represented in ear- ly Christian art lij- a hand, which was usually extend- ed through a cloud. The principal subjects in which God the Father is represented b}' a hand are the scenes from the creation : Moses receiving the law, Moses at the burning bush, the sacrifice of Abraham, and the baptism of Christ. The hand is often given as hold- ing out wreaths or crowns to saints and martyrs at their death, or their ascension to Paradise. As early as the fifth century, God the Father is represented as an old man. This sj'mbol predominated during the later Middle Ages, and is the one now universally adopted bj' Christian artists. The figures of God in the creation by ]\L Angelo and Eaphael, in the Sistine chap- el and in tlie Vatican, are among the grandest concep- tions in all art. God the Father is also represented as an old man in the representations of the Trinit}- (q. v.). — Martignj', Dictioimaire <les Aniiquites Chretiennes, 18G5. (G. F. C.)