* 
 
THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD. 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2018 with funding from 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 
 % 
 
 https://archive.0rg/detail5/fatherhoodofgodbOOcand 
 
THE 
 
 FATHEKHOOD OF GOD 
 
 BEING THE FIKST COUESE OF THE 
 CUNNINGHAM LECTUEES 
 
 DELEVERED BEFORE THE NEW COLLEGE, EDINBURGH, 
 IN MARCH 1864 . 
 
 BY 
 
 ROB. S. CANDLISH, D.D. 
 
 PRINCIPAL OF THE NEW COLLEGE, AND MINISTER OF FREE ST. GEOROE’S CHURCH. 
 
 EDINBUEGH 
 
 ADAM AND CHAELES BLACK 
 
 1865 
 
Printed by R. Clark, Edinburgh. 
 
EXTEACT DECLAKATION OF TEU8T, ETC., 
 
 March 1, 1862. 
 
 I, William Binny Webster, late Surgeon in the H.E.I.C.S., 
 presently residing in Edinburgh,—Considering that I feel 
 deeply interested in the success of the Free Church College, 
 Edinburgh, and am desirous of advancing the Theological 
 Literature of Scotland, and for this end to establish a Lecture¬ 
 ship similar to those of a like kind connected with the Church 
 of England and the Congregational body in England, and 
 that I have made over to the General Trustees of the Free 
 Church of Scotland the sum of £2000 sterling, in trust, for 
 the purpose of founding a Lectureship in memory of the late 
 Reverend William Cunningham, D.D., Principal of the Free 
 Church College, Edinburgh, and Professor of Divinity and 
 Church History therein, and under the following conditions, 
 namely— First, The Lectureship shall bear the name, and be 
 called “ The Cunningham Lectureship.” Second, The lecturer 
 shall be a Minister or Professor of the Free Church of Scot¬ 
 land, and shall hold the appointment for not less than two 
 years, nor more than three years, and be entitled for the 
 period of his holding the appointment to the income of the 
 endowment as declared by the General Trustees, it being 
 understood that the Council after referred to may occasion¬ 
 ally appoint a minister or professor from other denominations, 
 provided this be approved of by not fewer than eight members 
 of the Council, and it being further understood that the Coun¬ 
 cil are to regulate the terms of payment of the lecturer. 
 Third, The lecturer shall be at liberty to choose his own 
 subject witlrin the range of Apologetical, Doctrinal, Contro¬ 
 versial, Exegetical, Pastoral, or Historical Theology, including 
 what bears on missions, home and foreign, subject to the con¬ 
 sent of the Council. Fourth, The lecturer shall be bound to 
 deliver publicly at Edinburgh a course of lectures on the 
 
EXTRACT DECLARATION OF TRUST, ETC. 
 
 su])jt3cts thus chosen at some time immediately preceding the 
 expiry of his appointment, and during the Session of the New 
 College, Edinburgh ; the lectures to be not fewer than six in 
 number, and to be delivered in presence of the professors and 
 students under such arrangements as the Council may appoint; 
 the lecturer shall be l)ound also to print and publish, at his 
 own risk, not fewer than 750 copies of the lectures within a 
 year after their delivery, and to deposit three copies of the 
 same in the Library of the New College ; the form of the pub¬ 
 lication shall be regulated by the Council. Fi/l/t, A Council 
 shall be constituted, consisting of (first) Two Members of their 
 own body to be chosen annually in the month of March, by 
 the Senatus of the New College, other than the Principal; 
 (second) Five Members to be chosen annually by the General 
 Assembly, in addition to the Moderator of the said Free 
 Church of Scotland ; together with (third) the Principal of the 
 said New College for the time being, the Moderator of the 
 said General Assembly for the time being, the procurator or 
 law adviser of the Church, and myself the said William Binny 
 Webster, oi- such person as I may nominate to be my suc¬ 
 cessor : the Principal of the said College to be Convener of 
 the Council, and any Five Members duly convened to be 
 entitled to act notwithstanding the non-election of others 
 Sixih, The duties of the Council shall be the following;— 
 (first). To appoint the lecturer and determine the period of his 
 liolding the appointment, the appointment to be made before 
 the close of the Session of College immediately preceding the 
 termination of the previous lecturer’s engagement; (second), 
 To arrange details as to the delivery of the lectures, and to 
 take charge of any additional income and expenditure of an 
 incidental kind that may be connected therewith, it being 
 understood that the obligation upon the lecturer is simply to 
 deliver the course of lectures free of expense to himself. 
 Seventh, The Council shall be at liberty, on the expiry of five 
 years, to make any alteration that experience may suggest as 
 desirable in the details of this plan, provided such alterations 
 shall be approved of by not fewer than Eight Members of the 
 Council. , 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 I HAVE delayed the publication of these 
 Lectures, I fear, somewhat beyond the term 
 prescribed by the letter of the Founders 
 deed, though not so as seriously to violate 
 the spirit of it. I entertained the hope of 
 being able to render them less unworthy of 
 the occasion ; and, in particrdar, I contem¬ 
 plated a supplementary or preliminary 
 dissertation, in which I might obviate 
 some misapprehensions not unlikely to 
 arise out of my manner of treating the 
 subject, and might also fortify my princi¬ 
 pal positions by authorities more or less 
 favourable to my views. Various circum¬ 
 stances have so hindered me, that I have 
 judged it best, on the whole, to abandon 
 that intention, and to content myself for 
 the present with a careful revisal of the 
 Lectures as they were delivered. I have 
 given, however, a few explanatory notes. 
 And I have added an Appendix of four 
 
VI 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 Discourses, or Scriptural Expositions, fitted, 
 as I trust, to confirm and illustrate the 
 doctrines which I advocate. 
 
 These are not, in my opinion, novel 
 doctrines; I would be sorry to think that 
 they were. I may have put some points 
 more sharply, and pushed a certain line of 
 thought more boldly, than some may be 
 quite prepared to approve. I am persuaded 
 that I have really advanced nothing which 
 may not be found, if not categorically as¬ 
 serted, at least fairly implied, in the writ¬ 
 ings of orthodox and evangelical divines, 
 both of earlier and of later times. But I 
 am also persuaded that in the interest of 
 a sound faith, and in the view of presently 
 prevailing error, it is of some consequence 
 that the aspects of theology which I have 
 endeavoured to present should be more 
 unequivocally and prominently elevated 
 into a conspicuous place of their own, than 
 they have been in some of our systems. 
 This must be my apology, both for the 
 choice of my subject and for my way of 
 handling it. 
 
 Idius, for one thing, I am anxious to keep 
 the relation of real and proper sonship quite 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 • • 
 
 vii 
 
 distinct and separate from every other. 
 That the original relation of intelligent 
 creatures to God, the relation constituted 
 in and by their creation, is such as to ad¬ 
 mit of much friendly and loving intercourse 
 and of many mutual endearments, very 
 nearly akin to fatherly and filial fellowship, 
 I freely allow. But I refuse to call it son- 
 ship. Satan, in Milton, claims to be God's 
 son, even in his fallen state— 
 
 “ The son of God I also am, or was, 
 
 And if I was, I am ; relation stands.” 
 
 Paradise Regained, iv. 517. 
 
 And he is logically right. Relation 
 stands;" and with relation, duty also. The 
 fallen spirit is God's son still, if he was his 
 son before. And he owes his Father filial 
 love. It may be so. In his case it does 
 not matter much. But if it be so in the 
 case of fallen man, how is his case met ? 
 I can see how in Christ his case, as that 
 of a disobedient subject, is met. But what 
 provision is made for healing the hurt 
 which the relation of sonship, still standing, 
 has sustained? None that I can see;— 
 unless sonship is simply merged in subject- 
 ship. And that I take to be the real state 
 of the matter, so far as the sounder portion 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 • f • 
 
 Vlll 
 
 of the asserters of an original relation of 
 sonship are concerned. 
 
 The truth is, that this original relation 
 of sonship is with them nothing more than 
 a kind of quality of subjectship. It is sub- 
 jectship realising itself, if one may so sjDeak, 
 in favourable circumstances and under 
 favourable influences ;—causing it to par¬ 
 take not a little of the genial, cordial 
 spirit which is wont to pervade the walk 
 of a son with his father. If that is all that 
 is involved in the primitive and primeval 
 sonship of paradise, then it follows that it 
 is all that the perfected sonship of heaven 
 can have in it;—all I mean in kind, there 
 may be a difference of degree. For re¬ 
 lation stands,'' after its hurt is healed, the 
 same as it was at first, and has ever been. 
 
 But such a view does not really satisfy 
 those who look forward to the believer's 
 ultimate glory in Christ. I cite a few in¬ 
 stances in proof. For I claim all such 
 instances as virtually on my side in this 
 argument. They may not make the son- 
 ship so explicitly the point at issue as I 
 do. But I think they admit, or rather 
 assert, all that I require for my purpose. 
 
 I begin with Goodwin. Writing of the 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 IX 
 
 superiority of the future state of the re¬ 
 deemed, as compared with man's position 
 in Paradise, he says :—'' I grant that this 
 new sj)irit, begotten of the Spirit, is of a 
 more divine temper, genius, and aspirement 
 than the image of God in Adam was, which 
 though holy, yet (was so) but in a natural 
 way ;—in knowing God in and by the 
 creatures, and by the covenant of works, 
 and so only according to what is naturally 
 due unto a creature reasonable, as he first 
 falls out of the hands of his Maker. And 
 I should not only grant that this new divine 
 nature, born of the Spirit, is supernatural, 
 in comparison to corrupt nature and the 
 dispositions thereof, but also in comparison 
 of pure nature. Insomuch as Adam was 
 but an earthly natural man, comparatively 
 to that which is born of the Spirit, which is 
 the image of the heavenly, and is ordained 
 in the end to see God in himself, and will 
 be raised up thereto ; and at present hath 
 such a way of knowing and enjoying God, 
 and such object spiritual suited to it as 
 Adam's state was not capable of."— Works, 
 vol. vi. p. 161, NichoVs Edition. 
 
 More particularly, in another passage, 
 he uses language so strong, that 1 would 
 
X 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 hold any controversy with him on the sub¬ 
 ject to be little better than logomachy. 
 '' Adam was a son of God's by creation 
 (Luke iii. 38). But to be a son of God by 
 Christ, this is a higher thing, and puts the 
 spiritualness upon it which a holy heart 
 values. For it is to be a son-in-law by 
 marriage unto, and union with, the natural 
 son of God. So then the spirituality of our 
 sonship lies in that relation it hath unto 
 Christ."— Works, vol. vi. p. 180. 
 
 And still more strongly, if possible, in 
 yet another passage he contrasts the ser¬ 
 vant and the son;—So in like manner to 
 be begotten again notes a state of sonship, 
 a being truly made a child ; for if God be¬ 
 gets, he begets genuinely, it proves always a 
 true child of his begetting; and whoever 
 is born of God hath his image, his nature, 
 or as the apostle speaks, ‘true holiness,' 
 (Eph. iv. 24). They {i.e., apostates) are said 
 to be sanctified (Heb. x.) for that may have 
 a counterfeit, namely, a setting apart to 
 outward service by gifts and enlighten¬ 
 ments ; but to shew it is not true sanctifica¬ 
 tion, or after God in true holiness, they are 
 never said to be born of God. They as 
 servants live in the family, are put into 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 XI 
 
 offices and services, and to that end do re¬ 
 ceive gifts and graces to lay out as talents, 
 (Matt. XXV.) which, not improved, they lose, 
 blit being not made children, therefore it 
 is they abide not always in the house, as 
 Christ speaks (John viii. 35)—And the 
 servant abideth not in the house for ever ; 
 but the Son abideth ever.’' They are hired 
 servants, not begotten children. They have 
 gifts from him as a lord, but not his image 
 as from a father, and so are never said to 
 be begotten.— Works, vol. vi. p. 154. 
 
 Another matter which I have sought 
 to elaborate is the connection of our son- 
 shi23 as believers with that of the incarnate 
 son of God, in its nature as well as in its 
 discovery or manifestation. 
 
 As to this last ^^oint,—its discovery or 
 manifestation,—I have founded an argu¬ 
 ment on the distinction, which I hold to be 
 very marked and very significant, between 
 the almost unbroken silence of the Old 
 Testament on the subject of the sonship of 
 the saints, and the clear, full utterances of 
 the New. And I am glad to liave had my 
 attention called to a criticism of Delitzsch, 
 which strongly corroborates my view. 
 
Xll 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 It is a criticism on Psalm Ixxiii. 15. 
 
 ‘ The generation of thy children' is the 
 totality of those in whom the filial relation 
 in which God has placed Israel to himself 
 has become an inward reality, the Israel of 
 God or the generation of the righteous 
 (Psalm xiv. 5). It is a generic name, as in 
 Deut. xiv. 1, Hosea ii. 1. For hereby is the 
 New Testament distinguished in this point 
 of the vto&isia from the Old, that always in 
 the Old Testament only Israel as a people 
 is called son—or as a totality of individuals, 
 sons. But the individual cordd not yet 
 venture to call himself a child of God. The 
 personality is not yet set loose from the 
 race, it is not yet independent, it is still the 
 time of the minority." 
 
 The other point is, of course, the more 
 vital one. I mean the nature of the con¬ 
 nection between the believer's sonship and 
 that of Christ. I have not hesitated to 
 avow my belief in the substantial iden¬ 
 tity of the relation. I have of course in¬ 
 sisted upon certain very material differ¬ 
 ences. In particular I have been careful 
 to discriminate between the original ground 
 of a relation, or the manner in which it is 
 constituted or subsists, and its proper na- 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 XI11 
 
 ture. It may rest on different gronnds and 
 be differently constituted, in two differoTit 
 parties sustaining it, and yet be truly the 
 same relation. Then, again, it must ever 
 be kept in mind that there may be the 
 widest possible difference also, as to the 
 capacities of the two parties respectively 
 for apprehending the relation in all its ful¬ 
 ness. When the one party is divine as well 
 as human, and the other human merely, the 
 difference in this respect must be literally 
 immense. Still it may be held to be the 
 same relation, without in the least con¬ 
 founding divinity and humanity, or making 
 man God, or equal to God. 
 
 In illustrating the identity for which I 
 plead, I have not felt myself bound to 
 attempt any exact or formal definition of 
 the sonship which I hold to be the privi¬ 
 lege of the believer. If it were, in my 
 view, a relation in which, as a believer, he 
 stood alone, or a relation which he shared 
 only with other believers, such a definition 
 might be legitimately demanded of me. 
 But if it is a relation which he shares with 
 the Son, or rather which the Son shares 
 with him, the thing is not so practicable. 
 Indeed, as it seems to me, the attempt would 
 
XIV 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 be almost presumptuous. It is safer and 
 more becoming to study the outgoings or 
 outcomings of the relation in the actings 
 and utterances of the Son himself, and to 
 seek, by the help of the Holy Spirit, to 
 become more and more one with him in 
 them all. 
 
 This, in fact, is what all devout theolo¬ 
 gians more or less explicitly teach on the 
 subject of the union which faith effects 
 between Christ and his people;—so that 
 here again I may claim as virtually on 
 my side many who do not employ the 
 phraseology which I adopt;—phraseology, 
 however, which I think I see reason more 
 and more every day why the Church should 
 appropriate, if her trumpet is to give a 
 certain sound. 
 
 I am tempted to give a quotation or 
 two from authors of widely different times 
 and temperaments, bearing on the inti¬ 
 mate connection, at least, of Christ’s son- 
 ship with that of the believer. 
 
 I begin with Athanasius. In his epistle 
 on the Decrees of the Council of Nice 
 (ch. 31), he thus writes:—''And Christ 
 would have the sum of our faith to refer 
 to this, for he commanded us to be bap- 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 XV 
 
 tised, not in the name of the nnbegotten 
 and the begotten, nor in the name of the 
 uncreated and the created, but in the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
 the Holy Spirit; for thus being perfected, 
 we too are truly made sons; and naming 
 the name of the Father, we recognise from 
 this name also the Word, who is in the 
 Father. And though each one of us may 
 call our Father his own Father, we must 
 not therefore equal ourselves with the Son 
 by nature. For even this is said of us 
 through him : for since the Word bore our 
 body, and was made in us, it follows that 
 on account of the Word in us, God is 
 called also our Father. For the Spirit of 
 the Word in us addresses through us his 
 own Father as ours : and this is the mind 
 of the apostle when he says, ^God sent 
 forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, 
 crying Abba, Father.''' 
 
 And again, in his second oration 
 against the Arians, he says :—'' And this 
 is the love of God to men, that of whom 
 he is the Maker he also afterwards became 
 by grace the Father; and he becomes so 
 when the men whom he has created, as 
 the apostle says, receive into their hearts 
 
XVI 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 the Spirit of liis Son, crying, Abba., Fatlier; 
 and these are tiiey who, having received 
 the Word, receive power from him to 
 become sons of God; for otherwise they 
 could not have been sons, being by nature 
 creatures, unless they receive the Spirit of 
 him who is the true and natural Son of tlie 
 Father. Wherefore, that this might be, 
 the Word was made flesh, that he might 
 make man capable of receiving the Deity. 
 
 . . . From this it may be shewn that we 
 are not by nature sons, but the Son in us; 
 and again, that God is not our father by 
 nature, but (the father) of the AYord in 
 us, in whom and through whom we cry, 
 Abba, Father. And just so, too, in whom¬ 
 soever the Father sees his own Son, them 
 also he calls sons, and says of them, I 
 have begotten; since to beget, is the sign 
 of a son, and to make, of creatures. 
 Wherefore we are not first begotten but 
 made ; for it is written. Let us make man; 
 but afterwards, receiving the grace of the 
 Spirit, we are said thenceforth also to be 
 begotten. . . . And when men are by 
 grace said to be begotten as sons, yet not 
 the less are they by nature creatures.'' 
 
 Schleiermacher may not be ranked high 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 xvii 
 
 as an authority ; but the following passage 
 is interesting. It will be observed that he 
 makes adoption a part of justification ; 
 but he pleads for a high sort of adoption ; 
 —''As to the second element (of justi¬ 
 fication), it is not possible that Christ 
 should live in us without his relation¬ 
 ship to his Father also forming itself in 
 us, and our thus partaking in his son- 
 ship, which is the power that he gives to 
 become the sons of God ; and this includes 
 in it the guarantee of our sanctification. 
 For the right of sonship is to be educated, 
 to be free fellow-workers in the affairs of 
 the house ; and the natural law of sonship 
 is that by means of the vital connection 
 also likeness to the father developes itself 
 in the child. Thus, too, both elements 
 are inseparable; for a divine adoption 
 without forgiveness of sins were null, since 
 guilt begets fear, and that again bondage ; 
 and by forgiveness without adoption no 
 constant relation to God would be estab¬ 
 lished. Both in this inseparableness make 
 up the complete reversal of our relation to 
 God, which is only called forgiveness in so 
 far as it is connected with the putting 
 
 off the old man, and adoption in so far 
 
 h 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 xviii 
 
 as it is connected with the putting on 
 the new. And both, too, are so mutually 
 conditioned one by the other, that each 
 element may be viewed both as the earlier 
 and the later; for on the one side it would 
 seem that the feeling of the old life must 
 first be blotted out before that of the op¬ 
 posing new life can form itself But, on the 
 other side, it is only in the new that there 
 lies the right and the power to shake our¬ 
 selves free from the old. Thus it can be 
 said with equal correctness, after a man’s 
 sins are forgiven he is received into the 
 sonship of God, and after he is received into 
 the sonship of God he receives forgiveness 
 of sins .”—Christliclie Glauhe. ii. p. 194, 195. 
 
 Nor may it be out of place to quote 
 from Treffry a specimen of what he fre¬ 
 quently though incidentally says in his 
 book on the Eternal Sonship :—'' The first 
 Adam upon his fall ' begat a son in his own 
 likeness;’ and so 'the image of the earthy’ 
 is set upon his entire posterity. He was 
 the type and model of that degenerate and 
 corrupt condition which was introduced by 
 his sin. It is the office of the second Adam 
 to give back to a lapsed race the forfeited 
 image of God. Nor is he, as the Son of 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 XIX 
 
 God, the renewer only of the miserable 
 state of man, but equally the type and 
 model of the new creation. Such he is, 
 both with respect to personal purity, and 
 in his eternal filial relation. It is not 
 without reference to this that the faithful 
 are called sons of God ; for the entire ad¬ 
 ministration of the gospel is designed to 
 establish, between the human spirit and 
 God, a moral relation in some respect ana¬ 
 logous to that which subsists between the 
 divine Father and the divine Son. 
 
 ‘'This was one of the objects contem¬ 
 plated in the incarnation of the Son ; that 
 thus he who was inconceivably remote 
 from us might be brought near to us ; and 
 that beholding the glory, ‘ even of the Only 
 Begotten from the Father,' the process of 
 assimilation proposed in the divine counsels 
 might be accomplished in us. Hence, ‘when 
 the fulness of the time was come, God sent 
 forth HIS Son, made of a woman, made 
 under the law, to redeem them that were 
 under the law, that we might receive the 
 ADOPTION of SONS. And because ye are 
 SONS, God hath sent forth the Spirit of 
 HIS Son into your hearts, crying, Abba 
 Father.' He who by nature is the Son 
 
XX 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 of God becomes the son of man, that we, 
 who by nature are sons of men, may become 
 the sons of God. He assumes our nature 
 that we may be transformed into the like¬ 
 ness of his. The Sox is sent forth as our 
 Redeemer, that we may receive at once the 
 filial relation and the filial Spirit” * 
 
 There is a passage in Hooker's Ecclesi¬ 
 astical Polity (Book v. sec. 56) which con¬ 
 tains some very strong statements bearing 
 on ''the union or mutual participation 
 which is between Christ and his people." 
 It is too long to be given entire ; and I 
 fear I could scarcely make selections from 
 it in a way that would be intelligible. It 
 deserves careful study; and I am mistaken 
 if the careful study of it will not suggest 
 incidental corroborations, at least of the 
 main propositions which I am anxious to 
 maintain. 
 
 I leave my work now to the judgment 
 of intelligent and candid students of theo¬ 
 logy and of the Word of God. I ask no 
 more than this, that the volume be con¬ 
 sidered as a whole before it is criticised in 
 
 * Pages 403/404, edit. 1837. The italics and capitals 
 are 'rreffry’s own. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 XXI 
 
 detail. And I think I am entitled to beg 
 that favour ; for whatever may be at first 
 sight startling to some minds in my man¬ 
 ner of treating the subject, can be fairly 
 estimated only when my whole reasoning 
 is examined. 
 
 Edinburgh, Vlth April 1865. 
 
m 
 
 
 
 
 
 [i 
 
 ^ .A "V.■•;;t 
 
 • I'.v i‘ff /\ *.^*J.'-‘f-! *»’ 
 
 
 * V £«' I A 
 
 > J : 
 .r;C 
 
 - 
 
 '•J ■ 
 
 f ;.* ^ j . >i y '.XrT«?^, 
 
 ^gi ^/• ’ .V v-r 
 
 , ?'• ^-: •■: 
 
 iais^ , " .j^-j.'. .M, 
 
 J* , 
 
 
 
 
 
 .. ■' a 
 
 '"*"«« nlk^ “' 
 
 ‘ I 
 
 ’ *V; #•* 
 
 A 1*^. f*. jT * / _ - .e . •^ ^I 
 
 lySjH • - ,} ‘ A y ,'■' . * ^ 
 
 'n«^, • 
 
 r> 
 
 
 'ii, 
 
 ,^?1 
 
 
 \-t 'j .■ 
 
 7. ■'■♦■’ 
 
 -., * i. 
 
 'ss^'-Af* 
 
 
 ' ■ ' 
 
 ,,v. 
 
 ,■**'?.'’-Ti’ ■'^'' 
 
 
 #*.» 
 
 T 1 ^ « . • . ♦ ’-J ■* * 4 A. 
 
 ' '■ iS • ,'•..< 
 
 ‘ITMi VW "' '• ■ 
 
 JPP-*' Vij vrjb^ 
 
 '.' iS* 
 
 Mi.*'/ 
 
 
 ■T'* 
 
 u: >J 
 
 ■ ■ -i ‘"‘ 
 
 
 
 ^'!' I*, ‘k tt 
 
 
 V ^ - 
 
 .* * 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 LECTURE FIRST. 
 
 Page 
 
 The original relation of man to God . . .1 
 
 Notes to Lecture First . . .45 
 
 LECTURE SECOND. 
 
 The Fatherhood of God, as manifested in the Person of 
 
 Christ, the Incarnate Word . . .63 
 
 Notes to Lecture Second . . .103 
 
 LECTURE THIRD. 
 
 The Fatherhood of God, as revealed and known before 
 
 the Incarnation . . . ; .112 
 
 Notes to Lecture Third . ; .155 
 
 LECTURE FOURTH. 
 
 The Teaching of our Lord on his own and his brethireh’s 
 
 sonship . . . . . .163 
 
 Notes to Lecture Fourth . . .302 
 
 LECTURE FIFTH. 
 
 The Manner of Entrance into the Relation ; Adoption, as 
 
 connected with Regeneration and Justification ; 208 
 
 Note to Lecture Fifth . . . .351 
 
XXIV 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 LECTURE SIXTH. 
 
 Page 
 
 The Privileges and Obligations of sonship 
 
 . 253 
 
 Notes to Lecture Sixth 
 
 . 289 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Scriptural Expositions and Illustrations. 
 
 1. The ultimate glory of filial service (Kev. xxii. -3) . 299 
 
 2. The great Gospel Convocation (Heh. xii. 22-24) . 318 
 
 3. The Son calling his people brethren (Heh. ii. 11-13) 337 
 
 4. The Son learning obedience by suffering (Heb. v. 7-9) 353 
 
LECTURE FIRST. 
 
 The invisible things of him from the creation of the world 
 are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are 
 made, even his eternal power and Godhead.— Eomans i. 20. 
 
 When the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the 
 things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are 
 a law unto themselves : Wliich show the work of the law 
 written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing 
 witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or 
 else excusing one another.— Romans ii. 14, 15.* 
 
 I COULD have wished that it had fallen to 
 one possessed of learning, leisure, and the 
 habit of study — none of which qualifi¬ 
 cations now belong to me—to inaugurate 
 
 * I prefix to the Lectures passages of Scripture, in 
 deference to a practice, in similar cases, of which I quite 
 approve. But I would not wish it to he understood that 
 these are texts, in the ordinary sense of the term—that I 
 either undertake the exposition of them, or found my 
 reasoning upon them. They are simply to be viewed as 
 mottoes or headings, more or less appropriate, indicating 
 in a general way the subsequent line of thought. 
 
 B 
 
2 
 
 LECTURE L 
 
 this lectureship. The man whose name it 
 bears would have been the proper person 
 to discharge this duty. It was in consul¬ 
 tation with him that the founder matured 
 his plan. And had it pleased God to spare 
 him, we would have had here this day, in¬ 
 stead of the name, the living presence and 
 voice of Principal Cunningham. 
 
 The occasion would have been worthy 
 of the man. It is a new thing in Scotland. 
 And it is what not a few of the best and 
 wisest of Scotland's theologians have for 
 years been anxious to realise. To one 
 person, in particular, the credit is due of 
 having urged upon the church and the 
 community the importance of this object, 
 with an enlightened zeal and perseverance 
 which he will feel to be amply rewarded 
 by the wise and liberal deed of gift of Dr. 
 Webster, becoming palpable as an accom¬ 
 plished fact, in our present meeting. I 
 cannot but congratulate my old friend and 
 beloved brother, the Free Church minister 
 of Newhaven, on his being here to witness 
 this day’s proceedings. The church owes 
 not a little to him in connection with this 
 noble institute.’^ 
 
 * See Note A. 
 
LECTURE 1. 
 
 3 
 
 I call it a noble institute, because I 
 believe it to be so. And therefore I greatly 
 honour the memory of the man who, when 
 none else seemed to be at all alive to the 
 appreciation of it, or, at least, so much 
 alive as to be moved to practical effort in 
 its behalf, took the matter into his own 
 hands, and by his own act did the thing. 
 
 For the thing is done. It may not be 
 done so thoroughly as not to admit of sup¬ 
 plement. I do not think that it is. Some¬ 
 thing more is needed. But the thing is 
 done. The lectureship is established ; and 
 whether sufficiently or not, it is yet so far 
 endowed as to be henceforth, as it were, 
 an ordinance in Israel. It is a self-per¬ 
 petuating institute. Humanly speaking, 
 the Cunningham Lectureship, founded by 
 Dr. Webster, is safe for ages. 
 
 What its effect is to be on the church 
 of the future, or on its theology, time with 
 its unknown influences alone can show. It 
 surely must contribute to give fixity to 
 theological investigations; to harmonise 
 originality with conservatism ; to stimu¬ 
 late fresh thought and inquiry in divines 
 of the new generation ; and yet to link 
 them in close continuity with the graver 
 
4 
 
 LECTURE L 
 
 and slower meditations of those who may 
 be passing away. 
 
 I hope that this result, or a tendency 
 to it, will very soon appear. Naturally, a 
 desire has been felt and acted upon, that 
 the honour and responsibility of some of 
 the first appointments should be assigned 
 to veterans—to those whose spurs, whether 
 on the field or in the study, were won long 
 years ago. But the number of these is 
 now very small. And soon, I would almost 
 say the sooner the better, younger brethren 
 must be called in. This Lectureship must 
 bring forward the representative men of 
 another generation. 
 
 Then the full benefit of this institution 
 will begin to appear. Then it will be seen 
 how, not by its emolument, but by the 
 stimulus to honourable ambition which it 
 supplies, it will tell on the lone chamber of 
 many a student toiling in the recesses and 
 far-off isles of our church ; and tell so as to 
 make his ministry all the more hearty, in 
 the proportion in which it makes his study 
 all the more hopeful. 
 
 The subject which I have chosen, with 
 concurrence of the council, is the Father- 
 
LECTURE L 
 
 5 
 
 hood of God. It is a subject which might 
 be handled in a great variety of ways, 
 according to the different points of view, 
 and the different aims of those handling it. 
 My object is chiefly a practical one. It is 
 to bring out the import and bearing of the 
 Scriptural doctrine respecting the Father¬ 
 hood of God, as an influential element in 
 Christian experience. 
 
 To reach that object, however, it may 
 be necessary to begin with what may seem 
 to be a somewhat abstract and speculative 
 inquiry—an inquiry, I mean, into the rela¬ 
 tions which God sustains towards his in¬ 
 telligent creatures generally, and the place 
 which the paternal relation holds among 
 them. This inquiry, accordingly, will oc¬ 
 cupy the first Lecture. 
 
 The second will be devoted to a con¬ 
 sideration of the Fatherhood of God, as 
 manifested in the person of the Son ; espe¬ 
 cially with reference to his Sonship in his 
 incarnate state, and its bearing on the son- 
 ship of his people. 
 
 In the third, I shaU inquire how and 
 how far the Fatherhood of God was matter 
 of human knowledge and divine revelation 
 before the incarnation of our Lord. 
 
6 
 
 LECTURE 1. 
 
 The fourth will contain an examination 
 of the teaching of our Lord and his apostles 
 on the subject; wdth special reference to 
 the question how Christ’s Sonship and Ids 
 people’s are mutually related to one another, 
 and connected with one another. 
 
 In the fifth, I shall advert to the manner 
 in which the relation is constituted, so far 
 as men are concerned ; and in the sixth, I 
 shall endeavour to point out some of its 
 characteristic privileges and obligations. 
 
 Such is a general outline of the plan 
 upon which these Lectures are prepared ; 
 subject, of course, to modifications that 
 may be rendered necessary, as-1 proceed 
 from day to day Avith the work of extend¬ 
 ing and putting in shape the rough mate¬ 
 rials which I have somewhat carefully 
 brought together. 
 
 In the discharge of this duty I crave 
 the indulgence of my audience. And more 
 than that, I ask their sympathy and their 
 prayers. The theme is a very great one, 
 and it demands very delicate treatment. 
 My way of treating it may be in some re¬ 
 spects unusual; on which account I hope 
 my hearers may be willing sometimes to 
 suspend their judgment until they have 
 
LECTURE I. 
 
 / 
 
 my views fully before them. I do not, 
 however, mean to teach new doctrine. I 
 seek to know the mind of Christ. 
 
 4 
 
 The inquiry concerning the Fatherhood of 
 God, its nature and foundation,—in what 
 sense, to what effect, and on what ground, 
 God is to be regarded as the Father of all 
 or any of his intelligent creatures,—is one 
 that ought to be conducted on the principle 
 of a pure- and simple appeal to Scripture ; 
 at least it is on that principle that I profess 
 to conduct it. Does revelation ascribe to 
 the Divine Being a relation of paternity as 
 sustained by him towards angels and men? 
 And if so, of what sort is it, how constituted 
 and how realised ? That is my idea of the 
 question at issue. 
 
 At the same time it may be proper, as 
 preliminary to the scriptural investigation 
 of the subject, to look at it for a little 
 in the light of natural religion; to see 
 how far, among the elements, whether in¬ 
 tuitional or experimental, out of which 
 
8 
 
 LECTURE L 
 
 the system of rational Theism must be 
 constructed, there is any valid or suffi¬ 
 cient warrant for conceiving of God as a 
 Father. 
 
 This is all the more necessary because 
 it has somehow come to be taken for 
 granted, in many quarters, that the pri¬ 
 mary and original relation of God to man 
 is the paternal ; and that consequently, 
 any other relations which may belong to 
 him, and in fact all his ordinances and 
 actings in all his dealings with the human 
 race as a whole, and with its members 
 individually, must be viewed as springing 
 out of that first and fundamental relation, 
 and moulded and regulated by it. Nor 
 does this mean merely that God must be 
 held to cherish towards persons capable of 
 being the objects of them feelings and 
 affections similar, in many respects, to some 
 of those which find a place in an earthly 
 father’s bosom. It is evident that some¬ 
 thing more is intended ; something of the 
 nature of a real and definite relation. For 
 it is made the basis of arguments a ^priori 
 for or against several of those aspects of 
 the Divine procedure with reference to 
 mankind about which controversies are 
 
LECTURE L 
 
 9 
 
 still agitated. It is pleaded that God 
 must be held to act in this or that par¬ 
 ticular way towards men, because he is 
 their Father; or otherwise, that he can¬ 
 not be imagined to adopt such or such 
 a course, inasmuch as it would be incon¬ 
 sistent with his Fatherhood. 
 
 I do not here speak of this mode of 
 reasoning as unwarrantable and unsafe. I 
 do not raise or argue that point at this 
 stage. I allude to the fact which I have 
 stated, simply as proving that the paternal 
 relation into which some would resolve all 
 the Divine dispensations is in their eyes a 
 great, or rather the only great, reality; and 
 as rendering it therefore a matter of not 
 a little consequence to attempt to ascertain 
 what root it has, if any, in the original 
 conceptions which nature teaches us to 
 form of her glorious Author. 
 
 In making this attempt, I am not called 
 upon, at least in the first instance, to define 
 exactly, or to describe particularly, the 
 relation now in question. It is rather 
 incumbent on those who assert it as a 
 natural and original relation, and who 
 insist upon it as their all in all, to do so. 
 For the most part, however, they decline 
 
10 
 
 LECTURE 1. 
 
 the task. They are more inclined to deal 
 in somewhat vague generalities ; losing 
 sight, as it seems to me, of an important 
 distinction which, in view of the ambiguity 
 of language, ought to be carefully observed. 
 
 We speak familiarly of the relation in 
 which two persons stand to one another, 
 when we mean nothing more than the state 
 of feeling, or the manner of intercourse, 
 that subsists between them. They are re¬ 
 lated to one another, in amity or in enmity, 
 as friends or as enemies. The relation be¬ 
 tween them is one of mutual confidence, or 
 of mutual distrust and disafiection. It is 
 that of a benefactor to him whom he bene¬ 
 fits, or of a wrongdoer to him whom he 
 injures. Relation, in that sense, or relative 
 position,* is not fixed, but variable. And as 
 
 It may be worth noting here that Dr. Kidd, in his 
 hook on the Eternal Sonship of Christ, to which I shall 
 have occasion afterwards to refer, makes constant use of 
 the term “ related state,” when speaking of the relationship 
 between any two of the three persons in the Godhead ; in 
 particular between the Father and the Son. It seems at 
 first sight a somewhat awkward phrase. I am persuaded, 
 however, that Dr. Kidd used it on purpose, and with his 
 usual regard to technical accuracy of theological expres¬ 
 sion ; having in view the very distinction which I am now 
 endeavouring to explain. 
 
LECTURE I. 
 
 11 
 
 such, or as being so, it may modify more fixed 
 and permanent relationships, even to the 
 extent of reversing their legitimate mode of 
 action. The actual, de facto, consciously 
 realised relation subsisting at any given 
 time,^—say between sovereign and subject, 
 or between brother and sister, or between 
 husband and wife, or between father and son, 
 —-may be very different from what the per¬ 
 manent mutual tie binding them, whether 
 by birth or by covenant, to one another, 
 must be held, de jure, to imply. The dif¬ 
 ference pray be either in defect or in excess; 
 in shortcoming or in superfluity. The ten- 
 derest bond,—the conjugal, the fraternal, 
 the parental, the filial,—may thus be prac¬ 
 tically made void by unloving spouses, 
 brethren, fathers, sons. And on the other 
 hand, a connection not in itself necessarily 
 involving any of the afiections and obliga¬ 
 tions of these unions may have their warm 
 and loving spirit infused into it, by the 
 warm and loving hearts of the connected 
 parties themselves. Thus those who till 
 yesterday have been utter strangers to one 
 another may unite to-day in an embrace 
 closer than either ever gave to his nearest 
 of kin ; just as nearest of kin may draw off 
 
12 
 
 LECTURE L 
 
 from one another more than any two mere 
 strangers would ever think of doing. 
 
 I do not now enlarge upon this distinc¬ 
 tion. Its importance, especially when God 
 and man are the parties concerned, may 
 appear more clearly as my argument ad¬ 
 vances. Meanwhile it is enough for my 
 purpose, in the outset, to have indicated 
 the distinction thus briefly, and, as it were, 
 in the form of a caveat against a possible 
 misapprehension of the introductory obser¬ 
 vations which I have to offer in this opening 
 Lecture ; the object of which is chiefly to 
 clear and define the state of the question 
 (status questionis), when viewed in the light 
 of natural religion and its teachings. 
 
 Let it be understood then that it is the 
 relation, or relations, in which God stands 
 to the other intelligences in the universe, 
 that constitutes the subject of my present 
 inquiry. It is an inquiry which has respect 
 to relationship, and to that only. 
 
 I say relation, or relations. For one 
 point of inquiry,—and that a primary and 
 principal one,—must be this :—Are the 
 relations in which God stands to the other 
 intelligences in the universe, manifold, 
 
LECTURE 1. 
 
 13 
 
 and essentially distinct ? Or may they all 
 be ultimately simplified and reduced into 
 one ? 
 
 That there is, and must be, a certain 
 thread of unity running through them all, 
 and harmonising them all, is probable, a 
 priori. It is probable, as a mere deduction 
 or inference from the unity of God; the 
 oneness of the Divine nature. And accord¬ 
 ingly, it may be anticipated that in the 
 end or in the long run,—as the result or 
 issue of the actual dealings of God with the 
 other intelligences in the universe,—a 
 unity of the strictest sort may come to 
 prevail and be established, in the final 
 adjustment, whatever that may be, of the 
 terms on which He and they are to stand 
 related towards one another for ever. It 
 may not be the same unity for aU. There 
 may not be the same adjustment in respect 
 of all. Undoubtedly two opposite poles 
 are indicated, not by Scripture only, but 
 by reason and conscience as well; both of 
 them simple enough ; the one simply penal 
 and accursed; the other simply free and 
 blessed: to one or other of which the con¬ 
 flicting elements in the troubled chaos of 
 created will appear to be all tending. But 
 
14 
 
 LECTURE I. 
 
 that simplicity, whether as '' a savour of 
 life unto life,'' or as '' a savour of death 
 unto death," is not yet. As things now 
 are, a somewhat more mixed and complex 
 system of relationship would seem to be, if 
 I may so speak, the order of the day. 
 
 Certainly, common language suggests 
 the idea of a variety of relations being 
 sustained by the Supreme toward subor¬ 
 dinate intelligences; such as those of 
 Creator, Preserver, Benefactor; I^awgiver, 
 Ruler, Judge ; Friend, Father. Thus, one 
 would say, the common sense of mankind 
 recognises complexity rather than simpli¬ 
 city ; the manifold rather than the one. 
 
 The enumeration which I have made of 
 these relations may be too manifold ; too 
 various and complex. Let that be at once 
 admitted. Still, let my enumeration be 
 sifted and simplified ever so carefully, it 
 gives at all events a threefold notion of 
 what I may be allowed to call the normal 
 Divine relationship; meaning by that term, 
 exhaustively, the entire relative position 
 which God occupies, or may occupy, with 
 reference to his intelligent creatures, con¬ 
 sidered simply as such. 
 
 First, there is the relation springing out 
 
LECTURE I. 
 
 15 
 
 of the bare fact of creation; a relation 
 implying certainly preservation and bene¬ 
 faction. The Creator, in virtue of his being 
 their creator, preserves and benefits his 
 intelligent, as well as his other creatures. 
 
 Secondly, there is the relation necessarily 
 constituted by the fact of the creation 
 being a creation of intelligent and respon¬ 
 sible beings ; a relation implying moral rule 
 and government; authoritative law and 
 retributive judgment. 
 
 Thirdly, there is the relation of which 
 intelligent and responsible beings may fitly, 
 though not necessarily, be the objects;— 
 the relation of friendship, rising, it may be, 
 into fatherhood. 
 
 The popular mind, as it expresses itself 
 in all languages, recognises this threefold 
 conception of God. The distinctions which 
 it involves, between the first view rising 
 into the second and the second culminating 
 in the third, are of such a nature, and the 
 sense of them is so deeply rooted in the 
 very constitution of all created intelligence, 
 that science the most scientific,—system 
 the most systematizing,—cannot be allowed 
 to overlook or disregard them ; or so to 
 aim at their obliteration as absolutely to 
 
16 
 
 LECTURE 1. 
 
 confound creation with government—or 
 creation and government with friendship 
 or fatherhood. 
 
 But another question here arises. May 
 not these relations involve one another, or 
 run up into one another ? May it not be 
 the case, first, that creation implies govern¬ 
 ment ; and, secondly, that creation and 
 government necessarily imply friendship 
 and fatherhood?—necessarily, I mean, in 
 essential principle, ab origine, as well as 
 ultimately and practically, in actual result 
 or issue ? 
 
 To a large extent, or rather indeed 
 unreservedly, the former of these two ques¬ 
 tions must be answered in the affirmative. 
 Whatever God creates, he must not only 
 preserve and benefit, but also govern. 
 
 Let it be observed, however, that this 
 necessity does not arise out of any right 
 which creation may be supposed to give to 
 the creature ;—any claim which the crea¬ 
 ture, as such, may be imagined to have 
 upon the Creator. Nor is it founded upon 
 any such right or claim. It arises solely 
 out of the absolute sovereignty of God, the 
 Creator, and is founded entirely on that 
 inherent and inalienable prerogative of 
 
LECTURE 1. 
 
 17 
 
 Deity. Whatever God as Creator makes 
 he must rule. If it is not to rule him, he 
 must rule it. And he must rule it, in all 
 its actings and workings ; ‘ through all the 
 stages of its development. 
 
 And the rule must always be, in a 
 sense, by law and judgment. In a sense, 
 I say, more or less proper. For the nature 
 of the law and judgment by means of 
 which God rules must correspond to the 
 nature and constitution of the thing or 
 being to be ruled. 
 
 If it is inert matter that is to be ruled, 
 
 the law will be of a material or physical 
 
 * 
 
 kind, whether mechanical or chemical. 
 And the judgment, if it may be so called, 
 by which the law is enforced, will be the 
 material or physical disorganization which 
 any interference with its uniform and 
 orderly working, or any disregard of its 
 uniform and orderly working, inevitably 
 tends to cause. Such interference or dis¬ 
 regard, it is obvious, cannot come from 
 inert matter itself, but only from a living 
 voluntary agent handhng and using it. 
 Upon the living voluntary agent, therefore, 
 the judgment, or quasi-judgment, falls. 
 Inert matter itself never is and never can 
 
 c 
 
18 
 
 LECTURE L 
 
 be disobedient to the law by which it is 
 ruled; and consequently never can incur 
 the penalty of disobedience. 
 
 But now, let what is to be ruled be, not 
 inert matter, but beings possessed of animal 
 life, having the capacity of feeling and the 
 power of voluntary motion ;—with the sen¬ 
 sational propensities which we class as 
 instinctive, and those dawnings of intelli¬ 
 gence which, rendering them teachable, 
 look so marvellously like reason, as they are 
 unfolded, in growing shrewdness, from the 
 lowest to the highest order of the brutal 
 tribes. The sort of law by which such 
 beings are ruled,—the law of instinct, and 
 it may be added, in a measure, of expe¬ 
 rience,—is adapted to their sentient and 
 motive nature. It tells or operates upon 
 them blindly ; that is, without any con¬ 
 sciousness of it on their part, or any faculty 
 of either assenting to it, or dissenting from 
 it. Nor are they more conscious of the 
 judgment enforcing the law, as judgment, 
 than they are of the law, as law. They 
 receive good through compliance with the 
 law, whether the compliance be their own 
 act or another’s act upon them, with equal 
 unconcern. And so also, with equal un- 
 
LECTURE 1. 
 
 19 
 
 concern, they receive evil throngh the vio¬ 
 lation of the law, when either their own 
 act, or another’s act towards them, is 
 such as to make it work to their hurt. 
 There is an entire absence, equally in 
 either case, of anything like the feeling of 
 moral obligation fulfilled or outraged ; 
 of moral guilt and culpability avoided or 
 incurred. 
 
 That feeling is the exclusive property 
 of intelligence, when it rises to the posses¬ 
 sion of consciousness and of conscience ; 
 consciousness of the personal self; con¬ 
 science toward the personal God. And it 
 is that feeling which identifies and attests 
 the peculiar character of the law and judg¬ 
 ment by means of which the Creator 
 rules his really intelligent and accountable 
 creatures. His rule now becomes govern¬ 
 ment, properly so called ; government wor¬ 
 thy of himself; in full harmony with his 
 own personal nature, and with his ultimate 
 purpose in creation, to have persons under 
 his sway, with whom he, as a person, may 
 personally deal. It becomes a rational and 
 moral government, by means of a law and 
 a judgment of which reason and the moral 
 sense take cognizance; a law, which the 
 
20 
 
 LECTURE L 
 
 soul or spirit, consciously free, voluntarily 
 accepts or disowns ; a judgment, which the 
 soul or spirit, consciously responsible, can¬ 
 not but confess to be either the appropriate 
 reward of innocence or merit, or the de¬ 
 served recompense of crime. 
 
 Thus it would seem that, from the very 
 nature of the case, creation implies rule 
 and government. The Creator must, of 
 very necessity, be a ruler and governor; 
 unless his own creation is to be independent 
 of himself And, as regards his intelligent 
 creatures, his rule or government must be, 
 in the proper forensic sense, legal and 
 judicial, if it is to be adapted to the consti¬ 
 tution and relative position of the persons 
 who are to be governed. Only thus can he 
 rule them as really persons. 
 
 For the same reason also, it is a matter 
 of necessity, as regards himself, that the 
 Creator’s rule or government shall be ab¬ 
 solute and sovereign. This is a capital 
 point in the argument from creation to 
 government, which must be clearly appre¬ 
 hended and steadily kept in view. If it is 
 as Creator that he rules and governs,—if it 
 is as his own creatures that he rules and 
 governs all things, all animals, all persons 
 
LECTURE L 
 
 21 
 
 in the universe,—by whatever sort of law, 
 by whatever sort of judgment, accom¬ 
 modated to their several natures,—it is 
 not possible to conceive otherwise of his 
 dominion than that it is of the most 
 thoroughly royal, imperial, autocratic kind. 
 For it is the dominion of him to whom all 
 creation belongs. It is the dominion of 
 him who must, if he is to be God, be 
 supreme over all. It is the dominion of 
 him to whom this worship belongs : “ Thou 
 Lord hast created all things, and for thy 
 pleasure they are and they were created.'’ 
 (Rev. iv. 11.)* 
 
 Now, if this is at all a right view of the 
 original relation of God to his created intel¬ 
 ligences,—the relation necessarily consti¬ 
 tuted by creation, and necessarily implied in 
 creation,—where is the idea of fatherhood? 
 Is there, at this stage, and so far as the 
 inquiry has been hitherto pushed, any room 
 for it at all ? Is it not rather excluded ? 
 Has that great thought any place among 
 those original, fundamental, primary, and 
 elemental conceptions of the connection 
 between the Creator and his intelligent 
 
 See Note B. 
 
22 
 
 LECTURE 1. 
 
 creatures, which must lie at the very root 
 and foundation of all religion, and must 
 enter into its heart’s core ;—at least if it is 
 to be theistic and monotheistic ? Set pan¬ 
 theism and polytheism apart. Let the 
 proper personality of the one only living 
 and true God be assumed. Let it be taken 
 for granted that the Creator is a living, 
 personal intelligence, distinct from his own 
 creation ; and in particular, distinct from 
 his own intelligent creatures, who are them¬ 
 selves, as he is, living, personal intelligences. 
 It may be clearly shown and certainly in¬ 
 ferred that he must, as Creator, govern 
 them ; and govern them in a manner suited 
 to their organisation or constitution, as that 
 of beings made capable of owning righteous’ 
 authority and reasonable law, and there¬ 
 fore capable of receiving recompense or 
 retribution. Standing to them in the rela¬ 
 tion of their creator, he must of necessity 
 stand to them in the relation, ^s thus ex¬ 
 plained, of their ruler; their sovereign 
 lawgiver and just judge. These apprehen¬ 
 sions of God, and of his relation to the 
 rational and responsible inhabitants of his 
 universe, are of the essence of all belief in 
 liim, and all worship of him. Tliey originate, 
 
LECTURE L 
 
 23 
 
 and what is more, they fully explain and 
 vindicate, both belief and worship. But 
 the paternal relation, the Fatherhood of 
 God, has no place among them. 
 
 Let the precise question here at issue 
 be carefully cleared and ascertained. It 
 is not a question about the existence of a 
 certain attribute in God, such as goodness, 
 kindness, pity, sympathy. Nor is it a 
 question about the sentiments and feelings 
 which God may be supposed to entertain 
 towards the beings whom he has made, 
 and which he may express or embody in 
 his actual dealings with them. The ques¬ 
 tion is much more precise and definite. It^ 
 is about the existence of a certain positively 
 real and actual relation of fatherhood and 
 sonship, between the Creator and his intel¬ 
 ligent creatures ; such a relation as, like 
 all real and actual relations, implies this at 
 least, that in virtue of it, certain specific 
 reciprocal obligations, of a peculiar nature, 
 are incumbent on the parties embraced in 
 it,—having certain specific reciprocal rights, 
 privileges, and endearments associated witl^ 
 them. It is not a divine feeling that may 
 be called fatherly,—as it might be equally 
 well named from some other kindly human 
 
24 
 
 LECTURE L 
 
 analogy,—that we are in search of; but a 
 real and actual divine fatherhood. We 
 want not merely one who, in his other re¬ 
 lations, acts as far as possible a fatherly 
 part towards us ; but one who is in fact 
 our father. 
 
 If any choose to say that fatherhood is 
 simply origination,—that the essence of it 
 lies in being the cause or occasion of a new 
 living person beginning to exist in the uni¬ 
 verse,—that paternity consists in bringing 
 a new living person, whether instrumentally 
 or otherwise, on the stage of the universe, 
 and in that alone; that it is that, and 
 nothing more ;—then of course creation 
 and paternity are identical. God, simply 
 as creator, is the father of all his creatures. 
 But, not to speak of the obvious difficulty 
 that this estabhshes somewhat too wide a 
 fatherhood, since it makes it comprehen¬ 
 sive, not only of all the higher intelligences, 
 however ultimately sunk and lost;—for 
 fatherhood by creation can scarcely be 
 conceived of otherwise than as natural, 
 necessary, and inalienable;—but also of 
 others besides, who may be still less wel¬ 
 come associates;—who does not see that 
 it really evacuates the idea of fatherhood 
 
LECTURE 1. 
 
 25 
 
 altogether of any precise or definite mean¬ 
 ing ; making the name little more than a 
 euphonious synonym, or figurative personi¬ 
 fication, for causation; and in truth deny¬ 
 ing that there is any real paternal relation 
 on the part of God at all! 
 
 Nor will it avail to hold, by way of 
 hmitation and definition, that it is his cre¬ 
 ating them in his own image, after his own 
 likeness,'' that constitutes the Creator to be 
 also the father of the higher intelligences;— 
 as if his fatherhood consisted in his being 
 the originating cause of new beings like 
 himself coming into existence. For this 
 only brings us back to the former inquiry. 
 What is it, as regards the relation between 
 God and them, that their being thus created 
 “ in his image and after his likeness" neces¬ 
 sarily involves ? It can scarcely be proved 
 to involve any more than this ; that they 
 are capable of understanding his will, feel¬ 
 ing their free responsibility under it, and 
 receiving reward or punishment in terms 
 of it. His government of them therefore 
 must be of a reasonable and moral charac¬ 
 ter ; by means of a reasonable, moral law, 
 having annexed to it suitable and corre¬ 
 sponding judicial awards. If the relation 
 
LECTURE 1. 
 
 26 
 
 of fatherhood arises out of the fact of 
 creation, it may be * admitted that, in the 
 case of intelligent creatures, it involves 
 that. But it cannot be shown to involve 
 more than that. And really, if that is 
 all, the fatherhood of God, I repeat, is but 
 a name. It is little, if anything, more than 
 a mere figure of speech. For it cannot, in 
 my judgment, be too- strongly asserted, 
 that among the primary and original ele¬ 
 ments of our relational conception of God, 
 there is absolutely no trace of anything 
 peculiar in the constitution and condition 
 of his rational, as distinct from his other 
 creatures, beyond the bare fact of intelli¬ 
 gent responsibility.* 
 
 Nay, not only so. There is absolutely 
 no room, no place, for anything more. The 
 intrusive introduction of anything more 
 deranges and disturbs the whole great 
 economy of creation. The notion of the 
 Creator s government of the very highest 
 of his intelligent creatures being anything 
 else, in its principle and ideal, than simply 
 and strictly legal and judicial, is, as it re¬ 
 spects the radical and essential relation of 
 Creator and creature, an inconsistency ; au 
 
 * See Note C. 
 
 t 
 
LECTURE L 
 
 27 
 
 intolerable anomaly; a suicidal self-contra¬ 
 diction. Were it admitted it must break 
 down,—so far as it is admitted, it does 
 tend to break down,—the vast, infinite dis¬ 
 tance that should ever be felt to subsist 
 between the Creator and the creature. It 
 is fatal to the real recognition of absolute 
 sovereignty on the one hand, and absolute 
 dependence and subjection on the other. 
 It introduces necessarily the idea of some 
 sort of intermediate relative position, modi¬ 
 fying and qualifying the Creators sove¬ 
 reignty and the creature's subjection ; as 
 if the Creator owed something to the crea¬ 
 ture beyond strict legal justice ; and as if 
 the creature had some right or claim, irre¬ 
 spective of mere legal justice, which he 
 might assert, if not against, yet at least 
 upon, the Creator. A paternal govern¬ 
 ment, in any fair and full sense of the 
 term, imagined to spring out of the mere 
 fact of creation, or to be implied in it, 
 must be fatal to the prerogative of God 
 the Creator; and therefore also fatal to 
 the true happiness, because fatal to the 
 right position, of his intelligent creatures. 
 It could only be realised by their being as 
 gods themselves. 
 
28 
 
 LECTURE L 
 
 Let it be settled, then, as a great funda¬ 
 mental truth, that on whatever other 
 ground the relation of fatherhood in God 
 may rest, and in whatever other sphere of 
 divine operation or creature experience it 
 may unfold itself,—it cannot have its rise 
 in creation, and cannot have its place in 
 that rule or government which is conse¬ 
 quent upon creation. Let there be no 
 confounding of things separate and dis¬ 
 tinct. Government by law and judgment 
 is one thing ; fatherhood is something alto¬ 
 gether different. It is only by keeping 
 them quite apart in our conceptions of 
 them that we can do justice to both. It is 
 only thus that we can conserve the sove¬ 
 reignty inalienable from the one, and give 
 full and free scope for all the affection 
 which is the peculiar glory of the other. 
 And it is only thus tha| we prepare the 
 way for the harmonious adjustment of the 
 two, in the complete development of the 
 gospel plan,—for their being so married 
 that '' what God hath joined, man may not 
 put asunder.'' 
 
 But, while it is maintained that the 
 only proper and original idea of the re la- 
 
LECTURE 1. 
 
 29 
 
 tion in which the Creator stands to his 
 intelligent creatures,—the only idea neces¬ 
 sarily involved in his having made them, 
 and made them such as they are,—is that 
 of rule or government by law and judg¬ 
 ment,—it by no means follows that there 
 may not have been from the first indica¬ 
 tions pointing to the higher relation of 
 fatherhood, and a foundation, as it were, 
 laid for its subsequent adjustment and 
 development, On the contrary, the fact 
 revealed in Holy Scripture of the agency 
 of the Eternal Son in the creative work, 
 coupled with what is not obscurely inti¬ 
 mated as having been the design of that 
 arrangement,—the glorifying of the Son 
 through the unfolding of his filial oneness 
 with the Father,—would seem to make it 
 not unreasonable to expect that in the 
 original constitution, mental and spiritual, 
 of the higher intelligences there should be 
 found some aptness, at least, for realizing 
 the great divine ideal, and taking on the 
 impress or image of it; or in other words, 
 that they should be found so constituted 
 from the first as to be capable of appre¬ 
 hending the paternal aspect of the divine 
 character and administration, when made 
 
30 
 
 LECTURE T. 
 
 known to them,—and capable also of enter¬ 
 ing themselves, in due time and on due 
 warrant, into that state or standing with 
 reference to God, for which the appre¬ 
 hension of his fatherhood may open up the 
 way. These are subjects of inquiry which 
 must come up afterwards. For the present, 
 it is enough to observe that in whatever 
 manner and in whatever measure the 
 notion of God being a Father,—and more 
 particularly, the notion of their being per¬ 
 sonally interested in his being a Father,— 
 may be supposed to have dawned on the 
 minds of the intelligences, this must have 
 always appeared to them and been felt by 
 them to be something quite distinct from 
 their primary, normal relation to him as 
 their moral ruler; something superadded 
 to that relation, or superinduced upon it, 
 and not to be either identified or confounded 
 with it. His being a Father to them, if 
 they rightly reflected on their true position, 
 must have been regarded as a pure and 
 simple act of grace; not an essential element 
 of their creature state or condition; not 
 discoverable by them as creatures through 
 any inference or deduction from the fact of 
 their being creatures ; to be known there- 
 
LECTURE L 
 
 31 
 
 fore only by direct communication from 
 God himself, who alone is competent, in 
 the exercise of his mere and sovereign good 
 pleasure, to determine, and consequently 
 to unfold, the nature and the terms of the 
 relation which it indicates. 
 
 These conclusions, as it seems to me, 
 are applicable to the intelligent creatures 
 of God, as such; and to all of them ; not 
 merely to the guilty and fallen, but to the 
 innocent and unfallen also. There may 
 indeed be a loose and vague sense in which, 
 for popular or poetic uses, the holy angels 
 may be said to be the sons of God by their 
 creation or from their creation ; and man 
 may be spoken of as having been a child of 
 God in Paradise before he lost by his trans¬ 
 gression his original standing there. Even 
 if it could be estabhshed as a theological 
 truth or a historical fact, that God was 
 pleased to regard and treat these innocent 
 subjects of his rule as sons from the very 
 beginning of their existence, still it must 
 be maintained that his doing so was simply 
 an exercise of his own free discretion ; that 
 it was no necessary inference from, no 
 necessary consequence of, his having created 
 them such as he did create them; that it 
 
32 
 
 LECTURE T. 
 
 was a distinct and independent benefit, 
 posterior to creation, in the order of nature, 
 though on the supposition now made, 
 simultaneous in point of time. I am per¬ 
 suaded, however, that there is really no 
 valid proof or sufficient presumption, either 
 in natural religion or in the word of God, 
 in favour of that idea. I do not think 
 that there is in either any trace of sonship 
 constituted at creation ex gratia, any more 
 than there is of sonship constituted by 
 creation ex necessitate. This also may be 
 matter of future investigation. 
 
 There is one deduction from the views 
 advocated in this lecture to which before I 
 leave the subject I must ask particular 
 attention; for it seems to me to be all- 
 important. 
 
 If I am right in holding that any rela¬ 
 tion of fatherhood into which God may be 
 pleased to enter towards his intelligent 
 creatures must be, in the sense now ex¬ 
 plained, posterior to the original relation 
 which he sustains, as being their Ruler, in 
 virtue of being their Maker,—then it 
 clearly follows that the former relation, 
 the paternal, cannot be allowed to super- 
 
LECTURE I. 
 
 33 
 
 sede, or even to modify the latter, the 
 governmental. That prior relation is a 
 necessity of nature, if one may so speak, 
 and not a discretionary arrangement. The 
 mere existence of intelligent creatures in¬ 
 volves their subjection to rule by law and 
 judgment. Their creator, if his sovereignty 
 in his own creation, and over it, is to be, as 
 it must be, absolute and inviolable, cannot 
 but so govern them. And he must con¬ 
 tinue so to govern them, whatever other 
 relation he may think fit to assume or to 
 announce. That other relation, of what¬ 
 ever character it may be, and however 
 originated, cannot be conceived of as 
 making any change in the conditions of 
 the primary relation. For if it did, it must 
 be through their ceasing to be creatures 
 and God ceasing to be their Creator. A 
 monstrous imagination !—to which how¬ 
 ever I must feel myself to be literally shut 
 up, if I am asked to make the fatherhood 
 of God the all in all of my religion. 
 
 I contend earnestly for the distinction 
 of the two relations. Neither must be 
 suffered to override the other. Neither 
 must be merged or sunk in the other. It 
 is one thing for me to have God as my 
 
 D 
 
34 
 
 LECTURE I 
 
 , ruler, lawgiver, judge. It is another, and 
 an altogether different thing for me to 
 have him as my Father. What the points 
 of difference are, it would be premature, at 
 this stage, to discuss. But I may briefly 
 refer to two of them, as illustrating the 
 importance of our keeping the relations in 
 (question quite apart, in all our conceptions 
 and reasonings regarding them. 
 
 Rightly understood, as it seems to me, 
 the paternal relation, in the first place, 
 implies the enjoyment by those towards 
 whom it is sustained of a permanent foot¬ 
 ing in the family, as opposed to one that is 
 contingent and precarious (John viii. 35). 
 And secondly, in consequence of its imply¬ 
 ing this, it excludes the idea of punish¬ 
 ment, properly so called; admitting only 
 that of chastisement (Heb. xii.) It is not 
 the function of a father, as such, to try, or 
 put upon probation. It is not his function 
 to inflict a penal or retributive doom. 
 But these are functions of that rule or 
 government by law and judgment which 
 God the Creator exercises and must ever 
 exercise. Surely there is here a line of 
 distinction and demarcation that is suffi¬ 
 ciently clear, and that ought to be kept 
 
LECTURE 1. 
 
 35 
 
 clear. For observe what follows if it is 
 obliterated or lost sight of. Let the view 
 which some extreme lovers of simplicity 
 would advocate be adopted. Let God be 
 a Father, and nothing else. Let all the 
 acts of his universal administration be held 
 to be done by him as the Father of his 
 creatures. Then this dilemma immediately 
 presents itself Either, on the one hand, 
 you must include among the actings of a 
 father, in his paternal character, the im¬ 
 posing of an arbitrary or discretionary 
 conditional test and the inflicting of penal 
 judgment; in which case, you make father¬ 
 hood little more than a name ; descriptive, 
 perhaps, and suggestive of the general 
 benevolence which may be supposed to 
 temper the severity of strict rule ; but not 
 otherwise signiflcant of any special aflec- 
 tion, or any special mode of treatment. Or 
 else, on the other hand, giving to father¬ 
 hood its full and true meaning, and main¬ 
 taining it to be wholly and exclusively a 
 relation of pure and simple fatherly love, 
 you deny, and consistently deny, that one 
 who sustains that relation, and no other, 
 can test for the mere sake of testing, or 
 punish for the mere sake of punishing. 
 
36 
 
 LECTURE 1. 
 
 Probation, and especially retribution, in 
 the true and proper sense, become thus 
 simply impossible. 
 
 Let a merely human instance, in contrast 
 with a divine ordinance, be referred to, in 
 explanation and confirmation of my opinion, 
 as to the evil and danger of confounding 
 the two relations. 
 
 In the Roman law, the authority of a 
 father over his children was the very same, 
 in nature and extent, with the authority of 
 the civil magistrate. The Roman father 
 had the power of life and death over his 
 son. He was irresponsible in the exercise 
 of his power. No other power, not even 
 the magistrate’s, could interfere with his. 
 Nay more, he had a right to demand that 
 his son, even when a public accusation was 
 brought against him, should be handed 
 over by the magistrate to the parent, for 
 the trial of the case and the execution of 
 the sentence. Thus in Roman law, the 
 functions of ruler and judge were mixed up 
 with those of father. And with what 
 result ? Surely, as every reader of history 
 knows, with sad damage to the one relation 
 which is the source and centre of all the 
 sacred tenderness of home ; and with no 
 
LECTURE I 
 
 37 
 
 corresponding benefit, in respect of strength 
 or stability, to the other, on which the leal- 
 hearted, patriotic, public spirit of the true 
 citizen must rest. The Roman knew no 
 substantial difference between his relation 
 to his father and his relation to the state. 
 Domestic affection was thus weakened, al¬ 
 most to extinction ; while, to say the least, 
 the spirit of loyal subordination to law and 
 its awards was not greatly strengthened. 
 
 In marked contrast with the Roman 
 law, the Jewish law on this subject may be 
 quoted. It draws the distinction for which 
 I plead in a most unmistakable and em¬ 
 phatic way. ‘‘ If a man have a stubborn 
 and rebellious son, which will not obey the 
 voice of his father or the voice of his 
 mother; and that, when they have chastised 
 him, will not hearken unto them; then 
 shall his father and his mother lay hold on 
 him, and bring him out unto the elders of 
 his city, and unto the gate of his place ; 
 and they shall say unto the elders of his 
 city. This our son is stubborn and rebellious, 
 he will not obey our voice ; he is a glutton 
 and a drunkard. And all the men of his 
 city shall stone him with stones, that he 
 die’' (Dent. xxi. 18-21). 
 
38 
 
 LECTURE I. 
 
 What can be clearer or more admirable 
 than the distinction here drawn between 
 the paternal and the judicial ? The limit 
 of fatherly authority and fatherly discipline 
 is pointedly marked. It reaches to chas¬ 
 tisement, '' when they have chastised him.’' 
 But there it stops. The rebel passes from 
 the familiar house and warm heart of a 
 loving and broken-hearted father, who has 
 done his utmost and whose utmost has • 
 failed,—to the cold, calm, tribunal of the 
 gate of his place the awful seat of judg- 
 ment; there to be judicially tried by the 
 elders of .his city,” and thence to be de¬ 
 livered over, for judicial execution, to the 
 appointed ministers of the last sentence of 
 the law. 
 
 I cannot stay to show the working and 
 effect of this divine ordinance among the 
 Jews, as contrasted with the working and 
 effect of the merely human legislation of 
 the Romans. With all their faults, I do 
 not know that the Jews have ever been 
 chargeable with want of family affection. 
 Nor may their national loyalty be lightly 
 called in question. All that it concerns 
 me, for my present purpose, to insist upon, 
 is the careful discrimination whicli the 
 
LECTURE L 
 
 39 
 
 Jewish law makes between the parent 
 and the magistrate ; between the relation 
 in which a son stands to his father, and 
 the relation in which he stands to ‘'the 
 elders of his city/’ Nor would I press the 
 analogy too far. One quahfication at least 
 is needed ; and it is a material one. 
 
 Among the Jews, as indeed ordinarily 
 among all the nations of mankind, the two 
 characters or relations, the parental and 
 the judicial, are in separate hands. They 
 belong to separate and distinct parties. 
 The father and the magistrate are two 
 different persons. And in the order of 
 nature and of natural development, the 
 father comes first. He first makes proof 
 of his paternal relation, before he hands 
 over his son, as a subject, to the magisterial 
 ruler and judge. It is otherwise in the 
 divine economy to which this analogy ap¬ 
 plies. There, the two relations are sustained 
 by one and the same being ; the one Su¬ 
 preme God, who is both ruler and father. 
 
 Nor is he in the position of that Roman 
 father who, being also judge, when his own 
 son appeared at his bar, had either to ]3ro- 
 nounce the inevitable sentence of condem- 
 nation against the criminal, or to satisfy 
 
40 
 
 LECTURE I. 
 
 outraged justice by giving himself to suffer 
 along with him, or to suffer instead of him. 
 In the case of fallen man, the Creator, as 
 governor and judge, sees before his tribunal, 
 not a disobedient son, but simply a rebel¬ 
 lious creature and subject. He sees indeed 
 a creature whom he meant to be his son; 
 whom he made to be his son. And so far, 
 in that view, his regrets and longings are 
 those of a deeply disappointed father. But 
 the criminal at his bar is not his son;— 
 as he was not his son before he became a 
 criminal. He has no filial standing; no 
 filial rights or claims. He is simply a 
 creature and a subject. 
 
 No doubt his Creator, having intended 
 originally to adopt and own him as a son,— 
 after probation probably as a subject,— 
 may be pleased to draw near to him, even 
 when upon probation he has failed and 
 fallen, in a way indicative of that original 
 intention; and may show his willingness 
 to welcome him, on his return, with the 
 fulness of the parental love and the paren¬ 
 tal blessing which he meant him from the 
 first to possess ;—for which indeed, I re¬ 
 peat, he made him. Even this, however, 
 implies a very special and peculiar manner 
 
LECTURE 1. 
 
 41 
 
 of dealing on the part of the Creator, with 
 his fallen creature; the rebellious and 
 guilty subject of his government. 
 
 For the difficulty of combining the pa¬ 
 ternal element with government properly 
 so called,—or introducing it as a modifying 
 or mollifying influence,—is very great. It 
 is found to be so, when the attempt is 
 made in human affairs ; in the administra¬ 
 tion of the kingdoms of this world. 
 
 A paternal government ! A king or an 
 emperor the father of his people ! A su¬ 
 preme Court of Parliament legislating 
 paternally ! A bench of magistrates or 
 judges awarding paternal sentences ! These 
 are fine ideals. But how, in its application 
 to facts, is the theory of the ruler in the 
 state, ruling as a father, apt, and almost 
 sure, to work ? It will turn out for the 
 most part to err, both by excess and by 
 defect. It errs by excess ; for it is apt to 
 become too paternal in the administration 
 of law and justice. It substitutes discipline 
 for punishment; the rod for the sword. It 
 errs by defect; for after all it falls far short 
 of what a fatherly discipline would really re¬ 
 quire. It does not and cannot wield the 
 rod with the discrimination and discretion 
 
42 
 
 LECTURE I. 
 
 which the use of it, as a fatherly instru¬ 
 ment, requires ; and which only the inti¬ 
 mate familiarity of minute home-inspection, 
 and constant home-fellowship, can enable 
 a parent to exercise. It is ordinarily better, 
 therefore, on the whole, that the magistrate 
 should be content with the enforcing of his 
 magisterial authority; under such influences 
 as the general principle of benevolence may 
 suggest. He cannot safely or usefully unite 
 in himself the relation of ruler, and that of 
 father."' 
 
 To do so, is pre-eminently the glory of 
 God. And it is his glory in his Son Jesus 
 Christ. It is his having it in his power, if 
 one may so say, to manifest and reveal a 
 relation of fatherhood altogether distinct 
 from the relation constituted by creation, 
 —though closely connected with it,—that 
 solves the difficulty and explains the mys¬ 
 tery. He '•'bringeth in the first-begotten 
 into the worlcU (Heb. i. 6). Sitting on the 
 throne of sovereign and universal dominion, 
 he does not, in fond and weak pity, sink the 
 character of the righteous ruler in that of 
 the relenting father. But he introduces 
 his Son ; his co-equal, co-substantial, only 
 
 * See Note D. 
 
LECTURE 1. 
 
 43 
 
 begotten, welLbeloved Son. And he pro¬ 
 claims his purpose, to make all his intelligent 
 creatures, if they will, his sons in Him. 
 
 Are they to whom the proclamation 
 comes innocent and upright,—proved to 
 be so by a sufficient test of their loyalty 
 to their Creator as their righteous Lord ? 
 For them, it might seem that the mere 
 discovery of this divine relation of father¬ 
 hood,—coupled with the assurance that it 
 admitted of their being, so far as their 
 nature is capable of such elevation, com¬ 
 prehended in its wide embrace,—woTild 
 suffice to make them, without their ceasing 
 to be subjects, sons, in and with ''the first- 
 begotten.'' 
 
 Is it, on the other hand, to creatures 
 guilty and depraved that the proclamation 
 comes ? Alas ! it is, as it might seem, all 
 in vain. For in their case also it is a fixed 
 principle, that if they are to be made sons, 
 it must be without their ceasing to be sub¬ 
 jects. But as subjects, they are helplessly 
 and hopelessly condemned. They have 
 violated law and are doomed to the penalty 
 annexed to its violation. They are more¬ 
 over incapable of obedience to law ; their 
 carnal mind being enmity against God, 
 
44 
 
 LECTURE L 
 
 the lawgiver. How then, continuing sub¬ 
 jects, can they ever become sons ? 
 
 How otherwise than by the wondrous 
 provision of divine grace, according to 
 which he in whom they are to be sons, 
 undertakes to right their position as sub¬ 
 jects ? First he deals with their case as it 
 stands in law. They are condemned cri¬ 
 minals at the bar of the righteous judge. 
 He joins them there. He sists himself and 
 takes his place beside them ; not to plead 
 in extenuation of their crime, or for miti¬ 
 gation of their punishment; for indulgence; 
 for impunity ; but as their substitute, to 
 ansAver for them ; to take upon his own 
 head their guilt and doom, that a righteous 
 sentence of legal and judicial acquittal may, 
 by the Father's grace, be freely theirs. So 
 he clears the way. So, being justified in 
 the relation in which they stand as subjects 
 under law to God their ruler and judge, they 
 may pass into that neAv and divine relation 
 in which they are to stand for ever ; the re¬ 
 lation of which Christ spoke when he sent 
 the message from his empty sepulchre, “ Go 
 to my brethren and say unto them, I ascend 
 unto my Fatherland your Father, and to 
 my God and your God" (John xx. 17). 
 
LECTURE I. 
 
 45 
 
 NOTES T(J LECTUKE FIRST. 
 
 Note A. (Page 2.) 
 
 The letter which follows was addressed to the present 
 lecturer so far hack as February 1853. It was accepted 
 by an influential meeting of friends in December following, 
 as the ideal of what ought to be established. As such, 
 and in justice to the writer, I now give it all the permanent 
 publicity I can. 
 
 My object in this letter is to lay before you the substance 
 of what I have stated to you in conversation, in regard to my 
 scheme for promoting the more general production of a re¬ 
 ligious literature of a high class in Scotland. 
 
 My proposal is to procure the institution of a Lectureshij? 
 in the Free Church, similar to the Boyle, Warburtonian, 
 Bampton, or Hulsean Lectures of the Church of England, or to 
 the more recent series, called “ The Congregational Lectures.” 
 I would propose that a series of such lectures be delivered by 
 some minister or professor of the Free Church during the 
 session of the college—in the Free High Church of Edinburgh, 
 if possible—and that they should be re-delivered during the 
 same, or other convenient period, in the city of Glasgow. It 
 might more certainly keep the selection of lecturers among the 
 men of highest qualifications, and so elevate to a higher point 
 the character of the works to be produced, if this delivery 
 should take place only every third or even fourth year; the 
 effect on the public mind would, I think, even be increased by 
 the interval. But this might be shortened, if necessary, by 
 extending the Lectureship in all, or at least in some cases, 
 over two sessions. 
 
 I would have a great latitude permitted in the choice of 
 subjects. Certainly the lecturer should not be limited, as in 
 England, to demonstrations of the Being of a God, or Ex¬ 
 positions of the Christian Evidences, but should be left free 
 to select any topic—doctrinal, controversial, exegetical, prac¬ 
 tical, biographical, historical—that might be of general or 
 
4(5 
 
 LECTURE I 
 
 present interest. The sole limitation would be that the 
 subject be approved of by any body of Trustees, or Committee 
 of Assembly, that might have the management of the whole 
 matter, and this limitation would give a certain power to that 
 body to procure the selection of any subject that might 
 specially require illustration. The lecturers, being ministers 
 or professors of the Free Church, would of course be respon¬ 
 sible to her for the soundness of their teaching. 
 
 Each lecturer should be bound to publish his lectures 
 within a certain time after delivery, in such a form that the 
 whole might constitute a uniform series; and he would, of 
 course, be entitled to the profits of such publication. 
 
 The sum required for the support of this lectureship would 
 be, say £4000, which, at the present current rate of interest 
 (3| per cent), would yield an annual return of £140; and 
 this, if the lectures were to be delivered every third year, 
 would yield to the lecturer £420 ; if every fourth year, £-560. 
 The church-door collections at the time of delivery would 
 cover the incidental expenses. This, with the profits of pub¬ 
 lication (and I have no doubt these would be considerable, 
 seeing that purchasers would like to keep up their series), 
 would be good remuneration—a prize worth competing for. 
 
 The lecturers would be selected by the managing trustees 
 or committee. 
 
 Last of all, I propose that the Institution should bear the 
 name of some eminent Father of our Church who might be 
 selected by the subscribers ; unless, indeed, some wealthy and 
 patriotic individual could be found to take upon himself the 
 burden of the whole, and to gam, as hi England, a well-earned 
 immortality for his name, by connecting it with an Institution 
 so noble and enduring. 
 
 This is a rough sketch of what I would wish to be done. 
 Should the scheme be approved of, the details could easily be 
 adjusted. 
 
 But surely, my dear sir, I cannot doubt that the proposal 
 will meet with general approval. For one thing, the adoption 
 of it by the Church would, in process of time, wipe off all 
 ground for the common reproach against our Church and 
 country—that of being destitute of a high-class theological 
 literature. This reproach is not by any means a just one. 
 Our Church has never wanted able and learned men who 
 have, in their own sphere, zealously contended for the faith 
 once delivered to the saints. Still it must be owned, that 
 owing probably to the mould in which their precious thoughts 
 
J.ECTURE 1. 
 
 47 
 
 were cast, their works have not obtained tliat standmg in the 
 republic of letters to which they were entitled. The effect of 
 such a state of things on the general standing of our Church 
 may be measured, on the one hand, by the contempt with 
 which the literary world has hitherto looked upon her, and, I 
 fear, upon her religion too ; and on the other, by the powerful 
 redeeming influence in her favour which the works of Chalmers 
 have produced. 
 
 Now, what is the cause of this inferiority in our theo¬ 
 logical literature ? It is not want of natural capacity; for I 
 hold it to be a fact, that for the last 150 years, in nearly all 
 the great walks of human thought, the first and pre-eminent 
 British name has ever been that of a Scotchman! This is no 
 vain boast. Look at this list:— 
 
 Mental Fhilosophy -Hutchison, Huivie, Reid, Stewart, 
 
 Brown, Hamilton. 
 
 Natural Science. 
 
 - Chemistry - - - Black, Thomson. 
 
 - Medicine - - - The Munros, Hunter, Gregory, Sir 
 
 C. Bell, Abercrombie, and their 
 illustrious living Successors. 
 
 - Geology --Hutton, Playfair, Lyell, Murchi¬ 
 son, Miller. 
 
 Natural History -JajMESOn, Fleming. 
 
 Mathematics, pure and j Maclaurin, Leslie, Brewster, Play- 
 
 mixed -( fair. Ivory. 
 
 Mechanics - James Watt. 
 
 History -Burnet, Hume, Robertson, M'Crte, 
 
 Macaulay, Alison. 
 
 Fiction - Smollett, Scott. 
 
 Poetry — 
 
 Descripitive -Thomson. 
 
 Pastoral - .Ramsay, Burns. 
 
 Dramatic ------ Home. 
 
 Narrative ------ Scott. 
 
 Didactic and Lyrical Campbell. 
 
 Political Economy -Hume, Adam Smith, MacCulloch. 
 
 Biography ------- Boswell. 
 
 Voyages and Travels - - Bruce, Park, Ross. 
 
 Periodical Writing -Jeffrey, Wilson, Horner, Mackin¬ 
 
 tosh, Carlyle, Chambers. 
 
 Painting . Wilkie. 
 
 Engineering - - --Rennie, Telford, Fairbairn. 
 
48 
 
 LECTURE 1. 
 
 Is not that a noble array of pre-eminent names 1 Still we 
 are deficient in four branches—Scholarship, Military Talent, 
 Statesmanship, and (till Chalmers) Theology. Now be it re¬ 
 marked that these are just the four which require the greatest 
 expense of production, and poor Scotland seems to want the 
 political influence or wealth needful to produce and sustain 
 them. Rich England and its wealthy Church may keep up a 
 theological literature of a high class. But there is not water 
 enough in Scotland to float vessels of so large a draught. 
 Even England would have had difficulty in doing so, but for 
 the very kind of institutions which I propose to have estab¬ 
 lished. Let us have the same appliances and means to boot; 
 that is, let us make the thing physically possible, and we shall 
 succeed as well as they. Wherever there has been such en¬ 
 couragement we have not been behind. Neither the oppres¬ 
 sive toils of the ministry, nor any want of natural capacity, 
 have hindered the land of Boston and Wdlison from having a 
 popular theological literature equal, if not superior, to that of 
 any nation in Christendom •, and only give high-class literature 
 the adequate encouragement, and you will soon have that too. 
 
 Noav, my dear sir, is not this a scheme that ought, nay, 
 that will call forth the sympathy and aid of the liberal and 
 enlightened friends of the Church. Only think how such an 
 institution as 1 propose would tell on the people, by supplying 
 them with weighty and sound materials of thought—on the 
 students, by setting before them high models of thought and 
 composition—and on the ministry, by opening up to them a 
 noble arena for the exercise of their powers, and by instituting 
 a legion of honour, in which it would be any man’s pride to 
 be enrolled! The office too, being limited to ministers and 
 professors of the Free Church, would be to that extent an 
 endowment of the Church. 
 
 Then how useful would such an institution be as a defence 
 against prevalent error ! The enemies of the truth have the 
 advantage common to all other assailants, that of selecting 
 their own time and point of attack. They come therefore 
 first upon the field, and gain a great advantage by this priority 
 of occupation. Before the friends of the truth can, if left to 
 the ordinary chances of demand and supply, be aroused to the 
 rescue, the enemy has made himself master of a wide field, and 
 swept multitudes of prisoners away. Does not the present 
 state of the rationalistic controversy furnish a striking and 
 lamentable proof of what I sayl And would not such a 
 lectureship as I propose be in all time to come a ready means 
 
LECTURE I 
 
 49 
 
 of sending forth, on the shortest notice, a champion fully 
 accoutred—to flee to the post of danger—to meet the first 
 movements of the foe, and to hoist the standard of truth, by 
 which to rally all its friends to the help of the Lord against 
 the mighty 1 
 
 And then how noble would such an institution be in the 
 permanence of its character. Those who contribute to its 
 estabhshment may have the assurance that what they are 
 doing “ is not for an age, but for all time.” Throughout every 
 future generation it would have the effect of collecting and 
 preserving every drop of pure and profound thought that 
 might spring up in any part of the Church, and which would 
 otherwise ran to waste, or water but the desert—and would 
 concentrate all such supplies into one deep and ever-widening 
 stream of Divine truth, which through all coming time would 
 contribute to refresh and make glad the city of our God. 
 
 May I request you then, my dear sir, to give your atten¬ 
 tion to this matter, and to devise some way or other by which 
 this great object may be accomplished'? I believe it will only 
 be necessary to bring the matter before the public, m order to 
 awaken a deep and general interest hi it. Surely there will 
 be found among the generous friends of the Church at least 
 thirty or forty who would contribute a hundred pounds each 
 to the scheme. Or rather there may be some one noble-minded 
 and patriotic individual who would take upon himself the 
 whole charge of this matter, and thus perform a service of 
 vast importance and immortal renown to the resources of his 
 church and the literature of his country. 
 
 Mr. Fairbairn continued to press his views from time 
 to time. He published various letters on the subject; 
 one, in particular, in connection with the tricentenary of 
 the Scottish Eeformation, dated 7th May 18G0, in which, 
 among other things, he says ;— 
 
 I am glad to observe that in view of the approaching tri¬ 
 centenary of the Scottish Eeformation, there is a general desire 
 to institute some permanent memorial of that great event. It 
 appears to me, therefore, that this is a fit season for my en¬ 
 deavouring to recal public attention to a suggestion which I 
 ventured to throw out some years ago. What I proposed 
 was, that steps should be taken to institute and endow a 
 Lectureship similar to the Boyle, Bampton, Warburtonian, or 
 
 E 
 
50 
 
 LECTURE L 
 
 Hulsean Lectures of the Church of England, or to the more 
 recent series called the Congregational Lectures. 
 
 I now beg to suggest that the institution and endowment 
 of such a Lectureship would be a most fitting and profitable 
 memorial of our glorious Eeformation. There can be no doubt 
 that this great change originated in a mighty movement of 
 the higher order of minds, both on the Continent and iu this 
 country; and every one who has studied the details of our 
 Reformation period knows that the movement in this country 
 was promoted, if not originated, by the study of the great 
 works of Continental Protestantism. There were numerous 
 acts, both of the civil and ecclesiastical powers, having for 
 their object to prohibit the importation of these great works 
 into this country. Let us, then, by all means, be possessed of 
 a literary institute for the defence and illustration of the great 
 principles of Divine truth, which were for the first time pro¬ 
 mulgated in this country by our glorious Reformation. 
 
 I cannot doubt that such a Lectureship would do much to 
 take away our national reproach—the want of an adequate 
 theological literature. It would, I make bold to say, speedily 
 originate a first-rate national school of theology, and would at 
 all events, even in less-favoured cases, be the means of supply¬ 
 ing us, as in the case of the English Lectureship at present, 
 with a seasonable and instructive volume on some of the great 
 topics of the day. And then, how noble would such an insti¬ 
 tution be in the permanence of its character! Those who 
 might contribute to its establishment would have the assurance 
 that what they are doing “ is not for an age, but for all time.” 
 Throughout every future generation such an institution woidd 
 have the effect of collecting every drop of pure and profound 
 thought that might spring up in any part of our Church, and 
 which would otherwise run to waste, or water but the desert; 
 and would concentrate them all into one deep and ever-widen¬ 
 ing stream of Divine truth, which through all coming time 
 would contribute to refresh and make glad the city of our God.* 
 
 * I single out Mr. Fairbaini, as entitled to special notice, because 
 it was he who kept his eye steadily on the accomplishment of the 
 object, and because I believe that it was his persistency that accom- 
 ])lished it. I by no means wish to overlook the claims of other men. 
 In particular, I think much credit is due to Mr. James Knox, who 
 advocated the cause anonymously, iu an influential journal, some 
 time before Mr. Fairbaini jmblished anything on the subject, though 
 not before he was known to be actively moving in the matter. 
 
LECTURE L 
 
 51 
 
 Note B. (Page 21.) 
 
 It might seem almost necessary to offer an apology for 
 dwelling so much on what may he thought by some to be very 
 elementary principles. But they are, in my view, very 
 vital. And there is in many quarters a strange incapa¬ 
 city to apprehend or unwillingness to admit them. I shall 
 give an instance, by referring for a little to a recent work 
 bearing this title, “ On the Patherhood of God,” by “ Thomas 
 Griffith, A.M., Prebendary of St. Paul’s” (1862). 
 
 I may premise, however, that I regard the title as 
 altogether inapplicable to the book, and fitted, though of 
 course not intended, to mislead. It is not the fatherhood of 
 God at all, as it seems to me, that the writer discusses, but 
 an entirely different subject, the moral government of God. 
 This is his formal definition or description, at the outset of 
 his treatise ;—“ I mean by this phrase that we must con¬ 
 ceive of God as no mere universal Breath, and no mere 
 blind Force, but as a Personal Will endued with wisdom 
 and goodness, the intelligent Author, moral Governor, and 
 righteous Judge of all things” (p. 5). That, and nothing more, 
 is what he sets himself to “ assert, vindicate, and establish.” 
 And he is consistent throughout in holding to this view of 
 God’s fatherhood. Over and over again he repeats it. 
 Thus he says:—“ In his relation to us, God is all that a 
 Father can be to his children; not alone the Author of 
 our being, but our moral Governor, our righteous Judge” 
 (p. 84). Again he speaks of “the working out of a uni¬ 
 versal system of retributive justice, or paternal government” 
 (p. 184). Mark the identification of “retributive justice” 
 with “ paternal government.” In another place, he for¬ 
 mally explains the matter thus :—“ The Fatherhood of 
 God, in its widest sense, is of vast extent. It comprises 
 liis upholding all things' by his power; his prescribing 
 
52 
 
 LECTURE L 
 
 to them their laws of action by his wisdom; his keep¬ 
 ing up throughout the universe one vast system of paternal 
 administration in pursuance of one purpose of eternal good” 
 (p, 214). But I need not multiply quotations. 
 
 As an exposition and defence of the moral government 
 of God, the work of Mr. Griffith is one of considerable 
 value. It contains some striking enough arguments and 
 illustrations in proof of the personality, authority, and will 
 of God. I think it is defective in the views given of moral 
 evil, the manner of its entrance into the world, its effects, 
 and the method of its cure. 
 
 Perhaps its defectiveness in some of these particulars 
 may be partly explained by the opinion which he seems 
 to hold on the subject of law, an opinion which appears 
 to me to be erroneous and dangerous. 
 
 He is dealing with objections to the fatherhood of God,— 
 that is to the doctrine of there being a living will concerned 
 in the government of the universe,—taken from the fixed¬ 
 ness of order and the prevalence of law. He proves that 
 interference with law is no part of a paternal government 
 as thus explained:—“The true idea of God’s Fatherhood 
 is that of the government of a constitutional King, who is 
 the embodiment and executive of law, who sits at the 
 helm of law, and superintends the working of law, as him¬ 
 self the fountain of law ,—with no personal caprices, no 
 personal interferences, no mending of defects by sudden 
 incursions of cx post facto will, but providing against 
 cjefects by the quiet constancy of an ever-present purpose • 
 underlying and actuating all things” (p. 182. The italics 
 are the author's^ I am not quite sure that I understand 
 these closing words. But let that pass. It is what 
 comes after that I am concerned to notice. He goes 
 on to argue for what he calls “a universal system of 
 retributive justice, or paternal government” in connection 
 
LECTURE 1. 
 
 53 
 
 with law; and he lays great stress on its being nniversal. 
 “ A system of universal retribution is being carried out by 
 the divine will, not in one direction only, but in all; not 
 with reference to personal character merely, but with 
 reference to all the actings of life throughout the universe. 
 And according to this system, we are amenable not only to 
 the so-called, in a narrow sense. Moral laws, but equally to 
 the Mechanical laws, the Physical laws, the Mental laws, 
 all the laws which regulate, each in its own depaiiment, 
 universal being. All equally have their sanctions, which 
 must be enforced ; all equally their authority, which must 
 be vindicated by reward when they are attended to, by 
 punishment when they are interfered with” (184, 185). 
 de enlarges on this topic; placing, as it seems to me, 
 obedience to all these different kinds of law, precisely on 
 the same footing in respect of obligation and title to 
 reward, and disobedience also to all of them precisely on 
 the same footing in respect of culpability and ill-desert. 
 
 And this is his answer, and his only answer, to the 
 objection that “God does not adapt his dealings with us 
 to our notions of moral justice.” In reality, as might 
 easily be shown, it is no answer at all; since it leaves 
 the ineradicable craving for justice as unsatisfied as ever, 
 and the enigma which perplexes it as hard as ever. 
 
 But that is not to my present purpose. I wish simply 
 to point out the fundamental error which runs through all 
 this reasoning. It is a very serious one. It strikes at the 
 root of conscience in man and judgment in God. It 
 resolves all virtue in the creature into prudence; and all 
 government in the Creator into the mere action and 
 reaction upon one another of the forces of the universe. I 
 can scarcely think that this writer is fully aware of the real 
 import of his statements and reasonings, or of the extent 
 to which he commits himself to the doctrine of Combe’s 
 
54 
 
 LECTURE L 
 
 “ Constitution of Man —though really, his argument, as an 
 answer to the objection with which he is dealing, has not 
 even any shallow speciousness unless he means to put 
 exactly in the same category, as a fair antithesis, the ill- 
 desert of a “ godly man,” who “ through negligence or 
 ignorance, violates the laws of physical life f and the 
 good-desert of an ungodly man who, “ whether intention¬ 
 ally or not,” “ fulfils the laws- of his organic system ” It 
 is very sad to see a Christian divine trifling so egregiously 
 with the solemn and awful term,' the solemn and awful 
 thought, “ retribution —apj^lying it equally to what fol¬ 
 lows from a man’s falling on the ice and to what follows on 
 his uttering an oath or an untruth. 
 
 I might ask, in this connection, what does the writer 
 mean when he talks of “ the so-called, in a narrow sense. 
 Moral Laws?” Is it that the term “Moral” should be 
 used in a wider sense, as applicable. to the “ Mechanical 
 laws, the Physical laws, the Chemical lav's,” equally with 
 the laws, or the law, of duty, commonly designated by that 
 name ? I cannot understand him to mean anything else. 
 And yet, if that is his meaning, he commits an egregious 
 logical fallacy, and what is worse, surrenders the entire 
 principle of the moral government of God. 
 
 There is a logical fallacy here which imposes upon many. 
 It is admitted that the Natural laws,—embracing under 
 that phrase the Mechanical, Physical, and Chemical laws,— 
 fall within the range of the Moral law ; as indeed “ all the 
 laws which regulate, each in its own department, universal 
 being,” necessarily must do. In other words, we are morally 
 bound to have respect to the natural laws which are ob¬ 
 served to operate in the created world, and to keep them 
 in view, as ordinances of the Creator, in the regulation of 
 our conduct. Ordinarily also we are bound to act accord¬ 
 ing to these natural laws,—to act so that their operation 
 
LECTURE L 
 
 55 
 
 shall benefit and not hurt us. But the obligation to do so 
 does not arise out of these laws themselves; nor is it 
 measured or determined by them. It is not constituted 
 by these laws. It belongs to another category altogether ; 
 —the category of a higher law; a law vdiich, being itself 
 unchangeable as the nature and will of the Supreme, must 
 rule me always in my dealing with these other laws, and 
 may compel me often practically to set them at defiance. 
 For they have no standing beyond the material creation ; 
 and consequently they have no right to control the im¬ 
 mortal spirit in its allegiance to the Creator. The hero, 
 the patriot, the philanthrophist, the martyr,—even the 
 enlightened self-disciplinarian seeking his own highest per¬ 
 fection,—may suggest instances in point. 
 
 But the logical fallacy is the least evil involved in the 
 loose way of talk in which this author, with many others, 
 indulges. To extend the term “Moral” to these natural 
 laws, is not really to exalt the latter, but to debase and 
 destroy the former. If my obligation to keep the law^s of 
 the decalogue, or the two commandments which are its 
 sum, is of the same sort as my obligation to have respect 
 to the law of gravitation,—if the one is neither more nor 
 less moral than the other,—then duty, as “ a categorical 
 imperative’’ on the part of God, and responsibility, as con¬ 
 science toward God on the part of man, become mere names. 
 Government, properly so called, is out of the question. The 
 entire system of “ universal being,” in the midst of which 
 I find myself, from its lowest to its highest range, is still 
 no doubt a system in which, after a sort, law prevails, and 
 order is upheld by law. But it is a kind of self-acting law, 
 working out its end by the equable pressure of its various 
 departments on the various constitutions, and constitutional 
 powers and susceptibilities, of those under it; enforcing 
 itself or avenging itself in the same way upon all, from the 
 
56 
 
 LECTURE L 
 
 meanest monad to the loftiest archangel; and so ultimately 
 securing universal conformity to the purposes of the great 
 Creator. That may be a theory of the universe satisfactory 
 to some minds. But it cannot be satisfactory to any who 
 defend, as this author does most strenuously, and in the 
 main successfully, the view of the Creator which represents 
 him as a real living Person, ruling real living persons 
 made after his image ;—ruling them by the assertion of his 
 rectoral authority, as their sovereign, over them, and of 
 their accountability, as his subjects, to him. 
 
 On the whole, I conclude that the only safeguard of 
 
 ♦ 
 
 morality and religion, the only defence of human duty and 
 the divine throne, is to keep the moral law clear and dis¬ 
 tinct, as being radically different, in its essential character 
 and nature, from all the generalized observations of fact 
 which have been suffered to nsurp,or allowed for convenience 
 to borrow, the name ; and I would add, almost as a corollary 
 from that, to keep clear and distinct from one another God’s 
 nec(^sary government of moral beings by law and judgment, 
 and his free fatherhood. 
 
 Note' C. (Page 26.) 
 
 I would not have my argument become a mere logo¬ 
 machy, or fight about words. And, in particular, I would 
 not wish to be supposed to run counter to the line of 
 thought, or even to the phraseology, customary in the 
 writings of the old and sound British divines. They cer¬ 
 tainly seem to speak as if they held that a natural and 
 original relation of fatherhood and sonship subsisted be¬ 
 tween God and his intelligent creatures, in virtue simply 
 of their being his creatures, or in virtue of their being his 
 intelligent creatures. They carefully distinguish, however, 
 that natural and original relation from the relation consti- 
 
LECTURE L 
 
 57 
 
 tuted de novo, in tlie case of all true Christians, by regene¬ 
 ration and adoption; of new, I repeat, and not simply in 
 the way of restoration. It is this last relation that I am 
 chiefly concerned to vindicate. I may differ from them,— 
 in appearance, however, more than in reality,—in my way 
 of vindicating it. But we agree in holding it to be a part of 
 the dispensation of grace, dependent on the joint work of 
 the Son and of the Spirit. If I take any exception to their 
 suggestion of a natiu’al and original relation of fatherhood 
 and sonship, it is mainly because it seems to me to bring 
 in at the very outset of creation an altogether inadequate 
 ideal or type of that relation—falling far short, in my ap¬ 
 prehension, of what is realised as the issue of redemption. 
 Still there is really nothing in their usual mode of putting 
 the relation of intelligent creatures, as such, to their Creator, 
 to which I would seriously object;—excepting only on the 
 ground that it tends, as I fear, in some degree, to substi¬ 
 tute a figurative for a real notion of the fatherhood. 
 
 I take Pearson and Barrow as authorities. 
 
 Pearson, in his Exposition of the Creed, Article 1, “ I be¬ 
 lieve in God the Father,” opens the subject thus : “Although 
 the Christian notion of the Divine paternity be some way 
 peculiar to the evangelical patefaction”—let the reader 
 mark that—“ yet wheresoever God hath been acknowledged, 
 he hath been understood and worshipped as a Father : the 
 very heathen poets so describe their gods, and their vulgar 
 names did q,qxt:j father in them, as the most popular and 
 universal notion.” In his foot-notes on this sentence, he 
 quotes a statement from Lactantius, to the effect that every 
 god worshipped by man must be styled father, “ not only 
 by way of compliment, but by force of reason, both because 
 he is more ancient than man, and because he gives to man 
 life, preservation, and sustenance, as a father.” Then he 
 brings in Homer’s favourite expression, “ Father of gods 
 
58 
 
 LECTURE L 
 
 and men,” and cites Servius as “ observing of Virgil, that 
 the paternal title is poetically added to almost all the gods, 
 that they may become the more venerable.” He goes on 
 to enumerate the different grounds upon which God may 
 be called a father, beginning with “ the creation or produc¬ 
 tion of anything, by which it is, and before was not 
 which, he says, “ is a kind of generation, and consequently 
 the creator or producer of it a kind of father.” In this 
 sense he says, with reference to the rain and dew (Job 
 xxxviii. 28), “ God, as the cause, may be called the Father 
 of it ; though not,” as he adds, “ in the most proper sense, 
 as he is the Father of his Son” (Ers^ug ya^ ng usrou ‘Trarioa 
 @ 101 / azovu xai Wsvug u;oD) * Of course, he distinguishes the 
 rational creatures of God, as being his sons by way of 
 eminence; but without really ( implying more on their 
 behalf than that they can know who their maker is. And 
 this, with the addition of “ conservation,” is literally all that 
 IVarson holds to be implied in the idea of an original and 
 natural fatherhood on the part of God. For he goes on 
 immediately to speak at much greater length of God’s 
 fatherhood by redemption, by regeneration, by adoption— 
 as to all which grounds of fatherhood I substantially agree 
 with him, with this qualification, that I would transpose 
 the two parts of his exposition. I would place first his 
 most admirable statement of the fatherhood of God with 
 reference to his Eternal Son, and deduce from that, as 
 founded upon it, the fatherly relation which, in his Son 
 become incarnate, he sustains to those who are savingly 
 interested in the work that he became incarnate to ac¬ 
 complish ; who are, in short, one with him by faith. 
 
 Barrow is fuller on this subject than Pearson. But 
 
 « “ One understands God to he father of the dew in another sense 
 than that in which he is father of the Son.” Sever, in Job, as 
 (juoted by Pearson. 
 
LECTURE L 
 
 59 
 
 inucli the same may be said of him as of the other. In his 
 parallel treatises, “ The Christian Faith Explained and 
 Vindicated,” and Brief Exposition of the Creed, etc.,” 
 he enlarges on the article, “ I believe in God the Father.” 
 In domg so, he makes much use, according to his custom, 
 of the classic writers and the early fathers. But the sum 
 of what he thus gathers is given by himself in this com¬ 
 pendious form :—“ In so many several respects is God our 
 Father : we are his children—(1) as being his creatures, 
 made, preserved, and maintained by bun ; (2) as we are 
 intellectual creatures, being placed in degree and quality 
 of nature so near him ; (3) as we, by virtue and goodness 
 (produced in us by his grace), do anywise approach him, 
 resemble him, and partake of his special favour ; (4) as we 
 are Christians, adopted into his heavenly family, renewed 
 by his holy grace, and destinated to a participation of 
 his eternal glory.”—(“ The Christian Faith,” etc.. Sermon 
 X.) Of the four grounds on which the relation is here 
 made to rest, the first two alone are natural, the others 
 being confessedly of grace. And in the first two nothing 
 really is involved beyond mere origination in the one, and 
 in the other, such resemblance, in respect of intelligence, 
 as makes intelligent personal intercourse possible. There 
 is a remarkable passage immediately preceding that now 
 quoted, to which I may afterwards refer, as connecting the 
 sonsliip of believers with the incarnation of the Son. 
 jMeanwhile, it is enough for my purpose to show that, in 
 whatever sense, and whether properly or not, these divines 
 make God, as Creator, to be the Father of his creatures, 
 this can mean nothing more, even in the case of the highest 
 intelligences, than that he and they can understand one 
 another, and can converse and commune accordingly. 
 
60 
 
 LECTURE L 
 
 Note D. (Page 42.) 
 
 A singular and striking confirmation of tins view is 
 to be found in “Locke’s two Treatises on Government,” 
 and in the two works of Sir Eobert Filmer, Bart.,—his “Ob¬ 
 servations, &c.,” and his “ Patriarcha, or the Natural 
 Power of Kings,” (1680),—to which Locke’s Treatises were 
 a reply. The Baronet’s brochures are of little worth. 
 Their only value is that they called out such an antagonist, 
 and gave that great man occasion for not only destroying 
 his opponent, but erecting a stronghold on the side of 
 liberty that has never since been shaken. I cannot enter 
 into details. But I may note it as a significant fact that 
 Sir Eobert’s fundamental position makes all government 
 paternal, and that he builds upon that position the most 
 unrestricted doctrine of absolute power that has ever been 
 propounded in an intelligent age. Passive obedience and 
 non-resistance are his cherished tenets. The right of kings 
 to make laws and overrule laws, to command their sub¬ 
 jects as they see fit, with no counter-right of opposition 
 recognizable in any circumstances whatever, is pled to the 
 most extreme point. And the basis of the whole pleading 
 is the idea of a paternal government. All government, 
 according to him, is originally paternal; and as being so, 
 it is hereditary. He has great difficulty in tracing the 
 hereditary line of descent. The inextricable complexities 
 of ever-changing dynasties, empires, kingdoms, common¬ 
 wealths, puzzle him somewhat. But in spite of facts, his 
 theory carries him through, just as the High Church theory 
 of apostolic succession carries divines through in the face 
 of all historical embarrassments. The High Church divines 
 contrive, in spite of endlessly doubtful ecclesiastical gene¬ 
 alogies, to invest the modern bishop with all the preroga¬ 
 tives belonging to what they hold to be the primary 
 
LECTURE L 
 
 61 
 
 ^ episcopate. And so also, Sir Eobert, as representing the 
 ultra-loyalist party of his day, makes no scruple about 
 placing all existing legitimate kings in the position of the 
 first parent of our race, and assigning to them the very 
 same sort of authority which, according to him, Adam had 
 over his family begotten of his loins and living under his 
 roof. And what follows, according to Sir Eobert’s logic? 
 Nothing short of the most absolute right, on the part of all 
 kings, to treat their subjects, who are their children, as de¬ 
 pendants wholly at their disposal, without natural privilege 
 or claim of any sort, beyond what a mere infant, or a mere 
 boy, has in the household of his father. No other warrant 
 is needed for the cruellest tyranny on the one hand, and 
 the tamest acquiescence on the other. Hence the zeal 
 with which Locke repudiates the paternal theory of human 
 government, and insists on its being based on another 
 principle; a principle which by no means, as some suppose, 
 excludes a divine ordinance as sanctioning human govern¬ 
 ment, but only makes the actual carrying out of the divine 
 ordinance dependent instrumentally, as it must always 
 ultimately be, on the consent of the community. 
 
 Of course, the only point of analogy here, between the 
 human government and the divine, is the entire separation 
 and seclusion of the paternal element from the proper and 
 original ideal of both. Whether the government rests 
 immediately on the sovereignty of God, or mediately on 
 the consent of men, makes no difference, as regards tlie 
 present question. In either case it is a government based 
 fundamentally on mere law and judgment, and altogether 
 exclusive of the paternal relation or the idea of fatherhood. 
 The intrusion of that relation or idea, when it is human 
 government that is to be considered, inevitably leads to 
 tyranny, for the popular voice is excluded. When it is the 
 divine government that is to be considered, it introduces a 
 
62 
 
 LECTURE I. 
 
 corresponding disorder; not perhaps in the way of estab¬ 
 lishing tyranny, but rather in the way of tending to anarchy; 
 for in that case the divine supremacy, in virtue of which 
 God necessarily vindicates his just rule, is practically ex¬ 
 cluded. For there are these two opposite ways of working 
 - out the theory of all government being paternal, and pater¬ 
 nal only. In the case of human government, it exempts 
 the governor from the obligation of observing as well as 
 enforcing righteous law, and so gives him a discretionary 
 power which he may push to any extent of severity. In 
 the case of the divine government, it does the same thing, 
 but with an opposite issue. It makes the Divine Gover¬ 
 nor independent, in his government, of his own righteous 
 law; and so gives him a discretionary power which he may 
 push to any extent of laxity. The only security for liberty 
 in human governments, and for authority in the divine, is 
 the recognition of the principle,—and the recognition of it 
 as a first and fundamental principle,—that the foundation of 
 all government is law, in the strict forensic sense of the 
 term; and that the essential function of all governors is 
 to administer law, and to administer it judicially and not 
 paternally. 
 
LECTURE SECOND. 
 
 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD, AS MANIFESTED 
 IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST, THE INCAR¬ 
 NATE WORD. 
 
 God sent forth his Son made of a woman.—GAL.*iv. 4. 
 
 The only relation or relationship, properly 
 so called, which can be fairly held to be 
 constituted by the fact of creation, so as 
 to be implied in it, or legitimately inferred 
 from it, is that of rule or government by 
 law and judgment. And the only distinc¬ 
 tion which the possession of intelligence 
 akin to that of the Creator confers on the 
 higher order of creatures, as compared with 
 the lower, is that they are capable of 
 understanding and appreciating the law 
 by which they are ruled, so as either to 
 consent to it or to dissent from it; and 
 that, consequently, the judgment enforcing 
 the law is to them an exjierience of con¬ 
 scious personal responsibility. • In other 
 words, they are endowed with the faculties 
 
64 
 
 LECTURE 11. 
 
 of free will and the moral sense. In virtue 
 of their being thus distinguished and thus 
 endowed, they are capable originally, by 
 their very constitution, simply as crea¬ 
 tures, of a kind of intercourse on their 
 part with the Creator, and a mode of 
 treatment of them on his part, altogether 
 jDeculiar. 
 
 The peculiarity of it lies in its being 
 personal. The Creator and the creature 
 face one another as persons. Now, pro¬ 
 per personality, as I need scarcely say, 
 implies capacity of intelligence and free¬ 
 dom of will. When two parties are 
 brought together as persons, so as to have 
 dealings with one another as persons, they 
 must be able to understand one another, 
 and they must be at liberty to choose 
 how they are to stand related to one an¬ 
 other. You and I, as persons, deal¬ 
 ing with one another upon any point at 
 issue between us, must be able to compre¬ 
 hend the point, and must be free to say 
 whether we are prepared to agree or re¬ 
 solved to differ regarding it. It is not easy 
 to see how anything beyond this can be 
 held to be involved in the original relation, 
 constituted naturally by creation, between 
 
LECTURE IL 
 
 65 
 
 God and the highest of the intelligent in¬ 
 habitants of his universe. 
 
 Let it not be supposed that I regard 
 that original relation as imperfect or defec¬ 
 tive, or that I underrate the rank which it 
 confers. On the contrary, I hold it to be 
 the very climax and consummation of the 
 creature-state, when there comes forth a 
 godlike person, intelligent and free, with 
 whom the personal God may have personal 
 intercourse and personal transactions. No 
 limit can be set to the intimacy of personal 
 communion and the reciprocity of personal 
 affection thus rendered possible. 
 
 But the possibility is necessarily con¬ 
 ditional on the assertion, on the one hand, 
 and the recognition, on the other hand, of 
 government by moral law and its judicial 
 awards. The very perfection of the crea¬ 
 ture-state, in the case of intelligent beings, 
 consists in that recpDrocal assertion and 
 recognition. Neither angels nor men could 
 have been originally perfect, as creatures, 
 on any other footing. They cannot, on any 
 other footing, be perfect as creatures ulti¬ 
 mately and eternally. 
 
 All this, however, is consistent with its 
 being matter of legitimate inquiry whether 
 
 F 
 
66 
 
 LECTURE II. 
 
 there is not revealed in Scripture a rela¬ 
 tion of fatherhood on the part of the 
 Creator, and sonship on the part of the 
 creature, quite distinct from any relation 
 constituted by creation? And, in parti¬ 
 cular, it is consistent with the question 
 being raised, whether it may not be indis¬ 
 pensable to the full realisation of the per¬ 
 fection of the creature-relationship itself 
 in the unfallen, and to its recovery in the 
 fallen, that this new and superadded rela¬ 
 tion of fatherhood and sonship should 
 somehow come in ? 
 
 At the present stage of the inquiry, I 
 take up the former of these questions. And 
 I begin with a consideration of the father¬ 
 hood of God as manifested in the person of 
 his incarnate Son. 
 
 It is not my purpose to enter at any 
 length into the proof of the eternal sonship 
 of the Second Person in the Trinity—in¬ 
 volving, as it necessarily does, the eternal 
 fatherhood of the First. I rather assume 
 the fact or doctrine, as plainly taught in 
 Scripture, and, with scarcely an exception 
 of any note, universally admitted by all be¬ 
 lievers in our Lord's supreme divinity, in 
 
LECTURE IL 
 
 67 
 
 all ages of the Church. But as I consider 
 this eternal relation of fatherhood and son- 
 ship in the Godhead to be the real origin, 
 root, and ground, as well as the archetype, 
 prototype, and model of the relation of 
 fatherhood and sonship between God and 
 any of his creatures, it may be proper to 
 bring out briefly, though with great pro¬ 
 minency, what is usually held to be the 
 im]3ort of this glorious truth. 
 
 Thei^e are in the undivided essence of 
 the Godhead relations, or '' related states.’' 
 And these are and must be from everlast¬ 
 ing. The one living and true God is re¬ 
 vealed, not as God absolute, but as God 
 related, or as God subsisting from the be¬ 
 ginning with certain internal relations ; in 
 a way admitting, in some sense, of mutual 
 action and reaction; of a certain recipro¬ 
 city of loving and being loved. 
 
 So we are to conceive of God as love. 
 He is love. And his being love is not de¬ 
 pendent on what may be called the accident 
 or contingency of his having creatures to 
 be loved. It springs out of the very neces¬ 
 sity of his nature. It is his essential man- 
 
 * See footnote, p. 10. 
 
68 
 
 LECTURE IL 
 
 ner of being. Before the existence of any 
 creature—before all time—God is love. 
 
 And he is not love potentially only, but 
 actually : not capable of loving, but loving. 
 He loves and is loved. He is love itself. 
 He is not love quiescent, but love active 
 and in exercise. He is so from all eternity. 
 And he is so, and can only be so, in virtue 
 of the eternal distinction of the divine per¬ 
 sons in the Godhead, and the eternal re¬ 
 lations which they sustain towards one 
 another. 
 
 More particularly, it is in respect of the 
 eternal relation of fatherhood and sonship 
 that God is thus, from everlasting, love. It 
 is chiefly in virtue of that relation that God 
 is revealed as consciously, if I may so say, 
 and energetically, love. From everlasting 
 the Son is in the bosom of the Father. 
 And the infinite, ineffable complacency 
 subsisting between the Father and the Son 
 in the Holy Ghost, is the primary exercise 
 of that love which God is ; that love which 
 is of the essence of his nature. 
 
 It is thus that love in God has never 
 been, properly speaking, the love of himself, 
 or self-love. For there have ever been in 
 the one undivided Godhead the holy three. 
 
LECTURE 11. 
 
 69 
 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, mutually 
 loving and loved. And especially in the 
 second person, and in the real and inti¬ 
 mate relation of fatherhood and son ship be¬ 
 tween the first person and the second, the 
 deep disinterestedness of the divine love is 
 proved. The Father loveth the Son. The 
 Spirit glorifieth the Son. For it is in the 
 Son, as the Son, that the fatherly love of 
 God fiows forth in full stream. It fiows 
 forth to create and bless the countless 
 multitude of intelligences who are, through¬ 
 out eternity, to rejoice in calling the high¬ 
 est Father, in and with the Son. 
 
 Thus, then, the paternal relation, the 
 relation of fatherhood and sonship, exists 
 primarily and originally in the Godhead 
 itself. And, as thus existing, it is natural, 
 necessary, and eternal. It is not consti¬ 
 tuted by any creative act, or any sovereign 
 volition or fiat of will. The Son is eternally 
 begotten of the Father; ^‘begotten, not 
 made f of the same substance ; participat¬ 
 ing in the same nature; '' God of God, Light 
 of Light, very God of very God.'' In this 
 eternal relation between the Father and 
 the Son, the Holy Spirit is eternally and 
 intimately concerned. Being one with the 
 
70 
 
 LECTURE IL 
 
 Father and the Son in the undivided 
 essence of Deity, he is—if one may venture 
 to use such language on such a subject— 
 from all eternity, a conscious, consenting 
 party to the relation. It is in the Holy 
 Spirit that this wondrous relation of divine 
 fatherhood and sonship, with all its incon¬ 
 ceivable endearments, is realized from all 
 eternity. It is by the Holy Spirit that it 
 is developed, so far as it is to be developed, 
 in time. He is the Spirit of God, and of 
 his Son (Gal. iv. 6). 
 
 I cannot here deny myself the gratifica¬ 
 tion of quoting a passage from the very 
 remarkable book of a very remarkable 
 man ;—A Dissertation on th^ Eternal 
 Sonship of Christ,'^ by Dr. Kidd, of Aber¬ 
 deen.* He sums up his argument from 
 Christ being said to dwell in the bosom of 
 his Father, in these terms:— 
 
 “ Language cannot convey in stronger words the exist¬ 
 ence of the only-begotten Son of the Father in the 
 Godhead. If the expression Son, he a mere title convey¬ 
 ing no relation to the person who is Father,—terms must 
 
 * A singiilarly graphic and interesting notice of Dr. Kidd, 
 drawn up chiefly from persmial recollections, by Professor Mas¬ 
 son, will be found in “Macmillan’s Magazine,” Dec. 1863. 
 
LECTURE 11. 
 
 71 
 
 cease to include meaning, and be stript of the property 
 of including rational ideas. Could such expressions be 
 used, in any other case, where an unbiassed mind would not 
 instantly affix the notion of a related state between per¬ 
 sons thus described ?—Could an unprejudiced mind adopt 
 any other conclusion ? The love of the person of the 
 Father, and complete participation in his counsels and de¬ 
 signs, are attributed to the only-begotten Son. If there 
 were not the Son eternally enjoying this love, and partici¬ 
 pating in these counsels and designs, there never was the 
 Eternal Father loving, counselling, and designing. This 
 is the utmost verge of knowledge which the human in¬ 
 tellect is permitted to apprehend. When it has explored 
 creation and creation’s laws—when it has risen to higher 
 contemplations than the investigation of matter can elicit 
 —when it has surveyed farther than planets roll or spheres 
 glitter—when it has exhausted the wonders of the telescope 
 and microscope—when it has studied the soul, whose 
 powers have directed these pursuits—when it has left the 
 observation of kindred minds, and learned what is an¬ 
 nounced of the ranks of the pure spirits—when it has, 
 in thought, ascended to the illimitable vastness of God¬ 
 head,—it is permitted to know that harmony active, ener¬ 
 getic, eternal, subsists therein, enjoyed between the adorable 
 persons, the Father and the Son! 
 
 “ In our nature complacency is the sweet, refreshing 
 influence which hallows enjoyment, which is the unison 
 of the mental powers, which introduces repose from all 
 that is harassing, and a soul-felt intensity of delight. 
 The mind is alive to enjoyment, and misery is hushed. It 
 feels the flow of what is good, and the retrocession of what 
 is evil. Existence is experienced more alertly, more 
 gladly, more exquisitely. The periods when we were with¬ 
 out this feeling were, in our estimation, either those of tern- 
 
72 
 
 LECTURE II. 
 
 pestiioiis confusion, or the dull, dead level where emotions 
 are absorbed in vacancy.—In complacency we feel joy ; 
 we wish joy to be felt by all. The very ardour of our 
 happiness longs for a congeniality of feeling and sentiment. 
 The aspect of creation is more pleasing. For us, the sun 
 shines brighter, and the earth gives its thousand sweets 
 more lovely. We act better; we think better; we are 
 better. We long to enjoy this for ever! We hold com¬ 
 munion with those suited for happier, purer scenes. We 
 wish for the time when this complacency shall be warmer 
 —when communion of soul shall be dearer—when we 
 shall increase in the expanse of this feeling. Such is 
 the complacency of men.—But, in the Godhead, compla¬ 
 cency is undefinable, because it is immense,—vast as the 
 Being in whom it dwells,—vast in the nature of him who 
 ‘ filleth all in all,’—vast in that boundless expanse of de¬ 
 light, from whose stores angels’ joys have flowed, man’s 
 delights have been given. There—is the only-begotten 
 Son, in the bosom of the Father. He sees him; he is 
 with him ; he is God.” (Pages 221-223, Edit. 1822.) 
 
 Thus far I have adverted to the original 
 and necessary relation of fatherhood and 
 sonship.as subsisting from everlasting in the 
 Eternal Godhead. Eor the farther investi¬ 
 gation of that great subject, I refer in¬ 
 quirers to such works as that of Dr. Kidd, 
 and the more recent unanswered and un¬ 
 answerable treatise of Treffrey. My present 
 object does not require me to dwell longer 
 upon it. Assuming the eternity of the re¬ 
 lation, I proceed to inquire into the man- 
 
LECTURE IL 
 
 73 
 
 ner in which it is manifested and acted out, 
 if I may so say, in time. 
 
 And here, generally, it may be observed 
 that the development of this relation, its 
 being disclosed and unfolded, is by means 
 of creation, and its history; of which, in¬ 
 deed, the development of this relation is 
 the one chief and capital design. The 
 created universe is the stage on which 
 it is to be displayed. The succession of 
 events in the created universe is the pro¬ 
 cess through which it is to be displayed. 
 
 The interest chiefly centres, at least so 
 far as we are concerned, in the one great 
 event of the incarnation. It is the incar¬ 
 nation that illustrates all the preceding, 
 as well as all the subsequent steps in the 
 process of this development of the divine 
 fatherhood and sonship. For it is the in¬ 
 carnation that brings this eternal relation 
 within the range of human cognizance and 
 experience in time. 
 
 There may have been other ways of 
 making it partly and partially known to 
 other intelligences. It is possible, perhaps 
 even probable, that the Father may have 
 found other occasions, and adopted other 
 methods, for introducing his Son to the 
 
74 
 
 LECTURE IL 
 
 angels, so that they might recognise him 
 as his Son, and worship him accordingly. 
 Still I am persuaded, even as regards these 
 high intelligences, that their full insight 
 into the fatherhood of God, and their full 
 participation, to the extent of their capa¬ 
 city, in the sonship which that fatherhood 
 implies as its correlative, must be found 
 ultimately to be connected with the incar¬ 
 nation and its accompanying incidents— 
 ''the things which the angels desire to 
 look into/'—(1 Peter i. 12.) Certainly, 
 for all created minds and hearts, the in¬ 
 carnation is the clearest, brightest, most 
 gracious, and glorious exhibition that has 
 ever been given, or may I not add, that 
 ever can be given, of the divine fatherhood. 
 And it is the manifestation of it too, that 
 must ever be most intensely interesting to 
 all holy beings and all saved ones, for its 
 momentous bearing practically on their 
 everlasting state and prospects. 
 
 Let the several principal points which 
 the incarnation brings out be in this view 
 carefully considered. 
 
 In the first place, the incarnation, as a 
 great fact, discovers the communicableness. 
 
LECTURE IL 
 
 75 
 
 if I may use such a word, of the relation of 
 fatherhood and sonship, as it exists in the 
 Godhead. It proves that it is a relation 
 which may be communicated to a creature, 
 and shared in by a creature. The incar¬ 
 nation demonstrates, by a plain palpable 
 proof, that this relation is not like an in¬ 
 communicable property or attribute of 
 Deity, but is something in or about Deity, 
 in which others besides the Divine persons 
 may participate and have fellowship. For 
 in fact the incarnation shows this relation 
 actually communicated to humanity, and 
 shared in by humanity, in the person of 
 the man Christ Jesus. 
 
 For the man Christ Jesus is the Son of 
 God, in respect of his human nature as well 
 as his divine. He is, as he goes about on 
 earth doing good, the Son of God, in the 
 very same sense, in the very same fulness 
 of blessed significancy, in which he is the 
 Son of God, as dwelling in the Father’s 
 bosom from everlasting. 
 
 Let it be ever remembered that, though 
 possessed of two natures, Jesus Christ, 
 come in the flesh, is one person; one in¬ 
 dividual person; as truly and literally so 
 as I am, or any one of you is. It is the one 
 
76 
 
 LECTURE IL 
 
 person, the man Christ Jesus, who is, from 
 and after the incarnation, the Son of God. 
 There are not two sonships belonging to 
 him, but only one; not two fatherhoods of 
 God towards him but only one. For the 
 relation of sonship, being strictly j)ei*sonal, 
 must be one, as the person is one. There 
 are not, there cannot be, two distinct rela¬ 
 tions of fatherhood and sonship subsisting 
 between God and the Incarnate Word; the 
 one proper to his divine, the other to his 
 human nature. The sonship of the one 
 person cannot be conceived of as thus 
 divided. It has, and must have, the char¬ 
 acter or quality of perfect unity. Again, it 
 is to be remarked that the original and 
 eternal relation in which the First Person 
 in the Godhead stands to the Second, as his 
 uncreated, only begotten Son, cannot be 
 conceived of as altered or modified by that 
 Son’s becoming incarnate; by his taking 
 into personal union with himself the nature 
 of the creature man. His proper personal¬ 
 ity is not thereby affected; nor the relation 
 between it and that of the Father. He 
 continues to be the Son of the Father in 
 the very same sense exactly in which he 
 has been the Son of the Father from ever- 
 
LECTURE IL 
 
 77 
 
 lasting. Any other imagination would 
 make that divine relation mutable in time, 
 not, as in his case it must be held to be, 
 necessary and eternal. If it is in any 
 respect, or to any extent, susceptible at any 
 time or in any circumstances of any modifi¬ 
 cation whatever, it cannot be regarded as 
 what we hold it to be, the original and 
 inherent condition of Deity itself, of the 
 everlasting and unchangeable God. 
 
 From all this it clearly follows, that in 
 the one undivided person of Jesus Christ, 
 the Son of God come in the flesh, humanity 
 enters into that very relation of sonship 
 which, before his coming in the flesh, he 
 sustains to the Father. From thenceforth 
 fatherhood is a relation in which the Su¬ 
 preme God stands, not merely to a divine, 
 but now also to a human being; to one 
 who is as truly man as he is truly God. 
 
 This is not, let it be carefully observed, 
 making man as God; confounding the two 
 natures in Christ, and ascribing to the one 
 what can only be truly predicated of the 
 other. It is not implied in the view which 
 I have been giving that there is any com¬ 
 munication of any divine property or attri¬ 
 bute, any quality or perfection of the divine 
 
78 
 
 LECTURE 11. 
 
 nature, to the human nature, in the man 
 Christ Jesus. The question is not a ques¬ 
 tion about nature at all; it is simply and 
 exclusively a question of relationship. The 
 two natures, being distinct, and continuing 
 to be distinct, may nevertheless, if united 
 in one person, be embraced in one personal 
 relationship. That is what is meant, and 
 all that is meant. And that surely cannot 
 reasonably be said, either to derogate from 
 the supreme divinity, or to deify the 
 humanity, of the Incarnate Son. As God 
 and man, in two distinct natures, he is one 
 person, standing in the one personal rela¬ 
 tion of sonship to the Father. That is what 
 he begins to be from the moment of his 
 becoming incarnate. 
 
 And he is so, all throughout his earthly 
 course. This also it is important to bear 
 in mind. There is no such thing as dualism, 
 or duality, about this thoroughly human 
 Son of God, as he is seen walking before 
 our eyes in Galilee and Judea. There is 
 no need of any line being drawn, or any 
 distinction being made, between his son- 
 ship as God, and his sonship as man; as if 
 he sometimes spoke and acted in the char¬ 
 acter or capacity of God's divine Son, and at 
 
LECTURE IL 
 
 79 
 
 ' other times in that of his human Son; as if 
 he sometimes called God Father by a right 
 or title proper to his divinity, and at other 
 times by a right or title belonging to his 
 humanity. To conceive thus of him is really 
 to break the unity of his person. And it 
 does not elevate; rather on the contrary it 
 lowers him. It lowers him as man, in the 
 human aspects of his position and standing 
 towards the Father and his fellowship with 
 the Father, without at all elevating him as 
 God, in any of his divine prerogatives. The 
 true honouring of him in his incarnate 
 state, is to hold that whatever he says as 
 the Son, to the Father; whatever he asks, 
 as the Son, of the Father; whatever he 
 does, as the Son, for the Father; he says, 
 and asks, and does, as the “one mediator 
 between God and man, the man Christ 
 Jesus;’' the one Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 Here it may be proper, for the purpose 
 of preventing, if possible, misrepresentation 
 and misconception, to interpose an explan¬ 
 atory caution, which, but for there being 
 some men of peculiar minds, apt to per¬ 
 vert even the plainest statements, I might 
 not have considered necessary. 
 
 I would not like the inference which 
 
80 
 
 LECTURE IL 
 
 I deduce from the fact of the incarnation 
 to be confounded with the notion, which 
 seems much in vogue in certain quarters, 
 of that great event having somehow af¬ 
 fected beneficially humanity in general; 
 the human nature as such; the human 
 race universally and at large; so as to im¬ 
 press a kind of filial character on the in¬ 
 tuitional apprehension which all men are 
 said to have of God, and on the position 
 which they occupy towards him. I confess, I 
 never can feel quite sure that I thoroughly 
 understand the language used on this sub¬ 
 ject by the class of writers I refer to; it seems 
 to me so vague and hazy. I would not do 
 them injustice. And, therefore, I wish it 
 to be observed, that it is not my present 
 object to comment on their ojDinions, but 
 only to make my own meaning clear. The 
 idea of some at least seems to be, that the 
 Son of God, becoming man, has taken all 
 manhood, wherever and in whomsoever 
 found, into a sort of incorporating union 
 with himself as regards his sonship; that 
 simply in consequence and in virtue of 
 humanity being a partaker of the filial re¬ 
 lation in his human person, it is so in all 
 human persons; that altogether apart from 
 
LECTURE IL 
 
 81 
 
 * 
 
 any dealing with men individually, the 
 Son, having assumed the nature common 
 to all, invests that nature everywhere with 
 the dignity which it has in him, and makes 
 all who possess it ipso facto sons. Whether 
 I am right or wrong in believing that to 
 be the teaching of any theologians is not 
 at this stage of any consequence. All I 
 wish to say is that it is not mine. 
 
 I limit my contemplation, for the pre¬ 
 sent, to the one glorious object of the per¬ 
 son of our Lord ;—the most glorious object 
 of contemplation, I suppose, in all the 
 universe. I fix my eyes exclusively on 
 him. And I follow him with admiring, 
 adoring gaze, all along the path he trod, 
 from Bethlehem’s cradle to Calvary’s cross. 
 I see him doing works, I hear him uttering 
 words, which unequivocally proclaim him 
 to be God ; while, everriiore, suffering, S 3 rm- 
 pathy, tears, sighs, groans, as unmistake- 
 ably prove him to be man. Here are 
 manifestations of power and glory which 1 
 hesitate not to ascribe to his divine nature ; 
 there are traces of weakness, weariness 
 and woe, which I at once ascribe to the 
 human. But while I distinguish the 
 natures, I cannot divide the person. And„ 
 
 G 
 
82 
 
 LECTURE IL 
 
 consequently, I cannot divide the sonship. 
 It is the one Son of God, sustaining but 
 one relation as Son to the Father, who 
 lives and moves before me, in all his 
 earthly history, whether I behold him 
 putting forth his power, as God, to raise the 
 dead, or submitting, as man, himself to die. 
 
 Thus, I think the fact of the incarna¬ 
 tion may be shown to involve this conse¬ 
 quence, that the relation of fatherhood 
 and sonship subsisting between the first 
 and second persons in the Godhead is not 
 incommunicable ; that it is a relation in 
 which one having a created nature may 
 participate. Undeniably, in point of fact, 
 humanity actually shares in it, in the 
 person of the Son of God, Jesus Christ, 
 come in the flesh. 
 
 Let it be observed that I do not here 
 assert the actual communication of this re¬ 
 lation to others besides the incarnate Son. 
 Far less do I undertake, at this stage of the 
 argument, to define either the extent and 
 limits, or the terms and conditions, of such 
 communication. It is admitted, or rather 
 asserted, that the relation in the incarnate 
 Son is a personal one ; and consequently, 
 that the mere fact of his incarnation does 
 
LECTURE IL 
 
 83 
 
 not of itself prove its commiinicableness to 
 other persons. It is in his case a relation 
 retained by the divine person in the new 
 human nature assumed by him. The new 
 human nature communicates in the sonship 
 by entering into the person. 
 
 But this shows, at least, that human 
 nature, as such, has nothing in it or about 
 it which should preclude, in certain circum¬ 
 stances, the being and exercise of sonship 
 in that nature. This is all that I at pre¬ 
 sent contend for. What the circumstances 
 are or may be in which this may be pos¬ 
 sible, is another question. In Christ, we 
 have the divine Son retaining his sonship 
 in his assumed humanity. In the believer, 
 we have a human being divinely united to 
 Christ by the divine Spirit, in the exercise 
 of a divinely originated faith. And he is 
 thus united to Christ, as the divine Son 
 retaining his sonship in his assumed hu¬ 
 manity. I do not say that the circum¬ 
 stances in the two instances are the same. 
 Nor do I, in the meanwhile, even say that 
 they are so far analogous as to warrant a 
 valid conclusion with regard to the identity 
 of the relation. But the incarnation surely 
 renders this, beforehand, a not impossible. 
 
84 
 
 LECTURE II. 
 
 nay, a not improbable, opinion ;—which is 
 all that I now assert. And it seems to me 
 
 V 
 
 to do so without involving the least risk of 
 our being shut up into the wild mysticism 
 which would make Christ and the believer 
 literally one person, or represent the be¬ 
 liever as losing his own distinct and proper 
 personality in that of the incarnate Son. 
 On the contrary, my reasoning is all in 
 the opposite line. It is the communicable¬ 
 ness of the original, divine, filial relation 
 to manhood as subsisting in an individual 
 that I contend for. Christ preserves his 
 proper personality when he shares with the 
 believer what is characteristic of him as 
 man—his being a creature. Is there any 
 reason why the believer should necessarily 
 lose his proper personality when, by a 
 divine act or operation, he shares with the 
 Son what is characteristic of him as God— 
 his being the Son ? Is it really a question 
 of personality at all, in any fair sense of 
 the term 
 
 But I am anticipating. I return to the 
 subject on hand. I speak of what the in¬ 
 carnation proves, with reference to the 
 person of the incarnate Son of God. 
 
 * See Note A. 
 
LECTURE 11. 
 
 85 
 
 In that view, 1 have noticed one con¬ 
 clusion or inference which 1 think may be 
 deduced from it. 1 now proceed to point 
 out another. It is tliis :—Not only does 
 the fact of the incarnation establish the 
 communicableness of this divine relation 
 of sonship to God the Father ; it discovers 
 also its entire consistency, when communi¬ 
 cated, with another relation ;—that of sub- 
 jectship, if 1 may be allowed to use the 
 term, to God the ruler, to God the king. 
 In the person of Christ, the two relations, 
 while continuing distinct from one another, 
 are yet found combined. 
 
 1 do not see how, before the appearance 
 of the Son of God in his incarnate state, 
 the possibility of such a combination, or 
 the manner in which it might be effected, 
 could be made clearly manifest ; how it 
 could be shown, at least fully, to the satis¬ 
 faction of any created intelligence, that 
 the relation of proper sonship, and the re¬ 
 lation of real and actual subjectship, might 
 co-exist in one and the same individual 
 person. For certainly, as it seems to me, 
 all a priori presumptions, all antecedent 
 probabilities, must have been felt to be 
 against the union ; tlie two relations being 
 
86 
 
 LECTURE II. 
 
 to all appearance, as regards their respec¬ 
 tive natures and conditions, opposite and 
 contradictory. The problem might well 
 be regarded by any one who had to deal 
 with it beforehand as all but insoluble— 
 to produce, or even imagine, a being, who 
 should unite and combine, in his own single 
 and individual person, the filial relation, as 
 it has subsisted from all eternity in the 
 uncreated Godhead, and the subject or ser¬ 
 vant relation, which began to exist when 
 intelligent creatures came upon the stage 
 of the universe. 
 
 The problem is now seen to be solved 
 by the union of the two natures, the un¬ 
 created Godhead and the created man¬ 
 hood, in Jesus Christ as come in the flesh. 
 In virtue of the one nature, he is the Son; 
 in virtue of the other nature, he is a sub¬ 
 ject and a servant. And being one person, 
 combining in himself both natures, he is 
 at once both son and. subject;—both son 
 and servant. 
 
 This, as I cannot but think, is the 
 special wonder *and the peculiar mystery 
 of the incarnation. Even more, I would 
 almost say, than in the union of the two 
 natures in one person,—the wonder, the 
 
LECTURE IL 
 
 87 
 
 mystery, to my mind, lies in the union of 
 the two relations. If we at all worthily 
 realise to ourselves the eternal sonship of 
 the second person in the Trinity, I appre¬ 
 hend that we must feel this to be the true 
 state of the case. 
 
 Theophanies are quite conceivable. The 
 eternal Son of the Father may be ima¬ 
 gined to make himself visible in many 
 ways; assuming on occasion the semblance 
 of angel or man, or any other suitable 
 svmbolic form. Personal intercourse is con- 
 ceivable. The uncreated Son of the Father 
 may be supposed to visit the created sub¬ 
 jects of the Father, and to have dealings 
 with them, of various sorts. But that he 
 should himself, continuing to be the Son 
 of the Father, come to stand, in his own 
 person, in the relation of a subject and 
 servant to the Father,—this might well be 
 held to be all but inconceivable beforehand. 
 
 It is not inconceivable now. The in¬ 
 carnation has made it palpable as a great 
 accomplished fact. And it is a fact preg¬ 
 nant .with great results. His coming in 
 the flesh, demonstrates that it is possible 
 for him, who is naturally the Son, to be 
 also a subject and a servant, as all God's 
 
88 
 
 LECTURE 11. 
 
 reasonable creatures are. May it not, 
 must it not, be regarded as going far to 
 demonstrate the converse also, that it is 
 possible for those who are naturally subjects 
 and servants to be sons, as he is—to enter 
 somehow and to some extent into his rela¬ 
 tion to God as his Son, as he enters into 
 their relation to God as his subjects and 
 servants ? 
 
 I have thrown out the idea that there 
 may have been beings far back in the his¬ 
 tory of the created universe, interested in 
 having the possibility and the manner of 
 this union of the two relations in one per¬ 
 son made patent to them. And I have 
 suggested that before the incarnation this 
 may have presented itself to their minds 
 as a difficult, if not insoluble, problem. 1 
 refer, of course, to the unfallen angels. 
 
 If, as I venture to think it may be shown 
 to be at least probable, on grounds of reason 
 and Scripture which I may have occasion 
 afterwards to state, these blessed spirits, 
 having stood some decisive test of their 
 allegiance as subjects and their obedience 
 as servants, were on that account, and as 
 the appropriate reward of their faithful¬ 
 ness, invested with the character and title 
 
LECTURE 11. 
 
 89 
 
 of sons ;—and if especially their being in¬ 
 vested with that character and title was 
 connected with some introduction to them 
 by the Father of his eternal Son, as such, 
 and some act of homage on their part to 
 him;—I can well imagine how, having 
 • before theii* eyes an ideal or exemplar of 
 sonship, so august, so intimate, so dear, 
 so transcendently glorious and ineffably 
 complacent, they may have felt them¬ 
 selves at a loss to grasp all the fulness of 
 the blessing so graciously bestowed upon 
 them, in their being called the sons of God. 
 The lowly posture of subjects under do¬ 
 minion, of servants under the yoke, they 
 had been well content to take. But what 
 manner of love is this ? Can it indeed be 
 possible that sonship, after the only model 
 of which they have any knowledge, is to be, 
 nay, that it already is, theirs ? They can¬ 
 not doubt, they must believe it to be so. 
 And they must thankfully rejoice in its 
 being so. 
 
 But I can suppose that the divine privi¬ 
 lege is at first only very imperfectly realized. 
 I can suppose that, even for a long period, 
 it may be all matter of faith with them, 
 rather than matter of clear-sighted knoAv- 
 
90 
 
 LECTURE IL 
 
 ledge and experience. I can imagine them 
 looking for clearer light to be shed on what 
 may seem to them so strange, so unaccount¬ 
 able, so all but incomprehensible, a state 
 of things, as that their humble standing as 
 creatures should be found compatible with 
 their sharing the high standing of the Son. 
 And as they wait upon the Son in all the 
 stages of his march along the line of his 
 own creation's opening history;—as they 
 mark his footsteps on this earth, his won¬ 
 drous goings forth from of old, and the 
 ever-brightening signs of a coming forth 
 more wondrous still;—I can almost, I 
 would say, see these blessed spirits, wait¬ 
 ing, watching, on the tip-toe of expectation, 
 on the very rack of hope, till—Lo ! The 
 babe is born at Bethlehem. 
 
 Now at last there bursts on them the 
 great discovery. The Son of God, taking 
 upon him the form of a servant, explains 
 all, harmonizes all. Now the joy of their 
 sonship begins to be complete ;—completely 
 intelligible, completely realizable ;—as they 
 fix their gaze on the proper and eternal 
 Son of God become truly and in all respects 
 a servant. Now is their worship of the Son 
 recompensed indeed. They see him who is 
 
LECTURE IL 
 
 91 
 
 the Son become a servant as they are ser¬ 
 vants.' They can understand how they, 
 being servants, are sons as he is Son. 
 
 Is this an altogether wild and unwar¬ 
 ranted speculation ? I do not think so*. 
 I think I find some warrant for it in what 
 all Scripture indicates of the attendance of 
 angels on the Son, and in that very sig¬ 
 nificant intimation of the Apostle Peter 
 already quoted—'' Which things the angels 
 desire to look into''—(1 Peter i. 12). 
 
 At any rate, this speculation, if it be a 
 mere speculation, as to what the angels 
 may have known and reasoned about it, 
 does not touch the conclusion which I am 
 now asserting to be deducible from the 
 mere fact of the incarnation itself It is 
 that fact which proves, and which alone 
 could prove, the possibility of the two rela¬ 
 tions of sonshijD and subjectship meeting in 
 one and the same person ;—the sonship, let 
 it be very specially noted, being the very 
 relation in which the Son stands to the 
 Father from everlasting; and the subject- 
 ship, let it be also very specially noted, 
 being the very relation in which the crea¬ 
 ture stands to the Creator, as his lawgiver, 
 ruler, and judge. 
 
92 
 
 LECTURE II. 
 
 Much importance, therefore, is to be 
 attached to the keeping of the two re¬ 
 lations which meet in the person of Christ 
 apart and distinct. As much importance, 
 at least, is to be attached to that as to 
 the keeping of the two natures apart and 
 distinct. The person is one, though the 
 relations are to be regarded as distinct, 
 even as the natures are distinct. The Son 
 in the bosom of the Father, and the sub¬ 
 ject or servant learning obedience by suf¬ 
 fering, is one and the same person. The 
 Son is the suftering and obedient servant. 
 The suffering and obedient servant is the 
 Son. 
 
 This thought suggests a third conse¬ 
 quence following from the fact of the in¬ 
 carnation, which it is important to notice. 
 The incarnation not only brings the eternal 
 Son into the relation of a subject and a 
 servant, but brings him into that relation 
 after it has sustained a great shock—a fatal 
 jar, as it might seem—after it has become 
 thoroughly disordered and deranged. 
 
 I assume here, in the meanwhile, the 
 reality, not so much of substitution as 
 of identification ;—not so much the eternal 
 
LECTURE IT. 
 
 93 
 
 Son’s substituting himself for us, as his 
 identifying himself with us. The Son of 
 God, in his incarnation, becomes one of us 
 men, one with us men. He becomes one 
 of us, one with us, as fallen creatures, 
 guilty, corrupt, condemned. He shares 
 with us the relation in which we stand to 
 God as subjects, not in its original in¬ 
 tegrity, as it was at the first, but as it is 
 now, I repeat, disordered and deranged. 
 In its essential nature, of course, the rela^ 
 tion is one and the same throughout. It 
 is that of subjection to authority. It is 
 being ruled by law. But as the Son takes 
 it, in our nature, being still the Son, it is 
 subjection to outraged authority — it is 
 being ruled by violated law. 
 
 No doubt his human nature, when he 
 becomes incarnate, may be different, so far, 
 from ours, in respect of its being such as 
 it was in Adam before he sinned and fell. 
 It may be different from ours, not in its 
 essence, not in anything necessary to iden¬ 
 tify human nature as human nature, but 
 in the circumstance or accident of de¬ 
 pravity and corruption attaching to it, or 
 rather to those who inherit it. I have al¬ 
 ways felt a difficulty in conceiving of the 
 
94 
 
 LECTURE II. 
 
 Holy Son of the Most High becoming man, 
 altogether as man now is since the fall, 
 without qualification or reservation. It 
 has always seemed to me to imply a dero¬ 
 gation from his holiness. That he should 
 become what Adam was when he was first 
 made in the image of God, involves no diffi¬ 
 culty beyond what lies in the idea of a 
 union of the two natures in one person, 
 however put. But that he should become 
 what I am, when I am begotten in the 
 image of fallen Adam, born in iniquity and 
 conceived in sin,—that theory exceedingly 
 complicates the difficulty. And then, I 
 never have been able to see how, if the 
 human nature of the Son of God had in it 
 anything of the blight or taint which the 
 fall has entailed on it as transmitted to us 
 —if, when he came into our world in human 
 nature, he had any stain of sin, original or 
 actual—he ever could have stood us in 
 stead, as the Lamb of God offered for us 
 without blemish and without spot; or, in 
 other words, as the Holy One of God, tak¬ 
 ing our place, and answering for us, by sub¬ 
 stitution, under a sentence of condem¬ 
 nation from which, as it would seem, if he 
 is really to do so, he must himself be free. 
 
LECTURE IL 
 
 95 
 
 I cannot, therefore, reconcile myself to the 
 idea of his assuming the human nature in 
 the corrupt condition, and under the per¬ 
 sonal liabilities, consequent upon the fall. 
 I hold his manhood to be what unfallen 
 Adam’s manhood was.* 
 
 But the question of relation is alto¬ 
 gether different. For the very same reason 
 for which I maintain that he assumes our 
 nature in the incarnation, not as it is now, 
 but as it was before the fall, I maintain 
 also that he enters into our relation to 
 God, as his subjects and servants, in its 
 present, not its original state. 
 
 The incarnation, if real, necessarily im¬ 
 plies this. Or, at all events, the end or 
 design of the incarnation requires it. He 
 comes into our place or position as that of 
 subjects and servants who have disobeyed, 
 and have justly incurred the penalty of 
 disobedience,—to relieve us of our liabili¬ 
 ties by taking them on himself. The in¬ 
 carnation of the Son of God is his entering 
 into our relation to God, as a relation 
 involving guilt to be answered for, and the 
 wrath and curse of God to be endured. 
 
 How does this enhance the wonder and 
 * See Note B. 
 
96 
 
 LECTURE IT. 
 
 deepen the mystery of the incarnation ! 
 For what does it imply? In the person of 
 the man Christ Jesus, the incarnate Son of 
 the Living God, the relation of Sonship to 
 God which from everlasting is his glory 
 and joy in heaven, must now for a time 
 co-exist with the relation of criminality 
 and condemnation, under God’s righteous 
 sentence, which is to be the misery of lost 
 intelligences in hell to everlasting ! That 
 these two opposite relations should meet 
 in the incarnate Son of God, in him and in 
 his experience, even for a moment, is an 
 amazing thought. How much more so is 
 it when we consider that, however the full 
 agony of the felt contrast between them 
 may have been concentrated into one dark 
 hour, he must have been conscious, for a 
 lifetime, of their really meeting in him 1 
 Surely this is indeed a great wonder and 
 mystery. And yet, as it would seem, 
 nothing short of this is implied in the in¬ 
 carnation of the Son of God. Nor, if any¬ 
 thing less had been implied in it, would 
 our case be really met;—not at least if we, 
 being by nature not merely servants and 
 subjects, but, as servants and subjects, 
 criminal and condemned, are to find our 
 
LECTURE IL 
 
 97 
 
 relation to God in that character and posi¬ 
 tion,—yes ! even this relation of ours to 
 God,—not ultimately incompatible after 
 all, through his marvellous grace, with our 
 being admitted into participation in the 
 relation which He sustains to God, who 
 washes us in his blood, and renovates us 
 by his Spirit;—that relation of sonship 
 which gives to his mediation on our behalf 
 all its value and all its efficacy, and which 
 alone opens up the way to our being sons, 
 as he is the son. 
 
 There is yet a fourth inference or de¬ 
 duction which I would draw from the fact 
 of the incarnation as uniting in the one 
 person of Christ, not only the two natures, 
 the divine and the human, but the two re¬ 
 lations, that of Son and that of subject and 
 servant. It is this. Not only does the 
 incarnation bring the Son into the relation 
 of a subject, under the inevitable condition 
 of criminality and condemnation now at¬ 
 taching to that relation in our case; it 
 proves that the relation itself, apart from 
 that condition, may be one in spirit with 
 that of sonship; and it secures that, as 
 
 H 
 
98 
 
 LECTURE II. 
 
 regards all who are in Christ, it shall ulti¬ 
 mately be so, and that for ever. 
 
 I assume the union of the two natures 
 in the one person of Christ to be indis¬ 
 soluble. And I argue that, the two natures 
 being indissolubly and for ever united in 
 him, the two corresponding relations are 
 also united in him indissolubly and for ever. 
 How they are so, and how they are to be 
 seen to be so in the world to come, it may 
 be difficult to imagine. But that they are 
 so, would seem to follow as a necessary con¬ 
 sequence from his unchangeableness, as 
 Redeemer, Lord, and King,—his being the 
 same yesterday, to-day, and for ever.'' 
 
 Of course the relation of subjectship must 
 be divested conclusively and thoroughly of 
 the character or condition of criminality 
 and condemnation attaching to it when he 
 comes into it. How that is effected I need 
 not now state at length. I simply refer 
 to his obedience and death," as satisfying 
 the claims of outraged authority and vio¬ 
 lated law. That being over, there is no 
 more criminality, no more condemnation, 
 to mar this relation assumed by him, as it 
 thenceforth co-exists in him with his own 
 natural and divine relation of sonsliip. 
 
LECTURE IL 
 
 99 
 
 Thus the relation of subjectship adapts 
 itself in a wonderful manner, and through 
 a wonderful process, to the relation of son- 
 ship ; and that too, even after it has been 
 so deranged and broken by the introduc¬ 
 tion of sin, that even its restoration to its 
 original integrity could scarcely have been 
 anticipated, far less its elevation to so high 
 an honour in the person of its Great Re¬ 
 storer, who, in virtue of his incarnation, 
 ‘‘ is, and continues to be, God and man, in 
 two distinct natures, and one person for 
 ever;''—and therefore also, on the same 
 ground. Son and subject, in two distinct 
 relations, and one person for ever. 
 
 To some, this view of our Lord's manner 
 of existence throughout eternity may seem, 
 at first sight, strange and startling; and 
 beyond all question, it is a great inscmi- 
 table mystery. The idea of the Eternal 
 Son, the Maker, Lord, and Heir of all 
 things, not only condescending to occupy 
 for a time the position of a subject, but 
 consenting to make that position his own 
 inalienably and for ever, is very solemn and 
 awful. It is one from which the reverential 
 adorer of the Divine Redeemer may be apt, 
 on its being first presented to him, to 
 
100 
 
 LECTURE IL 
 
 shrink and recoil. And yet I do not see 
 how that conclusion can be avoided or 
 evaded, if the fact of the incarnation is ad¬ 
 mitted, together with the doctrine founded 
 upon it,—the doctrine of the indissoluble 
 union of the two natures in the one person 
 of the incarnate Son. 
 
 Nor, I am persuaded, will the devout 
 student of scripture, the humble searcher 
 after truth, upon fuller, deeper meditation, 
 be disposed to turn away from it. It will 
 probably occur to such a man that there is 
 one remarkable passage, at least, which 
 seems to indicate something like what 1 
 have been inferring. I mean the passage 
 (1 Cor. XV. 28) in which the consummation 
 of the SoiTs mediatorial reign is anticipated. 
 Whatever difficulty there may be in deter¬ 
 mining the precise nature of the change 
 which, as there announced, is to take place in 
 the SoiTs state at that era, one thing would 
 seem to be expressly asserted. He is to be 
 ‘'subjectunto him which did put all things 
 under him.'' So direct a declaration cannot 
 but have weight with all who are content to 
 believe the simple word of God ; and it 
 will go far to reconcile them to a view which 
 otherwise they might be slow to admit. 
 
LECTURE IL 
 
 101 
 
 Then, besides, it may probably occur to 
 
 them, as they reflect upon the whole subject, 
 that any feeling they may have had against 
 the view in question, may have arisen out 
 of inadequate and unworthy conceptions of 
 what subjection or service in the kingdom 
 of the Father really is ; especially of what 
 it is when it is associated with sonship. 
 
 Certainly, when he was on earth, our 
 Lord gave no indication of his considering 
 the position of a subject and servant either 
 irksome or degrading. He counted it an 
 honour and a joy to be subject to the 
 Father, and to serve the Father. Why, 
 
 then, should it be deemed incredible that 
 this should be his honour and his joy for 
 ever ? Why should we not hail and wel¬ 
 come the thought that it is this honour 
 and this joy that he is to share with us, 
 when we, having overcome, sit with him 
 in his throne, even as he, having overcome, 
 sits with the Father in his throne ? * 
 
 I am afraid that some of my hearers 
 may be inclined to find fault with my 
 manner of treating the great subject I 
 have on hand in this, as well as in my 
 
 * See Appendix I. 
 
102 
 
 LECTURE IL 
 
 former lecture. It may seem to them to 
 be too speculative, and to make too much 
 of merely inferential reasoning. My object 
 has been to clear the way for a direct 
 appeal to the word of God. The next lec¬ 
 ture, in which I propose to inquire in what 
 manner and to what extent the fatherhood 
 of God was matter of human knowledge 
 and Divine revelation before the incarna¬ 
 tion, will bring me into more immediate 
 contact with the sacred volume. 
 
LECTURE IL 
 
 103 
 
 NOTES TO LECTUKE SECOND. 
 
 Note A, (Page 84.) 
 
 As this view of the communicableness of the original divine 
 relation of sonship lies at the root of my whole argument, 
 and as it is that which has appeared most startling to 
 some who heard the lectures, I may he excused if I add a 
 few words of explanation. 
 
 One chief difficulty here lies in the apprehension that 
 we may lower the original divine ideal of sonship, as sub¬ 
 sisting from all eternity in the Godhead, by reducing it to 
 the level of a relation which may have a beginning, being 
 formed in time ; and a relation, moreover, in which a mere 
 creature may be a party. 
 
 The difficulty, I fear, when the question is once raised, 
 cannot be very easily evaded or set aside. The fact or 
 phenomenon of Christ’s sonship in his incarnate state must 
 be fully met; and it must be met according to the ordinary 
 doctrine concerning his humanity—that is, on the assump¬ 
 tion of his being “ both God and man, in two distinct 
 natures, and one person, for ever.” The difficulty does 
 not arise when it is a question as to nature ; for the two 
 natures, the divine and the human, exist in the one person, 
 the man Christ Jesus. But it does arise when it is a ques¬ 
 tion as to relation. How does the one person stand related 
 to the Father ? In what sense is he his son ? 
 
 I might here, as I think, roll over the question upon 
 those who hold the original relation between God and his 
 intelligent creatures, whether angels or men, to have been 
 filial. I might ask them to dispose of it, according to their 
 view. When the eternal Son became truly and thoroughly 
 
104 
 
 LECTURE 11. 
 
 mau, he became of course man, as sustaining that original 
 filial relation to the Supreme. Is that his sonship, since 
 then, until now, and for ever ? Has it come in the place 
 of his own proper eternal sonship ? Or are the two identi¬ 
 cal ? What has become of that original filial relation, which 
 is alleged to be the birthright of the intelligent creature 
 man, in the man Christ Jesus ? Is it lost ? Or does it still 
 attach to him ? If so, to what effect ? Quid void ? Or is 
 it absorbed and merged in the higher sonship ? Then 
 does he not so far cease to be man ? Is this not some¬ 
 thing like the heresy of his manhood being swallowed up 
 in his divinity ? 
 
 But, besides, in this view, it is surely worthy of re¬ 
 mark that, with reference to the end or design for which 
 the Son became incarnate, he is never represented as dis¬ 
 charging filial obligations on our behalf, or answering for 
 breaches of filial duty. His whole work of righteousness and 
 atonement has respect to our standing as subjects and ser¬ 
 vants under law to his father as our moral governor. If 
 we sinned and fell as sons, I do not find anything, either 
 in the Old Testament types or in Christ’s Hew Testament 
 fulfilment of them, to satisfy me that our case is met. This 
 is an important consideration, to which, in another con¬ 
 nection, I may have occasion afterwards to advert more 
 fully. I mention it here by the way; yet not I think 
 altogether irrelevantly, as regards my present point. 
 
 It is more natural, however, here to ask how, admitting 
 the eternal distinction of persons in the Godhead, it should 
 in the least detract from the position of the Son—how it 
 should not rather enhance the glory of it—to believe that 
 at the instance of the Father, and with the concurrence of 
 the Spirit (“ I speak as a man ”), he should have created 
 intelligent beings, originally subjects, as all created beings 
 must be, and nothing more, yet capable of becoming sons. 
 
LECTUEE IL 
 
 105 
 
 as he is ? So he truly creates them after his own image ; 
 sons of God potentially, in respect of faculties to be tried 
 and developed; more truly than he could have done by 
 making them sons on a lower footing and after a lower 
 pattern. 
 
 It surely is a great and ennobling thought, that the 
 Eternal Son of the Father should create intelligent beiugs, 
 not to be sons of God originally in any inferior sense, in 
 respect simply of their intelligence, but to be capable of 
 becoming sons of God, in and with himself, upon their 
 intelligent recognition of him in that character. I am 
 more and more persuaded, the more I think of it, that the 
 notion of the created state of angels and men being filial, 
 not only deranges the entire economy of legal and judicial 
 government on the part of the supreme God, but detracts 
 from the dignity and destiny of these intelligences, as 
 originally made by the Son in his own image, and detracts 
 also from the glory of the Son, as making them in his 
 own image, with a view to their being ultimately sons, as 
 he is himself. 
 
 In particular, as regards man, I would wish this ques¬ 
 tion to be considered. Whether the incarnation does not 
 force upon us the idea of a sonship for humanity altogether 
 new?—a sonship after the type, not of Adam, but of 
 Christ ? I am anxious to press that question. I am anxious 
 especially to press it with reference to the notion which some 
 seem to have, that this is arrogating too much to the crea¬ 
 ture ; that it is putting the creature in fact on a level with 
 the uncreated one, the creator. 
 
 I might raise a counter-question. What are we to say 
 of the uncreated one, the creator, putting himself on a 
 level with the creature ? The incarnation has two sides on 
 which it may be looked at. 
 
 But apart from that rejoinder, is it really investing the 
 
106 
 
 LECTURE IL 
 
 creature with any properly divine attribute or prerogative 
 to say that, in virtue of a divine act and work ; an act of 
 divine sovereignty—a work of divine power; he may come 
 to be regarded by the Father in the same light in which 
 his Son is regarded by him : to be the object of the same 
 complacency, and the subject of the same reciprocal love ? 
 
 I repeat here that this is wholly incompatible with 
 anything like a wholesale, universal, and indiscriminate 
 elevation of the entire human family into the filial relation, 
 or “ related state,” in virtue of the incarnation. That seems 
 to be the opinion of some Anglican divines of the school ot 
 Maurice. I contend, on the contrary, for individual per¬ 
 sonality, and individually personal dealing, in this whole 
 matter. The Father owns the incarnate Son as the man 
 Christ Jesus, having a distinct individual personality. 
 And in him he owns, not manhood in the abstract, nor 
 all men en masse, or in the lump, but men one by one, as 
 one by one they are moved by his grace to consent to 
 their being to him what his incarnate Son is. 
 
 I am anticipating, however, somewhat. I reserve for 
 the proper place what references and authorities I may 
 have to adduce. 
 
 Note B. (Page 95.) 
 
 On the subject of our Lord’s humanity, and its entire 
 exemption, in virtue of its origin, from all taint of 
 the guilt or the corruption inherited by all the rest of 
 Adam’s race, the voice of the church has been always clear 
 and unanimous. I do not, therefore, consider it necessary 
 to cite authorities in proof; I rather wish to indicate the 
 reason why, in common with almost all the theologians of 
 all ages, I attach great importance to the doctrine. 
 
 If the question regarding it is to be isolated, it may 
 
LECTURE II. 
 
 107 
 
 seem to be unimportant. And, for some purposes, it may 
 be convenient to isolate it. The isolation of it may suit 
 the views of those who do not care to inquire too particu¬ 
 larly into the precise nature, either of the ruin caused by 
 the fall, or of the deliverance effected by Christ. 
 
 For, on the one hand, if the fact of Adam’s fall is denied; 
 or if the effect of it, as entailing on all his posterity guilt 
 and corruption, a righteous sentence of condemnation and 
 a thoroughly depraved nature, is under-estimated; the ques¬ 
 tion vanishes altogether ; or, at least, becomes one of com¬ 
 parative insignificance. But then, on the other hand, in 
 that case, the ideas of redemption, atonement, propitiation, 
 substitution, are apt to disappear also, growing thin and 
 hazy till they melt into the dim obscure. I do not say this 
 of the words, for theologians of the misty school are fond 
 of using the current orthodox and evangelical phrases. 
 Nay, they affect a peculiar fervour in the use of them, and 
 appropriate, as in a high sense their own, statements in 
 Scripture and in the creeds which speak, as we have been 
 accustomed to read them, and speak most explicitly and 
 unequivocally, of expiation by blood. But then their high 
 sense is very indefinite, transcendental, undefinable. In¬ 
 deed, they avow their dislike of definition. They refuse to 
 say exactly what the work of Christ for men is. That by 
 his obedience and suffering—his life and death—he has 
 removed, in some manner, they know not how, an obstacle 
 of some sort, they know not what, which must otherwise 
 have stood in the way of man’s restoration to the Divine 
 favour and his attainment of peace of conscience,—that 
 is nearly all the length to which they are inclined to go, in 
 explaining what is meant by such precise modes of speech 
 as Christ’s “laying down his life for the sheep,” or his 
 “ giving himself a ransom for many.” At the same time, 
 they dwell rather generally on the grace and condescension 
 
108 
 
 LECTURE IL 
 
 of the Son in his humanity ; and on some mysterious 
 efficacy, as it would seem, which that holy, living, lovely 
 hmnanity of Christ has to assunilate humanity in us to 
 itself; and so, in a sense, to redeem, and j)urge, and elevate 
 the nature which he has assumed, the flesh in which he 
 has come. 
 
 Now it is not wonderful, that to those who thus con¬ 
 ceive of Christ’s redeeming work, or who in any other 
 similar way virtually divest it of its atoning character, the 
 question,—whether it was human nature as it was in Adam 
 before he fell that Christ took, or human nature as it has 
 ever since been in Adam and all his seed,—may present 
 the aspect merely of an unmeaning dispute, an unhappy 
 logomachy. Nay, the view which represents him as assum¬ 
 ing our nature, exactly as it exists in us, and having it 
 sanctified in himself, exactly as it needs be sanctified in us, 
 really fits into their notion of the way in which he saves 
 us, and the way in which his saving us should influence us, 
 better than the other. 
 
 But the case is quite reversed when we regard Christ’s 
 sufferings and death as, in the strict and proper sense, 
 piacular; when we conceive of him as redeeming sinners by 
 actually suffering for them, the just for the unjust; taking 
 their place under the law which condemns them and bearing 
 in their stead the condemnation; submitting to the penal 
 infliction of divine wrath in their room ;—when, in a word, 
 we introduce the idea of substitution. Then the doctrine 
 of our Lord’s humanity being that of Adam, not as Adam 
 made it when he sinned and fell, but as God made it in 
 the beginning, is all important. It is vital. 
 
 If Christ is himself personally involved in the con¬ 
 sequences of the fall, he cannot redeem, by substitution, 
 others in the same predicament. He must be, in his 
 birth, and in virtue of the miracle of his conception, what 
 
LECTURE IL 
 
 109 
 
 no other born of woman ever was, or could be declared to 
 be, “ The Holy Child Jesus.” Such an high priest became 
 us, who is not only “holy, harmless, undefiled,” in heart 
 and character and life, hut “ separate from sinners” (Heb. 
 vii. 26);—separate from sinners in his very manner of being 
 or becoming man ; separate originally ; and therefore able 
 to save them by dying in their room. 
 
 Here I may remark, in passing, we have one explana¬ 
 tion of what is apt to perplex or scandalize an uninformed 
 and unreflecting onlooker, when a case of heresy has to be 
 met hi the church, whether in controversy or by discipline. 
 A very small and narrow point seems often to be chosen. 
 The tug of war is about a minute corner of the field. 
 Apparently, no central essential truth is touched. And 
 this occasions trouble. The reason may be partly this— 
 that as a tree may begin to manifest decay at its extremities, 
 while the real seat of the decay is in its inmost principle of 
 life, so, when he lapses into errors, the religious man cleaves 
 strongly to what he considers to be the heart’s core of the 
 gospel ; while almost unconsciously he dallies at the 
 outskirts, with doubtful disputations. As the process goes 
 on, he becomes more and more anxious to hold to the form 
 of sound words in the main, although he may raise or en¬ 
 tertain speculative questions, as he counts them, in things 
 of subordinate and unimportant detail- And so, at last, he 
 almost unwittingly and unawares gets more involved 
 than he intended in deviations from the customary modes 
 of thought and expression on what, perhaps, he regards as 
 mere accessories; for he is slow to perceive how these 
 react on the very fundamentals of the faith. Thus, without 
 conscious dishonesty, dogmatic heresiarchs—who are often, 
 indeed for the most part, earnest though partial in their 
 dogmatism—persist in professing their unabated belief in 
 the vital doctrines of the Gospel, as set forth in the articles 
 
110 
 
 LECTURE 11. 
 
 of an orthodox creed, long after they have really disem¬ 
 bowelled these articles, and explained away these doctrines, 
 so as either to reduce them to mere platitudes, or dissolve 
 them in mysticism. Hence it happens that they can he 
 detected and exposed, even to their own conviction, if that 
 is possible, not to speak of the conviction of the church, 
 only in an outpost, as it were ; by assailing them on what 
 might be regarded as debatable ground, open to harmless 
 differences of opinion, and proving, it may be indirectly, 
 that the contest carried on there is really decisive of the 
 whole war. 
 
 This, perhaps, is partly a digression, though it is not 
 altogether foreign to the matter in hand. For I believe 
 that the error on the subject of our Lord’s humanity 
 which I am adverting to, cuts deep into the doctrine of 
 the Sonship, whether viewed as his or as ours. If, in his 
 birth, he became man exactly as we are born men since 
 the fall, I cannot conceive of his manhood entering, ah 
 origine, into the filial relation which he sustains to the 
 Father. There must be need of a preliminary work or 
 process of sanctification, both legal and moral, in his case 
 as in ours, before he can be, as man, or quoad his man¬ 
 hood, the Son of God. And even with that sanctification 
 of his manhood, his sonship in his humanity is not after 
 all anything different from what any sanctified man might 
 claim—it is not really one with his sonship in his divi¬ 
 nity. We are landed again in the monstrous anomaly of 
 a double relation of sonship subsisting in the same per¬ 
 son. And, moreover, we are shut up into a very sad con¬ 
 clusion as regards ourselves. For evidently it is only in so 
 far as he is the Son in respect of his manhood, that we 
 can be partakers with him in his sonship. But now it 
 appears that he can be the Son, in respect of his manhood, 
 only on the condition of his manhood, which is originally 
 
LECTURE IL 
 
 111 
 
 such as ours, being sanctified as ours needs to be. Does 
 not this really imply that, so far as sonship is concerned, 
 we might dispense with him ?—that we, with our man¬ 
 hood sanctified, might be sons in our own right, as it 
 were, as well as he, with his manhood sanctified, is ? And, 
 what is worse, does it not imply that sonship, in the only 
 sense in which humanity is capable of sustaining that 
 relation, is nothing else and nothing more than human 
 nature purged from the pollution of the fall, first in Christ, 
 and then in,us? That idea of sonship may satisfy some. 
 I own I cannot acquiesce in it. I look to the one person 
 of the Incarnate Word. I look to him as sustaining only 
 one relation of sonship. This can be only in virtue of 
 liis human nature being essentially pure, as it came ori¬ 
 ginally from his own hand when he made man in his own 
 image. Looking to him thus, I rejoice to think that, 
 through his redeeming and renovating work of grace, he 
 admits me, so far as I am capable of being admitted, into 
 participation with himself in the one filial relation which, 
 as Emmanuel, he now sustains, and will ever sustain, to 
 the everlasting Father. « 
 
LECTURE THIRD. 
 
 THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD, AS REVEALED 
 AND KNOWN BEFORE THE INCARNATION. 
 
 When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son. 
 
 Gal. iv. 4. 
 
 I PROPOSE here to raise the question;—To 
 what extent was the fatherhood of God 
 matter of human knowledge, or matter of 
 divine revelation, before the coming of his 
 son Jesus Christ in the flesh ? It is a 
 question which necessarily emerges out of 
 the view that has been given of the father¬ 
 hood of God, as manifested in the person 
 of the incarnate Son. And it is more¬ 
 over a question which, in that view, is 
 preliminary to another inquiry, and one 
 that goes deep into the heart of the whole 
 subject, namely this :—Is the relation which 
 God sustains to his son Jesus Christ come 
 in the flesh, his only true and proper father¬ 
 hood ? and is it by their being made per¬ 
 sonally partakers, in some sense and to 
 
LECTURE III. 
 
 113 
 
 some extent, yet really and trnlj^, of that 
 relation, that angels and men become sons 
 of God ? To pre|)are the way for that ulte¬ 
 rior inquiry, for the conducting of which 
 the New Testament, of course, must furnish 
 the principal materials, I intend now to 
 ask—at least that is my main object— 
 what the Old Testament—with the New 
 as throwing light on the Old—says of the 
 fatherhood of God; or in other words, 
 how far, and in what way, before the incar¬ 
 nation of the Son of God, and apart from 
 that event, God was revealed and known 
 as a Father in the ancient church. 
 
 Before the Son of God appeared in 
 human nature, the only conception which 
 men could form of a relation of fatherhood 
 and sonship between G;od and them must 
 have been based on the analogy of the 
 paternal and filial relation among them¬ 
 selves. And there can be little doubt that 
 the analogy is a natural, and so far, a valid 
 one. The relation of son and father on 
 earth is fitted,—and probably, in its original 
 constitution, intended,—to suggest the idea 
 of a similar relation between earth and 
 heaven. The creation or origination of intel- 
 
 I 
 
 ¥ 
 
114 
 
 LECTURE III. 
 
 ligent beings, on the part of the great in¬ 
 telligent Creator, may thus be viewed as 
 analogous to the act by which a human 
 father produces a son like himself. And 
 the Creator s providence over his creatures 
 may be likened to the human father’s care 
 and tenderness towards his children. Such 
 representations of God, accordingly, are 
 not uncommon even among heathen writers, 
 especially the poets ; as might easily be 
 shown by familiar quotations. 
 
 In considering such representations, 
 however, and especially in reasoning upon 
 them, it is necessary to keep in view an 
 ambiguity of which the analogy admits. 
 God may be called father, simply as having 
 caused his creatures to exist, and not as 
 thereafter sustaining a real personal rela¬ 
 tion to them. That, I apprehend, is actually 
 all that is meant in not a few of the passages 
 usually cited. But that, it will be at once 
 perceived, is not to the purpose of my pre¬ 
 sent inquiry. It is a mere figure of speech 
 employed to denote the creative agency or 
 act of God. In this sense, paternity, as 
 we have seen, may be attributed to God 
 with reference to mere material things ; as 
 when God asks Job (xxxviii. 28),—Hath 
 
LECTURE III. 
 
 115 
 
 the rain a father ? or who hath begotten the 
 drops of dew V ’—as if he meant to assert 
 for himself a fatherhood having the rain 
 and the dew for sons. Obviously, in such 
 a case, it is a merely creative fatherhood 
 that is with such boldness of vivid poetic 
 personification claimed and challenged for 
 the Supreme. With more of prosaic pro¬ 
 priety, fatherhood in this sense is attri¬ 
 buted to God with reference to his intel¬ 
 ligent creatures. Even then, however, 
 as thus restricted, it suggests no idea of 
 any permanent personal relationship. It 
 suggests nothing more than the idea of 
 primeval causation or origination. 
 
 It is in this sense, I am persuaded, and 
 only in this sense, that we are to under¬ 
 stand the verse of old poetry which Paul 
 so aptly introduced into his speech before 
 the Areopagus at Athens,—''As certain 
 also of your own poets have said. For we 
 are also his offspring.’'* 
 
 * The entire argument to which this quotation from a 
 heathen poet has reference, is in these words:—“ God that 
 made the world, and all things therein, seeing that he is 
 Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made 
 Avith hands; neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as 
 though he needed anything, seeing he giveth to all life, and 
 Imeath, and all things ; and hath made of one blood all nations 
 of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath de- 
 
116 
 
 LECTURE HI. 
 
 This pregnant saying which, though ori¬ 
 ginally a merely human and heathen utter¬ 
 ance, Paul, by quoting it, of course adopts 
 and engrosses as his own, has been sup¬ 
 posed to indicate a relation of sonship 
 belonging by a common right to all men, 
 and actually subsisting in the case of all 
 men. But if we look at it in the light of 
 the occasion on which Paul quoted it and 
 the purpose to which he turned it, we may 
 see some reason to question that interpre¬ 
 tation or application of it. For what is 
 the use which Paul makes of it in his argu¬ 
 ment ? It is simply to expose the absur¬ 
 dity of rational beings ascribing their 
 origin to what is irrational; or, which 
 comes to the same thing, worshipping in 
 an irrational manner him to whom they 
 ascribe their origin, so as virtually to 
 make him out to be irrational. That is all. 
 That is the apostle’s only object; the sole 
 
 termined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their 
 habitation; that they should seek the Lord, if haply they 
 might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from 
 every one of us; for in him we live, and move, and have our 
 being; as certain also of your own poets have said. For we are also 
 his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of 
 God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto 
 gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and inan’s device.”— 
 Acts xvii. 24-29. 
 
LECTURE III. 
 
 117 
 
 and single point of his reasoning. Obvi¬ 
 ously there is no question of present per¬ 
 sonal relationship raised here at all; no 
 question as to the footing on which men as 
 individuals are with their Maker,—what he 
 is to them and they are to him. There is 
 simply an assertion of a common source or 
 origin. Are we not all his children? If 
 this makes God a father at all, it is in the 
 sense in which an ancestor is held to be 
 the father of all his posterity; it is in the 
 sense in which Abraham is called 'Ghe 
 father of many nations.'' Our being all 
 God's offspring, in that sense, sustains the 
 apostle's argument, and is indeed all that 
 is necessary, or even relevant, to sustain 
 it. Anything else, anything more, would 
 be out of place. We dislike to have our 
 lineage—our parentage in the line of 
 direct and natural ascent—traced up to a 
 gorilla, or a tadpole, or a monade. We 
 think that our being possessed of intelli¬ 
 gence affords a presumption in favour of 
 our original progenitor, the primary author 
 of our race, whoever he may be, being him¬ 
 self intelligent as we are. So thought the 
 wisest and best men in heathendom. Paul 
 appeals to their being of that mind. He 
 
118 
 
 LECTURE III. 
 
 adopts their logic, and makes it available 
 for his immediate object, which is simply 
 to expose the inconsistency of idolatrous 
 Avorship. That is really all. The principle 
 asserted, the ground and medium of the 
 argument, is simply this—that the head, 
 or origin, or father, whether of a long line 
 of descendants, or of a numerous race com¬ 
 ing simultaneously into existence, cannot 
 be wholly dissimilar to them in nature ; 
 that if they are intelligent he must be 
 recognised as being so, much more ; and 
 that he cannot therefore be expected 
 to be pleased with nnintelhgent worship. 
 
 There is no assertion here of any per¬ 
 sonal relation of fatherhood and sonship. 
 It is merely an argument for community 
 of nature as regards intelligence. It is, in 
 fact, nothing more than an application ot 
 the maxim, or axiom, that ‘Uike produces 
 like.'' It aj^peals to the same sort of prin¬ 
 ciple which Paul so poAverfully brings to 
 bear in another direction on the spiritual 
 identity, in respect of faith, between be¬ 
 lieving Abraham and all his spiritual child¬ 
 ren (Gal. iii., Rom. iv.) As he is, so are 
 they; he and they alike being believers. 
 Therefore he is tlieir father, '' the father 
 
LECTURE III. 
 
 119 
 
 of the faitlifuU' And they, in respect 
 of their joint possession with him of 
 the common quality or attribute of faith, 
 are his seed. The argument of Paul in 
 his appeal to the Athenians is precisely 
 of the same kind. As you, the offsioring, 
 are intelligent, so, it is to be presumed, 
 must he whose offspring you are be intelli¬ 
 gent. And he must, therefore, be intelli¬ 
 gently worshipped. But all this has no¬ 
 thing whatever to do with the question of 
 the personal relation in which the offspring, 
 —that is, the individual persons composing 
 the offspring,—are personally to stand to 
 him whose offspring they all are. 
 
 In a way very similar to this, I think an¬ 
 other text, often cited or referred to with 
 some confidence, is to be disposed of. 
 Adam, it is said, is declared in Scripture 
 to be, as he came forth from the hand of 
 his Creator, '' the son of God,'' or 'A son of 
 God," or simply ''son of God." Now, the 
 only authority alleged for that statement 
 is the closing climax of Luke's genealogy 
 of our Lord; in which, after a long enu¬ 
 meration of an ascending series of father¬ 
 hoods, he comes at last to Adam, and says 
 of him, using the very same formula as 
 
120 
 
 LECTURE III. 
 
 in all the other cases, which was the 
 son of God ;—or rather, for the phrase 
 is all throughout elliptical, '^which was of 
 God'' (Luke hi. 38). This mere rounding 
 off of the genealogy of our Lord, as traced 
 by Luke ujDwards, and not, as in Matthew's 
 gospel, downwards,—this simple intimation 
 that in Adam the ascending line of human 
 parentage is lost, and that his origin must 
 be ascribed immediately to God,—is often 
 brought forward as if it were not only an 
 express, but even an emphatic assertion 
 of Adam's proper personal sonship. Nay, 
 it is made, as it would seem, the ground 
 of an argument for ''attributing Adam's 
 creation to the Deity of Christ."* In 
 
 * See Grinfidd's Christian Cosmos, pp. 34, 35. The writ¬ 
 ings of this author are often very suggestive. He certainly 
 deserves credit for bringing i:)rominently into view the place 
 which the Son holds in creation, as the original maker of all 
 things, in connection with the place which he holds in redemp¬ 
 tion, as making all things new. But he rides a hobby, and 
 rides it often to the death. It is extremely difficult to find 
 out what precise use he means to make of what he imagines 
 to be almost exclusively his own peculiar doctrine or discovery 
 as to Christ’s agency in creation. At all events, in the present 
 instance, he builds upon a rotten foundation, though not per¬ 
 haps more than others have done before. Surely, on reflec¬ 
 tion, all must see that nothing more than origination is in 
 Taike’s genealogy. It certainly does not carry us beyond the 
 prophetic word in Deuteronomy, “ Of the Rock that begat 
 thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed 
 
LECTURE III. 
 
 121 
 
 reality, there is no idea suggested in this 
 whole pedigree or family-tree but that of 
 descent; son descending from father, until 
 Adam is reached, whose descent is from 
 no human father, but must be said to be 
 of God. There is nothing like real father¬ 
 hood and sonship, as a permanent and 
 personal relation, asserted here. 
 
 Setting aside, then, those passages in 
 the Bible, as well as those passages in 
 heathen writings, which seem to ascribe 
 fatherhood to God, in the sense simply of 
 origination, or causation, or ancestry,— 
 the question remains. What traces or in¬ 
 dications are there, before and apart from 
 the incarnation of the Son of God, of 
 fatherhood in God, properly so called;— 
 of his actually sustaining the paternal 
 relation to his intelligent creatures and 
 subjects, personally and individually? 
 
 In dealing with this question, I leave 
 out of view the secular literature of anti¬ 
 quity ;—for, in truth, it throws little or 
 
 tliee” (Deut. xxxii. 18). This text in Deuteronomy interprets 
 the Old Testament idea of fatherhood and sonship. And to 
 what does it amount 1 Is it anything more than the relation 
 of mere creatorship and creatureship 1 Does it go at all l^eyoiid 
 ascribing to the Creator, simply as Creator, a right, not of 
 paternity, but of property, in the creature ? 
 
122 
 
 LECTURE III. 
 
 no light on the subject of my present 
 inquiry. That inquiry is almost altogether 
 a scriptural one;—Was God revealed as a 
 Father to the Old Testament Church ? 
 If so, in what manner and to what extent ? 
 And of what nature is his fatherhood re¬ 
 presented as being ? 
 
 I. I begin with what I hold to be a 
 material and fundamental fact. So far as I 
 can see, there is no trace of anything like 
 natural or original sonship, either in angels 
 or in men, having ever been accepted in 
 the church as an article of belief That 
 either angels or men were sons of God from 
 the beginning of their being, is nowhere 
 taught in holy Scripture. 
 
 1. I speak first of the angels. 
 
 Those of them that fell are never spoken 
 of or referred to as having been before 
 their fall sons of God. Their offence is 
 stigmatized as pride.'’ The condemna¬ 
 tion of the devil” is his being lifted up 
 with pride” (1 Tim. iii. 6). It is the of¬ 
 fence of a disloyal subject, rather than 
 of a disaffected and undutiful son. They 
 refuse to occupy a subordinate position; to 
 own government by authority of law and 
 
LECTURE III. 
 
 123 
 
 judgment. They aspire to the liberty of 
 indejDendence. It is as proud, rebellious sub¬ 
 jects, not as ill-conditioned sons, that they 
 disobey, and come under the condemnation 
 of disobedience. And if that be so, then it 
 follows that it is a trial of their obedience 
 as subjects that their faithful brethren 
 stand. They too are tested, not as sons, 
 but as subjects. The trial is, whether they 
 will proudly insist on being their own 
 masters, or meekly consent to be ruled? 
 At any rate, it is only after their trial and 
 its good issue, that the angels who kept 
 their first estate are introduced in Scrip¬ 
 ture as sons of God. 
 
 It is in the book of Job, and there only, 
 that the holy unfallen angels are spoken 
 of or referred to as sons of God. For I 
 suppose it is they who are meant when 
 it is said, twice over, that the sons of God 
 came to present themselves before the 
 Lord'' (Job i. 6 ; ii. 1). I doubt, how¬ 
 ever, if, according to Hebrew idiom, this 
 title, as here given to them, can be fairly 
 held to imply more than a mere anta¬ 
 gonism or antithesis to the adversary of 
 God, '' Satan," who '' came among them." 
 
 But be that as it may, there is certainly, 
 
124 
 
 LECTURE III. 
 
 it must be admitted, another passage in 
 the book of Job where this explanation 
 will not apply. It occurs at the opening of 
 that sublime address in which—after the 
 sophistries of the three bigoted friends and 
 the noble appeal of the generous Elihu— 
 the Lord himself takes the matter in hand 
 and reduces Job to silence (Job xxxviii. 
 1-7). There that much afflicted but as yet 
 too self-righteous patriarch is thus abruptly 
 challenged : '‘Where wast thou when I laid 
 the foundations of the earth V’ Wast thou 
 with me then, as a party to my counsels 
 and my working " when the morning stars 
 sang together, and all the sons of God 
 shouted for joy There can scarcely be a 
 doubt that it is the elect angels who are 
 here meant. And they are called the sons 
 of God absolutely; not merely in the Avay 
 of contrast to any other parties, or contra¬ 
 distinction from them ;—but simply in 
 respect of their own gracious character and 
 standing. 
 
 This I take to be the only unequivocal 
 intimation of the sonship of the angels 
 which the Old Testament Church ever got. 
 I admit it, or rather I hold it, to be 
 emphatic. But it is so chiefly, as it appears 
 
LECTURE III. 
 
 125 
 
 to me, in a ^prospective point of view, and 
 in its bearing on subsequent scriptural 
 hints and discoveries. For, as I think, it 
 fits in remarkably to Balaam's prophecy 
 (Numb. xxiv. 17), “there shall come a 
 star out of Jacob;"—and also to that 
 announcement in the very close of the 
 Revelation (xxii. 16), “I am the root and 
 offspring of David, and the bright and 
 morning star." Thus followed out, it sug¬ 
 gests large and high thoughts as to the 
 connection of the sonship of the holy angels 
 with that of Christ. And if we take in 
 another text, in which Christ says to “ him 
 that overcometh" at Thyatira (Rev. ii. 28) 
 “ I wiU give him the morning star,"—it 
 may seem probable that some sort of joint- 
 fellowship of angels and men in Christ's son- 
 ship is what, by thus connecting together, 
 in so close a verbal relation, the widely 
 separated books of Job and the Revela¬ 
 tion, the Spirit intends to teach. For thus 
 we find the title, “morning star," which is 
 associated with that of “son of God" 
 in the case of the angels, applied to the 
 Son of God himself, and in him also to 
 the overcoming Christian.* 
 
 * See Note A. 
 
126 
 
 LECTURE III. 
 
 But anything like such community of 
 sonship could be only very imperfectly 
 taught, if taught at all, to the Old Testa¬ 
 ment Church, by such a brief notice as that 
 which the book of Job contains. To the 
 men who had simply that, and nothing more 
 than that, the juxtaposition of the titles 
 ''morning stars'^ and "sons of God'' could 
 convey little or no clear information. It 
 might rather indeed occasion perplexity. 
 Certainly, however well they might under¬ 
 stand the words put into the mouth of 
 God as a most conclusive rebuke to Job, 
 they could scarcely gather from them any 
 distinct idea of the sonship of angels. At 
 all events, they would not be likely to 
 gather from them any idea of the sonship 
 of angels being, as a real personal relation, 
 natural and original. The title must rather, 
 I think, have appeared to them, like the 
 other title " morning star," to be merely 
 figurative and analogical. And in any 
 view, it belongs to them as having stood 
 the trial which proved fatal to their fellows. 
 
 2. As the angels are not represented in 
 the word of God in the character of sons 
 of God by nature and from the beginning 
 of their being, so neither is man. 
 
LECTURE III. 
 
 127 
 
 There is not a hint of sonship in all 
 that is said of Paradise, or of man’s sin 
 and fall there. Nay, I hold that what is 
 revealed of God’s treatment of Adam, in 
 the garden, is palpably irreconcilable with 
 the idea of anything like the jDaternal and 
 filial relation subsisting between them. 
 
 Adam is tried simply as a creature, 
 intelligent and free ;—as a subject under 
 authority and law. Not a hint is given 
 of his having violated, when he trans¬ 
 gressed, any filial obligation. Nor, in the 
 sentence pronounced upon him, is there 
 any trace whatever of his being subjected 
 to fatherly discipline and correction. All 
 about it is strictly, I should say exclusively, 
 forensic and judicial. It is the legal con¬ 
 demnation of a servant;—not the fatherly 
 chastisement of a son. 
 
 No doubt, hope of recovery is held out. 
 But it is held out in a way strictly and 
 exclusively indicative of legal judgment 
 and legal deliverance. The deliverer is 
 to prevail over the tempter by becoming 
 himself a victim; a victim to outraged 
 authority; a substitute for those whom 
 the devil has tried to ruin ; bearing in his 
 own person the doom impending by a 
 
128 
 
 LECTURE III. 
 
 righteous award over them ; accepting the 
 curse which the great deceiver has brought 
 upon them; and doing so to the effect of 
 destroying him and emancipating them. 
 
 Accordingly, the remedial work of Christ 
 is always represented in Scripture,—in 
 exact consistency with its representation of 
 the evil to be remedied,—as purely and 
 wholly legal, forensic, and judicial. That 
 is its character, so far as it consists in his 
 becoming his people’s surety and ransom. 
 He redeems them from the curse of the law. 
 It is nowhere said that he atones for any 
 hlial offence ; any offence committed by 
 them as sons against God as their father. 
 If they sinned in that character and rela¬ 
 tion, their sin, so far as appears from 
 Scripture, is up to this hour unexpiated. 
 Surely that is a conclusion somewhat 
 startling. And yet it seems to me to 
 follow inevitably, and by the inexorable 
 force of logic, from the notion of man’s 
 original relation to God being filial.'' 
 
 II. The manner in which the expres¬ 
 sion 'bsons of God” is used in the Hebrew 
 Scriptures is very vague and indefinite. 
 
 Sco Note U. 
 
LECTURE III. 
 
 129 
 
 It is not very often used. And many of 
 the instances in which it is nsed are such 
 as to indicate that it is little more than an 
 idiomatic way of identifying the godly as 
 distingnished from the nngodly; or Israel 
 as distinguished from the Gentiles. Per¬ 
 sonal relationship is not really in such 
 instances a relevant thought. 
 
 Thus, in the narrative of the breaking 
 down of the wall of division and demarca¬ 
 tion between the church and the world which 
 brought on the sweeping judgment of the 
 flood, ‘'the sons of God'' are contrasted 
 with “ the daughters of men" (Gen. vi.) 
 But it would be unwarrantable to found 
 upon the phrase, as there used, anything 
 more than that those so called were 
 professedly of the number who, when 
 the wickedness of Cain's race became ram¬ 
 pant, separated themselves, and “ began to 
 call upon the name of the Lord," or “to 
 call themselves by the name of the Lord." 
 
 In other cases also the phrase “ sons of 
 God" is evidently used in the vague analo¬ 
 gical sense in which the Jews were wont to 
 apply it,—and in which we too do not object 
 to apply it,—as appropriate to any relation 
 implying benefit on the one side and de- 
 
 K 
 
130 
 
 LECTURE III. 
 
 pendence on the other, with corresponding 
 feelings of endearment on both sides. Thus 
 a master calls his loved scholar his son. So 
 also the pupils of the prophets are called their 
 sons. And such an one as Paul'' appeals 
 to Timothy as '' his own son in the faith.'' 
 
 In like manner, when the Lord promises 
 in Hosea (i. 10), '' In the place where it was 
 said unto them. Ye are not my people, there 
 it shall be said unto them. Ye are the sons 
 of the living God," it seems plain that no 
 new or peculiar relation is meant by the 
 latter phrase, as if it were in contrast with 
 the former. And in the same way, as I 
 apprehend, we must interpret those ajDpeals 
 in Jeremiah and Malachi—the most empha¬ 
 tically paternal in their terms to be found 
 in the Old Testament (Jer. xxxi. 20), 'As 
 Ephraim my son ? Is he a pleasant child ?" 
 (Mai. i. 6), "A son honoureth his father, and 
 a servant his master. If, then, I be a father, 
 where is mine honour ? And if I be a 
 master, where is my fear'? saith the Lord of 
 Hosts unto you, O priests, which despise my 
 name." * 
 
 III. The passages in the Old Testa- 
 
 * See Xote C. 
 
LECTURE III. 
 
 .;311 
 
 ment are thus seen to be very few, which 
 even appear to assert a distinct personal 
 relation of fatherhood and sonship between 
 God and his people individually. 
 
 No doubt, in the Church or nation viewed 
 collectively, the Lord sometimes claims a 
 father’s right of property. Thus he sends 
 an urgent message to Pharoah (Exod. iv. 
 22, 23), '' Israel is my son, even my first¬ 
 born ; Jet my son go that he may serve 
 me.” And he gives this as his reason for 
 bringing the people back from captivity 
 (Jerem. xxxi. 9), '' For I am a father unto 
 Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.” 
 The collective Church, or nation, also occa¬ 
 sionally appeals to the Lord on that 
 ground: as in Isaiah (Ixiii. 16), ''Thou, O 
 Lord, art our father, our redeemer and 
 again (Ixiv. 8), "But now, O Lord, thou 
 art our father; we are the clay, and thou 
 our potter; and we are all the work of 
 thy hand.” In these instances, however, 
 though a certain paternity is ascribed to 
 God, as choosing, constituting, redeeming, 
 creating, his people Israel, it is a figurative 
 paternity, having for its object simply 
 "Israel as a spiritual or ideal person;”* 
 
 * See Note I). 
 
132 
 
 LECTURE III. 
 
 not that real fatherhood of which indivi¬ 
 duals are the objects. Nor is even that 
 most pathetic passage in Jeremiah to the 
 point,—the passage, I mean, in which the 
 Lord puts into the mouth of the repenting 
 people the affecting language of filial 
 tenderness (iii. 4), Wilt thou not from 
 this time cry unto me. My father, thou art 
 the guide of my youth For the context 
 plainly shows that it is not the relation of 
 parent and child at all that is referred to, 
 but that of husband and wife ; the conjugal 
 relation, not the paternal. The idea sug¬ 
 gested—and it could be better understood 
 and felt according to old Eastern manners 
 than according to our modern notions—is 
 that of the faithless young wife casting 
 herself at the feet of her injured husband, 
 pleading her tender years,—and making her 
 plaintive appeal,—as to a sire rather than a 
 sjiouse,—'' My father, thou art the guide 
 of my youth !'' Clearly there is here no 
 claim of sonshijD, properly so called. 
 
 IV. In marked contrast with these 
 vague and indefinite modes of speech,—in 
 which ideas of parental authority and 
 filial tenderness are for the most part, as 
 
LECTURE III. 
 
 133 
 
 it would seem, merely borrowed to illus¬ 
 trate other relationships,—I notice the clear, 
 exact, and unequivocal precision with which 
 real and proper jDersonal sonship is ascribed 
 to one individual, and to one only. 
 
 There is a Son of God revealed in the Old 
 Testament. He is revealed as standing alone 
 and apart. There is not much said of him 
 in that character, it is true ; indeed, there 
 is very little. And nothing at all is said 
 of the bearing of his sonship on others 
 besides himself. For this, before I close, 
 I may suggest a probable reason. But a 
 Son of God there is in the ancient Scrip¬ 
 tures. And however rare may be the pas¬ 
 sages in which he appears, and however 
 few the,words in which he is described, 
 his sonship is beyond all question not 
 figurative, but true sonship. In the oracle 
 which the second Psalm records, Thou 
 art my son f —in the prediction of the 
 eighty-ninth Psalm, “ He shall cry unto me. 
 Thou art my father, ... I will make him 
 my first-born;”—and perhaps also in the 
 song of triumph in the eighth chapter of 
 Isaiah, '' Unto us a son is given —chiefiy, 
 however, in the great original oracle ;—the 
 sonship of a person is declared. 
 
134 
 
 LECTURE III. 
 
 How far the ancient Church understood 
 the oracle ;—whether or not they held this 
 personal and individual Son of God to be 
 divine, or identified him with the Jehovah 
 of their worship, or with the promised 
 Messiah ;—I am not now concerned to 
 inquire. There has been much ingenious 
 speculation on all these questions; and 
 it has been argued with great power that, 
 at least among the later Jews about 
 our Lord’s time, an opinion prevailed ad¬ 
 mitting the Son to be a divine person, but 
 separating him from the Christ.* Be that 
 as it may, my present object is simply to 
 direct attention to the precision of the 
 language which the Holy Spirit takes care 
 shall be used, when the idea of true and 
 proper personal fatherhood and sonship 
 is to be expressed, as afibrding a pre¬ 
 sumption that no such relation is really 
 meant to be asserted Avhen the phraseology 
 is of a looser and more indefinite kind. 
 
 V. I Avould only advert in a sentence 
 to one other consideration which seems 
 to me all but decisive in support of my idea 
 of the teaching of the Old Testament on 
 
 * See Treffrey on the Eternal Sonship, ch. ii. sect. ii. jip. 80-102. 
 
LECTURE III. 
 
 135 
 
 this subject. I mean the very remarkable 
 absence, in the recorded religious experi¬ 
 ences and devotional utterances of the Old 
 Testament saints, of the filial element. I 
 may have occasion to touch on this topic 
 again. I notice it now as a fact wdiich 
 cannot well be disputed, and which surely 
 must be allowed to be a fact of great signifi- 
 cancy, in relation to our present inquiry. 
 
 On the whole I am disposed to con¬ 
 clude that, so far as we can gather infor¬ 
 mation or evidence from the Scriptures of 
 the Old Testament, the fatherhood of God 
 was not revealed to the ancient Church, 
 either as a relation common to all his 
 intelligent creatures generally, or as a 
 relation belonging to the obedient angels 
 and believing men specially ; that any use 
 made of the analogy of this relation as it 
 exists among men, in the way of applying 
 it to the dispositions and dealings of God, 
 was little more than rhetorical; and that, 
 in fact, there was great reserve maintained 
 on the part of the great revealer with re¬ 
 ference to this whole subject. 
 
 But it may be asked, Does the New 
 
136 
 
 LECTURE III. 
 
 Testament afford no materials for helping 
 us in the determination of the question ? 
 I am persuaded that it does, in several 
 places. 1 solicit attention to two passages 
 in particular. 
 
 The first is in the Ej^istle to the 
 Hebrews. It is a passage, as I believe, 
 fitted to have great weight with those who, 
 in the language of the Westminster Con¬ 
 fession of Faith, are prepared to receive as 
 the teaching of the Spirit, not only what is 
 '' expressly set down in Scripture,'' but also 
 what, '' by good and necessary conse¬ 
 quence, may be deduced from Scripture."* 
 My argument will undoubtedly be based 
 on a process of inferential reasoning ; a 
 mode of proof against which some very re¬ 
 spectable men, especially in our country, 
 seem to have a strange and unaccountable 
 antipathy. It may be convenient some¬ 
 times, when one sees an unwelcome con¬ 
 clusion looming in the distance, to refuse 
 all inferences, and to demand i^Jsissima 
 verha ,—explicit and articulate chapter and 
 verse,—for everything. But we are com¬ 
 manded to ''search the Scriptures;" and 
 we are commanded also " in understanding 
 
 * Confession, chap. i. sect. ii. 
 
LECTURE III. 
 
 137 
 
 to be men.” To those obeying these coin- 
 inands, in the spirit of them, I do not think 
 my argument will appear very far-fetched. 
 
 At the close of the tenth chapter, Paul 
 quotes the Old Testament saying, '' The 
 just shall live by faithand he proceeds 
 immediately, in his glorious muster-roll of 
 the worthies of the olden time, to give in¬ 
 stances of 'Hhe just living by faith.” He 
 ends his enumeration thus : These all”— 
 the just living by faith—'deceived not the 
 promise ; God having provided some better 
 thing for us, that they without us should 
 not be made perfect” (xi. 39, 40). 
 
 What is that '' better thing” which they, 
 while they'' lived by faith,” and when, as the 
 apostle had previously said, they died in 
 faith,” had not ?—which God has provided 
 for us ?—which they must share with us if 
 they are to be made perfect ? For, it would 
 seem, they cannot be made perfect without 
 it, and they cannot have it apart from us. 
 Is it merely the general blessing of clearer 
 light and fuller joy consequent upon the 
 complete revelation of the gospel plan, 
 through the actual coming of the long-pro¬ 
 mised Saviour, and the actual accomplish¬ 
 ment of the great salvation ? Or is it some 
 
138 
 
 LECTURE III. 
 
 particular benefit precise and well defined, 
 which really efifects a change in their stand¬ 
 ing or position ? 
 
 Let us carry our view forward. 
 
 After pondering devoutly the practical 
 appeal in the beginning of the twelfth 
 chapter, founded upon our being '' com¬ 
 passed about with so great a cloud of wit¬ 
 nesses,'' let us approach the august scene 
 presenting itself to our adoring gaze before 
 the chapter ends."' What have we here ? 
 A scene at Zion analogous and correspond¬ 
 ing to the scene at Sinai of old, with which 
 it is contrasted. It is ideal, spiritual, 
 
 * I give the entire passage (Hebrews xii. 18-24), to the 
 close of which (ver. 22-24) 1 here refer. “ 18. For ye are not 
 come unto the mount that might he touched, and that burned 
 with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest,. 19. 
 And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which 
 voice they that heard entreated that the word should not he 
 spoken to them any more : 20. (For they could not endure 
 
 that which was commanded. And if so much as a beast touch 
 the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a 
 dart: 21. And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I 
 exceedingly fear and quake :) 22. But ye are come unto 
 
 mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly 
 Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 23. To 
 the general assembly and church of the first-born, which are 
 written m heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the 
 spirits of just men made perfect, 24. And to Jesus the medi¬ 
 ator of the new covenant, and to the l)lood of sprinkling, that 
 speaketh better things than that of Abel.” 
 
LECTURE III. 
 
 139 
 
 heavenly,—but not the less on that account 
 revealing real truth. The redeemed of all 
 ages are represented as brought together 
 to meet their redeeming God. Setting 
 aside the locality and the witnesses of 
 which the first of the three verses (ver. 22) 
 speaks ; and the mediator and the media¬ 
 tion brought forward in the third; we 
 have the real meeting in the verse which 
 intervenes. It consists of "'the general 
 assembly or church of the first-born which 
 are written in heaven, God the judge of all, 
 and the spirits of just men made perfect.'’ 
 
 Sitting on a central throne is God the 
 judge of all; his people's saviour, but still 
 their judge; the judge of all. On either 
 side there stands a vast company. 
 
 Who are these on the one side ? 
 " The firstborn written " or registered " in 
 heaven." They are there in their charac¬ 
 ter of sons and heirs. They are there in 
 full "assembly," yet in the capacity of a 
 select body, "a church." The expression 
 " firstborn, registered in heaven," j^roperly 
 denoting the possession of the filial birth¬ 
 right, describes the position of those 
 referred to elsewhere, when Christ is 
 spoken of as destined to be "the firstborn 
 
140 
 
 LECTURE III. 
 
 among many brethren'' (Rom. viii. 29). 
 
 ♦ 
 
 He alone is, strictly speaking, the first¬ 
 born. To him belongs the birthright, the 
 right of primogeniture. He is the Son ; 
 and, as the Son, the heir of all things. 
 But he shares his birthright, or right of 
 primogeniture, with many brethren. They 
 all accordingly in him become in a sense 
 firstborn ;—sons and heirs. And they are 
 registered as such in heaven. The position 
 of believers under the dispensation of the 
 gospel is thus characteristically marked. 
 I can scarcely doubt that it is the entire 
 body of New Testament believers who are 
 mystically, as it were, and by a sublime 
 figure, set before us, as convened, in a uni¬ 
 versal but select church-convocation, on one 
 side of '' God the judge of all." 
 
 Who then are they who are seen by 
 the eye of faith standing on the other side ? 
 
 The spirits of just men made perfect." I 
 cannot admit that this means merely the 
 pious dead generally. I cannot forget that 
 a particular class of ''just men" have been 
 brought prominently out in the very pas¬ 
 sage of which this magnificent pictorial 
 representation of the gathering together of 
 all the saved is the close. "Just men" 
 
LECTURE III. 
 
 141 
 
 have been spoken of, who in the days of 
 old lived by faith and died in faith, who yet 
 were not '' made perfect/' There was a cer¬ 
 tain incompleteness, a certain defect, in or 
 about their spiritual state, while they lived, 
 and when they died. And the defect could 
 not be altogether remedied,—their state 
 could not be thoroughly put right,—apart 
 from Christian believers. It is they, I am 
 satisfied, who are to be regarded as stand¬ 
 ing alongside of the firstborn registered in 
 heaven, before Jehovah's awful throne. 
 They are made perfect now. Perfect! in 
 what respect ? Surely one can scarcely help 
 (Rawing the conclusion, in respect of their 
 sharing with the firstborn their privilege 
 of sonship and right of primogeniture, be¬ 
 coming out and out sons, as they are.* 
 
 The other passage which I mean to ad¬ 
 duce is in the Epistle to the Galatians. 
 The consideration of it need not detain us 
 long. I am persuaded, however, that it 
 strongly confirms the view which I have 
 been suggesting of the passage in the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews. 
 
 In the beginning of the fourth chapter, 
 Paul draws a contrast between believers 
 
 See Appendix IL 
 
142 
 
 LECTURE III. 
 
 under the law and believers under the 
 gospel. Of the former, he thus writes :— 
 "'Now I say that the heir, as long as he is 
 a child, differeth nothing from a servant, 
 though he be lord of all, but is under tutors 
 and governors until the time appointed of 
 the father. Even so we, when we were 
 children, were in bondage under the ele¬ 
 ments of this world.^' Of the latter, "But 
 when the fulness of the time was come, 
 God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, 
 made under the law, to redeem them tha,t 
 were under the law, that we might receive 
 the adoption of sons. And because ye are 
 sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his 
 Son into your hearts, crying Abba, Father. 
 Wherefore thou art no more a servant but 
 a son; and if a son, then an heir of God 
 through Christ.'' It is admitted, or rather 
 strongly asserted by the apostle, that the 
 Old Testament believer is an heir. Being 
 a child of Abraham, in virtue of his having 
 and exercising the same faith that Abra¬ 
 ham had and exercised, he really has all 
 the rights of a son and heir in the family 
 of God. But these rights are in abeyance 
 during the period of pupillage or nonage. 
 He cannot avail himself of them. He is 
 
LECTURE III. 
 
 143 
 
 not fully acquainted with them. His place 
 in the family is rather that of a servant 
 than that of a son. Such, says Paul, was 
 the position even of the true members of 
 the church before gospel times. But, he 
 adds, their position is now changed. And 
 what effects the change ? God sending 
 forth his Son, and the Spirit of his Son. 
 It is very plainly intimated that it is 
 through God's sending forth his Son, as his 
 Son, that they receive the adoption of sons ; 
 and that it is through God's sending forth 
 into their hearts the Spirit, as the Spirit 
 of his Son, crying Abba, Father, that they 
 realise their receiving the adoption of sons. 
 If sons before, they were so prospectively, 
 and as it were potentially —in posse, rather 
 than m esse. They are sons now really 
 and truly, in a sense and to an effect im¬ 
 possible before. They saw, indeed, the day 
 of Christ afar off, and were glad. They 
 saw his holy person in the spotless lamb; 
 his atoning death in the paschal sacrifice. 
 But they saw him not as the Son of God. 
 And till he is so seen, even believing men 
 cannot receive, so as to realise it, the 
 adoption of sons; they cannot conceive 
 what true sonship really is. It is the 
 
144 
 
 LECTURE III. 
 
 manifested sonship of Christ that alone 
 opens up the way for his believing people 
 becoming sons indeed, and having in them 
 the spirit of sonship, the Spirit of God’s 
 very Son, crying Abba, Father. 
 
 Now, if such a change was thus effected 
 in the spiritual position of living believers, 
 and in their consciousness of it, is there 
 any difficulty in apprehending the thought 
 of a similar change taking place in the case 
 of the dead ? Is there anything incredible 
 in the idea of these grand old worthies— 
 “the just who lived by faith and died in 
 faith”—^coming to know their Redeemer 
 as God’s Son and their brother, in a way 
 in which they never could know him, till 
 they saw him “ sent forth made of a 
 woman, made under the law ?” And what 
 a large accession of holy joy might their 
 new knowledge of him impart! They 
 liave never been separated from him since 
 they left the world, for they are one with 
 him. They have known and loved him 
 well. But now they behold a new thing— 
 his sonship in their nature. And behold¬ 
 ing that glory of God, they are changed 
 into the same image. The single draw¬ 
 back, the solitary element of inferiority 
 
LECTUEE III. 
 
 145 
 
 attached to their saved state, is gone. Not 
 in an ideal sense only, but in real heavenly 
 fellowship, they are now on the same foot¬ 
 ing with Stephen, and James, and the noble 
 army of martyrs, and all the faithful who, 
 falling asleep in Jesus, depart to be with 
 him. The just are made perfect as sons.* 
 
 Thus, as it seems to me, the opinion 
 which is suggested by a calm survey of 
 the teaching of the Old Testament on 
 the question,—How far the fatherhood of 
 God was revealed to the Old Testament 
 Church,—is corroborated by what we find 
 in the intimations of the New Testament. 
 
 There are two observations which I 
 wish before closing to make on the view 
 which I have ventured to submit. 
 
 In the first pla ce,,! think I can see a 
 reasdh^for reserve, as regards the full dis¬ 
 covery of God's fatherhood, before the 
 coming of Christ. I can see some risk 
 likely to arise from its being prematurely 
 disclosed, and some benefit in its being in 
 a great degree shaded and concealed. 
 
 I remarked at the outset that, apart 
 
 * See Appendix II. 
 
 L 
 
146 
 
 LECTURE IIL 
 
 from the incarnation^—and what is seen 
 in the earthly and human life of the Son 
 of the footing on which, as the Son, he 
 is with the Father, and the manner of their 
 mutual intercourse as Father and Son 
 with one another,—all our conceptions of 
 fatherhood in God, as a relation which 
 he sustains towards any of his creatures, 
 must have been simply analogical; based 
 on the analogy of the relation of father 
 and son as it subsists among men. But 
 that analogy is originally inadequate ; and, 
 since the fall, it is positively unsafe. 
 
 I believe, indeed, that the existence of 
 the paternal and filial relation among men, 
 from the beginning, has reference to the 
 eternal relation of fatherhood and sonship 
 in the Godhead, and to the ultimate de¬ 
 velopment of that relation, in the standing 
 of all saved intelligences. I entirely agree 
 with those who maintain that this forms 
 part, and a chief part, of the image and like¬ 
 ness of God in which man was originally 
 made.* The divine relation i s not, a mere 
 analogical inference from the human. The 
 human is formed upon the model of the 
 
 * See TrefFrey on the Eternal Sonship, chap. II., sect, v., 
 pages 156, 157. 
 
LECTURE III. 
 
 147 
 
 divine, and expressly in order to be its 
 analogical representative. Adam's being 
 a father, is not the type of God's paternity. 
 Rather, in the sense of being the mould 
 into which it is cast, God's paternity is the 
 type of his. 
 
 In that view, I can conceive of the 
 angels welcoming the introduction on the 
 stage of being of a race meant to exhibit 
 this relation. They could form no idea of 
 it from the manner of their own existence. 
 They had been, so far as appears, simul¬ 
 taneously created ; all of them alike in full 
 possession of mature intelligence. They 
 had been all of them simultaneously tried 
 and tested ; and the faithful among them 
 had made good their position simulta¬ 
 neously, as the subjects and servants of 
 the Most High. If the reward of their 
 obedience was to be sonship ;—especially if 
 it was to be sonship somehow after the 
 model of the relation of the second person 
 to the first in the ever adorable Trinity;— 
 they might well be at a loss to form any 
 notion of a relation so utterly beyond the 
 reach of their own created experience. 
 But now, they see a race of new intelli¬ 
 gences called into existence ; in whose con- 
 
148 
 
 LECTUEE III. 
 
 stitiition and history a relation is to be 
 exhibited that may at least be a faint 
 shadow of the divine relation, to some 
 participation in which they are taught to 
 aspire. They rejoice in the help thus given 
 towards their understanding the relation of 
 fatherhood in which God is to stand to them. 
 But alas ! the dawn is soon overcast. Sin 
 comes in ; and its blight taints and blasts 
 the earthly relation which should have been 
 the image of the heavenly. It is better for 
 the angels now, that the full discovery of 
 this relation should be deferred till the Son 
 of God himself appears as a creature ;—to 
 show what, for the creatures, it really is. 
 
 The postponement was equally expe¬ 
 dient, or rather even more expedient, as 
 regards men. What materials were there 
 in these old times, what materials are there 
 now, for the construction of a notion of 
 fatherhood in God upon the analogy of 
 fatherhood in man ? One of the best per¬ 
 haps of human fathers, since the fall, is 
 Abraham. But was he faultless in that 
 relation ? Or shall we take Jacob ? or Eli ? 
 or David ? If the Old Testament Church 
 —if Old Testament believers—had been 
 asked to worship God as their Father, was 
 
LECTURE III. 
 
 149 
 
 there no danger of their conceiving of him 
 whom they worshipped, after such unsafe 
 analogies as these ? 
 
 There is the same danger still. It is 
 urgent. It is the unbelief of the day. I 
 have little hesitation in saying that the 
 merely analogical view of the fatherhood 
 of God lies at the root of much, if not all, 
 of our modern current infidelity. How, 
 indeed, can it fail, unless very carefully 
 guarded, to breed infidelity ? It must do 
 so doubly,—in two ways. Human parents, 
 on the one hand,'^are weak, fallible, selfish, 
 capricious ;—holding with unsteady hand 
 the balance of equity;—unreasonably j)as- 
 sionate, yet fondly placable. And, on the 
 other hand, they who conceive of God's 
 fatherhood as like the fatherhood of human 
 parents, are but too ready to reconcile 
 themselves to precisely such a view of God 
 as that which the analogy suggests. 
 
 I believe it to be God's purpose to set 
 aside, to a large extent, if not altogether, 
 all analogical apprehensions of his father¬ 
 hood. I believe he means us to look ex¬ 
 clusively, or all but exclusively, to the 
 manner of life of his Son Jesus Christ, 
 and to draw our notions of his father- 
 
150 
 
 LECTURE III. 
 
 hood directly from thence. Here there is 
 no analogy; or, if there is, it is all the 
 other way. It is not analogical reasoning 
 from the human to the divine, but from the 
 divine to the human. There is presented 
 before our eyes the actual working out, in 
 human nature and human experience, of 
 the only relation of fatherhood and son- 
 ship which God would have us to realise 
 as possible between himself and us. He 
 would be our father, not as we are the 
 fathers of our children, but as he is the 
 father of his Son Jesus Christ. 
 
 I do not urge any question as to the 
 original purpose of God in instituting a 
 relation of fatherhood in man;—or as to 
 how his orginal purpose might have been 
 served, if the relation had not been prac¬ 
 tically vitiated by the fall. It might, in 
 that case, have been, within certain limits 
 and under certain cautions and reserva¬ 
 tions, the source and ground of a pure and 
 sound analogy. And so far as it partakes 
 of the redeeming and renewing grace of 
 the gospel, it may be so still;—and may be 
 so more and more. But God has not trusted 
 to that. He has revealed his fatherhood, 
 not analogically but expressly, in his incar- 
 
LECTURE III. 
 
 151 
 
 nate Son. And there is divine wisdom in 
 his keeping silence, for the most part, upon 
 the whole subject, until the fulness of the 
 time for that revelation comes. 
 
 The oth er observat ion which I wish to 
 make arises naturally out of this last 
 thought. The divine wisdom in this ar¬ 
 rangement is signally manifested in the 
 character and spirit of Old Testament piety, 
 as that was necessarily moulded by it. 
 
 I have already noticed the fact that 
 there is little, or I think I may almost say 
 nothing, of the filial element, in the re¬ 
 corded spiritual experiences and spiritual 
 exercises of Old Testament believers. The 
 Psalms entirely want it. The nearest ap¬ 
 proach to it, perhaps, is that most tenderly 
 suggested analogy (Ps. ciii. 13): Like 
 as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord 
 pitieth them that fear him.'' The same 
 sort of analogy is suggested elsewhere ; as 
 in Malachi (iii. 17) : '' I will sjrare them, as 
 a man spareth his own son that serveth 
 him;" in Dent. (viii. 5): ''Thou shalt con¬ 
 sider in thine heart that, as a man chasten- 
 eth his son, so the Lord thy God chasten- 
 eth thee and in Proverbs (iii. 12) : 
 " Whom the Lord loveth he correcteth, 
 
152 
 
 LECTURE III. 
 
 even as a father the son in whom he de¬ 
 light eth.” 
 
 In these instances, the very nearness 
 of the approach to the assertion of God’s 
 fatherhood makes the stopping short of it 
 
 all the more noticeable. The last instance 
 
 » 
 
 in particular is, in that view, not a little 
 significant. The verse from Proverbs is 
 quoted in Hebrews (xii. 6). And the in¬ 
 spired writer, in quoting it, does not scruple 
 to throw it into New Testament form, for 
 the purjDOse of his inspired New Testament 
 appeal:—'' Whom the Lord loveth he chas- 
 teneth, and scourgeth every son whom he 
 receiveth.” Fatherhood is in the text, as 
 Paul was inspired to give it. But it is not 
 in the text as it stands in the Old Testa¬ 
 ment. All that is there is a similitude ;— 
 a like as,” or so as,” or even as.” 
 
 But ajDart from minute criticism, I sup¬ 
 pose it will not be denied, that in Old 
 Testament piety there is not an 3 rthing like 
 a full recognition—scarcely, indeed, any re¬ 
 cognition at all—of that personal relation 
 of fatherhood and sonshqD which enters so 
 largely and so deeply into the prevailing 
 spirit of Christian devotion. The con¬ 
 sideration of this fact might suggest a line 
 
LECTURE III. 
 
 153 
 
 of thought and investigation intensely in¬ 
 teresting ; on which, however, I cannot 
 now enter at any length. I can only throw 
 out a hint or two. 
 
 It must, I think, greatly enhance our 
 admiration of the godly men of old, and of 
 their godliness, when we listen to their 
 utterances of praise and prayer, or search 
 the records of their manifold S23iritual ex¬ 
 periences and deep exercises of soul, to 
 bear in mind how little they were per¬ 
 mitted to know of God as a Father. Their 
 close walk with him, their strong trust in 
 him, their fervent desire after him, the 
 warmth of their affection, the poignancy of 
 their sense of sin, the liveliness of their 
 heavenly joy—these and other features of 
 their personal religion must appear, in the 
 view of this condition attaching to it, more 
 and more wonderful the more we examine 
 and reflect upon them. It might be not 
 unprofitable also to inquire, how far that 
 condition may explain some of the pecu¬ 
 liarities of their holy asj)irations and con- 
 tendings ; the restlessness, the impatience, 
 the dark questionings and misgivings, the 
 passionate outbursts even, which their 
 writings occasionally indicate ; the sort of 
 wailing cry for something better which 
 
154 
 
 LECTURE III. 
 
 breaks from them ; and the eager^ intense 
 expectancy of their air and attitude, like 
 that of children in a strange place, longing 
 to be taken to some unknown home. 
 Again, it might be well to mark, in search¬ 
 ing these old books, and specially the 
 psalms and prophetic songs, how marvel¬ 
 lously the Holy Spirit has so inspired them, 
 that this absence of what has since been so 
 fully revealed,—which might be supposed 
 to be a drawback,—is in truth the very 
 quality which best fits them for universal 
 use, in all ages of the Church till the end 
 comes. For it is that which makes them 
 most expressive of the groans and sighs of 
 lost humanity ; its tossings, strivings, fight¬ 
 ings, until it finds its God; its strange vicis¬ 
 situdes of joy, fear, hope, even after it has 
 found him. And then, finally, one might 
 usefully inquire how, in virtue of its very 
 imperfection, the divinity of the Old Testa¬ 
 ment prepares the way for that of the New; 
 how the knowledge and worship of God, as 
 Creator, Governor, Lord, lays the best and 
 only safe foundation for the knowledge and 
 worship of him as Father ; how in this, as 
 in other respects, the law is our school¬ 
 master to bring us unto Christ.'' 
 
LECTURE III. 
 
 155 
 
 NOTES TO LECTURE THIRD. 
 
 Note A. (Page 125.) 
 
 Job xxxviii. 1-7 j Numbers xxiv. 17 ; Eovelation ii. 28, 
 
 and xxii. 16. 
 
 It is not necessary for my present argument to inquire 
 particularly into the meaning of these remarkable texts, 
 which seem to associate so intimately the filial rank and re¬ 
 lation in the spiritual firmament with the ushering in of the 
 morning dawn in the natural heaven. The image of the 
 morning star is as suggestive in a rehgious pomt of view 
 as it is poetically beautiful. In particular, as used in 
 these texts taken together, it surely points to the identifi¬ 
 cation of unfallen angels and redeemed men with the 
 second person in the Godhead. Wliatever it imports, as 
 descriptive of the bright and blessed effulgence of dawn 
 growing into glorious noon, is common to him and them. 
 
 He is the morning star. He is so, em^jhatically and 
 ,q)re-eminently—himself alone. He avows himself to be so 
 at the very close of his Revelation (xxii. 16) : “I am the 
 bright and morning star.” 
 
 But it is not a “starship” belonging to him simply in 
 his original divine nature and condition. It belongs to him 
 as “ the root and offspring of David.” It belongs to him in 
 the character and capacity which formed the ground of the 
 riddle that, in the days of his fiesh, he propounded to the 
 Pharisees (IMatthew xxii. 45) : “ If David call him,” the 
 Messiah, “ Lord, how is he then his Son.” 
 
 In that view he shares it with all who own him as 
 David’s Lord, and therefore their Lord also ; while they 
 
156 
 
 LECTURE III. 
 
 welcome him as David’s son, and therefore also their 
 brother. His “ starship,” in a word, is his “ sonship.” It 
 is his “ sonship” in the process of its development, from 
 earliest streak of morning to fullest blaze of noon. 
 
 Hence the association of the two—“ starship” and 
 “ sonship”—in the holy angels as witnessing oiir earth’s 
 creation. That, to them, was the dawn of a new day. 
 The Son was then to them as “ the morning star,” ushering 
 in a new manifestation of the unclouded glory of God. 
 They are one with him—intelligently and cordially one 
 with hun—so far as their natural capacity and their infor¬ 
 mation at the time admit. They are one with him as the 
 Son. But his sonship is only then beginning to be un¬ 
 folded. It is as the shining of the morning star. It is, 
 therefore, as “ morning stars” that they are “ sons of God.” 
 
 Tliis original idea or image being once recognised, it is 
 not difficult to see how, under Old Testament conditions, 
 it could be only very imperfectly and obscurely developed 
 —as, for instance, in Balaam’s prophecy. Hor is it strange 
 that, even under New Testament light, it should not bulk 
 much in our view. It is a mere figure, indicating little 
 more than the gradual and growing manifestation of the 
 relation in question. That relation, however, is surely 
 thus proved to be the original filial relation of the Son to 
 the Father, now wonderfully shared with unfallen angels 
 and redeemed men. 
 
 Note B. (Page 128.) 
 
 This, as it seems to me, is a sort of cxpcrimenitm cruds, 
 a testing trial, as regards the notion of the original relation 
 of man to his Maker being filial As such, it must be 
 fully met and satisfactorily disposed of Is there any hint 
 
LECTURE III. 
 
 157 
 
 whatever in Scripture of the fall being a fall from a filial 
 state ? Is the sin which caused it represented anywhere in 
 all the Bible as a breach of the filial relation ? Is it possible, 
 upon the supposition of its being so, to construct anything 
 like an adequate scriptural representation of the atone¬ 
 ment ? Judgment, judicial retribution, the just award of 
 guilt according to strict law strictly administered—these 
 are the ideas, and the only ideas, which underlie the 
 principle of expiatory or propitiatory sacrifice, as all his¬ 
 tory proves that the human conscience craves for it;—and, 
 as the Bible history reveals that divine love has provided 
 it. But it is all out of place—irrelevant, nay, offensively 
 inconsistent and incongTuous—it it is a breach of the filial 
 relation that is to be repaired. In that case, the whole 
 apparatus and arrangement of the Cross, considered as a 
 real judicial transaction,—as the real and actual punish¬ 
 ment of the guilty by the substitution of a willing and holy 
 divine victim in their stead,—must be explained away. 
 
 I admit that there may remain, even though that 
 meaning is blotted out, a certain power in the Cross to 
 manifest divine love. It may be represented as simply a 
 manifestation of divine love, and nothing more. And the 
 love may be called fatherly love. But it is not really so. 
 In the Cross, thus baldly and barely viewed, we see the 
 Father putting the Son through the experience of fallen 
 men to the utmost extremity of suffering whicli that ex})e- 
 rience can involve. For what end ? To satisfy justice on 
 behalf of criminals—to expiate their guilt ? No. But to 
 encourage lapsed children in their return to their Father. 
 But is such a procedure really needed for their encourage¬ 
 ment ? Is it, m fact, any encouragement at all ? Is it not 
 rather fitted to discourage ? Does it not tend to invest the 
 fatherly and filial relation with a very awful and im¬ 
 penetrable gloom, when it comes out that the father cannot 
 
158 
 
 LECTURE III. 
 
 receive back liis erring cliildren into bis favour, otherwise 
 than on the condition of his holy “ firstborn” Son becoming 
 a sufferer and a victim on their behalf ? 
 
 All is clear and simple, if the substitutionary work of 
 Christ is held to have reference to the purely legal and 
 j'udicial relation as that originally subsisting between God 
 and man. But the introduction of the relation of father¬ 
 hood and sonship confounds all. For the two relations 
 cannot be conceived of as originally combined; certainly 
 not in the instance of a race liable to fall, and now actually 
 fallen. They must be dealt wdth either as guilty subjects, 
 or as undutiful sons. The method of recovery must be 
 adapted to one or other of tliese two view^s of their condition. 
 
 I would have evangelical thinkers to ponder this alter¬ 
 native well. The looser and broader school of speculators 
 understand its meaning and its bearings very thoroughly. 
 
 ISTote C. (Page 130.) 
 
 I think these four Old Testament texts—Gen. vi. 2, 
 Hosea i. 10, Jer. xxxi. 20, Mai. i. 6—are all that can be 
 supposed to teach a relation of fatherhood and sonship, 
 practically available for personal appeal. 
 
 I would not wish to weaken the force, or dilute the 
 virtue, of any one of them, as introducing an element that 
 aggravates man’s guilt and enhances God’s forbearance. That 
 the miiversal corruption ushering in the deluge had its rise 
 in the worldly conformity of those to whom the high title 
 of children or sons of God was in any sense appropriate 
 (Gen. vi. 2); that so high a designation should be still 
 within the reach of apostate Israel (Hosea i. 10) ; that the 
 Lord should yearn over Ephraun as “ his dear son, a plea¬ 
 sant child” (Jer. xxxl 20); and that he should urge his 
 claim on his people as at least equal to that of a father and 
 
LECTURE III. 
 
 159 
 
 a master in an ordinary limnan lionseliold (Mai. i. 6);—all 
 that is most emphatic. By all means the emphasis must 
 he preserved. But there is nothing in it all like the asser¬ 
 tion or implication of real and proper fatherhood and 
 sonship, as a relation subsisting personally between God 
 and the individual man. I woidd not explain away these 
 and similar texts. On the contrary, I would press them 
 into my service. I would especially do so if I were elabo¬ 
 rating proof in support of the opinion which I strongly hold, 
 that from the beginning the relation, in the noblest sense 
 of it, was contemplated as the perfection of created intelli¬ 
 gence ; and that accordingly all nature is cast in that mould, 
 and all revelation points in the same line. At the same time, 
 when alleged as evidence of the relation being known to the 
 Old Testament church,'—so as to form any part of its 
 theology or any element of its piety,—such rare and isolated 
 passages are altogether without point and without power. 
 They are merely conventional or rhetorical modes of speech; 
 —conventional, when they simply designate one set of 
 people as distinct from another ;—rhetorical, when they 
 are made the ground of complaint, or expostulation, or 
 entreaty. 
 
 Note D. (Page 131.) 
 
 The following passages extracted from Alexander on 
 Isaiah (Dr. Eadie’s edition, 1848) have an important bear¬ 
 ing on the question now under discussion. 
 
 The first is from liis note on Isaiah Ixiii. 16 ;— “Be¬ 
 cause thou art our father. This does not merely mean our 
 natural creator, but our founder, our national progenitoi-, 
 as in Dent, xxxii. 6. Here, however, it appears to be 
 employed in an emphatic and exclusive sense, as if he 
 had said, ‘ thou and thou alone art our father for he 
 immediately adds, as if to explain and justify this strange 
 
160 ■ , LECTURE III. 
 
 assertion, ' for Abraliam lias not known us, and Israel will 
 not recognise or acknowledge ns/ . . The true sense 
 
 of the verse, as it appears to me, is that the Clmrch, 
 or chosen people, although once, for temporary reasons, 
 co-extensive and coincident with a single race, is not essen¬ 
 tially a national organization, hut a spiritual body. Its 
 father is not Abraham or Israel, but Jehovah, who is, and 
 always has been, its redeemer, who has borne that name from 
 everlasting . . . The strong terms of this verse are of 
 
 course to be comparatively understood, not as implying 
 that the Church will ever have occasion to repudiate its 
 historical relation to the patriarchs, or cease to mclude 
 among its members many of their natural descendants, 
 but simply as denying all continued or perpetual pre¬ 
 eminence to Israel as a race, and exalting the common 
 relation of believers to their great Head as paramount to 
 all connection with particular progenitors ; the very 
 doctrine so repeatedly and emphatically taught in the 
 Hew Testament.” 
 
 The second passage is from the note on Isaiah Ixiv. 7 ; 
 —“And now, Jehovah, our Father (art) thou, we the clay 
 and thou our potter, and the work of thy hands (are) we 
 all!’ . . . “ The Prophet here resumes the thought 
 
 of chap. Ixiii. 16, where, as here, the paternity ascribed to 
 God is not that of natural creation in the case of indi- ” 
 viduals, but the creation of the Church or chosen people, 
 and of Israel as a spiritual and ideal person. The figure 
 of the potter and the clay, implying absolute authority and 
 power, is used twice before (ch. xxix. 6 ; xlv. 9), and is 
 one of the connecting links between this book and the 
 acknowledged Isaiah.” . . . “ The same plea, derived 
 
 from the relation of the creature to the maker, is used in 
 Ps. cxxxviii. 8, forsake not the work of thy hands. (Com¬ 
 pare Ps. Ixxvi. 1 ; Ixxix. 1). In either case there is a 
 
LECTURE III. 
 
 161 
 
 tacit appeal to the covenant and promise in Gen. xvii. 7 ; 
 Lev. xxvi. 42-45 ; Dent. Adi. 6 ; xxvi. 17, 18.” 
 
 The remarks in this last note of Alexander apply to 
 Jer. xxxi. 9. Indeed that text in Jeremiah is conclusive, 
 I think, m favour of the opinion that it is simply Israel, 
 or the Church collective, as an ideal person, that is meant, 
 in the few places where sonship or heirship seems to he 
 implied ;—and not at all individual believers realizmg per¬ 
 sonally and practically any such relation. 
 
 M 
 
LECTURE IV. 
 
 THE TEACHING OF OUR LORD ON HIS OWN 
 AND HIS brethren's SONSHIP. 
 
 Tlie firstborn among many brethren. —Romans viii. 29. 
 
 The fatherhood of God is revealed in 
 the person of his Son Jesus Christ, and 
 in his life on earth. If we would conceive 
 aright of what it is for God to be our 
 father and for us to be his sons, it is to 
 that model that we must chiefly look. 
 
 The Old Testament church ]^d little or 
 i>o knowledge of God being a father, in the 
 sense of his sustaining a proper personal 
 relation of fatherhood to men indmciuallj. 
 
 When I say that, I do not of course 
 mean that he was not the father of those 
 who believed in his name; really and truly 
 their father; as much so before as after 
 the incarnation. I mean only that he did 
 not see fit to reveal himself clearly and 
 unreservedly in that character. And I 
 think I have shown good reason for some 
 
LECTURE IV. 
 
 163 
 
 reserve being maintained until the relation 
 in its full integrity could be manifested. 
 
 Neither do I forget that Israel collec¬ 
 tively is spoken of by the Lord as his son, 
 and is therefore constituted a type of Christ. 
 Thus, to name one remarkable instance, or 
 rather one decisive proof, Matthew quotes 
 the message of the Lord to Pharaoh; or 
 Hosea’s reference to it; as receiving its ful¬ 
 filment in Christ : ‘‘ Out of Egypt have 
 I called my son.''* 
 
 Still, with a full admission of all these pre¬ 
 monitions, I am persuaded that, as a definite 
 personal relation subsisting between God 
 and individual men, the fatherhood of God 
 did not form part of the revelation given to 
 the church under the old economies. 
 
 All this reserve is at an end when the 
 Son himself opens his mouth. The man 
 Christ Jesus" called God father in a way 
 
 * I give the passages entire. First, there is that in Exo¬ 
 dus (iv. 22, 23): “And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus 
 saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my first-born. And I 
 say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if 
 thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy 
 first-born.” Next, there is the passage in Hosea (xi. 1): “ Wlien 
 Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of 
 Egypt.” Then, lastly, there is the quotation in Matthew (ii. 
 15): “ That it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord 
 by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.” 
 
164 
 
 LECTURE IV. 
 
 quite unprecedented. Not even his fore¬ 
 runner, the Baptist, used the name as he 
 did. There is no trace of God's fatherhood 
 in John's teaching;—unless it be that on 
 one occasion, upon the warrant of the voice 
 from heaven, he says, I saw and bare 
 record that this is the Son of God" (John 
 i. 34). With Jesus himself, the^ title 
 Father," as applied to God, is a familiar 
 household word. 
 
 And yet, as I think, he uses it with 
 careful and studied discrimination. 
 
 Thus, for example, I do not know that 
 there is one instance recorded of his using 
 the title of Father with reference to the 
 world at large, or to men generally ; or, 
 indeed, with reference to any but those 
 whom he was pleased to regard as his dis¬ 
 ciples, and to address and treat accord¬ 
 ingly. He speaks to them of God as their 
 father ;—and, so far as my observation 
 goes, to them only. I cannot call to mind 
 a single case in which he gives God that 
 appellation in dealing with the promiscu¬ 
 ous crowds that resorted to him. Nay, 
 there is at least one case—there may be 
 more, but let one suffice — in which he 
 makes a very marked distinction. 
 
LECTURE IV. 
 
 165 
 
 It occurs in the twelfth chapter of 
 Luke’s Gospel. '' One of the company”— 
 the crowd literally—asks Jesus to assume 
 the office of judge between him and his bro¬ 
 ther in the matter of the family inherit¬ 
 ance (ver. 13). After declining that posi¬ 
 tion (ver. 14), the Lord takes the oppor- 
 l^inity of warning the company, or crowd, 
 against the sin of covetousness. He said 
 unto them,”—he spake a parable unto 
 them” (vers. 15-21). In thus addressing 
 them, he uses simply the term God ” (ver. 
 20). But suddenly he turns from the mul¬ 
 titude to his disciples. The incident sug¬ 
 gests a lesson for them also;—a lesson 
 against care, answering to his warning to 
 the company against covetousness. Imme¬ 
 diately his tone changes from something 
 approaching to severity or sternness to the 
 utmost tenderness and affection. And after 
 appealing to God’s creative power and pro¬ 
 vidential bounty, as reasons for trusting 
 him and having no anxiety, he tells them, 
 as a stronger reason still, of '' their Father 
 knowing what they need,” and of its being 
 ''their Father’s good pleasure to give them 
 the kingdom ” (vers. 30, 32). 
 
 I believe it will be found that our Lord 
 
166 
 
 LECTUEE IV. 
 
 observes this distinction throughout ;— 
 restricting the term to his disciples, and 
 avoiding the use ^of it when he addresses 
 others. Nor can the obvious inference 
 deducible from this uniform practice be 
 turned aside by the mere allegation, that 
 there must have been among those whom 
 he chose to count as his disciples not a fe^ 
 who were not his disciples in reality, as 
 among the apostles there was one traitor. 
 The fact is admitted. But it does not touch 
 the point of my present observation. For 
 the same principle must be applied here 
 which explains Scripture usage elsewhere ; 
 as when the visible churches to whom the 
 apostolic letters are written are addressed 
 as if all their members were true believers. 
 Men are, and must be, treated according ta 
 their calling and profession. On that prin¬ 
 ciple, his disciples are regarded by our Lord 
 as having God to be their Father; and, so 
 far as I can see, they alone. 
 
 There is, I think, another important dis¬ 
 tinction to be observed in our Lord’s man¬ 
 ner of calling God Father. I refer now to 
 those almost countless instances in which he 
 points to his own relation to God ;—saying, 
 ^'my Father,” or, 'The Father.” In so saying. 
 
LECTURE IV. 
 
 167 
 
 he sometimes has in view the relation of 
 fatherhood and sonship between the Father 
 and him as it subsisted from everlasting 
 before his incarnation; while at other times^ 
 what he has in view is manifestly the re¬ 
 lation as it subsists now that he has become 
 incarnate. Of course, I hold that it is the 
 same relation, unchanged and unmodified. 
 But it is now_slmred in by his humanity, 
 which it was not before. And this, so far, 
 makes a difference ;—not in the nature and 
 character of the relation but, as it were, 
 in the manner of its outgoings or outcom- 
 ings in the person sustaining it. 
 
 Let me attempt to make my meaning 
 somewhat more plain by means of an ex¬ 
 planatory instance. 
 
 When Jesus made that most solemn and 
 sublime appeal from earth to heaven,—from 
 the cold unbelief of man to the loving heart 
 of God—'' I thank thee, O Father, Lord of 
 heaven and earth, because thou hast hid 
 these things from the wise and prudent, 
 and hast revealed them unto babes ;—even 
 so. Father ; for so it seemed good in thy 
 sight” (Mat. xi. 25, 26)—none hearing the 
 marvellous words could doubt,—at least, 
 none reading them in faith now can doubt. 
 
168 
 
 LECTURE IV. 
 
 —that they point far back in the past eter¬ 
 nity to mutual counsels and infinite endear¬ 
 ments in which his manhood never had a 
 share. When, on the other hand, pros¬ 
 trated in Gethsemane's garden, he uttered 
 first the cry of agony, '' O my Father, if it 
 be possible let this cup pass from me''— 
 and then the prayer of acquiescence, '' O 
 my Father, if this cup may not pass away 
 from me, except I drink it, thy will be 
 done" (Mat. xxvi. 39, 42),—the language 
 springs out of trial of which his manhood 
 bears the brunt, and obedience of which his 
 manhood must have the credit. 
 
 The Father is the same to him, and he is 
 the same to the Father, on both occasions 
 alike. The relation of fatherhood and son- 
 ship is the same. But he who sustains the 
 relation of sonship has undergone a change 
 of state. From being only God he has 
 become also man; from being alone 
 with the Father in the Holy Ghost, 
 in the unapproachable unity of the one 
 only thrice holy God, he has come to 
 be associated and identified with a race of 
 fallen creatures, whose sorrows he is will¬ 
 ing to share,—whose guilt and condemna¬ 
 tion he has consented to take upon himself. 
 
LECTURE IV./ 169 
 
 He is the same person thronghont—the 
 same in his sonship. But is it not evident 
 that now, when he speaks as the Son occu¬ 
 pying the last of these two positions, he 
 may be expected, alike in what he says to 
 his Father and in what he says of his 
 Father, to use language proper on some 
 occasions to his former condition, and on 
 others again to his present condition ? He 
 cannot but speak at some times as realis¬ 
 ing, even in and all through his humiliation, 
 what he has been to the Father and the 
 Father to him, from everlasting. He 
 cannot but speak at other times as realis¬ 
 ing what, in virtue of his humiliation, he 
 is to the Father and the Father to him, 
 now. But there is not on that account any 
 difference in respect of the personal relation 
 in which he stands to the Father. That is 
 the same in both states. There is simply a 
 distinction between what refers back to his 
 past, and what expresses his present, con¬ 
 sciousness and experience, in that one rela¬ 
 tion which is common to both the modes of 
 his existence, and both the periods, if I 
 may so speak, of his history. 
 
 This distinction, I need scarcely say. 
 
170 
 
 LECTURE IV. 
 
 has a very material bearing on the question 
 as to the connection of his people's sonship 
 with his own. Can it be a sonship of the 
 same nature and character with his own ? 
 Can it be, in fact, their being made really 
 and truly partners and partakers with him 
 in his being the Son of God ? 
 
 I advert to this question at this stage 
 and in this connection, merely to the effect 
 of considering how far such an identity is 
 possible or conceivable ;—how far it can 
 be shown to be consistent with a due re¬ 
 gard to the vast distance that there must 
 ever be felt to be between an uncreated 
 and a created being. For an opinion cer¬ 
 tainly prevails in some quarters, that to 
 represent Christ's sonship and his people's 
 as being of the same sort, is to confound 
 the human and the divine. Let me say a 
 few words on that opinion. 
 
 I begin with an illustrative or suggestive 
 case. My father has a firstborn son ; and 
 after the lapse of, say, some quarter of a cen¬ 
 tury, he has a second son, there being none 
 between. I am that second son. As the 
 second son, I stand to my father in the very 
 same relation with the first. I have the 
 same claims on him and the same place in 
 
LECTURE IV. 
 
 171 
 
 his heart. But I hear my elder brother 
 continually alluding to interchanges of love 
 and confidence between him and our com¬ 
 mon father long prior to my coming into the 
 family. I am not surprised at these allu¬ 
 sions, nor chagrined or vexed by them ; for 
 my elder brother gives me the full benefit 
 of all that they imply. Still, my real and 
 actual communion with my brother, in our 
 joint filial relation to our common father, 
 dates only from my coming to an intelligent 
 apprehension of it. All before that is 
 matter of testimony; it is information at 
 second-hand. I can have no fellowship, pro¬ 
 perly so called, with him in it. But for 
 all that, my sonship is really the same 
 relation as his> though his is of older stand¬ 
 ing than mine. Would it make much— 
 or indeed any—difference to me if I were 
 told that my brother’s sonship had no be¬ 
 ginning at all ? That might raise a difii- 
 culty otherwise, as regards the past,—or as 
 regards the question how that sonship 
 without a beginning could be possible. 
 But it need not affect my present stand¬ 
 ing, as my brother’s fellow in the relation 
 of sonship to our common father. 
 
 Or take another parallel case. My son’s 
 
4 
 
 172 
 
 LECTURE IV. 
 
 wife is to me a daughter. She stands to me, 
 as I believe and feel, in the very same rela¬ 
 tion in which my son himself stands to me. 
 I treat them both equally as my children. 
 I am a father equally to both. The relation 
 is differently originated and constituted in 
 the two. In the one, it is natural, dating 
 from the beginning of the party's existence ; 
 in the other it is the result of an arrange¬ 
 ment entered into when the party has been 
 in existence for years. But what of that ? 
 The law declares the relation to be the 
 same, and my heart owns it to be so. My 
 new child must be an entire stranger to 
 the consciousness and experience of much 
 in the relation between myself and my son, 
 or in our realisation of it, which preceded 
 the union that has given me a new child. 
 But still, what of that ? The whole good 
 of the relation is now common equally to 
 both of my children. Would it make the 
 least difference, as regards the apprehen¬ 
 sion of present joint relationship, if the 
 child I have got by her becoming my son's 
 spouse were to be told that he whose 
 spouse she is was born years or ages ago ?— 
 or even, to speak with reverence, that he 
 was begotten from everlasting ? 
 
LECTURE IV. 
 
 173 
 
 These, let it be remembered, are most 
 inadequate and imperfect analogies. Still, 
 they are analogies. And to my mind they 
 go far to prove that there has been some con¬ 
 fusion of thought about this whole matter. 
 For I cannot helj) suspecting that there 
 has been from of old a tendency to suppose 
 that there is a difference of relationship), 
 when, in point of fact, the diff erenc e me rely 
 lies in the d ates at which, and the grounds 
 on which, the same relation has been con¬ 
 stituted in different persons. In other 
 words, the difference has been held to be 
 essential; whereas it is in reality onl y cir - 
 cum^tantial, and should accordingly be 
 treated as such. When and how the rela¬ 
 tionship) was constituted,—is one question. 
 What it is, whensoever and howsoever 
 constituted,—is quite another question. 
 And it is still a different question;— 
 How far two parties may p)artake in the 
 same relation, though constituted, in the 
 two, at different times and in different 
 ways. Nor, as regards this last question, 
 does it matter though in the one it should 
 be from everlasting. 
 
 Let me anticipDate a little my line of 
 argument, and put a scripotural, and, as I 
 
174 
 
 LECTURE IV. 
 
 think; a critical and crucial test, on this 
 particular point. 
 
 In his farewell prayer, Christ says to 
 the Father, Thou lovedst me before the 
 foundation of the world(John xvii. 24). 
 He asserts also with reference to his dis¬ 
 ciples,—^'Thou hast loved them as thou 
 hast loved me'' (ver. 23). I take this last 
 statement to be an assertion of the real and 
 absolute identity of the love of the Father, 
 as the Father, to the Son and to the Son's 
 disciples. And I ask. Is there any differ¬ 
 ence between that love and the love to 
 which the other statement alludes—the 
 love with which the Father loved the Son 
 before the foundation of the world ? Has 
 the Father’s love of the Son undergone 
 any change ? Has it not always been 
 fatherly love ? And now the Son’s believ¬ 
 ing people share with him in it as such. 
 It is the same fatherly love to them that it 
 is to him. There is no difference as to the 
 Father’s love ;—or as to their standing, his 
 and theirs, in the possession of it. 
 
 It is true that they can have no consci¬ 
 ousness or experience of it, as love in exer¬ 
 cise “ before the foundation of the world.” 
 That is exclusively his privilege, his honour. 
 
LECTURE IV. 
 
 175 
 
 his joy. In the old eternal reminiscences, 
 if we may dare to use the term, of that 
 unfathomable immensity of the duration of 
 this love,—they, the creatures of yesterday, 
 can have no part or title. But does that 
 consideration evacuate of meaning the truth 
 announced by the lips of the Son himself,— 
 surely at a time when oneness and not 
 distinction is in his mind,—that from the 
 moment of their believing in him the Father 
 loveth them as he loveth him V ’—^that the 
 very love wherewith the Father loveth 
 him is thenceforth in them —and that 
 ever after the Father is to them exactly 
 what, as the Father, he is to him ? 
 
 Let it be admitted then,—or rather let 
 it always be very strongly asserted and 
 strenuously maintained,—that our Lord 
 does very frequently use language which 
 cannot fairly admit of any other interpre¬ 
 tation than that he claims to be the Son of 
 the Father from before all worlds,—from all 
 eternity. When he uses such language, he 
 appeals to a mode or manner of his filial 
 life with the Father, in which none else 
 can participate. Down to the time of his 
 assuming the human nature, in his pre- 
 
176 
 
 LECTURE IV. 
 
 existent state before that event, he enjoys, 
 —if I may venture so to sjDeak,—he enj oys 
 and exercises his sonship in a way strictly 
 and absolutely j^eculiar to himself, as 
 the only-begotten Son in the bosom of the 
 Father. Into that'j^eriod of his filial life 
 no man or angel dare intrude. But the 
 case is altered when he becomes incar¬ 
 nate. Then he begins a new mode of filial 
 life, of such a sort as by no means to ex¬ 
 clude the idea of others sharing with him 
 in it. And when his language refers to 
 the experience of that new kind of filial 
 life, in the new state into which he has 
 entered, I can see no reason why he may 
 not be understood as meaning that it is 
 really and literally the kind of filial life 
 of which he intends to make his discij)les 
 partakers, when he calls God their Father 
 as he calls him his own Father ;—that 
 
 s 
 
 they are to be on the same footing with 
 God on which he now is ;—that the Father 
 is to be to them what he is now to him as 
 having come in the flesh/" and what he 
 will be to him in that character for ever. 
 
 Thus, I think, it mav be seen that 
 though in some of our Lord"s filial utter¬ 
 ances and expressions we cannot go along 
 
LECTURE IV. 
 
 177 
 
 with him,—since they refer to his position 
 with the Father, and his intercourse with 
 the Father, before he came to be one with 
 us in our nature,—there are others proper 
 to his new state of being into the spirit of 
 which we may enter. We may therefore 
 have the same filial experience which they 
 denote, and partake of the same filial re¬ 
 lation which they imply. 
 
 I have been endeavouring to show that 
 the nature or character of such a relation 
 as that of fatherhood and sonship does not 
 depend, either upon the period of its subsis¬ 
 tence, or upon the manner of its original 
 constitution. And therefore I infer that 
 there need be no difficulty, a priori, in con¬ 
 ceiving of two persons standing in the same 
 relation to a third,—even though in the 
 case of the one the relation may be date¬ 
 less, and founded on a necessity of nature, 
 while in the case of the other it may be 
 of recent date, and formed or constituted 
 by an act or work of grace. 
 
 There is one other remark of a general 
 kind which it seems needful to make. 
 
 Identity of relation does not imply that 
 if two parties share in it, the one may not 
 
178 
 
 LECTURE IV. 
 
 have a far greater aptitude to apprehend it, 
 and a far larger capacity to enter into it, 
 than the other. There may be the widest 
 difference between them in this respect. 
 
 Perhaps no two sons in a family ever 
 equally realise their sonship. Both of them 
 may be dutiful, loyal, loving. But there 
 may be in the one a knowledge of their 
 common father, an insight into his heart, 
 an apprehension of his counsels, a sympathy 
 with his pursuits, to which—at least in 
 equal measure or degree—the other does 
 not, and cannot attain. Still, both are sons. 
 They are sons, as having the same foot¬ 
 ing in their common father’s house, and 
 the same hold on their common father’s 
 affection. No doubt the difference between 
 them,—in the amount of their filial insight, 
 apprehension, sympathy,—may warrant- 
 ably cause a difference in the amount of 
 their father’s affection towards the two 
 respectively;—or rather, one would say, 
 in the manner of its manifestation. But 
 it is fatherly affection towards both alike. 
 And it is so in the same sense. The footing 
 of both in the house is alike, and to the 
 same effect, filial. 
 
 All this is too obvious to require proof 
 
LECTURE IV. 
 
 179 
 
 or illustration. I would only add that the 
 difference I S23eak of must be vast indeed 
 when the one Son is the Divine Redeemer, 
 and the other a sinner redeemed * though 
 still it is not a difference which need at 
 all affect the sameness of the relation. 
 
 I have thus sought to clear the way 
 for the consideration of the main question 
 —What does Christ mean when he repre¬ 
 sents God as being his people's Father ? 
 
 There is undoubtedly one instance— 
 I think only one—in which our Lord brings 
 in the analogy of the human fatherhood, 
 and founds an argument upon it, a fortiori 
 (Matt. vii. 9-11 ; Luke xi. 11-13), '^What 
 man is there of you, whom, if his son ask 
 bread, will he give him a stone ? Or if he 
 ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? 
 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?" 
 
 Of course, it is a fair and valid analogy, 
 especially if we hold that human father¬ 
 hood is meant to be a shadow or represen¬ 
 tation of the Divine. Let it be observed, 
 however,—first, that the analogy is em- 
 
180 
 
 LECTURE IV. 
 
 ployed only for a very specific and limited 
 purpose,—and, secondly, that the employ¬ 
 ment of it is quite consistent with the very 
 highest view of God’s fatherhood. Nay, 
 the higher the view taken of that father¬ 
 hood, so much the stronger is the a fortiori 
 reasoning. And surely it is not a little 
 remarkable that while the Lord is always, 
 as it would seem, seeking to familiarise 
 the minds of his disciples with the idea of 
 God being their Father, he makes so little 
 use of the human analogy. It looks almost 
 as if he studiously avoided it; as if he 
 would have them to form their conceptions 
 of wdiat it is to have God for their Father, 
 not from what they might see in any human 
 household, but from what they saw of him 
 as a member of the divine household. 
 
 For, let it be remembered, they were 
 continually hearing his filial utterances, 
 and witnessing his filial walk. No doubt, 
 the words that fell from his lips were often 
 such as they could not as yet fully under¬ 
 stand,—pointing to a higher condition than 
 that which he now occupied, in which he 
 had been as a Son with God as his Father. 
 But yet again, on the other hand, they 
 could not but perceive that in circum- 
 
LECTURE IV. 
 
 181 
 
 stances precisely similar to their own, and 
 under the pressure of an experience which 
 might any day be theirs, he still habitually 
 looked up to God as his Father. Nor did 
 he ever give them the slightest intimation 
 of his looking up to God as his Father, 
 on these occasions,—any otherwise than 
 as he taught them, on the like occasions, 
 to look up to God as their Father. They 
 could not but observe in their Master's 
 whole demeanour, in his everyday con¬ 
 duct, in all his sayings and doings, a 
 very peculiar style of godliness—new, un¬ 
 precedented ; giving evidence of a singu¬ 
 larly close, intimate, warm, endearing sort 
 of connection between God and him ; show¬ 
 ing him to be on terms of most confidential 
 fellowship with God. They could not but 
 know—he told them—that this sprung from 
 his knowing God to be his Father, and 
 feeling himself to be God's Son ; that it 
 was what this * fatherhood and sonship 
 meant and implied. But this very manner 
 of living with God, as they were constantly 
 instructed, it was their duty to aim at and 
 realise. And they were instructed, with 
 a view to it, to call God their Father. 
 Would it naturally enter into their minds 
 
182 
 
 LECTURE IV. 
 
 to suppose that this language denoted a 
 different relation in their case from what 
 it did in his ?—that, while they were ex¬ 
 pected to walk mth God, in that wonderful 
 way of holy familiarity and loving trust 
 in which they saw him walking with God, 
 they were to be placed in a less favourable 
 position for doing so ?—that God was not to 
 be their Father as he was his, though they 
 were expected to be like him, and to live 
 like him, as sons ? Surely the opposite of 
 all this is rather the conclusion fairly to be 
 drawn, unless some very clear intimation 
 has been given to the contrary. 
 
 Much stress is often laid, as if it ^^ere 
 such an intimation, on the fact, that 
 whereas our Lord very often speaks of God 
 with reference to himself as his Father, 
 and with reference to his disciples as their 
 Father, he avoids, as it would seem in¬ 
 tentionally and of set purpose, the use 
 of the expression “ Our Father.'' To this 
 remark there is only one exception, the 
 invocation of the Lord's Prayer; and it is 
 thought that this is one of the instances 
 in which the exception confirms and 
 strengthens the rule. Christ, in putting 
 
LECTURE IV. 
 
 183 
 
 the very words of prayer into the months 
 of his disciples, must necessarily use the 
 first personal pronoun, to denote God as 
 the Father of the person praying; and as 
 he intends the prayer, even when most 
 personal and secret, to be still most catho¬ 
 lic and loving, he uses, because he cannot 
 help it, the plural,—'' Our Father.'' But he 
 does not mean to include himself. For, it 
 is said, he is giving a form of prayer to be 
 offered by the disciples, either jointly or 
 severally, by themselves ;—not by him and 
 them together. I confess I have always 
 felt a difficulty in taking in this notion. It 
 does not seem to me to be a natural expla¬ 
 nation. I can scarcely think that it would 
 have occurred to one of the disciples using 
 this prayer, say on the very day on which 
 it was given, to associate with himself in 
 his mind and heart his fellow-disciples, 
 and to exclude the Master. This would 
 seem to imply that our Lord's prayers, even 
 when he was among his disciples, were 
 always exclusively intercessory—not pray¬ 
 ing with them, but only praying for them ; 
 that this was known to be his standing 
 rule and order ; and that the disciples were 
 accordingly instructed—not only never to 
 
184 
 
 LECTURE IV. 
 
 pray for him—but never to embrace him, 
 though they might embrace all others, in 
 the loving fellowship of prayer. For surely 
 otherwise, apart from these suppositions, 
 in sapng, as he taught them to say, Our 
 Father,'' the impulse, the instinct, of affec¬ 
 tion would lead them to have him as well 
 as one another comprehended in the com¬ 
 munion which the '‘"our" implies. But I 
 cannot reconcile myself to such suppositions 
 as I have indicated. I cannot imagine Jesus 
 and the apostles living for years together, 
 sitting together at meals, walking together 
 by the way, and yet not praying together.* 
 But though in this one instance Jesus 
 uses the words, Our Father,"—be the ac¬ 
 count given of his doing so what it may,— 
 it cannot be denied that his otherwise in¬ 
 variable practice, in referring to the father¬ 
 hood of God, is to speak of himself and of his 
 disciples separately. And it is argued that 
 this indicates a deliberate design to sepa¬ 
 rate his sonship from theirs, and to repre¬ 
 sent it as being of a different sort—as 
 being, in fact, a different relation. 
 
 I am not at all satisfied that it does. 1 
 think the practice admits of another ex- 
 
 See Note A. 
 
LECTURE IV. 
 
 185 
 
 planation, and one that may bring out, in 
 a fresh and important point of view, the 
 bearing of our Lord's work of propitiation 
 for us, in our state of guilt, on our being 
 admitted into participation with him, in 
 his state of sonship. 
 
 I must premise, however, that, even apart 
 from that explanation which I am about 
 to offer, I do not consider the phenomenon 
 we are now dealing with as very unac¬ 
 countable, if we keep in mind the position 
 of our Lord and his disciples as master and 
 scholars. It is quite natural for a master 
 addressing his scholars, for the most part 
 magisterially, though with all affection, so 
 to express himself as to maintain a certain 
 distance and distinction between him and 
 them; and, in alluding to a third party to 
 whom he and they stand similarly related, 
 still to let it appear that the relation pri¬ 
 marily belongs to him as the master, and 
 to them only in a secondary sense, or by a 
 secondary and subordinate right, as his 
 scholars. This end is secured by the man¬ 
 ner of speaking on the subject which Christ 
 adopts ; nor does any occasion occur call¬ 
 ing for a deviation, except when he is giv¬ 
 ing them a form of prayer. Then, however. 
 
186 
 
 LECTURE IV. 
 
 as I cannot but think, he does not scruple 
 to employ phraseology which the disciples 
 could scarcely understand otherwise than 
 as conveying the idea of their master and 
 themselves being alike, and in the same 
 sense, entitled to call God Father. 
 
 But I proceed to the other explanation. 
 I think I can see a reason for there being 
 still some reserve, even though the incar¬ 
 nation has been effected, in regard to the 
 discovery of God's fatherhood and his 
 people's sonship. Even the incarnate Son is 
 not yet in a position to do full justice to 
 the subject. He cannot yet unfold fully 
 the substantial identity of the relation in 
 which he and the disciples stand to God 
 as Father—not at least in its highest and 
 fullest significancy, 
 
 Let me try to bring out what I mean 
 by referring again to the passage in the 
 Epistle to the Galatians formerly quoted: 
 
 When the fulness of the time was come, 
 God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, 
 made under the law, to redeem them that 
 were under the law, that we might receive 
 the adoption of sons" (iv. 4,5). It is there 
 intimated that while God sends forth his Son 
 that we may receive the adoption of sons— 
 
LECTURE IV. 
 
 187 
 
 surely after the model of his sonship who is 
 sent forth—while this is the design of its 
 being his Son whom God sends forth, an 
 indispensable preliminary to our receiving 
 the adoption of sons is the Son's '' redeem¬ 
 ing us from the curse of the law by being 
 made a curse for us" (iii. 13). For so, a 
 little before, the apostle has given in full 
 what he expresses more elliptically now. 
 Hence, it would seem that until his work 
 of redemption is complete, the way for 
 our entering into his sonship is not fully 
 opened up. In order to his making us 
 partakers of his relation to God as the Son, 
 he must make himself partaker of our 
 relation to God as under the law. And 
 not only so. He must redeem us from the 
 guilt and condemnation which, in that re¬ 
 lation, we have incurred, and under which 
 we lie helpless. That he has not done till 
 his life on earth is ended. All the time he 
 is on earth he is about the doing of it. 
 But it is only on the cross that he can say 
 —“ It is finished." It is onlyby his resur¬ 
 rection from the dead," as Paul elsewhere 
 says (Rom. i. 4), that he is declared to be 
 the son of God, with power, according to 
 the spirit of holiness." And it is only then. 
 
188 
 
 LECTURE IV. 
 
 —then, and not before,—that he is in a 
 position to make the entire benefit and 
 blessedness of his sonship available in be¬ 
 half of his disciples, as admitted to be 
 sharers with him in it. Until then, he is 
 justified in not fully or in express terms 
 bringing out all that is implied in his son- 
 ship being the model of theirs,—its being, 
 in fact, up to the measure of their new capa¬ 
 city and his redeeming grace, truly and 
 actually communicated to them. 
 
 This idea is confirmed when we turn to 
 a passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 (ii. 11), where it is said that, upon certain 
 grounds or considerations there stated, 
 Christ is '' not ashamed to call us brethren.'' 
 The meaning is, not that he might be 
 ashamed of us, but that, were it not for these 
 grounds and considerations, he might be 
 ashamed of himself. It is the same mean¬ 
 ing that is suggested when it is said of God 
 (xi. 16) that he is not ashamed to be called 
 the God of the patriarchs, ''for he hath 
 prepared for them a city." Christ is not 
 ashamed to call us brethren, as he might 
 well be if his doing so were a mere lip-com¬ 
 pliment or figure of speech, and nothing 
 more. He has no reason to be thus 
 
LECTURE IV. 
 
 189 
 
 ashamed, because his calling us brethren 
 involves, not a mere nominal title of 
 courtesy, but a real and actual participa¬ 
 tion with him in his relation to the Father, 
 and in its fruits, so far as the nature he 
 shares with us allows. Passages are cited 
 from the Old Testament Scriptures to prove 
 that Christ has no cause to be ashamed, in 
 the sense now explained, to call his 
 disciples brethren. And the first and chief 
 is from the twenty-second Psalm, which so 
 wonderfully brings out, in its beginning, the 
 suffering, and in its close, the triumphant, 
 Messiah. The verse quoted is the point of 
 transition from the one state to the other— 
 from Christ suffering to Christ triumphant. 
 It is then that he says—'' I will declare thy 
 name unto my brethren.''^ Now that all 
 my agony in redeeming them is over—and 
 the Psalm describes the agony to the life, or 
 rather to the death—now I may without 
 reserve call them brethren. I need not be 
 ashamed of doing so. For I can now 
 worthily and effectually declare to them 
 thy name, as magnified in my obedience 
 unto the death for them,—and in their 
 being admitted, on the footing of that obe¬ 
 dience, to be my brethren;—my brethren, as 
 
190 
 
 LECTURE IV. 
 
 having the same standing in the Father’s 
 house that I have, and the same warm place 
 in the Father’s heart.'“ 
 
 It is in the light of this idea that I think 
 we must view the message sent by the 
 risen Lord to his disciples—Go to my 
 brethren” (John xx. 17). It is the first 
 time he calls his disciples, in unequivocal 
 terms, his brethren. He might have been 
 ashamed to do so before ; but he is not 
 ashamed to do so now. Before, his calling 
 them his brethren might only have implied 
 that he made common cause with them ; 
 that he took his place among them ; that 
 he became one of them, so as to share all 
 their liabilities and responsibilities. His 
 incarnation was sufficient evidence of that. 
 But it was evidence of nothing more than 
 that. For anything that appeared, he 
 might have thus identified himself with 
 them, with no benefit to them, but only 
 with damage to himself; sharing their fate, 
 and so far sympathising with them ; but 
 not effecting their deliverance. While that 
 state of things lasted, he might be ashamed 
 to call them brethren. But when that is 
 over, and it is seen that he has not merely 
 * See Appendix III. 
 
LECTURE IV. 
 
 191 
 
 partaken with them in their miserable 
 state, but accomplished their redemption 
 out of it, he is not ashamed—there need be 
 no more reserve—as to his calling them his 
 brethren. Then he is in a position to deal 
 with them as out-and-out one with him¬ 
 self—his brethren—having the same posi¬ 
 tion that he has in the Father’s family, 
 and the same interest in the family inherit¬ 
 ance. 
 
 I cannot but interpret the message to the 
 disciples after the resurrection in accord¬ 
 ance with this view. It is, as I have said, 
 then, the first time that he adopts unequi¬ 
 vocally this phraseology, and calls his dis- 
 cijoles, without qualification or explanation, 
 his brethren. He never called them his 
 brethren before. He did unquestionably 
 lieep up a certain distinction between him¬ 
 self and them. He was not able thoroughly 
 to bring out his identifying of them with 
 himself in his sonship, until he had proved 
 his identifying of himself with them in their 
 subjectship to be really, for them, their re¬ 
 demption from its curse. But now even this 
 reserve is over. He can say, ''My brethren,” 
 with fullest, clearest, warmest welcome— 
 welcoming them into his own very rela- 
 
192 
 
 LECTURE IV. 
 
 tion of sonship and subjectship combined. 
 —'' Go to my brethren, and say unto them, 
 I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; 
 and to my God, and your God.’' 
 
 I own I shrink from any exposition of 
 this message of love, sent through that 
 loving woman to the lonely eleven, which 
 would make it suggestive of separation or 
 distinction. It was not an occasion for re¬ 
 minding the disciples that he and they 
 stood in different relations to God—rela¬ 
 tions nominally the same, yet really differ¬ 
 ent. But it was an occasion for assuring 
 them that he and they stood in the same 
 relation, and that he w^as now in a position 
 to assure them of this ;—now that he had 
 expiated their guilt and made their peace 
 with heaven. Why should the risen Lord 
 seize on that opportunity for discriminat¬ 
 ing between his sonship and theirs,—and 
 it must be added, for they go together,— 
 between his subjectship and theirs, in a way 
 that he never thought of before ? It was 
 a strange time to take for that,—a strange 
 place,—a strange medium. No ! It is, I am 
 confident, not distinction but idendh^tion 
 that he means when he says—Tell my 
 brethren that I ascend unto my Father 
 
LECTURE IV. 
 
 193 
 
 and their Father, and to my God and their 
 God."" 
 
 I am aware that the views which I 
 have been submitting as to the relation of 
 fatherhood and sonship being the same in 
 the case of Christ’s disciples that it is in 
 that of Christ himself, may seem startling 
 to some minds. I may appear to them to 
 be going not only against certain modern 
 speculations, but also against the opinions 
 of the early fathers, which are, perhaps, 
 on this point, entitled to more weight. I 
 think it right to offer a very few obser¬ 
 vations to show that the difference may 
 after all be more apparent than real. 
 
 1. The Ante-Mcene divines were in the 
 very thick and heat of the Arian and Semi- 
 Arian controversies. Their whole energies 
 were directed and devoted to the object of 
 maintaining that Christ is the Son of God, 
 not merely in virtue of some priority or pre¬ 
 cedence belonging to him in the order of 
 creation; nor even in virtue of his being 
 Creator or an active agent in creation; but 
 in virtue of his being himself uncreated, 
 and of the same substance with the Father 
 
 * See Note B. 
 
 O 
 
194 
 
 LECTUEE IV. 
 
 from everlasting. Hence, they laboured 
 anxiously to prove that he is represented 
 in Scripture as being the Son of God in a 
 sense and manner in which that title is 
 never given to any other being in all the 
 universe. Of course, they had no difficulty 
 in proving this. They could show that 
 neither the sonship supposed to belong 
 originally to angels and men by creation, 
 nor any sonship conferred on angels or men 
 as the reward of obedience or the fruit of 
 faith, could be held as coming up to what 
 Holy Scripture says of the sonship of 
 Christ. This they did with an ability and 
 success which none but God could give. 
 And God has blessed what they thus did, 
 for the peace of the Church catholic, on 
 that article at least, down to our own time. 
 
 It need not be counted strange, however, 
 that having their minds so intently bent 
 upon bringing out that feature in Christ’s 
 sonship which could not be shared with 
 any creature, or be common to him with 
 any other intelligence;—its being natural 
 and necessary from everlasting, in respect 
 of his being the only-begotten and eternal 
 Son;—they may have been led, perhaps, to 
 isolate him in his sonship rather too much ; 
 
LECTURE IV. 
 
 195 
 
 and so to exaggerate or misapprehend the 
 difference between his sonshij) and that of 
 his believing disciples. 
 
 2. In particular, I cannot help suspect¬ 
 ing—for I confess my imperfect knowledge 
 and dare not speak confidently—that they 
 may not have had sufficiently before them 
 the distinction between the two questions 
 which I have been attempting to keep 
 separate ;—the first having reference to the 
 nature or character of the relation in itself, 
 and the second having reference to the time 
 and manner of its being constituted. Their 
 argument against the Arians and Semi- 
 Arians is conclusive, if it is made out from 
 Scripture, as it clearly can be made out, 
 that the sonship of Christ has a diffe¬ 
 rent origin, and rests fundamentally on a 
 different ground, from any relation of son- 
 ship competent to any other person ;—its 
 origin, if we may speak of the origin of 
 what has no beginning, being in the ever¬ 
 lasting nature of the Godhead, and its 
 ground being eternal generation. That is 
 enough for their purpose. It is not neces¬ 
 sary to hold that the relation itself, as 
 regards all that is vital and essential in 
 its reciprocal claims and endearments. 
 
196 
 
 LECTURE IV. 
 
 may not be shared by Christ with his 
 worshippers among the angels and his be¬ 
 lieving people among men. 
 
 3. I believe that this community for 
 which I plead is really and truly, to all 
 practical intents and purposes, admitted 
 by the writers to whom I am referring. I 
 am persuaded that they did virtually hold 
 the believer’s filial relation to God to be 
 so closely connected with Christ’s that it 
 might be reckoned substantially the same. 
 
 For this cause is the Word man, and he 
 who is Son of God was made Son of man, 
 that man, receiving the Word and accepting 
 adoption, might become the Son of God.” * 
 
 Before closing this lecture, I wish to 
 advert again to the tojDic on which I 
 touched at the beginning. I referred then 
 to the discrimination which our Lord mani¬ 
 fested in speaking of God’s fatherhood with 
 reference to men. He reveals God as sus¬ 
 taining this relation to his disciples, and to 
 them alone. God is their Father, not the 
 Father of mankind generally. I find no 
 trace whatever, in all our Lord’s teaching, 
 of anything like a universal fatherhood. 
 
 * Irenseus apud Treffrey, page 434. 
 
LECTURE IV. 
 
 197 
 
 The Son reveals the Father, not as the 
 Father of sinners of mankind generally, 
 blit as the Father exclusively of those who 
 receive the Son, and believe on his name. 
 
 At the same time, it is to be observed 
 that the fact of his revealing God at all 
 as the Father, has a very gracious aspect 
 towards sinners of mankind generally. God 
 Avould be the Father of them all if they 
 would but consent to have it so. He 
 would have them all to be his children. 
 His relentings, his longings, his appeals, 
 are prompted by a love that does really 
 partake of the paternal character. It is of 
 a Father’s pity, a Father’s love, a Father’s 
 open house, a Father’s open heart, that the 
 Son has to speak, when he pleads with 
 those whom, however guilty and degraded, 
 he regards with an affection that is truly 
 that of a brother. 
 
 It is this consideration that makes the 
 matchless parable of the prodigal son so 
 appropriate as well as so affecting. 
 
 Some, indeed, are disposed to found an 
 argument on that parable in support of 
 their favourite opinion that men, even in 
 their unconverted state, may look on God 
 as already their Father ; and that in reality 
 
198 
 
 LECTURE IV. 
 
 what they need, and all that they need, is 
 not to become sons of God, but only to be¬ 
 come alive to the fact that they are his 
 sons already, and have always been so. 
 But,—not to speak of the danger of draw¬ 
 ing doctrinal conclusions from the minute 
 and incidental details of illustrative narra¬ 
 tions or stories,—I cannot help thinking 
 that those who would make such a use of 
 this most beautiful of all the parables griev¬ 
 ously pervert its meaning, and altogether 
 miss its spirit and scope. I hold them to 
 be guilty of bad taste, as well as of bad 
 criticism and bad theology. 
 
 Let it be conceded that the prodigal re¬ 
 presents sinners generally, the sinners with 
 whom our Lord was accused of being too 
 familiar. The parable is his defence against 
 that accusation, and nothing more. And 
 what is his defence ? Virtually it is this : 
 —He is the elder brother in the Father’s 
 house. He puts it to his accusers to say 
 whether he best sustains the character and 
 does the part of the elder brother, by acting 
 as he is wont to act, in the way that seems 
 to them so objectionable, or by behaving, 
 as they would have him behave, like the 
 elder brother in the parable. 
 
LECTURE IV. 
 
 199 
 
 In doing this, the Lord, as the Son, 
 necessarily appeals to his Father’s charac¬ 
 ter, and wonderfully opens up to all the 
 human family his Father’s heart. 
 
 In my Father’s eyes, these sinners with 
 whom you say I associate too freely, are 
 not what they are in yours. You regard 
 them as outcasts;—He would have them 
 to be sons. He looks upon them as lost 
 children whom he would fain recover to 
 himself His purpose is that I, the Son of 
 his love, should be the first-born among 
 many brethren.” And it is among these 
 sinners that I am to find my brethren. 
 These sinners, each and all of them, my 
 Father longs to embrace, as any father 
 worthy of the name would embrace a long- 
 estranged child coming back to him again. 
 He has sent me to seek and save them;—to 
 reveal him to them as a Father, waiting to 
 welcome them as sons. How think ye ? 
 Do I best carry out my Father’s purpose 
 by treating them after the manner you 
 would have me treat them,—as the off- 
 scouring of the earth,—or by treating 
 them as my Father’s children and my bre¬ 
 thren ?—so treating them all, including the 
 very worst'and vilest of them,—even those 
 
200 
 
 LECTURE lY. 
 
 who have sunk almost to the level of the 
 hungry wallowing swine ? 
 
 Surely that is the point of the parable, 
 viewed in the light of its occasion. And 
 that is really its only meaning. It turns 
 wholly on the love with which God regards 
 lost sinners, and his willingness to have 
 them reconciled to himself. It does not 
 turn at all on the precise nature, either of 
 their present relation to him, or of any 
 previous relation in which they may have 
 stood to him. Thus viewed, the parable 
 is very precious. It warrants the widest 
 and most unrestricted proclamation of the 
 fatherhood of God as now, in his Son, 
 brought within the reach of all,—to be 
 pressed on the acceptance of all,—with 
 the strongest possible assurance that all 
 are welcome, freely welcome, to have the 
 full enjoyment of all that is implied in it, 
 if they will,—when they will. 
 
 But what is it that is thus brought within 
 the reach of all and pressed upon the ac¬ 
 ceptance of all? Let that be kept ever 
 in view, for it enhances a thousandfold the 
 grace of the whole arrangement. For it is 
 not merely in the universality and freeness 
 of the offer, but even still more in the value 
 
LECTURE IV. 
 
 201 
 
 of what is oifered, that the great benevo¬ 
 lence of the Father is seen. He would 
 have all men to be sons as Jesus is his 
 son. Jesus would have all men to be his 
 brethren—to be to him what those are on 
 whose behalf, in the view of their perfected 
 oneness with himself in his sonship, he 
 offers his wonderful intercessory prayer 
 —'' That they all may be one; as thou, 
 Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they 
 also may be one in us : that the world may 
 believe that thou hast sent me.'' In what 
 sense one 1 Let himself reply—'' The glory 
 Avhich thou gavest me I have given them ; 
 that they may be one, even as we are one : 
 I in them, and thou in me, that they may 
 be made perfect in one." And for what end? 
 
 That the world may know that thou 
 hast sent me, and hast loved them as thou 
 hast loved me." Let this identification be 
 specially noted ;—Thou hast loved them 
 as thou hast loved me." Can it be ex¬ 
 plained away? I think not. For mark 
 what follows ;—1 have declared unto 
 them thy name, and will declare it; that 
 the love wherewith thou hast loved me 
 may be in them, and I in them" (John 
 xvii. 21-26). 
 
202 
 
 LECTURE IV. 
 
 NOTES TO LECTUEE FOUETH. 
 
 Note A. (Page 184.) 
 
 I DO not attach much importance, or indeed any import¬ 
 ance, to this view of the Lord’s Prayer, as bearing on my 
 argument. But I confess I have some value for it never¬ 
 theless. I am very unwilling to believe that the Master 
 gave to his disciples a form of prayer in which they must 
 be dissociated from him, or in which he could not identify 
 himself with them. I am all the more, reluctant to take 
 in this idea, because there is nothing whatever expressive 
 of his mediation in the prayer. Apart from any question 
 as to the closing doxology, whether its genuineness he ad¬ 
 mitted or denied, there is reallv no hint of the Lord’s stand- 
 ing apart from his disciples as their mediator, and bidding 
 them use this form of supplication in his name. There is 
 no occasion for that, if he means to join himself with them 
 and join them with himself in the prayer which he dictates. 
 In that case all is clear. For mediation is really identifi¬ 
 cation. Jesus prays with us when he prays for us. It is 
 as praying with us that he prays for us. I shrink from the 
 idea of his being my mediator with the Father, and interced¬ 
 ing with the Father on my behalf, if it means that his in¬ 
 tercessory prayer for me, and the prayer he teaches me, 
 are so distinct that I cannot join with him in his, and that 
 he cannot join with me in mine. I own I do not see how, 
 on that supposition, we can have any other sort of media- 
 
LECTURE IV. 
 
 203 
 
 tion and intercession than that which heathenism and 
 Eomanism agree in holding. 
 
 Nor do I see the least force in the argument, that the 
 closing petitions are such as a sinless person could not offer. 
 That is true, if the sinless person has not consented to make 
 common cause, out and out, with a sinful and guilty race. 
 If he has consented to do that, I do not see how he can re¬ 
 frain from the use of language proper to their sinful and 
 guilty state. Does he not use such language in the Psalms? 
 Does he not use it on the cross ? The objection seems to 
 me to strike at the root of the doctrine of identification and 
 substitution. 
 
 But it really is not with me, so far as my present pur¬ 
 pose is concerned, a doctrinal question at all. I have no 
 motive whatever to insist on its being settled one way or 
 other. The “ our” in the preface of the Lord’s Prayer,—“ our 
 Father,”—may be inclusive or exclusive of the Lord himself. 
 My reasoning is not touched either way. All that I would 
 say is this :—I deprecate the line of argument sometimes 
 employed to prove his exclusion, because it seems to me to 
 savour of a mode of thought that would dissociate the Son 
 from those to whom he is to be “ the first-born among many 
 brethren,” and would place him on a different platform 
 altogether ; a platform inconsistent, I think, not only with 
 the idea of his drawing them up to his own level, but 
 even still more with the idea of his doing so through the 
 medium of his descending to theirs. 
 
 I think it is really, in this connection, allowable to ask 
 a pertinent question. In his ordinary meals with his chosen 
 disciples—not to speak of morning and evening family 
 devotion—did our Lord say grace or ask a blessing? Surely 
 that was common prayer, as between himself and them. 
 Did he, on such occasions, studiously ignore or suppress 
 his sonship ? I cannot thpik so. I cannot but think, on 
 
204 
 
 LECTURE IV. 
 
 the contrary, that he must have been all along, in all his 
 private intercourse with them, and especially in what was of 
 a directly devotional character, accustoming them to that 
 kind of joint supplication,—implying both mediation and 
 identification,—of wdiicli the form of prayer “ commonly 
 called the Lord’s Prayer” gives intentionally the authorita¬ 
 tive example. 
 
 Note B. (Page 193.) 
 
 I begin this brief note by giving the passage in Barrow 
 already referred to (page 59). It does not directly bear on 
 the present text (John xx. 17). But it is relevant never¬ 
 theless. “ Christian men do become the sons of God by the 
 intervention of our Saviour, assuming our nature, and con¬ 
 forming himself to the likeness of men; whereby he becomes 
 the first-born of many brethren : God (saith St. Paul) sent 
 forth his Son, born of a woman, that we might reeeive the 
 'privilege of being made sons: and, ehildren (saith the apostle 
 to the Hebrews) partake of flesh and blood; whence (as he 
 rneaneth to infer) our Lord being the Son of God, we, upon 
 conjunction of nature with him, and as his brethren, become 
 also such ; he further intimateth, that upon this score we 
 do surpass angels themselves; for that he took not on him 
 the nature of angels, but took on him the seed of Abraham; 
 they were not, as we, dignified with a fraternal relation to 
 the Son of God.”—(“ The Christian Faith,” etc.. Sermon x.) 
 
 I might be inclined slightly to qualify this last state¬ 
 ment. I believe that the angels are to be ultimately re¬ 
 vealed as Christ’s brethren and ours. But the full revelation 
 of that glorious brotherhood, even to themselves, comes 
 through the manifestation of it in the first instance, and in 
 action, as Christ’s brotherhood with us. This is the pecu¬ 
 liarity of our position. In us, his brotherhood comes out 
 
LECTURE IV. 
 
 205 
 
 tlirough liis participation with us in our nature. It is, as 
 I take it, true and full brotherhood; implying our participa¬ 
 tion with him in his filial relation to the Father. His 
 resurrection unfolds and attests the truth and fulness of the 
 brotherhood. I cannot think that he means to teach any¬ 
 thing else,—far less can I think that he means to indicate 
 two separate sorts of sonship,—when at the early dawn of 
 the resurrection morn he bids Mary “ go to his brethren, 
 and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your 
 Father, and to my God and your God.” 
 
 I find in Dr. Barth’s Bible Manual, page 936 {Transla¬ 
 tion, Nisbet & Co., 1865), a very brief but suggestive remark: 
 “ By the words, ‘to your Father,’in this connection, he 
 means to hint that it is appointed to his disciples to follow 
 after him. It is worth observing, however, that Jesus does 
 not say, ‘ to our God and to oiir Father.’ The design of the 
 address is to instruct his disciples still farther as to the re¬ 
 lation existing between his resurrection and ascension.” 
 
 Apparently Dr. Barth holds that the ascension was 
 needed to bring out Christ’s full identification of his people 
 with himself, as his brethren, in his relation to God as his 
 Father and his God ; and that the peculiar form of speech 
 which he adopted was meant to convey that meaning. 
 
 This may be a refining upon the words. But it does 
 not make them suggestive of difference between himself and 
 his disciples,—and that too at a crisis when I cannot but be¬ 
 lieve that their entire oneness must have been the loving 
 Eedeemer’s thought. There may be a tacit and reserved re¬ 
 ference to the ascension, as the final step in the process of 
 this great identification. But I own I lean to the simple 
 exposition of the message as an affectionate intimation and 
 acknowledgment of brotherhood now complete. 
 
 Nor do I think that the early expositors are really ad- 
 
206 
 
 LECTUHE IV. 
 
 verse to that view. I agree with Steir ( JFords of the Lord 
 Jesus, English translation, voL viii. pp. 82, 83), that his not 
 saying to our Father and to our God,” is significant. A 
 rationalistic Christ must have said our, in order to give 
 honour to truth, and to avoid exalting himself unduly in 
 the presence of the common God and Father. But the God- 
 man cannot possibly use such an expression.” At least he 
 has not used it, as a “ rationalistic Christ ” would probably 
 have done. And in his not using it, we have a clear pre¬ 
 sumption, if not a proof, that he is not a “ rationalistic 
 Christ.” His sonship and his subjectship, as “ the God- 
 man,” are undoubtedly peculiar. 
 
 But, after all, is the peculiarity any more than what is 
 indicated in the passages which Steir quotes from the 
 Fathers ? 
 
 Thus Cyril of Jerusalem observes : ‘ Mine in one 
 sense, by nature; yours in another, by privilege.’ Chry¬ 
 sostom : ‘ In different senses my Father and yours. If he 
 is the God of just men in a sense in which he is not the 
 God of others, how much more does this hold good of the 
 son and you?’ Augustine : ‘ He does not say our Father: 
 he is my Father by nature, and in another sense your Father 
 by grace. And he says my God and your God; not our 
 God—in one sense, therefore, mine, and in another sense, 
 yours. My God, under whom I also am man ; your God, 
 between whom and you I am Mediator’ Ambrose : ‘ Be¬ 
 cause, although he and the Father are one, and the Father 
 his Father by propriety of nature, to us God became a Father 
 through the Son, not by right of nature, but of grace.’ ” 
 
 These, as I think I have ascertained, are fair enough 
 specimens of the way in which the distinction assumed 
 to be indicated in this gracious message has been explained 
 by evangelical commentators, both in former and in recent 
 times. I need scarcely say that, even admitting them all. 
 
LECTURE IV. 
 
 207 
 
 they do not really touch the question as to the substantial 
 identity, in Christ and in his people, of the double relation 
 of sonship and subjectship, however constituted, and for 
 whatever offices and ends. 
 
 My only doubt is as to the Lord’s meaning to indicate 
 distinction at all in the message. It seems to me to be an 
 occasion, and the first possible occasion,* for the very re¬ 
 verse. It is not separation, but union, that he announces. 
 Is God “ his God,” since he has become man, any other¬ 
 wise than he is “ their God ?” If so, the whole plan of 
 redemption, as implying identification and substitution, 
 under the righteous and legal government of God, falls 
 to the ground. Christ, as the servant, has met the 
 claims of “his God.” But what of the claims of “their 
 God ?” Surely of set purpose the Lord has used lan¬ 
 guage implying that, as he has made himself thoroughly 
 one with them in their relation to God, as God, so he 
 makes them thoroughly one with himself in his relation to 
 God, as Bather. 
 
 * See Appendix III. 
 
LECTURE FIFTH. 
 
 THE MANNER OF ENTRANCE INTO THE RELA¬ 
 TION ; ADOPTION, AS CONNECTED WITH 
 REGENERATION AND JUSTIFICATION. 
 
 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to 
 become the sons of God, even to them that believe on 
 his name : which were born, not of blood, nor of the will 
 of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.— John 
 i. 12, 13. 
 
 The manner of entrance into any relation 
 must correspond to the nature and char¬ 
 acter of the relation, and must be in har¬ 
 mony and in keeping with it. If it is a re¬ 
 lation of hired service of any sort, the way 
 into it is through a properly adjusted 
 bargain or mutual agreement. If it is the 
 relation of the married state, it is reached 
 through consent on both sides, sufficiently 
 intimated and certified. If it is right 
 standing in the eye of law, after being 
 charged with crime, the only proper access 
 is through a legal and judicial sentence of 
 
LECTURE V. 
 
 209 
 
 acquittal. If it is restoration to friendship 
 and friendly intercourse, where misunder¬ 
 standing and estrangement have prevailed, 
 the healing of the breach, through explana¬ 
 tion given and accepted, is the obvious 
 method of reconciliation. 
 
 The same rule or principle must apply 
 to the relation of fatherhood and sonship 
 between God and his people. According 
 to what the relation itself is, so must the 
 mode of entrance into it be. 
 
 But, in the present instance, how may 
 this condition be realised ? 
 
 I have been pleading for the identity 
 of the relation, as common to the Son and 
 to those who are his. I have admitted, 
 no doubt, these two qualifications :—first, 
 that he has filial consciousnesses and ex¬ 
 periences in the past eternity which they 
 cannot have; and secondly, that their 
 power of apprehending and appreciating all 
 that the relation involves must be immea¬ 
 surably less than his. This last qualifica¬ 
 tion, I would say in passing, must be a 
 continually decreasing one, as the years 
 roll on of the eternity that is to come. For 
 all along the line of its endless ages, they 
 will be growing in grace, and in the know- 
 
210 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 
 ledge of the Lord Jesus Christ/^ They will 
 be growing in their acquaintance with him 
 as the Son ; and in their understanding of 
 his manner of existence as the Son with 
 the Father from everlasting. With these 
 qualifications, however, I have been main¬ 
 taining that the relation is the same ; that 
 it is in their case substantially identical 
 with what it is in his. 
 
 How, then, are we to explain their 
 admission into this relation ? Is there not 
 a serious difficulty here ? Assuredly there 
 is ; and it is a twofold difficulty. It may 
 be put both as a natural, and as a rela¬ 
 tional difficulty,—if I may be allowed to 
 use such a phrase. It may be viewed 
 either in the light of man's inward nature 
 as a fallen being, or in the light of his out¬ 
 ward legal standing as a guilty subject. 
 
 I. I begin with the consideration of the 
 difficulty viewed as natural. How is man, 
 as a fallen being, capable of sonship ? 
 
 Here, however, I must, by way of pre¬ 
 liminary remark, ask attention to the 
 original and eternal filiation of the Second 
 Person in the Trinity. For, in connection 
 with my present subject, I cannot help 
 
LECTURE V. 
 
 211 
 
 thinking that there is something rather 
 remarkable in the representation which 
 Scripture gives of our Lord’s sonship, and 
 of the ground on which it originally rests. 
 His entrance into this relation had no 
 beginning; and, therefore, to speak of the 
 manner of his entrance into it would be 
 obviously unwarrantable. According to 
 strict propriety of speech, he never en¬ 
 tered into it at all. It has been his from 
 everlasting. And yet this eternal relation 
 is represented as resting from everlasting 
 on his being begotten. Mysterious, in¬ 
 comprehensible, generation lies at the root 
 of it. He is the only-begotten Son of God; 
 
 begotten, not made and begotten from 
 everlasting (John i. 14, 18; iii. 16, 18; 1 
 John iv. 9, etc.) 
 
 This is unquestionably analogical lan¬ 
 guage ;—it is speaking of God after the 
 manner of men. It is the setting forth of 
 the original foundation of an eternal divine 
 relation, and an eternal distinction of 
 related divine persons in the Godhead, 
 under the analogy of an act or event in 
 human history and experience, having its 
 date, of course, in time. This is strange. 
 
 If is all the more so, if I am right in 
 
212 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 
 my opinion that, as regards the nature and 
 character of God's paternal relation to his 
 people, there is in Scripture,—especially in 
 our Lord’s teaching,—a studied avoiding 
 of the human analogy; indicating a desire 
 on his part that his disciples should learn 
 to conceive of their sonship, not analogi¬ 
 cally at all, but by direct knowledge and 
 insight;—or, in other words, that they 
 should be led to apprehend their sonship, 
 —not merely as a relation similar to son- 
 ship in a human family,—nor even as a 
 relation similar to his own sonship in the 
 divine family;—but as identically the same 
 relation. In that view, I think the use of 
 the human analogy to describe or indicate 
 the original constitution of the relation in 
 the person of the Son, must be felt to be 
 not a little noticeable and significant. As 
 to the question—what the relation is ?—the 
 human analogy is dispensed with, or rather 
 studiously shunned. As to the question— 
 how it subsists from the beginning?—the 
 human analogy is the chosen medium of 
 revelation. 
 
 And yet, one would say, the human 
 analogy is in this latter case even more 
 inadequate than in the former. The use 
 
LECTURE V. 
 
 213 
 
 of it, we might supjDOse, must be apt to 
 mislead, or to be a stumbling-block. In¬ 
 deed it has misled and proved a stumbling- 
 block to not a few;—the phrase, only- 
 begotten'^ or ^‘first-begotten," being in their 
 view irreconcilable with the doctrine of our 
 Lord's supreme divinity, or his being the 
 coequal, coeternal, consubstantial Son of 
 the everlasting Father. 
 
 With all its imperfection, however,— 
 when due allowance is made for the neces¬ 
 sary defectiveness of every eaidhly simili¬ 
 tude of what is heavenly,—this human 
 analogy serv^es a most important purpose. 
 It brings out, for one thing, the idea of 
 entire sameness of nature. The begotten 
 son of a divine father must be himself 
 essentially divine,—^just as the begotten 
 son of a human father is himself essentially 
 human. The Son of God must himself be 
 as really God, as a man's son is himself 
 man. Thus the analogy, though it is a 
 human analogy, does not degrade or obscure 
 the divine and eternal sonship of our Lord. 
 It rather illustrates and magnifies it. 
 
 Refiexly, also, this use of the term 
 “ begotten" may shed light on the sonship 
 of our Lord's disciples, and the manner of 
 
214 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 
 its constitution. It now becomes, with 
 reference to that subject, a divine analogy. 
 It is, as it were, taken up into heaven. It 
 is there appropriated, in a very wonderful 
 way, to the relation of fatherhood and son- 
 ship subsisting from everlasting between 
 the eternal Father and his beloved Son. 
 From thence it may be brought to earth 
 again. And, being thus sanctified and 
 elevated, it may be applied, in illustration 
 of the relation of fatherhood and sonship, 
 as it is formed in time, between the eternal 
 Father and the brethren of his Son. 
 
 Here, however, it might seem that the 
 entire and utter inadequacy—not so much 
 of the analogy to what is to be illustrated 
 as of what is to be illustrated to the ana¬ 
 logy—must absolutely preclude the use of 
 the analogy, as in its very nature unsuitable 
 and unsafe. There is, undoubtedly, in such 
 matters, the utmost need of caution. But 
 I do not think that I go too far when I 
 suggest this thought. The employment 
 of the phraseology of earth,—and of such 
 phraseology,—to denote the original ground 
 of the heavenly relation, may be merely an 
 instance of gracious condescension on the 
 part of God. But to my apprehension, it 
 
LECTURE V. 
 
 215 
 
 rather looks like a plan purposely intended 
 to familiarise the minds of our Lord's dis¬ 
 ciples with the idea of his sonship being of 
 such a sort that they can share in it. 
 
 The soundest of the fathers, those most 
 strenuous in maintaining the Son's supreme 
 divinity—his being uncreated and of one 
 substance with the Father—his absolute 
 and unqualified equality, in respect of 
 nature, with the Father—were accus¬ 
 tomed at the same time to allow, or rather 
 to assert, a certain mysterious distinction, 
 in virtue of which the Second Person in 
 the Godhead has from everlasting been in 
 some sense subordinate to the First, as the 
 Third has been to the First and the Second. 
 And though some modern writers have de¬ 
 murred to the opinion, thinking it incon¬ 
 sistent with a full belief of the Trinity, 
 I still incline on the whole to side with 
 Bishops Bull, Pearson, and Horsley on 
 this question, if it really is a question, 
 rather than with them. 
 
 Let it be noted that it is a relational 
 distinction exclusively that is contended 
 for, such as fits into what is written of the 
 Father sending and the Son being sent ; 
 the Father giving and the Son being given ; 
 
216 
 
 LECTUHE V. 
 
 the Father begetting and the Son being 
 begotten. And surely these last correla¬ 
 tives—begetting and begotten—are fitted 
 —may I not say intended—to facilitate 
 somewhat the conception of the relation 
 which they indicate being such as we may 
 have communicated to us. Not only is it 
 a relation having its analogical represen¬ 
 tation in the natural human fatherhood 
 and sonship; it is even capable of really 
 and actually moulding into conformity with 
 itself the spiritual fatherhood and sonship 
 which is constituted by grace. Whatever 
 these expressions imply,—in the line of 
 relational priority in the Father and rela¬ 
 tional subordination in the Son,—tends to 
 harmonise sonship with creatureship. They 
 go far to establish a presumption a priori 
 that, whether in Christ or in his disciples, 
 the relations may not be incompatible. It 
 may thus appear how, in virtue of the grace 
 by which he who is the only begotten Son 
 becomes a subject,—they who are origi¬ 
 nally subjects only may be, in a sense, 
 '' begotten,^^ or born again, as sons. 
 
 For it is the manner in which the two 
 relations are combined that is here again 
 the main question. In considering it, the 
 
LECTURE V. 
 
 217 
 
 incarnation must once more be the guiding 
 fact. 
 
 What is it that constitutes Jesus, in 
 and from his human birth, the Son of God ? 
 Or, otherwise, and more properly shaping 
 the inquiry,—what is it about his human 
 birth that prevents it, if one may say so, 
 from clashing with his sonship, and secures 
 that on the contrary his sonship shall con¬ 
 tinue identically the same, notwithstand¬ 
 ing his change of state ? Is it not the 
 agency of the Holy Ghost in the produc¬ 
 tion of his holy human nature ? 
 
 The angebs annunciation to the Virgin 
 Mary seems certainly to imply this at all 
 events,—that if her son had taken human 
 nature as it is in fallen creaturesif he 
 had been born after the ordinary manner 
 of men;—divine sonship could not have 
 been ascribed to him in his original condi¬ 
 tion as man.* Any such supposition, how¬ 
 ever, carries in its bosom an intolerable, 
 and all but inconceivable, contradiction. It 
 would make Christ—who, though uniting 
 
 * “ The angel answered and said unto her, The Holy- 
 Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest 
 shall overshadow thee : therefore also that holy thing which 
 shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 
 i. 35). 
 
218 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 
 in himself the two natures, continues to be 
 one person—the Father’s Son in one of 
 the two natures, and not the Father’s Son 
 in the other. But this, as we have seen, is 
 a plain and palpable inconsistency; son- 
 ship being not a relation of the nature or 
 natures to God, but a relation of the person. 
 Hence the necessity of Christ becoming 
 man in such a way as to secure that there 
 shall be nothing in his manhood incompa¬ 
 tible with continued sonship ; or, in other 
 words, with his being still the Son of God, 
 in his one undivided person, whole and 
 entire. His being born through the opera¬ 
 tion of the Holy Ghost secures that. For 
 it secures to him the possession of a human 
 nature such as, from the very first moment 
 of its existence, is capable of sharing in the 
 filial relation with the divine nature—a 
 body, soul, spirit, such as the Son of God 
 may worthily take into personal union with 
 himself, continuing still to be the Son. 
 
 Some may think at first sight—and the 
 objection has been seriously urged—that 
 this makes the Holy Ghost the father of 
 our Lord’s humanity, in respect of his being 
 the agent in its production. But it is not 
 so. There cannot be a father of a nature. 
 
LECTURE Y. 
 
 219 
 
 ]3Ut only of a person. Onr Lord’s human 
 nature never had any proper personality 
 of its own. It was assumed by him into 
 his personality as the Son. What the Holy 
 Ghost had to do was to provide that it 
 should be such as the Son could thus as¬ 
 sume, without derogation from his sonship. 
 
 Now, if it was necessary that the Holy 
 Ghost should thus fashion and mould the 
 human nature of Christ,—in order to its 
 being such as might not detract from, but 
 rather harmonise with and even adorn, the 
 relation of sonship in which he stands from 
 all eternity to the Father,—much more are 
 the good offices of the same gracious Spirit 
 needed for human nature as it is in us, if 
 we are to have a share in that relation. 
 
 And here the task might well seem to 
 be more difficult,—the problem harder to 
 be worked out. In his case it was simply a 
 birth that the Holy Spirit had to effect; in 
 ours it is a new birth. For him, he had to 
 provide a manhood such as the Son of God 
 might wear, by what might be regarded 
 as equivalent to an act of creative energy 
 or the utterance of the creative fiat. In 
 us, he finds manhood so marred and cor¬ 
 rupted that it requires to be, in a sense. 
 
220 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 
 unmade that it may be made over again 
 anew. Nor is this unmaking and re¬ 
 making a simple process. It demands the 
 application of some power or specific that 
 shall avail to obliterate the stains of guilt,— 
 to break up entirely the old inner man,— 
 to root out the seed of Satanic insubordi¬ 
 nation which is native and indigenous, and 
 implant the seed of God, whence a new life 
 of willing subjectship compatible with son- 
 ship may spring. 
 
 This is the work of the Spirit in re¬ 
 generation. Is it not a work correspond¬ 
 ing closely to his agency in the human 
 birth of Christ ? He generated Christ’s 
 humanity, that he might continue to be 
 the Son. He regenerates our humanity, 
 that we may become sons. To be born 
 of the Spirit” may thus, I think, be shown 
 to be, as far as the human nature and 
 human state are concerned, an indispens¬ 
 able preliminary condition of their being 
 reconcilable with sonship. 
 
 II. But it is not enough to make out a 
 capacity of sonship, or a fitness for sonship, 
 in the human nature of the Son as gene¬ 
 rated—and in that of his disciples as re- 
 
LECTURE V. 
 
 221 
 
 generated—by the Holy Ghost. There 
 must be an express act of the Father de¬ 
 claring or constituting the relation. For 
 the possibility of any of the fallen race of 
 man being righteously owned and acknow¬ 
 ledged as sons might well be called in 
 question. Even if, subjectively, an inward 
 renewal and regeneration of their natures 
 might be effected, would that suffice for 
 so righting, objectively, their standing in 
 God's sight as to ensure their sonship ? 
 Nay, more, when the eternal Son became 
 one of the human family,—even under the 
 guarantee of his not being himself per¬ 
 sonally involved in their natural pollution 
 and criminality,—was it quite obvious 
 beforehand that this could take place 
 without the sacrifice or compromise,—or 
 to say the least, the keeping in abeyance,— 
 of his sonship ? There must be as regards 
 both,—as regards both Christ and them,— 
 an authoritative and official procedure, as 
 it were, on the part of the Father;—de¬ 
 claring the continuance of the relation and 
 its fuller development in his case;—consti¬ 
 tuting the relation in theirs. For him, it 
 is the announcement of the voice from 
 heaven at his baptism (Mat. iii. 17; John 
 
LECTURE V. 
 
 . 34). For them, it is the act of free and 
 gracious adoption. 
 
 I connect the two. And yet there is a 
 vast difference. The voice from heaven 
 recognises sonship already subsisting— 
 having subsisted from all eternity, and con¬ 
 tinuing to subsist still unchanged, though 
 by his assuming human nature the Son has 
 become a creature and a subject. The act 
 of adoption confers sonship of new, de novo, 
 on those who are originally nothing more 
 than creatures and subjects. It assumes 
 a newborn capacity of receiving sonship. 
 But it does not assume, it constitutes, the 
 sonship itself. It is a pure and simple 
 act of the free grace of God. 
 
 Notwithstanding this difference, how¬ 
 ever, there is one particular in respect of 
 which the declared or recognised Son, and 
 the adopted sons, are on the same footing. 
 In the case of both alike there is required, 
 as a preliminary to the manifestation of 
 the relation of sonship in all its glory and 
 blessed joy, a full and final clearing up and 
 settlement of whatever may be doubtful, 
 or whatever may be wrong, in the relation 
 of subjectship. 
 
 The Son himself, after his coming in the 
 
LECTURE V. 
 
 223 
 
 flesh, was not declared to be the Son of 
 God with power'' till his resurrection from 
 the dead" (Rom. i. 4). Up till that time, he 
 had to meet and contend with the liabili¬ 
 ties Avhich he had undertaken as made 
 under the law"—made under it when it had 
 been broken by us, and had to be magnified 
 and honoured at a terrible cost by him. 
 He was crucified through weakness." It is 
 only thus that '' he liveth by the power of 
 God" (2 Cor. xii. 4). He must first be himself 
 justified, through his fulfilling all the righte¬ 
 ousness which he became bound on our ac¬ 
 count to fulfil, and expiating all the guilt 
 which he consented on our account to 
 answer for. His sonship, now that it has 
 become associated with subjectship,—in 
 the broken and disordered state to which 
 we, in whose nature he becomes a subject, 
 liave reduced this last relationship,—cannot 
 ])e set free, as it were, and made thoroughly 
 available, as a source of power, otherwise 
 than by this preliminary procedure of law. 
 
 When the case is that of creatures and 
 subjects who are to be raised to the posi¬ 
 tion of sons, a similar preliminary proce¬ 
 dure of law w^ould seem to be, a fortiori, 
 indispensable. 
 
224 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 
 I think it must be held to have been so, 
 even when angels were the parties. If I 
 am right in believing that these high and 
 pure intelligences were not sons originally, 
 in virtue of their creation or their inno¬ 
 cence, but became sons, by a sovereign act 
 of grace on the part of God,—that act, I 
 cannot doubt, must have followed the trial 
 of their obedience. If so, it must have been 
 preceded by what to them would be sub¬ 
 stantially equivalent to a sentence of 
 justification. For the trial, whatever it 
 Avas, to which they were subjected was 
 really a trial under law, and in terms of 
 law. It turned upon their willingness to 
 acknowledge and submit to the moral 
 government of God, as ruling them by law 
 and judgment. That was what was put 
 to the test. When their companions 
 sinned and were condemned, they through 
 grace stood the test and were acquitted ; 
 they were accepted as righteous; in a 
 word, they were justified. Their proba¬ 
 tion being well over, they are judicially, 
 and, as if it were by the sentence of a 
 court, declared to be not merely innocent 
 and upright creatures, but obedient sub¬ 
 jects who have kept the commandment, and 
 
LECTURE Y. 
 
 225 
 
 are on that account entitled to life. Then, 
 as I conceive, and not before, they are in 
 a condition to receive the adoption of sons. 
 For there is no inward work of the regene¬ 
 rating Spirit needed in their case; nor 
 need the Son assume their nature to re¬ 
 deem them, before he can have them as his 
 brethren. All that is required is an out¬ 
 ward act of grace, the appropriate recom¬ 
 pense and reward of the obedience by 
 which they have made good their title to 
 justification. The Son is presented to them 
 by the Father; and the Spirit by whom 
 they have been enabled to stand as sub¬ 
 jects, ensures their willingness to accept 
 the position of sons. 
 
 The case is, of course, somewhat altered 
 when it is not holy angels but fallen men 
 who are concerned. Still, allowance being 
 made for difference of circumstances, the 
 principle which rules it is essentially the 
 same. Their relation to God as subjects 
 must first be put upon a right and satis¬ 
 factory footing before they can become j 
 sons. 
 
 This necessity has already been con¬ 
 sidered in its bearing on the redeeming 
 
 Q 
 
226 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 
 work of Christ.* I now advert to it again 
 in connection with the gracious act of God 
 conferring, and the gracious act of the be¬ 
 liever appropriating, the benefit fiowing 
 from his redeeming work—the benefit of 
 justification, as opening the way to the 
 ulterior and higher benefit of adojDtion. 
 
 So long as men are in a state of 
 guilt and condemnation under the law's 
 righteous sentence, they cannot be re¬ 
 garded as fit subjects for becoming the 
 sons of God. Nor is the disqualification 
 to be viewed as being merely of a vague and 
 general sort;—as if the objection raised on 
 the part of God might be something like 
 the repugnance which a man of pure taste 
 and refined manners would naturally feel 
 to admitting coarse, low-minded, ill-bred 
 vagrants to the familiarities and sancti¬ 
 ties of his home. If that were all, the 
 difiiculty or scruple might be got over 
 by a little patience and forbearance, 
 a little tact, a little judicious treatment 
 and prudent kindness. Were the person 
 I had to deal with merely, in some such 
 indefinite sense as that, offensive to me, 
 
 * See remarks on Gal. iv. 1-6, in tlie preceding Lecture, 
 pages 186, 187. 
 
LECTURE V. 
 
 227 
 
 a little time and pains might amend the 
 fanlt. But he is in the hands of justice. 
 The law has a hold over him. He is 
 tried, convicted, condemned. He is an im¬ 
 prisoned criminal, either undergoing his 
 sentence or awaiting the execution of it. 
 That is the precise obstacle which, in the 
 case of fallen man, must be got out of the 
 way. And it is removed in his justification. ( 
 Faith, uniting him to Christ, and making 
 Christ and his righteousness his, secures 
 his being absolved from guilt and accounted 
 righteous. He is now rectus in curia, and ^ 
 therefore capable of sonship, 
 
 I have been endeavouring to trace and 
 point out the nature of the connection 
 which I hold to subsist between our be¬ 
 coming sons of God and our regeneration 
 on the one hand, and justification on the 
 other. It seems to me to be of some 
 consequence to have that determined as 
 clearly as possibleI mean not only the 
 connection but the nature of it. I cannot 
 help suspecting that loose and indefinite 
 views here have led to our forming some¬ 
 what inadequate apprehensions of what 
 the sonship of Christ's disciples really is. 
 
228 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 
 Neither our regeneration nor our justifica¬ 
 tion constitutes our sonship; neither of them 
 is the formal ground or warrant of our being 
 sons of God. That is to be found in God’s 
 free and sovereign act of grace alone;— 
 in his ''giving us the power” or privilege 
 " to become the sons of Godin his " calling 
 us the sons of God in his having " predes¬ 
 tinated us unto the adoption of children” 
 (John i. 12 ; 1 John hi. 1 ; Eph. i. 5). But 
 both regeneration and justification have a 
 material bearing on this act of God, and it is 
 important to know as exactly as may be 
 what that bearing is. Perhaps the tend¬ 
 ency has been to separate adoption some¬ 
 what too much from regeneration on the 
 one side, and on the other side to confound 
 it somewhat too much with justification. 
 
 I. In the writings of John—I refer 
 especially of course to his Gospel and First 
 Epistle—the sonship, not only of Christ 
 but of his disciples, is more fully and 
 affectingly brought out than in other parts 
 of scripture. It is John who sets before 
 us most clearly and touchingly his master’s 
 filial manner of life. If we would obtain an 
 insight into what Jesus as the Son is to the 
 
LECTURE V. 
 
 229 
 
 Father and the Father to him, we must 
 ponder incessantly these books ; nor will 
 one ponder them long, I am well persuaded, 
 without coming to the conviction, based on 
 countless minute touches of most pathetic 
 tenclerness, that Jesus meant to identify 
 those whom the Father had given him 
 with himself in his sonship. John does 
 not say much of the manner of our enter¬ 
 ing into that relation; but what he does 
 say appears to me to make it turn very 
 much on regeneration. 
 
 Thus, in the outset of his Gospel (i. 12, 
 13), he connects very emphatically the state¬ 
 ment concerning '' the Word,''—'' that to 
 as many as received him, he gave power 
 to become the sons of God, even to them 
 that believe on his name,"—with this ex¬ 
 planation, as 1 cannot help regarding it,— ^ 
 '' which were born not of blood, nor of the 
 wdll of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but 
 of God." And immediately he goes on to 
 say of ''the Word made flesh, and dwelling 
 among us, full of grace and truth,"—"We 
 beheld his glory, the glory as of the only 
 begotten of the Father." 
 
 Here, in the first place, I cannot but 
 conclude that John intendsjo represent the 
 
230 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 
 sonship of those who receive the Word/' 
 and believe on his name, as substantially 
 the same relation with the sonship of the 
 Word" himself. It is not impossible, and 
 not, I think, very improbable, that John 
 may have been acquainted with what Paul 
 had written—We all, with open face, be¬ 
 holding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, 
 are changed into the same image from glory 
 to glory, even as by the spirit of the Lord" 
 (2 Cor. iii. 18). Had he that scripture in 
 his mind when, speaking evidently of son- 
 ship, he says,—^we beheld the glory of the 
 sonshijD of the only begotten ?—beheld it 
 so as to be changed into the same image, 
 into the very form and fashion of that glo¬ 
 rious relation ? Of course I do not attach 
 any argumentative importance to this con¬ 
 jecture, although it may serve for an illus¬ 
 tration. Apart from that altogether, there 
 is enough, I think, in the passage which I 
 have quoted, taken by itself, to support my 
 first conclusion with regard to it. 
 
 My second conclusion is more material 
 to my present purpose. It is drawn from 
 the fact that John connects very pointedly 
 and emphatically our becoming sons of 
 God" with our being born of God." Does 
 
LECTURE V. 
 
 231 
 
 not this intimate that, while acknowledging 
 the act of grace towards ns in which God 
 gives us the standing of sons, he would 
 represent our sonship as largely dependent 
 also on the work of grace in us by which 
 God gives us the nature of sons? '' Power'' 
 or right '' to become sons of God," secures 
 the filial standing ; '' being born of God" 
 secures the filial nature. 
 
 This last conclusion from these words in 
 
 ♦ 
 
 John's Gospel will commend itself with 
 most peculiar force to those who are most 
 intimately acquainted with his way of 
 writing in his First Epistle. 
 
 Turning to that book, we find one pas¬ 
 sage especially in which the manner of our 
 entering into the relation of sonship is 
 noticed. Our being sons is ascribed to the 
 calling of God (iii. 1) :—'"Behold what^ 
 manner of love the Father hath bestowed/ 
 upon us, that we should be called the sons! 
 of God." Of course there is no difficulty 
 in understanding what is meant by our 
 being called by the Father the sons of God. 
 It is not a nominal but a real calling that 
 is intended, the actual constituting of a 
 real relation. But the statement seems to 
 make sonship depend solely and exclu- 
 
232 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 
 sively on God’s calling, that is, on his 
 adoptive act. It is not so, however. This 
 verse should not be separated from the verse 
 immediately preceding it (ii. 29), in which 
 it is said that '' every one that doeth right¬ 
 eousness is born of God.” For it is plainly 
 that thought, '' being born of God,” which 
 suggests to John the burst of adoring gra¬ 
 titude, “ Behold what manner of love the 
 Father hath bestowed on ns that we should 
 be called the sons of God.” Thus, in point 
 of fact, John rests that sonship, which is in 
 his eyes so wonderful, mainly on our being 
 born of God. Nor is this all. John, re¬ 
 peating the assertion we are the sons of 
 God,” continues to dwell with singular 
 earnestness and explicitness on what being 
 born of God means, and what it involves— 
 perfect likeness to God hereafter (iii. 2) ; 
 purity like his now (3); having the seed of 
 God remaining in us as the germ of an 
 impeccable life (9). It is impossible, I think, 
 to read that whole passage in the epistle 
 with any care and thought, without coming 
 to the conviction that John attaches a very 
 deep meaning indeed to our being born of 
 God ; that he looks upon it as in some real 
 and vital sense analogous—not merely to 
 
LECTURE Y. 
 
 233 
 
 the relation of the human child to the 
 human parent—but to the act in which the 
 relation originates ; that he regards it as 
 actually effecting a certain community of 
 nature between God and man. 
 
 Keeping all this in view, I can scarcely 
 doubt that John's design is to represent 
 our being sons of God as connected very 
 closely with onr regeneration ; and con¬ 
 nected, too, after the very same manner 
 that a man's being the son of his earthly 
 parent is connected with his generation in 
 time ;—or what I apprehend was more in 
 John's mind, after the very same manner 
 that the Lord's being the Son of his 
 heavenly Father is connected with his 
 generation from eternity. If so, then that 
 makes sonship not merely a relation of 
 adoption, but in a real and important sense 
 a natural relation also. There must be adop-| 
 tion. But he who adopts, regenerates. The* 
 regeneration is a real communication to us 
 on his part of '' his seed," of what makes 
 onr moral and spiritual nature the same 
 in character as his ; perfectly so at last, 
 and imperfectly yet as far as it prevails, 
 truly so, even now. And this regeneration 
 makes the adoption real. The adopted sons 
 
234 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 
 are sons by nature, and that, too, I am 
 persuaded, in a very literal acceptation of 
 the term. 
 
 These views may be of use as enabling 
 us better to understand how the sonship 
 of Christ and that of his people are, and 
 must be, in a very intimate sense, identical; 
 how it is one and the same relation for 
 both. There are no more two sonships, one 
 for them and another for him, than there 
 are two sonships for him, one for his human 
 nature and condition, and another for his 
 divine. There is but one sonship for us 
 both. It may well be so, if in us, as in 
 him, it is a natural sonship. 
 
 Those who would make a distinction 
 between the sonships, Christ's and ours, 
 sometimes represent it as turning on the 
 distinction between natural and adoptive 
 sonship;—Christ being the Father’s Son 
 by nature, we being sons by adoption only. 
 If the reference here is to the fact that 
 whereas Christ is God’s Son from the be¬ 
 ginning we have become God’s sons only 
 yesterday;—his, in that view, being of the 
 very essence of his existence, a necessity of 
 his very being, while ours is nothing of 
 the sort;—the fact is of course admitted. I 
 
LECTURE V. 
 
 235 
 
 liave attempted, however, formerly to show 
 that it is not to the purpose in this argu¬ 
 ment. If anything more is meant, the 
 distinction may now be seen to be without 
 warrant. If we are the sons of God at all, 
 we are, in virtue of our regeneration, his 
 sons by nature, as well as by adoption. 
 The nature, as well as the standing, of the 
 Son is ours.* 
 
 I would only further add, on this part 
 of my subject, that while John is our chief 
 authority, it is not John alone who ascribes 
 so high a signification to the change which 
 the Holy Spirit effects in the new birth, 
 —making it imply the production of a 
 certain community of nature between God 
 and us. Peter speaks expressly of the 
 children of God being 'U^^^’^^kers of the 
 divine nature—(2 Ep. i. 4). Paul also, 
 when he would reconcile us as sons to the 
 chastening and corrective discipline of 
 the Father of spirits,''! represents this 
 
 * See Note A. 
 
 t By this expression I may remark, hy the way, the apostle 
 means, I think, nothing more than to contrast the merely 
 carnal, earthly, bodily character of the original tie which hinds 
 us to the fathers of our flesh, with the spiritual and heavenly 
 character of the relation in which we stand to him who is no 
 mere “ father of our flesh,” hut “ the Father of spirits.” 
 
236 
 
 LECTUEE V. 
 
 as the design of our Father’s faithful 
 dealing with us, that we might be par¬ 
 takers of his holiness”—(Heb. xii. 10). 
 And again, when he announces the high 
 rank to which, from everlasting, God has 
 destined '' them that love him, and are the 
 called according to his purpose,” he de¬ 
 scribes them as predestinated to be con¬ 
 formed to the image of his Son, that he 
 might be the first-born among many breth¬ 
 ren”—(Eom. viii. 28, 29). Surely this is a 
 strong assertion of their actual participa¬ 
 tion with the Son, in his own very sonship. 
 And it is made to rest on their being '' con¬ 
 formed to his image ;” or, in other words, 
 on their community of nature with him. 
 For though the Son’s relation to the 
 Father may be partly what is meant by 
 his image here,—and the exact assimilation 
 of our relation to the Father to his may 
 consequently be partly what is meant*by 
 our being conformed to his image,—yet the 
 phrase can scarcely be taken otherwise 
 than as inclusive of sameness of nature as 
 well as sameness of relation. Likeness or 
 identity of nature is what makes likeness 
 or identity of relation possible and conceiv¬ 
 able. And it is that also which makes it 
 
LECTURE V. 
 
 237 
 
 realizable in consciousness and experience ; 
 more and more so, as the conformity to the 
 image of the Son of God grows more and 
 more complete ; until, in the full and final 
 
 k 
 
 '‘regeneration'' of the resurrection, the full 
 and final " adoption, to wit the redemption 
 of the body" (23), long waited for, comes 
 at last. Then is he indeed " the first-born 
 among many brethren." 
 
 II. But if this relation of sonship, as 
 shared by the Son with his disciples, has 
 suffered from its close connection with 
 regeneration not having been sufficiently 
 recognised, it has suffered perhaps still more 
 seriously from so many of our theologians 
 having failed to recognise sufficiently 
 its entire distinction and sejDaration from 
 justification. The two have, to a large 
 extent, been confounded and mixed up 
 together. What God does in the act of 
 adoption has been so represented as to 
 make it either a part of what he does in 
 the act of justification, or a mere appen¬ 
 dage and necessary corollary involved in 
 that act. Turretine, for example {Locus 
 XVI., Qucestio vi.), expressly and formally 
 includes adoption in his exposition of jus- 
 
238 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 
 tification. He makes adoption nothing 
 more than another name for the positive 
 element which all the reformed divines 
 held to be embraced in justification. They 
 all held that in the justification of any 
 man there are these two things implied— 
 the pardon of his sins and the acceptance 
 of his person. He is on the one hand judi¬ 
 cially, and in terms of law, absolved from 
 guilt, from ill-desert, from just liability to 
 punishment. And he is on the other 
 hand,—judicially also and in terms of 
 law,—pronounced righteous. He is ac¬ 
 knowledged as having fulfilled all incum¬ 
 bent obligations, in virtue of his oneness 
 with him who has done so in his stead; 
 and he is received into favour accordingly. 
 Even the former of these two things held 
 to be implied in our justification, goes far 
 beyond the mere idea of the remission of 
 the threatened and deserved punishment, 
 which is all that mankind naturally care 
 for; all that they really include in their 
 favourite fancy of an universal fatherhood. 
 It carries in it the removal, not merely of 
 the penalty, but of the desert of the penalty. 
 It is the taking away, not only of that to 
 which our guilt justly exposes us and makes 
 
LECTURE V. 
 
 239 
 
 us liable, but of our guilt itself. It is a 
 thorough absolution. And when the se¬ 
 cond of the two things held to be implied 
 in our justification is taken into account 
 —our being treated, not only as if we had 
 never sinned, but as if we had fulfilled 
 all righteousness—it may be seen how far 
 God's manner of dealing with us when he 
 justifies us goes beyond the manner of 
 men. This will be all the more apparent 
 when it' is considered that, in virtue of our 
 real union to Christ by faith, the whole is 
 a real transaction. It is no mere fiction in 
 law. The use of the phrase “ as if," in de¬ 
 scribing it, though scarcely to be avoided, 
 is unfortunate and improper. As made 
 one with Christ personally, by the Spirit 
 working in me appropriating and uniting 
 faith, I am really and truly one with him 
 in his absolution from my guilt which he 
 took upon himself, and in his being ac¬ 
 cepted as righteous on account of his 
 obedience unto death" for me. 
 
 I state thus as broadly and strongly as 
 I can the great Reformation doctrine. For 
 I would not lower justification in order to 
 exalt adoption. On the contrary, the higher 
 any one raises the privilege of justification. 
 
240 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 
 tlie better for my view ; since I hold adop¬ 
 tion to be a privilege higher still. It is the 
 admission of a person thoroughly j ustified, 
 as being really one with the Father’s 
 righteous Servant, to fellowship with him 
 with whom he is one, in his higher posi¬ 
 tion, as the Fathers only-begotten and 
 well-beloved Son. For that reason, partly, 
 I object to Turretine’s identification of 
 adoption with what may be described as 
 the second or positive part of justification. 
 And there is another objection to his view. 
 It makes the act of God in adoption savour, 
 as I think, too much of a legal and judicial 
 procedure. I ask special attention to this 
 consideration. 
 
 The more strictly we attach the cha¬ 
 racter of a legal and judicial procedure 
 to the act of God in justification so much 
 the better. It is only I believe in that way 
 that we can really maintain the infinite dis¬ 
 tance that there should ahvays be felt to 
 be between God, the Creator, Ruler, Judge 
 of all, and ourselves, who are naturally 
 nothing more than his created subjects. It 
 is only in that way that we can uphold, in 
 all its integrity, his government by law and 
 judgment. We can scarcely, therefore, err 
 
241 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 
 in the direction of viewing justification too 
 forensically—casting it too strongly into 
 the mould of what passes, or may be sup¬ 
 posed to pass, in a court of law. Ror need 
 that detract from the grace of the act, on 
 the part of God. On the contrary, it is 
 only when wo recognise its strictly forensic 
 character that the real grace of the act 
 appears; and only in proportion as its 
 strictly forensic character is practically 
 apprehended and realised, v/ill its real 
 grace be felt. For in fact-—strict law and 
 judgment apart—Christ's work of redemp¬ 
 tion and God's act of justification founded 
 upon it, so far from indicating grace, imply 
 something lil^e the opposite of grace. Strict 
 law and judgment apart,—no reason can 
 possibly be given for the interposition of 
 the Son being required, with such suffer¬ 
 ings as it entailed on him, and for the 
 Father's forgiveness being based on that 
 interposition, vdiich does not derogate from 
 grace—which does not, in fact, impart to 
 the whole transaction an ungracious aspect 
 —as if God personally needed to be con¬ 
 ciliated and appeased. It is only by ad¬ 
 hering strictly to the legal and judicial 
 character of the transaction—by viewing 
 
 n 
 
242 LECTURE V. 
 
 it as properly and literally forensic, both 
 as regards God's treatment of Christ for 
 ns and as regards his treatment of us in 
 Christ—that we can see and appreciate 
 the grace that there is in our justification. 
 Then, indeed, grace shines forth in it con¬ 
 spicuously—grace providing the substi¬ 
 tute ; grace accepting the substitute ; grace 
 making us one with the substitute; grace 
 receiving us and dealing with us as one 
 with the substitute. Thus, to conserve its 
 gracious character, it is indispensably ne¬ 
 cessary to hold firm and fast the forensic 
 character of justification. 
 
 All the more, however, on that very 
 account, it seems desirable to extricate 
 adoption out of its entanglement with jus¬ 
 tification, and to recognise it as having a 
 place and character of its own in God's 
 manner of dealing with us ; a place and 
 character not in any proper sense forensic 
 at all. No doubt the term adoption may be 
 suggestive of legal procedure;—it is a term 
 which occurs in law-books. In countries 
 where the practice prevails it is commonly 
 regulated by statute. It was so of old in 
 the Roman commonwealth and empire; 
 and it is probably the Roman usage that 
 
LECTURE V. 
 
 243 
 
 the New Testament writers have in view on 
 the rare occasions—for they are compara¬ 
 tively rare—on which they thus designate 
 the Christian sonship. Where adoption 
 is allowed to affect civil and patrimonial 
 rights, as it was held to do under the go¬ 
 vernment of Rome, the parties must neces¬ 
 sarily be required to appear before the 
 judge, in order to have the transaction duly 
 attested and recorded. I suppose that even 
 in our own country, where this practice is 
 not so expressly and formally recognised in 
 law as it was at Rome, if I wished to adopt a 
 strange child, to the effect of investing him 
 with a legal right to maintenance and to 
 the succession as my child, I would be 
 obliged to go through some legal form. Let 
 it be observed, however, that there is the 
 widest diflterence between that and a purely 
 forensic procedure. The case is not sub¬ 
 mitted to a tribunal for decision, but only 
 for ascertainment and registration. No 
 judicial sentence is asked for, or is compe¬ 
 tent. The adoption itself is altogether 
 extrajudicial; as much so as is the con¬ 
 tracting of marriage; though in both cases 
 it may belong to the judge or magistrate 
 to require that he shall be satisfied as to 
 
244 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 
 the good order of what is done, and the 
 good faith of the parties doing it. 
 
 ^ I think it is of as much consequence to 
 maintain the thoroughly unforensic cha¬ 
 racter of God^s act in adopting, as it is to 
 maintain the strictly forensic character of 
 his act in justifying. All is legal and judi¬ 
 cial in the latter act; if it were not so, 
 there would be no grace in it at all. No¬ 
 thing is legal or judicial in the other; if 
 there were anything of that sort in it, all 
 its grace would be gone. I look upon God 
 as in adoption giving full and unrestrained 
 vent to the pure fatherly love which he has 
 for his own dear Son ; pouring it out upon 
 him so lavishly that it overflows upon all 
 that are his. There is nothing in his father¬ 
 hood or in his fatherly treatment of his 
 Son that savours of the legal, the judicial, 
 the forensic. There was once needed a very 
 short and sharp dealing of that sort, on the 
 Father’s part, with the Son of his love, when 
 he stood in our stead, as not only a subject 
 but a criminal. That, however, is all over 
 now. As criminal for our crime he has 
 paid the penalty;—as subject on our behalf 
 he has fulfilled the righteousness. No out¬ 
 standing claim of justice can ever arrest 
 
LECTURE V. 
 
 245 
 
 the flow of his Father’s fatherly love. Nor 
 does it flow by any legal rule^ or under any 
 legal restriction or condition. It is simply 
 fatherly love. And it is that very love of 
 which our adoption, following upon our jus¬ 
 tification and associated with our regene- 
 i-ation, makes us, as his brethren, partakers. 
 
 There are, I think, two practical advan¬ 
 tages connected with our keeping clear the 
 distinction on which I have been insisting, 
 between the forensic character of God’s act 
 in justifying us, and the unforensic charac¬ 
 ter of his act in adopting us, and his treat¬ 
 ment of us consequent upon that act. To 
 
 tt _ 
 
 these I shall very briefly advert before I 
 close the present lecture. 
 
 1. In the matter of our justification, we 
 are accustomed to be very scrupulous in ex¬ 
 cluding everything on our part except faith 
 alone. And it is carefully explained that 
 faith is admitted as the means of our being 
 justified, not because it has any merit, or 
 virtue, or goodness in itself,—nor because it 
 is the source of goodness, since it '' worketh 
 by love,”—but only because it is the hand 
 that accepts the benefit;—or rather be¬ 
 cause it is the heart that embraces him in 
 
246 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 
 whom the benefit resides. It unites us to 
 Christ. In the matter of our adoption, 
 again, it is the very circumstance of its 
 '' working by love'' that fits faith for being 
 the appropriate organ or instrument. In 
 fact, one might almost put it thus—that love 
 occupies somewhat of the same place with 
 reference to adoption or sonship which faith 
 occupies with reference to justification. It 
 is in the exercise of mere and simple faith 
 that we apprehend and realise our accept¬ 
 ance as righteous in the sight of God. It 
 is in the exercise of faith working by love, 
 or of the love by which faith works, that we 
 apprehend and realise our loving fellowship 
 with our heavenly Father as his sons. 
 
 This may be partly what the Lord means 
 by these remarkable words, '' At that day, 
 ye shall ask in my name : and I say not 
 that I will pray the Father for you ; for the 
 Father himself loveth you, because ye have 
 loved me, and have believed that I came 
 out from God'"’—(John xvi. 26, 27). The 
 elder brother, having presented himself and 
 those whom '' he is not ashamed to call his 
 brethren,'' to their common father, saying— 
 ''Behold, I and the little ones whom thou 
 hast given me,"—steps for a moment aside. 
 
LECTURE V. 
 
 247 
 
 He declines to be a mere negotiator between 
 his Father and the younger members of the 
 family, as if there were still some distance 
 or reserve. He insists on their using their 
 full privilege of sonship, and making full 
 proof of their Father’s heart; tasting and 
 seeing how he loves them for the love they 
 bear to the Son ; the love which, in a sense, 
 constitutes them sons themselves. 
 
 I am inclined to think that this view 
 which I am attempting to explain of son- 
 ship, as not a part of justification, nor a 
 mere corollary from it, but a distinct and 
 separate benefit,—differently conferred, at 
 least in some respects, and differently ap¬ 
 prehended and realised,—will be found to 
 be of some practical importance. There is 
 unquestionably, in certain quarters, a feel¬ 
 ing of distaste and dislike apt to arise when 
 God is represented as on the one hand deal¬ 
 ing judicially with Christ standing in the 
 room of his people, and then, on the other 
 hand, dealing judicially with them in vir¬ 
 tue of their being one with him by faith. 
 The whole transaction, in both its parts, 
 in requiring from the surety satisfaction to 
 law and justice and in giving us the benefit 
 of that satisfaction, appears to some to wear 
 
248 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 
 a harsh, teohnical, and legal aspect; a sort 
 Oi" cold, business-like, court-of-justice air, 
 which they cannot relish. It is not diffi¬ 
 cult to show that this is a prejudice, occa¬ 
 sioned,—either by the rude and coarse way 
 in which the doctrine is sometimes handled 
 by unwise advocates and expounders of it, 
 —or, which is the far more common case, 
 by some gross caricature of it which the 
 parties choose to draw or paint for them¬ 
 selves. At the same time,—if that is the 
 only mode of God's dealing with Christ, and 
 with those whom Christ answers for in the 
 judgment, which is prominently brought 
 forward and insisted upon,—there may un¬ 
 doubtedly be some risk of its degenerating 
 into barren and dogmatic orthodoxy. It 
 would be a curious and interesting specu¬ 
 lation to inquire whether we may not thus, 
 to some extent at least, account for the 
 lapse of the theology of the Reformation in 
 the schools and colleges of the continent, 
 as well as among ourselves, first into rigid 
 and frigid scholastic systematising, and 
 then into rationalism. At all events, I am 
 persuaded that we have a strong safe¬ 
 guard against any such danger, if we do 
 full justice to the common sonship of Christ 
 
LECTURE V. 
 
 249 
 
 and of Christ’s disciples ;—erecting it into 
 a distinct and separate article of belief, 
 and giving it a well-defined place of its 
 own, ‘'with ample room and verge enough,” 
 among the truths of the Christian creed 
 and the elements of Christian experience. 
 
 “ Beloved, now are we the sons of God.” 
 Let that be fully taught. 
 
 2. My second observation is very much 
 the converse of the former. The manner 
 of treating this whole subject for which I 
 have been pleading, seems to me well fitted 
 to erect a barrier against all Antinomian 
 and Neonomian tendencies. The mixing 
 up, in any way or in any measure, of God’s 
 dealing with us as sons in our adoption 
 and his dealing with us as subjects in our 
 forgiveness and acceptance, is apt to open 
 the door for the notion, either of law, old 
 strict law, being superseded, or of its being 
 somehow modified. The idea of some sort 
 of compromise between the paternal and 
 the judicial in God’s treatment of us, very 
 readily suggests itself And believers, once 
 justified by faith, are either held to have 
 nothing to do with law at all, it being 
 their privilege to act, not from a sense of 
 legal obligation, but from the spontaneous 
 
250 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 
 prompting of affection; or else they are 
 held to be under some mysterious new 
 form or fashion of law, partaking too often 
 not a little of the character of license. 
 There will be little room for such imagina¬ 
 tions, if the right balance and adjustment 
 between our justification as subjects and 
 our adoption as sons is maintained. For I 
 need scarcely say that though they are to be 
 distinguished, these two are not to be dis¬ 
 joined. We are not to conceive of them as 
 successive states ; as if our state as justified 
 subjects coming first, gave place to our 
 state as adopted sons following after. They 
 are simultaneous states, to be realised con¬ 
 tinually as such. Love reigns in both. Love 
 delighting in the holy and good law of the 
 Ruler reigns in the one ; in the other, love 
 rejoicing in the endearments of the Father. 
 It is the very love which moved the Ruler's 
 righteous servant, the Father’s beloved Son, 
 to say, ''I delight to do thy will, O my 
 God; yea, thy law is within my heart 
 '' My meat is to do the will of him that sent 
 me, and to finish his work;" “I must be 
 about my Father's business;" ''The cup 
 which my Father giveth me, shall I not 
 drink it 
 
LECTURE V. 
 
 251 
 
 NOTE TO LECTURE FIFTH. 
 
 Note A. (Page 235.) 
 
 The full exegesis of this passage in the first E23istle of 
 John would confirm the argument which I have urged. 
 But it is connected intimately with the exposition of the 
 entire Epistle. And in the view of my being able, as I 
 hojje, to give to the public shortly the complete series of 
 discourses on the Epistle which I have all hut ready for the 
 press, I abstain in the meantime from minute criticism or 
 interpretation. I would simply explain that I follow the 
 best recent expositors in reading the second verse of the 
 third chapter as having reference to God the Father, and 
 not, as it is very generally understood, to Christ the Son. 
 The grammatical construction seems to me conclusive in 
 favour of the verse running thus : “ Beloved, now are we 
 the Sons of God; and it doth not yet appear what we 
 shall be; but we know that when that shall appear,” 
 —namely what we are to be—“ we shall be like him,”— 
 like God the Father—^“for we shall see him”—God the 
 Father—“ as he is.” So construed, the verse leads on to 
 our identification with Christ in the verse that follows, 
 where a different pronoun is used (Ixtmi, not ahrog), “ Every 
 one that hath this hope in him purifieth himself even as he” 
 —the Son—“ is pure.” The hope is, that we shall see the 
 Father as he is ;—that is, we shall see him as the Son 
 sees him. And this hope is a motive to us to be pure as 
 the Son is pime ;—according to the word of the Son himself 
 
252 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 
 on which this word of his beloved disciple is the best com¬ 
 mentary, “ Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see 
 God” (Mat. V. 8). But is this purity attainable ?—purity 
 in us, such as can be identified with the purity of the Son ? 
 Surely. But how ? By a process or work of real filiation ; 
 making u.s, not merely in respect of outward privilege, but 
 in respect of inward and spiritual nature, sons of God ; 
 according to what is said in the ninth verse, “ Whosoever is 
 born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed”—the seed 
 of God—“ remaineth in him : and he cannot sin, because 
 he is born of God.” 
 
 Waiving for the present the difficulty of admitting the 
 regenerate to be incapable of sinning—this strong statement 
 certainly implies that the seed or germ of an impeccable 
 nature is communicated and implanted in regeneration. 
 And it implies, moreover, that it is the divine germ of a 
 divine life. However incomprehensible it may be to the 
 mere natural intellect, I cannot but think that the spiritual 
 man must recognise, at least in some measure, in his own 
 experience as well as in this teaching of John, a newborn 
 principle in him wliich makes purity such as the Son’s,— 
 that is sinless and impeccable purity,—possible, realis¬ 
 able,—a thing to be aimed at and attained. If so, this 
 constitutes a wonderful identity between his Sonship and 
 theirs. It explains the oneness assumed throughout in the 
 Lord’s farewell pra 3 '^er (John xvii). That prayer, as I con¬ 
 ceive of it, makes us, as his disciples, thoroughly one with 
 him. Bor as he joined himself with us, in the lowest depth 
 of our subjectship, so also in that prayer he joins us with 
 himself in the highest elevation and blessedness of his 
 sonship. 
 
LECTURE ^IXTH. 
 
 THE PRIVILEGES AND OBLIGATIONS OF 
 
 SONSHIP. 
 
 Now are we the sons of God—1 John hi. 2. 
 
 The relation of fatherhood and sonship, 
 if it is what I have ventured to repre¬ 
 sent it as being, must involve in it pri¬ 
 vileges and obligations of a definite and 
 distinctive character. For it is in itself a 
 definite and distinctive relation. It is some¬ 
 thing more than the mere infusion of a cer¬ 
 tain measure of fatherly feeling, such as pre¬ 
 vails in the homes of earth, into the ordinary 
 moral administration of God ; to the effect 
 of tempering the rigid and exact severity 
 of strict justice and qualifying judgment 
 with mercy. It is something different, also, 
 from the kindly and fatherly sort of feeling 
 with which God, as ruler, may be supposed 
 to regard his once rebellious subjects when 
 they are returuing to their allegiance. If 
 
254 
 
 LECTURE VI. 
 
 either of these accounts is held to exhaust 
 the idea of God's fatherhood, its practical 
 bearing on our happiness and duty can be 
 only very vaguely felt and described. A 
 general notion or impression of benignant 
 graciousness on God's part, calling for 
 gratitude on our part, is nearly all that can 
 be made of it, or got out of it. 
 
 It is true that, as regards its actings 
 and manifestations, this general notion or 
 impression of graciousness may be broken 
 up, as it were, into details. The analogy of 
 the human family may suggest a variety 
 of particular instances. The subject is often 
 treated in this way. God is represented 
 as discharging many different offices to- 
 Avards his people, all of them indicative 
 and expressive of an affection like that of 
 a parent—such as putting upon them his 
 name ; giving them access always to his 
 throne ; pitying, protecting, and providing 
 for them ; chastening and correcting them; 
 keeping them safe till they reach heaven 
 at last. But to a large extent, these may 
 be all classed as benignant offices of govern¬ 
 ment,—and of government merely. 
 
 They all, however, stand out in a new 
 light, and become far more clear, specific, 
 
LECTURE VL 
 
 255 
 
 and well-defined, when they are viewed in 
 connection with the true and proper father¬ 
 hood of God, as distinguished from what I 
 may perhaps be allowed to call the analo¬ 
 gical. The more the special and peculiar 
 nature of that relation is recognised, the 
 more will these and other similar dealings 
 of God be seen to be special and peculiar 
 also. And if there should turn out to be 
 any one speciality in particular—any one 
 peculiarity—attaching to the position of 
 sonship in the creature, as constituted by 
 participation in the sonship of the un¬ 
 created,—then that peculiarity may be 
 expected to give its tone and complexion 
 to the whole practical development and 
 working out of the relation, both on God’s 
 part and on ours. I cannot help thinking 
 that there is such a guiding principle to 
 be found, if rightly sought for, in Scripture. 
 
 Here I must once more refer, in the 
 outset of my search, to the holy angels, 
 whom I think we ought to look upon as 
 our brethren in our sonshijD. 
 
 Let us attempt to realise the situation 
 of those who stood the test, and their state 
 of mind, when their companions sinned and 
 
256 
 
 LECTURE VI. 
 
 fell. What a shock to them ! They maj^ 
 almost be moved to exclaim : '' If the 
 foundations be destroyed, what can the 
 righteous do V’ (Ps. xi. 3). What a shud¬ 
 dering sense of insecurity, what a thrill of 
 fear, may pass along the ranks and agitate 
 the bosoms of the faithful, in the view of 
 infidelity on the part of their comrades, so 
 utterly unaccountable. 
 
 They are indeed themselves still stand¬ 
 ing, through grace, in their integrity. But 
 how many who seeftied as steadfast and 
 strong as they have miserably fallen ! And 
 they have fallen, too, without a cause ; 
 there has been no temptation from with¬ 
 out, nor any previous corrupt tendency 
 within. And there is nothing in the order 
 issued from the throne that should have 
 awakened in reasonable minds and loving 
 hearts suspicion or resentment. If it was 
 a demand upon them for homage to the 
 Son, surely that was a most honourable 
 service. But, as it would seem, they insist 
 on having liberty, in the sense of absolute 
 independence. In the mere relation itself 
 of subjectship, necessarily implied in their 
 state as creatures, they find a certain ele¬ 
 ment or source of irksomeness. And when 
 
LECTURE VI. 
 
 257 
 
 the sense of their being necessarily, simply 
 as creatures, subjects and ''servants under 
 the yoke,'' is powerfully and pointedly borne 
 in U 2 )on their consciousness, by the asser¬ 
 tion of sovereign authority, in the form of 
 an express, positive, and peremptory com¬ 
 mandment, no matter how righteous and 
 even gracious the commandment may be;— 
 how righteous in its ground or root of 
 equity, how gracious in its loving tendency 
 towards a better state;—they cannot en¬ 
 dure the idea of being thus ruled. In 
 the absence alike of outward solicitation 
 and of inward covetousness or desire, it is 
 not easy to conceive of the trial or tempta¬ 
 tion which proved fatal to the lost angels, 
 as having been different in its principle, 
 working, and effect, from the line of thought 
 and feeling which I venture hypothetically 
 to trace. 
 
 But if so, what a discovery breaks upon 
 the unfallen ! Is it not, in fact, the dis¬ 
 covery of an element of instability inherent 
 in the very constitution and essential 
 nature of the relation of subjectship itself? 
 It is not an incidental fault or failure in 
 the working out of that relation ;—such as 
 
 might be.remedied for the present by proper 
 
 s 
 
258 
 
 LECTURE VI. 
 
 appliances, and prevented for the future by 
 proper precautions. Does it not rather in¬ 
 dicate a radical vice, or source of weakness, 
 in the relation itself?* 
 
 For what guarantee, let us ask,—put¬ 
 ting ourselves in their place,—could the 
 obedient angels have,—after witnessing the 
 fall of so many of their companions,— 
 what guarantee could they feel themselves 
 to have,—against their own^ fall, as at least 
 a possible, and even not very unlikely con¬ 
 tingency ? No doubt they have stood one 
 trial. They have obeyed, by God's gracious 
 help, as they freely own, in the instance of 
 this one commandment. But who can tell ? 
 Other commandments may be issued from 
 the throne ; commandments that may be 
 felt to be more grievous. The very neces¬ 
 sity now imposed upon them of disomiing, 
 —perhaps judging,—so many of their race 
 whom till now they had counted brothers,— 
 may well be supposed to awaken appre¬ 
 hension. May not the sternest loyalty give 
 way ? May not the infection, if not of 
 insubordination, yet at least of j)ity for 
 the victims of insubordination, grow and 
 
 * See Appendix 1. 
 
LECTURE VI. 
 
 259 
 
 spread ? Thus these pure spirits may well, 
 in these circumstances, begin to apprehend 
 that it is only too natural for the creature, 
 as such, to feel the subjection to authority 
 and the obligation of obedience to law, im¬ 
 plied in his being a creature, to be irksome 
 and vexatious ; that the yoke of mere sub- 
 jectship is, from its very nature, apt to be¬ 
 come galling ; that, apart altogether from 
 the character and condition of those who 
 are under it, if that is their only standing, 
 it has in itself a tendency to call forth in’ 
 them, be their character ever so pure and 
 their condition ever so good, a disposition 
 to cast it off and to aspire to the liberty of 
 independence. The holy angels have seen 
 all this only too clearly and too terribly 
 proved and exemplified before their eyes. 
 How, after this, can they reckon their own 
 footing, as subjects, to be quite safe ? 
 
 Eor my part, I cannot imagine any way 
 in which the standing or position of a 
 creature—considered simply as a subject 
 under the government of God—when God 
 is viewed simply as Creator, Lawgiver, and 
 Judge—ever can become absolutely and 
 infallibly safe. Of course God is able to 
 keep any one occupying that standing or 
 
260 
 
 LECTURE VI. 
 
 position, and no other, in perfect and in¬ 
 violable security for ever. He can so keep 
 any one anywhere and always. But the 
 standing or position itself may be pre¬ 
 carious nevertheless. It is, as I think, a 
 necessity of its very nature to be so. Evi¬ 
 dently it was so originally. TJie fall of 
 the untempted angels, as well as that of 
 tempted man, proves it to have been so. 
 Nor, as regards the unfallen, is there any¬ 
 thing in the mere fact of their having on 
 one occasion stood some test of their obedi¬ 
 ence, and received some gracious acknow¬ 
 ledgment for doing so, that can of itself 
 suffice to make it different, in this respect, 
 from what it was before. 
 
 But it is impossible to reconcile our¬ 
 selves to the idea of these holy intelligences 
 being left,—after the issue of that trial 
 which had proved so disastrous to their 
 fellows, and out of which they might well 
 feel that they had made a narrow escape 
 themselves,—on the same footing merely on 
 which they had previously been. “ God is 
 not unrighteous to forget their work and 
 labour of love,'' in that they have heard 
 his voice, and at his command '' wor¬ 
 shipped," shall I say ? '' the first begotten." 
 
LECTURE VI. 
 
 26i 
 
 In the sin of their former associates they 
 liave now come, in a sense, to know evil 
 as well as good. And this very knowledge, 
 marring the unconscious confidence of inno¬ 
 cent and blissful ignorance, must tend to 
 awaken misgivings in their minds, and 
 make them feel their footing insecure. In 
 short, it would seem that they cannot be 
 allowed to stand where they were. If they 
 are to be protected from the risk and the 
 fear of falling, they must be raised. And 
 so, according to my view, they are. They 
 receive the adoption of sons ; and that 
 ensures their safety. They are no longer 
 servants only, but also sons. Having been 
 tried, they are now trusted. Having dis¬ 
 owned the servile spirit of insubordination, 
 they receive the Spirit of the Son. Having 
 refused to aspire to a lawless liberty of 
 independence, they are—and it is a meet 
 recompense of reward'^—put in possession 
 of the glorious liberty of the children of 
 God'' (Rom. viii. 21). 
 
 This, as it seems to me, is the peculiar 
 benefit of sonship ; this is its great radical, 
 distinctive, characteristic property. It puts 
 an end conclusively to probation, in every 
 
262 
 
 LECTURE VL 
 
 sense and in every form. It secures per¬ 
 manence of position in the household or 
 family of God. 
 
 But it is only when it is held to be 
 of the same sort with that of Christ that 
 sonship can be shown to involve this con¬ 
 sequence. If we take the merely ana¬ 
 logical view of the relation of fatherhood 
 and sonship between God and his children, 
 —conceiving of it simply according to the 
 similitude of fatherhood and sonship among 
 ourselves,—we cannot see in it any element 
 of absolute and inviolable security. A son's 
 standing in his earthly parent's house is 
 not absolutely and inviolably secure. He 
 may go out, or he may be thrust out. It is 
 true he is not, strictly speaking, upon trial; 
 the right to be at home with his father is 
 not, in the ordinary sense of the term, con¬ 
 ditional. Still it may be forfeited, or it 
 may be despised and practically renounced. 
 He may be tempted and may fall, and that 
 too even irrecoverably. If our standing as 
 sons in the divine household is imagined 
 to be at the very best simply like my son's 
 standing in mine, it is not divested of the 
 condition of precariousness. There may be 
 
LECTURE VL 
 
 263 
 
 more safeguards in the one case than in the 
 other. God is able to take more care of 
 his children than I can take of mine. 
 That, however, is only a difference of de¬ 
 gree. Some insecurity, be ♦it more or less, 
 still attaches to the relation. And if those 
 called to be sons, in the sense now sup¬ 
 posed to be put upon sonship, have seen 
 others as good and strong as themselves 
 fall,—or if they have themselves fallen and 
 been with difficulty recovered,^! can see no 
 reason why, even in the bosom of the holy, 
 heavenly home, they may not be occasion¬ 
 ally, or rather constantly, haunted by the 
 apprehension that possibly after all they 
 may be cast away. 
 
 I do not forget here the bearing upon 
 the point now under consideration of the 
 doctrine of free justification. I am quite 
 aware that, apart from sonship altogether, 
 God’s act of free grace in justifying those 
 who believe is held to carry with it, as a 
 consequence, involved in its very nature, 
 the inviolable security of the justified. I 
 fully allow, or rather decidedly assert, that 
 by the purpose of God, expressed in his 
 promises, it does so. Nay more, it must be 
 admitted, that in the justified state itself 
 
264 
 
 LECTURE VI. 
 
 there is that which puts the servant of God 
 in highly favourable circumstances for 
 maintaining his integrity. Holding justi¬ 
 fication to be perfectly unconditional, so 
 far as we are ccfeicerned,—all of grace and 
 not of works,—I can see how it does place 
 us, in some respects, in a far better position 
 than that which Adam occupied before he 
 fell. We are not merely put again upon 
 trial and probation; permitted as it were 
 to have another chance,—to venture on a 
 second experiment,—to make a new at¬ 
 tempt to establish a righteousness of our 
 own. We have always the righteousness 
 of Christ on which we may stand as giving 
 us a title, not inchoate merely, but com¬ 
 plete, to acceptance in the sight of God. 
 Unquestionably, therefore, we start upon 
 our new course of obedience, as his subjects 
 and servants, at a great advantage. We 
 have not, like Adam, to make good for 
 ourselves our standing as God’s righteous 
 subjects and servants, but only to preserve 
 it as freely given to us by God. We have 
 not to work our way to that standing, but 
 only to hold it fast. 
 
 Still we have to preserve it and hold it 
 fast. And there is nothing in it or about 
 
LECTURE VI. 
 
 265 
 
 it, considered simply in itself, to secure in¬ 
 fallibly that we shall preserve it and hold 
 it fast. No doubt, as I have already said, 
 God is able to secure this, and is graciously 
 pledged to secure it. But for anything that 
 appears to the contrary, his way of securing 
 it may be just through our receiving the 
 very adoption of sons for which I plead. 
 For let the relation in which we stand to 
 God as subjects and servants be taken at 
 its very best, as it subsists in the case of 
 justified believers;—and that is its very 
 best;—I still desiderate in it the element 
 or condition of absolute inviolability. 
 
 I consider that our Lord has really 
 settled this whole matter in one remarkable 
 passage which, as I take it, is the divine 
 key to unlock the mystery of God's father¬ 
 hood and his people's sonship. It is this ; 
 
 The servant abideth not in the house for 
 ever ; but the son abideth ever. If the son 
 therefore shall make you free, ye shall be 
 free indeed" (John viii. 35, 36). 
 
 The Lord is here arguing with ''those 
 Jews which believed on him," about liberty. 
 He has given them the promise that " if 
 they continue in his word," and so prove 
 
LECTURE VL 
 
 266 
 
 themselves to be his genuine disciples, they 
 shall '' know the truth, and the truth shall 
 make them free'' (ver. 31, 32). Then they 
 are not now free. They feel that the Lord's 
 promise implies as much. He regards them 
 as now in bondage; an imputation which 
 they somewhat indignantly disclaim. They 
 disclaim it as being inconsistent with their 
 being ''Abraham's seed" (ver. 33). For 
 they quite well understand that Christ is 
 not speaking of civil or political liberty, or 
 even of what is commonly called religious 
 liberty. The question raised, as they 
 clearly enough perceive, respects, not their 
 position with reference to men at all, but 
 their standing before God, in his house or 
 family,—which of course they counted their 
 own church and nation to be. In our re¬ 
 lation to God, as being members of his 
 household, are we not already free ? Is not 
 our footing in that relation a footing not 
 of bondage but of freedom ? 
 
 Our Lord meets them first with an 
 appeal to their own consciences : "Verily, 
 verily, I say unto you. Whosoever commit- 
 teth sin is the servant of sin" (ver. 34). 
 You can scarcely deny that you commit 
 sin ; that you do more or less consent and 
 
LECTURE VL• 
 
 267 
 
 yield yourselves to sin. So far, you serve sin. 
 It has dominion over you. You said you 
 never were in bondage ; never had a master. 
 But has not sin some mastery over you ? 
 Tlien you are not free ; free, as you boast, 
 to serve God only; free to dwell in his 
 house for ever. You may be in God's house. 
 But if so, it is not as being free in your 
 relation to him. For that you cannot be, 
 while, committing sin, you are the servants 
 of sin. Your position in the house can be 
 only that of a servant; whose position at 
 the very best is precarious and insecure ;— 
 '' for the servant abideth not in the house 
 for ever." As a servant, he has no right to 
 such a privilege ; nor indeed has he any 
 capacity for realising it. He is distracted 
 between the claim upon him for undivided 
 allegiance on the one hand, and his incli¬ 
 nation towards compromise on the other. 
 He can only be God's servant partially; 
 having still a hankering after independ¬ 
 ence and self-will, which is the service of sin. 
 Therefore '' the servant abideth not in the 
 house for ever." He cannot be sure of thus 
 abiding, so long as he is a servant merely. 
 '' But the son abideth ever" (ver. 35). I 
 as the Son am free;—so they must have 
 
268 
 
 LECTURE VL 
 
 understood his words, for they could not 
 doubt that he was speaking of himself;— 
 I as the Son am free, and as the Son '' I 
 abide in the house for ever.” Would you 
 have true freedom ? Enter into the free¬ 
 dom which I have as the Son. '' For if the 
 Son shall make you free ye shall be free 
 indeed” (ver. 36). 
 
 Clearly, as I apprehend his words, the 
 Lord intends, in this divine reasoning, to 
 represent his own sonship, and that alone, 
 as absolutely ensuring permanence of posi¬ 
 tion in the house or family of his Father. 
 And just as clearly, to my mind, he indi¬ 
 cates his willingness to share that sonship, 
 and that feature or quality of it, with us. 
 
 In this view, the connection is not a 
 little remarkable which he virtually esta¬ 
 blishes between our participation in his 
 sonship on the one hand, and on the other 
 hand, our freedom from the risk or hazard 
 of '' committing sin,” so as to forfeit the 
 certainty of our abiding in the house for 
 ever. For I cannot help thinking that the 
 Lord has here in his mind that servile ten¬ 
 dency which, as I have already said, I hold 
 to be inherent in mere subjectship, if it be 
 not joined to sonship such as his;—the 
 
LECTURE VI. 
 
 269 
 
 tendency, I mean, which must ever make 
 the committing of sin, even to the extent 
 of the subject and servant losing his place 
 in the house, conceivable as at least a 
 possible contingency. He seems to say 
 first, that committing sin'^ is incompa¬ 
 tible with our being free in the house—free, 
 in the sense of being sure of abiding in it 
 for ever. And then he seems to say also 
 secondly, that if we are '^servants'' only in 
 the house, and nothing more, we are not, 
 as servants, inviolably safe from commit¬ 
 ting sin.'' Accordingly he assigns this as 
 the reason whv we cannot, as servants 
 merely, be absolutely sure of abiding in 
 the house for ever. In order to that, we 
 must become partakers with him in his 
 sonship, and in the freedom which as the 
 Son he has. If the Son shall make you 
 free, ye shall be free indeed." 
 
 If I am right in this last idea, it may 
 suggest a close harmony between our Lord's 
 teaching in this passage and what, as we 
 have seen, John says in his First Epistle 
 about those who, being born of God," are 
 '' called sons of God," having his seed 
 remaining in them," as the germ of an 
 
270 
 
 LECTURE VL 
 
 absolutely impeccable nature or life—a 
 nature or life incapable of sin (1 John hi. 
 G-9).* For now we may see how,—both 
 in resjDect of its implying community of 
 nature, and in respect of its implying com¬ 
 munity of relation, with Christ the Son,— 
 our sonship, securing our indefectibility 
 by excluding the very possibility of sin¬ 
 ning, thereby makes our abiding ever in 
 the house absolutely certain. Of course, 
 as regards our sense, or assurance, or ap¬ 
 prehension of this certainty,—that can be 
 realised only in so far as the sonship on 
 which it depends is, in all its fulness of 
 holiness and grace, itself realised. But in 
 so far as it is, the assurance Avhich it war¬ 
 rants is entirely trusUvorthy. In fact, it 
 is the only assurance any one need desire. 
 '' The Son abideth ever.'' 
 
 An attentive study of those two wonder¬ 
 ful chapters in Paul's Epistle to the Ro¬ 
 mans—the seventh and eighth—Avould, I 
 am persuaded, not a little confirm the re¬ 
 presentation which I have been giving of 
 John's doctrine, and of the Lord's. 
 
 * See this text discussed in preceding Lecture, and relative 
 
 Note. 
 
LECTURE VI. 
 
 271 
 
 If we trace the progress of that experi¬ 
 mental exposition; in which, emerging out 
 of the depths of an apparently hopeless 
 struggle between his renewed will and the 
 power of indwelling corruption—a struggle 
 in which he feels himself all but over¬ 
 mastered by evil, as if in spite of himself 
 he could not help '' committing sin'' and so 
 being ''the servant of sin"—Paul rises by 
 successive steps to the highest climax of 
 assured triumph and holy joy ; it is worthy 
 of remark that it is mainly through the 
 apprehension of sonship that he reaches 
 that elevation. 
 
 Deliverance from condemnation, of 
 course, comes first (viii. 1-11). That is 
 fully brought out, so as to do ample justice 
 to the free grace of God in justifying " him 
 which believeth in J esus." But the apostle 
 passes on and up to the position or plat¬ 
 form of sonship. And, I think it especially 
 deserving of notice that he very emphati¬ 
 cally connects the realisation of our sonship, 
 —or our receiving the Spirit of adoption 
 to enable us to realise it,—with our mor¬ 
 tifying the deeds of the body ;—" Therefore, 
 brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, 
 to live after the flesh. For if ye live after 
 
272 
 
 LECTURE VL 
 
 the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through 
 the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, 
 ye shall live. For as many as are led by 
 the Spirit of God, they are the sons of 
 God. For ye have not received the spirit 
 of bondage again to fear ; but ye have 
 received the Spirit of adoption, whereby 
 we cry, Abba, Father.'' 
 
 '' If ye mortify the deeds of the body." 
 —It is the very body of which he had 
 so sadly complained a little before, 
 wretched man that I am, who shall deliver 
 me from the body of this death?"—it is 
 that body of which he now speaks hope¬ 
 fully ;—If ye through the Spirit do mor¬ 
 tify the deeds of the body, ye shall live." 
 And why? ''As many as are led by the 
 Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." 
 
 What can this mean but that it is the 
 fact of our becoming " the sons of God,"— 
 and as such "receiving, not the spirit of 
 bondage again to fear, but the spirit of 
 adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father"— 
 that turns, as it were, the tide of battle in 
 the strife between us and the evil that is 
 in us ? " The Spirit beareth witness with 
 
 our spirit that we are the sons of God;" 
 and so gives us, in virtue of God being 
 
LECTURE VI. 
 
 273 
 
 our Father and "'his seed'' remaining in 
 us, the capacity, in a sense and measure, of 
 being sinless,—or of feeling that " we can¬ 
 not sin because we are born of God." Con¬ 
 tinuing servants merely, we could never be 
 quite sure of our standing firm and being 
 successful in striving with the flesh. But 
 now that we are sons, so far as we realise 
 our sonship, we " mortify the deeds of 
 the body;"—for, as John puts the same 
 thought in other words, " whosoever is 
 born of God doth not commit sin." 
 
 Is not Paul's practical appeal in this 
 passage to the sonship, as the secret of 
 the believer's victory over indwelling sin, 
 proved thus to be in harmony with the 
 Lord's representation, as I have been try¬ 
 ing to explain it ? And is it not very 
 much equivalent to what John says in his 
 Epistle : " Whatsoever is born of God over- 
 cometh the world; and this is the victory 
 that overcometh the world, even our faith. 
 Who is he that overcometh the world but 
 he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of 
 God?" (iv. 5). He so believes as to par¬ 
 take with the Son of God in his sonship. 
 
 But Paul has not done with the son- 
 
 T 
 
274 
 
 LECTURE VI. 
 
 ship when he represents our realising it, 
 by receiving the Spirit of adoption, as that 
 grace or experience by which we mortify 
 the deeds of the body,'' and '' overcome the 
 world." He fills his own mind, and ours, 
 with large expectations of future blessed¬ 
 ness and joy, connected with the sense of 
 this sonship, attested by our own conscience 
 and the Spirit's powerful co-operation. He 
 brings in all creation as waiting anxiously 
 for these expectations to be fulfilled (ver. 
 19-22). And having reconciled himself 
 and us to this attitude of waiting, amid 
 creation's groanings and our own, by re¬ 
 minding us of the Spirit of the Son ever 
 ''helping our infirmities" (ver. 23-27), he 
 carries us far back into the depths of the 
 past eternity, that we may see there the 
 original and everlasting ground of our secu¬ 
 rity as sons of God by adoption,—which is 
 really nothing short of the security of that 
 only begotten and well-beloved Son with 
 whom our adoption makes us one;—" We 
 know that all things work together for good 
 to them that love God, to them who are the 
 called according to his purpose;—for whom 
 he did foreknow, he also did predestinate 
 to be conformed to the image of his Son, 
 
LECTURE VL 
 
 275 
 
 that he might be the first-born among 
 many brethren ;—moreover, whom he did 
 predestinate, them he also called; and 
 w^hom he called, them he also justified; 
 and whom he j ustified, them he also 
 glorified/' Finally, he crowns the whole 
 with the bright view of God's eternal 
 purpose at last accomplished, and his Son 
 rejoicing as '"the first-born among many 
 brethren," all " conformed to his image as 
 the Son" and so glorified with him. Thus, 
 the apostle fixes, on the side, as it were, 
 of both eternities, " the sacred chain that 
 binds the earth to heaven above." Called 
 as sinners,—^justified as subjects,—glorified 
 as sons ;—so runs the climax. Whereupon 
 there breaks forth the greatest perhaps of 
 all the songs of inspiration;—beginning 
 with " What shall we then say to these 
 things ? if God be for us, who can be against 
 us ?"—and ending with the glorious chal¬ 
 lenge—"For I am persuaded, that neither 
 death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, 
 nor powers, nor things present, nor things 
 to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any 
 other creature, shall be able to separate us 
 from the love of God, which is in Christ 
 Jesus our Lord'’ (ver. 31-39). 
 
276 
 
 LECTURE VI. 
 
 This element of inviolability—'' the Son 
 abideth ever’’—is what determines the 
 whole character of the relation of father¬ 
 hood and sonship, as subsisting between 
 God and any of his subjects and servants. 
 Christ was in the position of a subject and 
 servant when he uttered the words. And 
 I can almost fancy that I see him as he 
 utters them. I think it must be with in¬ 
 tense self-consciousness that he utters them. 
 There is a falling back upon himself, and 
 his own unchanging fellowship with the 
 Father, in his utterance of them. Let 
 what may happen, '' the Son abideth ever.” 
 He instantly, indeed, dismisses all exclusive 
 thought of self, as if he stood alone. What 
 I am, I would have you to be; but what I 
 am chiefly thinking of when I say that, is 
 that ''the Son abideth ever.” It is the 
 sense of my abiding ever, as the Son, in 
 the Father’s house, that sustains me, 
 whether you continue in my words or not. 
 And it is that abiding ever in the Father’s 
 house, and the sense of it, that I long to 
 share with you; making you free, as I am 
 free : "For if the Son shall make you free, 
 vou shall be free indeed.’ 
 
 C/ 
 
LECTURE VI. 
 
 277 
 
 All through his service of humiliation 
 this thought was ever present to his heart 
 —the Son abideth ever.^"’ It was his 
 consolation, his strength, his joy. It gives 
 singular weight and force to very many 
 of his expressions with reference to what 
 the Father is to him and he is to the 
 Father; investing them, as it does, with a 
 certain strange complexion or character 
 of conscious, confident unchangeableness. 
 Hence the intense repose which, amid all 
 its strange and often terrible vicissitudes, 
 marked the life of Christ. Hence his sleep¬ 
 ing in the storm, and his quiet demefinouf 
 before Caiaphas and Pilate. He was always 
 self-possessed, because he was always con¬ 
 scious of his sonship, and of his abiding 
 ever in it. There was no need of haste; 
 no room for feverish or fitful agitation. 
 Let him be working ever so busily, let him 
 be suffering ever so acutely, Jesus is always 
 resting. “ The Son abideth ever.''* 
 
 Is not this the explanation of the calm, 
 serene, quiet peace which underlies the 
 whole troubled experience of Christ? ''The 
 Son abideth ever." He abideth ever as the 
 Son. Let him be tried, buffeted, tormented 
 
 * See Appendix IV. 
 
278 
 
 LECTUEE VI. 
 
 to the utmost; let him even have to be 
 made sin and made a curse for us; still 
 “the Son abideth ever.'’" And he can say 
 in the worst extremity, “Father, into thy 
 hands I commend my spirit;"" having said 
 just before, in the same spirit of unruffled 
 composure, “ Father, forgive them, for they 
 know not what they do."" 
 
 “ The Son abideth ever."" I believe that 
 if we study the human and earthly life of 
 Christ with that as the motto or key to it, 
 we may come to a better understanding of 
 what the relation of fatherhood and sonship 
 between God and us, if we are in his Son, 
 really is,—and ought to be apprehended by 
 us to be,—than we could do by means of the 
 most minute and articulate enumeration 
 of fatherly acts and offlces on the part of 
 God, and filial duties and responsibilities 
 on our part. I own, therefore, that I have 
 a feeling of relief in being warrantably 
 compelled to say, that I have no time or 
 space left for what I might call relational 
 details. The relation itself is manifested 
 and acted out in the history of the man 
 Christ Jesus. Let an insight into the 
 relation be got, by deep thought exercised 
 
LECTURE VL 
 
 279 
 
 upon the history. Let it be thought, how¬ 
 ever, based upon this one condition—that 
 there is in the relation a very peculiar 
 element of inviolability. 
 
 All other conceivable relations, so far 
 as I can see, may be violated. Husband 
 and wife may part. Rulers and subjects 
 may be arrayed in arms against one 
 another. Friends may disagree, and 
 brothers may fight. Parent and child on 
 earth may be mortal foes. All other con¬ 
 ceivable relations admit of fluctuation and 
 variety, according to change of circum-^ 
 stances. They are all liable to breaks and 
 interruptions; to fitful and capricious move¬ 
 ments on one side or other; to strange 
 alternations of pathos and of passion. 
 This relation alone; the relation between 
 the Eternal Father and his Incarnate Son, 
 Jesus Christ our Lord,—and in Him, so far 
 as they can realise it, between his Father 
 and their Father'' and ‘^the little ones whom 
 he is not ashamed to call his brethren 
 this relation alone is always and for ever 
 the same. From whatever may be turbu¬ 
 lent, uncertain, or uneasy, in any other 
 relation, we may take refuge at any time 
 in this one. Be the temptation that assails 
 
280 
 
 LECTURE VI. 
 
 us ever so strong ; be the affliction that 
 tries us ever so severe ; be the work we 
 have to do ever so hard, or the death we 
 have to die ever so cruel;—in the un¬ 
 changing fatherhood of God we, like his 
 Son, may have evermore quiet peace. 
 
 Is it not in this view worthy of remark 
 that it is in immediate connection with 
 one of his most intensely filial appeals to 
 the Father—that which opens with such a 
 burst of grateful love, “1 thank thee, O 
 Father,'' and closes with so sublime an 
 assertion of mutual intimacy and insight, 
 '^No man knoweth the Son but the Father, 
 neither knoweth any man the Father but 
 the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son 
 shall reveal him,"—that Jesus issues the 
 gracious invitation to the weary, and gives 
 them his gracious assurance of rest (Mat. xi. 
 25, 30) ? It is his own rest which he pro¬ 
 mises to share with them; the rest which his 
 "'meek and lowly heart" always possessed, 
 under a yoke such as never any other had 
 to take upon him, and a burden such as 
 never any other had to bear; the rest 
 which made him feel even that yoke easy 
 and that burden light. will give you 
 
LECTURE VI. 
 
 281 
 
 rest.’’" Surely, I repeat, it is his own rest 
 he means to say that he will give. It is 
 that rest in the Father’s knowledge of 
 the Son and the Son’s knowledge of the 
 Father of which he has just been speaking. 
 His own knowledge of the Father he shares 
 with them, revealing to them the Father. 
 And it is by sharing with them his own 
 knowledge of fatherly and filial love that 
 he shares with them his own rest;—the 
 rest which that knowledge must always 
 have imparted to his own soul, even when 
 it was most troubled. 
 
 Have we not here the essence of what 
 is implied, whether in the way of privilege 
 or in the way of duty, in the relation of 
 fatherhood and sonship between God and 
 us ?—First, there is rest, the Son’s own 
 rest, in the ever-present consciousness of 
 his filial fellowship with the Father. And 
 then, secondly, there is the Son’s own 
 '' meekness and lowliness of heart,” as 
 he takes upon him whatever yoke the 
 Father is pleased to lay upon his neck, 
 and bears whatever burden the Father is 
 pleased to lay upon his shoulders. For 
 so he sustains the joint character of the 
 Father’s servant and the Father’s son, in 
 
282 
 
 LECTURE VI. 
 
 which he glorifies the Father on the earth, 
 and finishes the work which the Father 
 giveth him to do'’ (John xvii. 4). 
 
 I now bring these Lectures to a close. 
 I do so with the feeling that, however 
 inadequately I have handled my great 
 theme, I have at least thrown out some 
 suggestive thoughts. I do not pretend to 
 have established any peculiar views of my 
 own. yery possibly not a few of the 
 opinions I have advanced, and the criti¬ 
 cisms by which I have supported them, 
 may be shown to be crude conjectures and 
 unwarrantable interpretations. Be it so. 
 I shall still cherish the hope that more 
 competent workmen may enter into my 
 demolished labour, and may rear a better 
 structure. For I cannot divest myself of 
 the impression that, whether I am right or 
 wrong in my notions of the Divine Father- 
 hood, the subject has not hitherto been 
 adequately treated in the Church. 
 
 In particular, I venture on a critical 
 observation touching the theology of the 
 Reformation. The subject of Adoption, or 
 the sonship of Christ's disciples, did not, 
 in that theology, as it seems to me, occupy 
 
LECTURE VL 
 
 283 
 
 the place and receive the prominency to 
 which it is, on scriptural grounds and war¬ 
 rants, entitled. It may be thought at first 
 sight presumptuous to hazard this re¬ 
 mark ; but let the explanation which I am 
 disposed to give of the fact be duly con¬ 
 sidered. The Reformers had enough to do 
 to vindicate ""the article of a standing or 
 falling Church,”—justification by faith 
 alone; to recover it out of the chaos of 
 Popish error and superstition; and to re¬ 
 assert it in its right connection with the 
 doctrine of the absolute Divine Sovereignty, 
 which Augustine had so well established. 
 Their hands were full. It need not be 
 matter of surprise that in their case, as well 
 as in that of their predecessors, the early 
 fathers, there should have been lines of 
 theological inquiry on which they scarcely 
 at all entered. 
 
 One might almost say that it has fared 
 somewhat ill with the truth, as regards 
 God's fatherhood and his people's sonship, 
 at both eras—both in the primitive Church 
 and in the Church of the Reformation. It 
 may, perhaps, in some respects, have had 
 more justice done to it at the former era 
 than at the latter; although the patristic 
 
284 
 
 LECTURE VI. 
 
 literature shows too plainly how the con> 
 troversies about the supreme divinity of 
 the Son tended to draw men's minds away 
 from the sonship of his disciples. The 
 divines of the Protestant Reformation and 
 their successors gave their main strength 
 to the questions at issue between them and 
 Rome ; of which questions this could 
 scarcely be said to be one. The creeds and 
 confessions of the Protestant and Reformed 
 Churches, as well as the theological sys¬ 
 tems of their colleges, are for the most part 
 extremely meagre and defective in what 
 they say on the subject. In some it is not 
 even noticed ; in others, it is made a part 
 of j ustification, or a mere appendix to it; 
 in none, I believe, does it receive sufficiently 
 full and distinct treatment. Hence perhaps 
 it is that the doctrine of the fatherhood has 
 been so little understood and so much 
 abused in recent days. 
 
 I have long had the impression, that in 
 the region of that great truth there lies a 
 rich field of precious ore, yet to be surveyed 
 and explored ; and that somewhere in that 
 direction, theology has fresh work to do, 
 and fresh treasures to bring out of the 
 storehouse of the Divine Word. For I am 
 
LECTURE VL 
 
 285 
 
 not one of those who would lay an arrest on 
 progress in the science of divinity, and com¬ 
 pel it to be stationary.* I would not, in¬ 
 deed, be disposed to reopen discussions 
 which, after ample investigation, under the 
 useful and, perhaps, necessary pressure of 
 controversy, have been satisfactorily closed; 
 or to unsettle the conclusions to which the 
 Churches have harmoniously come on the 
 vital and cardinal articles of the faith. I 
 do not call for any revision of our creeds, 
 confessions, and catechisms. By all means 
 let them stand untouched; as monuments 
 of the vast erudition and mental power of 
 other days, and as safeguards of truth and 
 bulwarks against error for ages yet to come. 
 But it is no disparagement to these symbols 
 to say of them that they do not exhaust 
 the whole volume of revelation. For that 
 is simply saying that the compilers were 
 uninspired men, and that '' the riches of 
 Christ are unsearchable.'' 
 
 Take our own books, for instance, our 
 Confession and Catechisms. I never have 
 had any scruple to affirm that their state¬ 
 ments on the subject of adoption are by no 
 means satisfactory. No doubt all that they 
 say is true ; but it amounts to very little. 
 
 * See Note A. 
 
286 
 
 LECTURE VI. 
 
 r 
 
 Tlie answer in the Shorter Catechism is 
 really, in substance, scarcely anything more 
 than that adoption is adoption.* In the 
 other documents, the matter is handled 
 more fully, and some of the privileges of 
 the children of God are enumerated. Still 
 even in them the whole matter is left in 
 the last degree vague and indefinite. And 
 no information whatever is given, nor is 
 any opinion expressed, as to how the rela¬ 
 tion of Sonship is constituted, or as to 
 what its precise nature is. 
 
 The contrast is very remarkable, in this 
 respect, between their treatment of the sub¬ 
 ject of adoption, and their treatment of all 
 the other topics connected with the pur¬ 
 chase and application of redemption; plainly 
 showing, as I cannot but conclude, that while 
 they had fully matured their views and 
 made up their minds upon these last,—and 
 were, in fact, quite at home in them,—they 
 were very much at sea as to the former. 
 
 I hold them, therefore, to have virtually 
 left the whole of that department of theo¬ 
 logy which bears on God's paternal relation 
 
 * Q. What is adoption ? A. Adoption is an act of God’s 
 free grace, whereby we are received into the number, and have 
 a right to all the privileges, of the sons of God. 
 
LECTURE YL 
 
 287 
 
 to his people, and their filial relation to him, 
 an entirely open question,—a perfect tabula 
 rasa ,—so far as any verdict or deliverance of 
 theirs is concerned. I consider that we have 
 the fullest liberty to sink new shafts in this 
 mine, which they evidently had not explored, 
 if only we take care that our diggings shall 
 do no damage to any of the far more im¬ 
 portant mines which they did explore,—and 
 explored so thoroughly and so well. 
 
 I have endeavoured to lend some help 
 in the way of, as it were, breaking ground. 
 I have sought to observe the caution which 
 I have now given, and I trust I have not 
 violated it. Some of the thoughts I have 
 ventured to throw out may seem to some 
 critics to be nothing better than specula¬ 
 tions. But I hope it will be admitted that 
 none of them touch the foundations of the 
 sacred temple of truth, or displace any of 
 its stones. What I have advanced may, 
 perhaps, in the long run and in other 
 hands, add some features of symmetry 
 and beauty to the structure, and even 
 strengthen some of its buttresses. But all 
 the old glory remains untarnished ; all the 
 old refuges for the weary and the lost are 
 as open and as secure as ever. 
 
288 
 
 LECTURE VI. 
 
 I thoroughly believe that the line of in¬ 
 quiry which I have been tracing is as safe 
 as I think it will prove to be interesting 
 for any one who will prosecute it with clue 
 reverence, docility, and humility of spirit. 
 I commend the subject to the study of 
 younger and fresher minds. And in doing 
 so, I can scarcely suggest a better text 
 from which to start than that wonderful 
 answer, as it has always appeared to me, 
 in the Larger Catechism, to the question 
 (65), “ What special benefits do the mem¬ 
 bers of the invisible Church enjoy by 
 Christ?'' They ''enjoy union and com¬ 
 munion with him in grace and glory." 
 This covers and comprehends all; union 
 inferring communion. It explains their 
 justification, as being community of right¬ 
 eousness with him. It explains their re¬ 
 generation and sanctification, as being com¬ 
 munity of nature with him. It explains 
 their adoption, as being community of 
 sonship with him. To which last I assign 
 the highest place. For whereas in the 
 others we have communion with him 
 principally in grace, it is pre-eminently in 
 the sonship that we have communion with 
 him in glory. 
 
NOTES TO LECTUKE SIXTH. 
 
 Note A. (Page 285.) 
 
 I GIVE the explanation of my meaning which I embodied 
 in a closing address to the students of the New College 
 a few weeks after the delivery of the lectures. This will 
 explain the form and character of the present Note. 
 
 I yield to no man in my admiration of the Westminster 
 Assembly and its symbolical books. I doubt if ever synod 
 or council sat to which the Church catholic will ultimately 
 acknowledge herself to be more, if so much, indebted. I 
 believe that its doctrinal decisions, on all the questions 
 fairly before it, will stand the test of time, and ultimately 
 command the assent of universal Christendom. That is 
 my firm conviction. And it is just because that is my 
 firm conviction, that I assert the right of respectful com¬ 
 ment on the Westminster Standards, as on all human com¬ 
 positions ; believing, on the one hand, that a man’s 
 reverence for these noble documents may be not the less 
 sincere for its being intelligent and discriminating ; and, 
 on the other hand, that the more they are subjected to the 
 light of growing and advancing theological science, the 
 more will their excellency and value appear ; and the 
 more also will the importance, or rather the necessity, be 
 felt, of holding by the “ whole doctrine contained in them,” 
 as the only safe anchorage in any and in every storm. 
 
 Into the general question of the use and abuse of creeds 
 
 U 
 
290 
 
 LECTURE VI. 
 
 and confessions it wonld be quite unseasonable here to 
 enter. I would only say that, if they are pleaded as a 
 bar in arrest of progress by means of biblical study and 
 free theological inquiry, it will be difficult to defend them 
 in consistency, either with the rights of human reason, or 
 with the paramount authority of the Divine Word. 
 
 One chief value of such documents, as it has always 
 seemed to me, is this ;—that they mark off, as ascertained 
 and finally settled, doctrines upon which, after thorough 
 investigation, the Evangelical Church may be held to have 
 made up her mind. On that very account, they render 
 the work of the farther search after truth both easier and 
 safer than otlierwise it might be. They define, by well- 
 placed landmarks, the territory which has been fully won 
 and accurately surveyed; thereby at once facilitating on 
 the one hand, and guiding and guarding on the other hand, 
 the traveller who, with due caution, would venture to ex- 
 ploie what may be beyond. 
 
 Hence they have been themselves progressive. There 
 has been an advance, step by step, according as, in the 
 march of controversy and discussion, the Church has been 
 led to clear up her views on successive points or topics of 
 theology, and to embody them for preservation in articulate 
 and exact propositions. It was in this way that, in primi¬ 
 tive times, the Church matured and fixed, one after another, 
 her authoritative decisions on the Trinity, on the Incarna¬ 
 tion, on the union of the two natures in Christ, on the per¬ 
 sonality of the Holy Spii'it. Thus, by stages, the system 
 grew. One article was adjusted satisfactorily ; and the 
 adjustment of it opened and prepared the way for the hand¬ 
 ling of a new subject. That in its turn being rightly for- 
 mularised, if I may so say, became the point of departure for 
 a fresh start. And so things went on ; until what I may per- 
 .haps be allowed to call the Patristic scheme of Christianity, 
 
LECTURE VI. 
 
 291 
 
 as handed down in the three Creeds and in the Decrees of the 
 orthodox Councils, was complete; so complete, as far as it 
 goes, that in its substance it still stands as the Fathers left 
 it, and has never since been touched. 
 
 But it has received additions. The Augustinian doc¬ 
 trine of grace, and the Lutheran article of justification, 
 were movements in advance ;—movements which had their 
 consummation, as it were, in the exact science of Calvin, 
 and the harmony of the Eeformed Confessions. 
 
 Such, I think, is the manner, and such the spirit, in 
 which the church hitherto has acted on the principle of 
 “proving all things, and holding fast that which is good.” 
 Thus, she may be said, in a sense, to have gone “ from 
 strength to strength,” like her great Head, “ conquering 
 and to conquer.” She consolidates her successive conquests 
 as she proceeds. “ AVhereto she has already attained,” 
 she stands firm; yet not as if she had “ attained” all. 
 
 Such is the manner, and such the spirit, in which alone 
 I consider that progress in theology either ought to be 
 aimed at, or can be looked for. In that spirit and manner, 
 hovrever, I can see no reason why we should not press 
 forward ;—“ following on to know the Lord ” more fully. 
 
 This, as all must admit, is a very different thing 
 from that removing of old landmarks,—that disposition 
 to tamper with received standards and unsettle men’s 
 minds on vital points of the “ faith once delivered to the 
 saints,”—which many in our day, not without reason, dread. 
 Against all that I protest strongly, 
 
 I regard with extreme alarm every indication of a ten¬ 
 dency, or a wfisli, to lower by a hair’s-breadth the flag of 
 ascertained truth from the position in which the Church 
 catholic has displayed it in past generations. I would not 
 throw loose again questions upon which wiser and better 
 
292 
 
 LECTURE VI. 
 
 men than we are came to an agreement ages ago. I depre¬ 
 cate the introduction of new modes of thought and forms 
 of speech about God’s law and gospel, about Christ’s work 
 and the Spirit’s, in accommodation to the speculations of 
 the day. 
 
 The dislike of system, of definition, of logic in theology; 
 the embracing of what is vague, shadowy, dreamy ; the turn¬ 
 ing away from whatever has the aspect of distinct assertion 
 or assurance; the refusal to be obliged to form any pre¬ 
 cise opinion, or adopt any categorical statement, with 
 reference to such matters as man’s original state, the 
 temptation, the fall and its effects ; or such as the atone¬ 
 ment, substitution, imputation ; or such as conversion, 
 regeneration, justification ; or such as the resurrection, 
 the last judgment, and the future state of the saved and 
 lost;—the shrinking from a full and explicit recognition 
 of what the Church has long taught regarding these 
 matters ;—the disposition to take refuge in ambiguous or 
 uncertain generalities, under the guise perhaps of respect 
 for the letter and language of Scripture ;—these and other 
 similar leanings, but too manifestly showing themselves, 
 not abroad or in England only, but nearer home, I cannot 
 view in any other light than as the fitful symptoms of a 
 feverish age ;—an age of small men, tossing restlessly on a 
 bed of doubt. There is nothing of manliness in them, and 
 nothing of progress. They all savour of imbecility. And 
 they are all in the direction of a retrograde movement;—a 
 retreat or fight, not an onward march. They do not help 
 forward, they simply retard, any such advancement of 
 theological study as might give good hope of real increase, 
 either of light or of life. 
 
 All this I feel strongly. And it is because I feel it so 
 strongly as I do, that I am anxious to show you a more 
 excellent way; and to make it plain that the creeds and 
 
LECTURE VI. 
 
 293 
 
 confessions, the systems and standards, which record the 
 views of the orthodox Fathers and the divines of the 
 Keformation,—even when accepted with that full, explicit, 
 articulate acknowledgment of “ the whole doctrine con¬ 
 tained in them” about which some are so sensitive,—far 
 from being mere obstructives, as many think they are, 
 standing in the way of fresh thought and free inquiry,—• 
 are really the best helps to both. 
 
 It is on this account that I have sought to indicate 
 lines of thought and inquiry still open to the students of , 
 God’s Word ;—on which they can best enter, or rather can 
 only enter, under the impulse and guidance of truths 
 already received, and from the stand-point of attainments 
 already made. To cast these truths and attainments away, 
 is as if the Israelites at the Eed Sea had thought to obey 
 the Lord’s command “ Go forward,” by abandoning the firm 
 position they had already gained, and simply mingling 
 again, as on common ground, with the Egyptians. 
 
 I fear I may be too tediously elaborating this explana¬ 
 tion of my views on the subject of theological progress. 
 But I own, it seems to me to be a matter of some conse¬ 
 quence that the subject should be thoroughly cleared up. 
 
 I do not deny, rather I assert, the need of regard being 
 always had to the wants and tastes of the existing race of 
 men, in the manner of setting before them the truth of 
 God. Their predilections, and even their prejudices, must 
 be considered. For as there is a right as well as a wrong 
 development, so there is a right as well as a wrong accom¬ 
 modation to the spirit of the age. 
 
 If there is a demand for something less stiff and con¬ 
 fined, less starched and formal, more genial, flowing, 
 varied, and expansive than the old way of systematising 
 and sermonising is accounted to be,—something with less 
 
294 
 
 LECTURE VI. 
 
 of monotone and more of the wide compass of orchestral 
 melody and harmony,—it is idle to ignore it or set it at 
 defiance, even though we may tliink the criticism on the 
 old way severe, and the likelihood of improving upon it 
 but slight. It may be wise to aim at being like the 
 “ householder who bringeth forth out of his treasure things 
 new and old.” We may thus practically convince men 
 that the old are good—better possibly than the new. 
 
 For the staple is unquestionably “ the old.” The old 
 theology of the seventeenth century; the theology of 
 Geneva, of the Dutch professors, of the Scotch Church, of 
 the English Puritans ; the theology of the covenants, of the 
 law and the gospel, of absolute divine sovereignty in pro¬ 
 vidence and grace, of free and full salvation in Christ and 
 nothing but utter and everlasting ruin out of Christ ;— 
 that is the theology which must be mastered;—or rather 
 which must obtain the mastery. 
 
 But it must be imbibed also. It must come to be at 
 once the ruling principle and the sustaining food of the 
 life of the soul; and that too as well in professional study 
 as in personal devotion. It must mould the entire inner 
 man of the Christian, as a teacher of others as well as a 
 disciple on his own account. The more it does so,—in 
 proportion as it does so,—will the disciple and teacher feel 
 himself able and free to throw his mind and heart, with all 
 confidence, into the tide of advancing knowledge and in¬ 
 quiry. He will thus be able to avail himself of all the 
 fresh currents of thought that may be moving the world. 
 And he will do so for the very purpose of urging forward 
 the vessel of the Church on her voyage of divine discovery, 
 always through the same time-honoured channel, until the 
 long-desiderated haven is reached at last. 
 
 Therefore, I repeat, in the interest of present adaptation 
 as well as of future progress, let us liold fast by past attain- 
 
LECTURE VI. 
 
 295 
 
 merits. There were giants in the days of the Eeformation 
 and in tire century which succeeded it, who did their work 
 well, laying deep and building high the entire structure of 
 Evangelical Christianity. So thoroughly well did they do 
 their work, that we never can be safe in deabng with the 
 building otherwise than by first of all entering ourselves, 
 heart and soul, into their labours. I rejoice, accordingly, 
 in the opportunities and facilities afforded to students now 
 for doing so—opportunities and facilities far beyond what 
 I can recollect as being within reach in the days of my 
 student life. I congratulate you on this advantage, and 
 exhort you to avail yourselves of it; reminding you, at the 
 same time, of the increased responsibility connected with 
 increase of privilege. 
 
 In particular, I cannot help congratulating you very 
 warmly on your being put in possession of so trustworthy 
 a chart to lead you, through the mazes of controversy, to 
 what may be held to be ascertained truth, on almost all 
 the successive questions which have been raised in the 
 Church from the beginning until now, as that which Dr. 
 Cunningham’s works supply.* 
 
 Certainly I can imagine scarcely any better manual, 
 in these uneasy times, than Dr. Cunningham’s four 
 volumes. Their excellency, in my view, is chiefly seen, 
 first, in the singular clearness and fairness with which 
 every question is stated ; and secondly, in the equally 
 singular caution and moderation with which every question 
 is settled. There is no one-sided exaggeration or misre¬ 
 presentation. In every case, full justice is done to all 
 opinions; they are all brought clearly out, and thoroughly 
 dealt with and disposed of. As a calm and temperate 
 
 * This refers to a most liberal arrangement, on the part of 
 a generous friend, through Professor Bannerman, for putting 
 all the students in possession of Dr. Cunningham’s works. 
 
296 
 
 LECTURE VL 
 
 representation of the Eeformation theology generally, 
 and of Calvinism as received in Scotland in particular. 
 Dr. Cunningham’s lectures are invaluable. Avoiding 
 extremes, and carefully balancing opposite tendencies, he 
 places the system on the very footing which, as it seems to 
 me, is best fitted, on the one hand, to make the platform 
 or position reached impregnable as a fortress, and, on the 
 other hand, to admit of safe advances from it as a centre 
 into the surrounding territory. And that is the very com¬ 
 bination for which I have been pleading. 
 
 But it is not merely in the Eeformation theology that 
 Dr. Cunningham is thus remarkable for wisdom and 
 caution, as well as for profound and accurate learning. 
 The same features characterise his discussions of the points 
 raised in the early history of the Church respecting its 
 doctrine, discipline, and government. Indeed, if I were 
 asked to select the passage in the volumes which most 
 fully manifests these features, I know not that I could 
 fix upon a better specimen than his treatment of the sub¬ 
 ject of the government of the primitive Church. I cannot 
 imagine any advocate of the divine right of Prelatic 
 Episcopacy fairly grappling with Dr. Cunningham’s state¬ 
 ments. And as regards the Scriptural authority for 
 Presbyterian Episcopacy,—for the parity of presbyters 
 or bishops, and their equal title to rule,—it wiU he difficult 
 indeed to shake the safe position which he takes up 
 between the opposite extremes ;—that of finding every¬ 
 thing in our system, down to its minutest details, regulated 
 in the ISTew Testament in express terms;—and that of find¬ 
 ing nothing, in the form of general principles, sanctioned 
 by Apostolic example, that can be held to enjoin any order 
 or impose any obligation at all. 
 
 I intended to advert to one or two practical matters in 
 this address ; but I forbear. I must hasten to a close. 
 
LECTURE VI. 
 
 297 
 
 I exhort you to earnest prayer for the outpouring of the 
 Spirit. That is what we really require, in our colleges, in 
 our congregations, over all our Church. Ministers, pro¬ 
 fessors, students, we all alike need a fresh anointing of the 
 Holy Ghost. I say this emphatically, and with special 
 reference to the times, and the signs of the times. I am 
 not uttering words of course, to wind up and round off pro¬ 
 perly a formal discourse. I am no alarmist. But I cannot 
 shut my eyes to what seem to me to he tokens, if not of 
 declension, at least of certain things which are apt to indi¬ 
 cate or occasion declension;—such as suspicion, fear, sen¬ 
 sitiveness and irritability, in not a few quarters ;—and a 
 kind of dissatisfaction with existing means and agencies, 
 and craving for novel experiments. The sure remedy for 
 all this is to be found in the revival of vital godliness through 
 the abundant outpouring of the Spirit from on high. That 
 will heal all sores and cause brotherly love to abound ; 
 as of old ;—“ When they had prayed, the place was shaken 
 where they were assembled together; and they were all 
 filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of 
 God with boldness ; and the multitude of them that be¬ 
 lieved were of one heart and of one soul” (Acts iv. 31, 32). 
 
 Let such a Hood of grace come as shall carry all along 
 in its rushing tide. Then the Church will indeed be abreast 
 of the age, and powerful as a present force in the world. 
 And it will be seen that the same gospel which was 
 preached from the beginning is still, through the mighty 
 working of the Holy Ghost, all-powerful for the pulling 
 down of strongholds and the building of that “ holy 
 temple in the Lord” which is to be “ for an habitation 
 of God through the Spirit” (Ephes. ii. 21, 22). 
 
’V 
 
 
 
 •« 
 
 
 , ^ 
 
 4-5S; 1^: 
 
 f 
 
 J *, * .li# *,. -■' « •• 
 
 V*?' 
 
 
 
 
 
 ; ^' r‘^ i.r •■ 
 
 
 lS*. ' 
 
 '. - ■ - .i.,’V k r .. 
 
 \ 
 
 t - 
 
 f r.’rv^'irx-iHl ' ‘ * ImI ' 
 
 * yik' • - . . i '*•<>■ .| - 
 
 * - pf - * /I ' ' 
 
 A - • 
 
 » 1 _ * T.f 
 
 ‘ -:> -v;' *'►:'''•* <•' 
 
 ,, tv , % :•■ :r .-^ '. ’. • .’Ji^iiiii . < ^ •' 
 
 - L-vl. < 4 *" j|ji^-’•- . .^ --.~i *"> 
 
 < ' 
 
 *' • :..'<*3 
 
 <kk '• •!* 
 
 »4;/ 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ,> 
 
 ^ 1 
 
 
 It .Jfi.,^1* 1., ' ' ’•> • '• 
 
 '•4 '■'*/ ■ . . ^ •• 4 
 
 '■-'■■•■fV 'TiJ * 
 
 ■^n7r ■'{ 
 
 
APPENDIX, 
 
 SCREPTUEAL EXPOSITIONS AND ILLUSTEATIOXS. 
 
 I. 
 
 The ultimate Glory of Tiliat Service. 
 
 “ And his servants shall serve him.”—Rev. xxii. 3, 
 
 This is an important element in the blessedness of heaven. 
 For surely, it is the blessedness of heaven that is here 
 described. The locality may be this earth; but it is this 
 earth renovated and delivered from the curse of the fall. 
 It is the “ new heavens and the new earth wherein 
 dwelleth righteousness.” The moral and spiritual aspect 
 of the whole scene shows that it represents the Church’s 
 eternal state. Of that perfect and happy state this is one 
 chief characteristic, “ His servants shall serve him.” 
 
 It is a notable feature, and it is put in a notable way. 
 It is put almost as if it were God’s satisfaction and not 
 ours that it was intended to express. At last he has 
 gained his end. At the close of that wondrous march of 
 his providence over angels and men of which the Bible 
 traces the footsteps, as the consummation of all his mani¬ 
 fold dealings with his intelligent creatures,—by much pains, 
 as it were, and after long waiting,-—he succeeds in his 
 object. He finds himself presiding over.such a house¬ 
 hold as pleases him. “ Ilis servants shall serve him.” 
 
 But if this is the object on which the heart of God is 
 set, why may it not be at once and from the beginning 
 
300 THE ULTIMATE GLORY 
 
 realised ? Why may not the creative act or word surround 
 the Creator at once with circle upon circle of obsequious sub¬ 
 jects, as pliant and plastic in his hand as wind or fire ? 
 
 Servants to serve him according to his mind he may 
 surely have, in any number, and of any variety of structure 
 and capacity,—from the inert and shapeless mass of matter, 
 upwards through all gradations of life, sense and mind, 
 to the highest faculty of thought and will, inferior only 
 to his own. JNIay he not thus find the sort of agents 
 needed to perfect his ideal of the universe which he would 
 have to unfold his glory ? 
 
 No. The end is not to be thus summarily attained. 
 The attainment of it is not the triumph of creation, but 
 the result of an entirely different process ;—a long provi¬ 
 dential and administrative system, to which angels and 
 men have been subjected, and out of which this glorious 
 issue comes, “ His servants shall serve him.” 
 
 This service of God, in its origin, progress, and per¬ 
 fection, may be traced in these successive stages :—I. The 
 service of the angels before any of their number rebelled; 
 
 II. The service of the elect and faithful after that event; 
 
 III. The service of Christ, the Lord of angels and Eedeemer 
 of mankind; IV. The bearing of his service now on the 
 inhabitants of hell, of heaven, and of earth; V. The final 
 service of the future state. 
 
 1. God made the angels to serve him ;—endowing 
 them with suitable capacities, and placing them in cir¬ 
 cumstances favourable to the exercise and expansion of 
 these capacities. All things were propitious. Moral evil 
 was unknown. There could be no temptation. One would 
 think that perfect service was thus secured. 
 
 The recorded fact, however, of a rebellion in that 
 angelic world, proves that there must have been some- 
 
OF FILIAL SERVICE. 
 
 301 
 
 tiling in or about the service not altogether and abso¬ 
 lutely good ; not, at all events, what may be called in 
 reference to such a matter, the highest good. It could be 
 nothing amiss in what God required, or in the moral nature 
 of those of whom it was required. But that somehow the 
 position was such as might become the occasion of feelings 
 of insubordination springing up,—even in pure mind s and 
 innocent hearts,—the actual result proves. 
 
 Our Lord identifies the offence of the apostate spirit; 
 he “ abode not in the truth” (John viii. 44). If he had, 
 “ the truth would have made him free” (32) in serving; 
 and he would have coveted no other freedom. Paul speaks 
 of pride, or being “ lifted up with pride,” (as) “ the condem¬ 
 nation of the devil” (1 Tim. iii. 6). And Jude (verse 6) 
 describes the sad company as “ the angels which kept not 
 their first estate, but left their own habitation.” They 
 “ kept not their first estate;” or rather their “principa¬ 
 lity.” They were not content with the princely rank 
 originally belonging to them. They “ left their own 
 habitation,”—the place assigned to them as their own,— 
 their proper sphere for serving God. 
 
 It would thus appear that the evil originated in a 
 desire on their part to be upon some other footing with 
 God than that on which, as at first created, they stood. 
 
 The desire may, or rather must, have sprung up in 
 connection with some particular command. I conceive it 
 to have been the command which the Psalmist, accord¬ 
 ing to the interpretation of the apostle Paul, indicates : 
 “ When he bringeth in the first-begotten into the world,” 
 or on the stage as it were, and in the view of creation, “ he 
 saith. And let all the angels of God worship him” 
 (Hebrews i. 6). Exception is taken, if not to the thing 
 commanded, at least to its being commanded. These 
 “ princes” will not “ abide in the truth”—in their true 
 
302 THE ULTIMATE GLORY 
 
 position of dependence, duty, and responsibility. They 
 “ are lifted up with pride they become impatient of sub¬ 
 jection and obligation. To worship “ the first-begotten” 
 may be all well; but to worship him upon compulsion 
 and command is not so. They would have it left to 
 their own free discretion. They are not content to be 
 princes under the Most High. They would be “ as gods” 
 themselves ; they would be their own masters. 
 
 The possibility of this dark spirit of jealousy insinu¬ 
 ating itself into the thoughts of these servants of God, so as 
 to cause rankling dissatisfaction with the state in which they 
 were created, shews how, even before their sin and fall, 
 there was some element of imperfection—some latent root 
 of possible bitterness—in that state itself. It was not a 
 state with reference to which it could be said with full 
 assurance, “ His servants shall serve him.” The original 
 angelic state is not the highest good. 
 
 II. May we venture to look into the abode of the 
 angels after their ranks have been so disastrously thinned ? 
 He whom, at the rathei'’s command, they have consented 
 to worship—“the first begotten”—is among them. But for 
 that, blank consternation may well be on every face, 
 and a painful misgiving in every heart. True, they have 
 stood the test ; and their obedience, doubtless, is rewarded 
 by some decisive token of the divine regard. But it is a 
 terrible proof of the peccability of their nature and the 
 precariousness of their position, that is ever before their 
 eyes. The poet says—“ Where ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly 
 to be wise.” But ignorance is now out of the question. 
 They know the possibility of transgression ; and though 
 they know its penalty too, that does not allay their anxiety. 
 The mere dread of incurring the doom of disobedience 
 will go but a little way to reconcile them, or to keep them 
 
OF FILIAL SERVICE. 
 
 303 
 
 reconciled, to a state of things which so many of their 
 number felt to be irksome and intolerable. It may pre¬ 
 vent the outward and overt act of rebellion. But it does 
 not tell upon the inner man; or, if it does, it is at least 
 as apt to irritate as to subdue. So far then as the influ¬ 
 ence of the sad catastrophe itself goes, it makes no change 
 for the better in the standing of those elect ones who, 
 through grace, survive it. On the contrary, they may 
 seem to be even in worse circumstances than before for 
 serving God. 
 
 That, however, cannot be. He whom the Father has 
 been introducing to them for their wmrship, will see to it 
 that it shall not be. He will at all events prevent any 
 injury coming upon them througli the knowledge of evil 
 which they have unwillingly got. By his divine presence 
 with them, and by the power of his Spirit in them, he 
 will so confirm them in their loyalty to his Father’s 
 throne that no sense of present insecurity, and no fear of 
 future danger, shall mar their serene and settled peace. 
 
 But more than that he does. From henceforth he has 
 their regards fixed upon himself. In obedience to the 
 Fatiier’s command they have worshipped the Son. Al¬ 
 ready, as their recompense, they see his glory, as the 
 glory of one altogether worthy of their worship. But the 
 Father’s voice to them is, Ye shall see greater things than 
 this. Worship hinj still, wait, and watch. Keep your 
 eyes fixed on him. For in him, as you are soon to see, a 
 higher and better platform is to be reached, on whicli 
 God’s “ servants shall serve him.” 
 
 III. For what is the next important step in this de¬ 
 velopment of service ? I pass over the probation and the 
 fall of man; events but too well fitted to awaken new 
 alarm, as if another experiment had been tried and failed. 
 
304 THE ULTIMATE GLORY 
 
 I come at once to the incarnation; that great era in the 
 universal providence of God, to which, without knowing 
 beforehand what its precise nature was to be, not only be¬ 
 lieving men were accustomed to look forward, hut the 
 unfallen spirits also. For they clung in faith and hope to 
 him whom the Father would have them to worshijo ; being 
 taught to expect some still more signal “ bringing in of the 
 first-hegotten into the world” than that which had been 
 the occasion of the trial of their obedience, and its reward. 
 As the fulness of the time drew near, the angels,—having 
 accompanied this divine person in all his previous inter¬ 
 course with the patriarchs and with the ancient church,— 
 had their eyes rivetted on Bethlehem-Ephratah,—whence 
 he was to “ come forth unto God, who was to be Euler in 
 Israel, whose goings forth had been from of old, from ever¬ 
 lasting” (Micah V. 2). They took part in the divine 
 arrangements about the births of the Baptist and the 
 Christ. And when the holy child Jesus, of whom they 
 spoke to the shepherds, lay before them in the manger, 
 we can imagine a voice coming to them “ from the excel¬ 
 lent glory,”—“ Behold my servant whom I uphold, mine 
 elect in whom my soul delighteth” (Is. xlii. 1). 
 
 Service is now to be ennobled indeed. In every view 
 it is to he so ; in the person of the servant; in the actual 
 work of the service ; and in the spirit pervading it all. 
 
 1. Who is this servant ? A man—the man Christ 
 Jesus ; a volunteer—his manhood voluntarily assumed, his 
 service voluntarily undertaken ; a Son—the Eternal Son of 
 God the Father whose servant he becomes — himself 
 “ God over all, blessed for evermore Son of God and Son 
 of Man ; uniting in his own person the highest prerogative 
 of rule and the humblest obligation to service ; entitled 
 to command the whole universe, as its Creator-God, and 
 hound, in his created manhood, to be under the yoke in 
 
OF FILIAL SERVICE. 
 
 305 
 
 this narrow corner of his own vast dominions. What a 
 servant has the Father found to serve him now! 
 
 2. And then, wliat is the service ? its nature ? its condi¬ 
 tions ? its work ? It is service undertaken in the room and 
 stead of others; and these others, the fallen children of 
 men. The terms of it are his fulfilling all their obliga¬ 
 tions, and meeting all their liabilities. He consents to be 
 their substitute, under the law which they have failed to 
 obey, whose penalty of death they have incurred. And 
 he consents to this, in the fidl knowledge that the obedience 
 required of them must be rendered by him, and the penalty 
 incurred by them must be visited on him,—to the very 
 uttermost of the law’s righteous demands. 
 
 3. And what of the spirit pervading the whole service ? 
 Meek, gentle, uncomplaining submission ; the entire sur¬ 
 render of his subject will to the will of him whose subject 
 he is ; unshaken loyalty to the God and Father whom he 
 seiwes, even when the cup given him to drink wrings from 
 his body the bloody sweat and from his soul the cry of 
 agony ; disinterested, self-sacrificing affection; these fea¬ 
 tures, and such as these, marked the spirit in which this 
 wondrous servant served his wondrous service. In one 
 word, the spirit of that service was sympathy ; sympathy 
 with him whose servant he was ; sympathy with the service 
 itself;—“I and my father are one;”—“the works which 
 the Father doeth, these also doeth the Son “ my meat 
 is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his 
 work.” 
 
 It is real and actual service all along ; entailing upon 
 him privation, toil, obloquy, pain; exposing him to cold, 
 hunger, thirst; the temptations of evil spirits ; the re¬ 
 proach and violence of evil men. Throughout it aU he 
 simply served; not acting for himself, in self-support, 
 self-vindication, or self-defence ; but acting wholly for God 
 
 X 
 
306 THE ULTIMATE GLORY 
 
 and leaving all to God. It was service growing dark and 
 dreadful as its close drew near. In prospect, it appalled 
 Iris human spirit with its unutterable woe ; and when the 
 hour came at last, full fraught with tlie venom of sin’s 
 sting and curse, and the blood-red wine of the righteous 
 vengeance of the Most High, he sank under the burden as 
 well nigh more than even he could bear. But still he 
 simply ser^^ed. He saved others ; himself he did not save. 
 As a servant under the yoke, he bowed his head and gave 
 up the ghost ;—witli these words upon his lips,—expres¬ 
 sive of a servant’s resignation as well as of a Son’s trust, 
 —“ Father into thy hands I commend my spirit.” Well 
 may the Father say, “Behold my servant!” 
 
 IV. What a voice to echo through all worlds—in hell; 
 in heaven ; and on earth 1—“Behold my servant!” 
 
 1. Is it heard in hell ? Does it ring in the ears of lost 
 angels, and lost men ? 
 
 For lost angels—See what that service of God is which 
 you resented as a galling burden and spurned as a humili¬ 
 ating bondage ! The place which was not high enough, or 
 free enough, for you, the very Son of the Highest himself 
 does not disdain to occupy. You, indeed, would not be 
 servants ; it seemed drudgery and restraint to you. What 
 worship you are to render, what work you are to do, must 
 be matter of spontaneous choice, not of prescribed com¬ 
 mand. To worship and work to order,—to be obedient 
 merely, nothing more, and nothing else,—you felt to be an 
 unworthy sort of homage from you to God; unworthy of 
 your angelic nature and your princely rank. So you felt 
 once. But what have you to say now ? What plea have 
 you now,—when God points to the birth, the life, the 
 death of his own Son, and says,—“Behold my servant!” 
 What! Was my service a degradation, my commandment 
 
OF FILIAL SERVICE. 
 
 307 
 
 grievous, my law severe, and myself too austere and hard 
 a master to be obeyed in love ? You dare not think so 
 now, when you behold my servant! 
 
 For lost men—How will they feel when at last, too late, 
 the full meaning of that service of the Son of God flashes 
 uj)on them ? It was a bloody service to him, but he did 
 not deem it either unreasonable or unrighteous. To him 
 “ the law,” even while he was enduring its condemnation, 
 was “ holy ; and the commandment holy, and just, and 
 good.” If we lift up our eyes in hell, being in torment,— 
 sharing the punishment prepared for the devil and his 
 angels,—compelled by God to “beholdhis servant,” and as 
 we behold him, to justify God and condemn ourselves,— 
 how must we recall, with unavailing groans of self-reproach, 
 the day, the hour, when he invited us to share with him 
 in that service of his ;—in its infinite worth and efficacy, 
 its gracious fruit and issue, its blessed filial spirit, address¬ 
 ing to us the call;—the Servant inviting us to be his 
 fellow-servants ;—“ Come unto me all ye that labour, and 
 are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke 
 upon you, and learn of me: for I am meek and lowly in 
 heart, and ye shall find rest unto your souls : for my yoke 
 is easy, and my burden is light.” 
 
 It must be a terrible voice for hell’s inhabitants to be 
 hearing always—“ Behold my servant!” 
 
 2. It must have been a blessed voice when heard in 
 heaven. When the obedient angels saw him whom they 
 worshipped “ taking upon him the form of a servant, and 
 being made in the likeness of man when they saw him 
 “ being found in fashion as a man, humbling himself and 
 becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross 
 they were well prepared to worship him anew, even in his 
 humiliation. When “God highly exalted him, and gave 
 him a name above every name, that at the name of Jesus 
 
308 THE ULTIMATE GLORY 
 
 every knee slionld bow,” all their tongues were ready to 
 confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God 
 the Father” (Phil. ii. 7-11). For now to these bright 
 “ morning-stars/’ the mystery of that service of God 
 which is perfect freedom is unveiled, in the person of 
 this Son and Servant, and in his gracious wmrk. 
 
 Nor is it as mere onlookers that they get an insight 
 into this mystery. As he has carried them along with 
 him in all his ministry towards our fallen race,—and very 
 specially in his taking our nature and serving, even to 
 suffering, in our stead,—so now, he carries them along 
 with him and associates them with himself in his subjec¬ 
 tion to the Father, as at once his Serv^ant and his Son. 
 They partake with him in the full grace and glory of 
 that double relationship. Service is to them what they 
 perceive it to have been to him. It is divested of every 
 element of precariousness, and therefore of every ele¬ 
 ment of gi'ievousness. It is their joy and crown. Their 
 footing is identical with that of him whom they worship. 
 It is as sons of God, “ in the first begotten,” that these 
 servants of God in heaven now serve him ; hearing always 
 the voice that points out the great exemplar—“ Behold my 
 servant! ” 
 
 3. To the followers of Christ on earth this voice should 
 come home with peculiar power—“Behold my servant!” 
 See how the Son, as servant, served God ! And learn how 
 God would have you, as sons, to serve him, in tlie Son ! 
 
 First, however, let us make sure that we enter into that 
 service of the Son, as undertaken and accomplished for us. 
 It stands for us instear’ of any service that might be re¬ 
 quired of us as the condition of our peace with God. Let 
 us look ever first at the servant and the service in that 
 light. As the bankrupt and beggared servants of a 
 righteous God, laden with the burden of long accumulated 
 
OF FILIAL SERVICE. 
 
 309 
 
 guilt, utterly unable either to cancel the past or to satisfy 
 the claims of the present and the future, let us accept 
 as our substitute this servant whom our Father has chosen 
 for us. AVhat fault have we to find with him ? Per¬ 
 sonally, is not he every way qualified to represent us, to 
 consult and act for us, to serve on our behalf ? To serve ! 
 And what service ? Does it not fulfil all righteousness 
 and atone for all sin? Is it not, as a service of penal 
 endurance, adequate to the utmost rigour of punishment 
 that we have deserved ? Is it not, as a service of merit, 
 enough to purchase the choicest blessings that God’s favour 
 can bestow ? Let us thankfully accept this servant, and 
 his service, as ours. Let us suffer him to place us where 
 his sersdce entitles all for whom it avails to be placed. 
 And where is that? Where, but where he is himself? 
 It is his position that we are to occupy; it is his relation 
 to God that we share. And whatever service is now 
 imposed upon us,—it is as occupying his position and 
 sharing his relation that we meet it. 
 
 Then may it not be expected that the spirit which 
 pervaded all his service shall pervade ours also ? If 
 our standing is thus identical with his,—if we receive 
 the adoption of sons, in and with the Son of God, and 
 have his Spirit in us, crying, “Abba, Father,”—should 
 not the service of God be to us precisely what it was 
 to him ? It may extort from us groans; it extorted 
 them from him. Its toil may weary us; it wearied 
 him. Its pain may make our soul, as it made his, ex¬ 
 ceeding sorrowful, even unto death. Our fellow-servants 
 —the angels—know well what our sufferings may be in 
 the service which they see us share with him whose suffer¬ 
 ings they never can forget. They delight to stand by us, 
 as they stood by him, when, as “ ministering spirits,” they 
 are “ sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of 
 
310 THE ULTIMATE GLORY 
 
 salvation.” But the loyalty to God his Father, and 
 the sympathy with God his Father, which they saw 
 in him throughout all his service, they may, in a mea¬ 
 sure, see also in his brethren. Not onlv in the fervid 
 apostle whom the zeal of God’s house is eating up and the 
 love of souls is urging to an untimely tomb ; not only in 
 the martyr whose service is to praise God amid the flames ; 
 but in this hewer of wood or drawer of water making con¬ 
 science of serving God in his lowly calling; in yonder 
 poor, bed-ridden, widowed, childless soul, content that her 
 service should be solitary suffering and waiting for the Lord 
 —the same mind may be found which was in Christ. 
 Angels, as they look on, rejoice to perceive how, even in this 
 sin-burdened earth, God has servants who really serve him. 
 And when the earthly service with all its trials is over, 
 they rejoice to carry them to Abraham’s bosom. 
 
 V. But it is not in this present state of things that the 
 object on which the heart of God is set is altogether at¬ 
 tained. Even for the angels, and still more for the saints, 
 a change for the better is in reserve. There are things 
 in God’s majestic plan which the angels desire to look 
 into, and which they cannot so look into as to be satisfied, 
 until they see what the end is. Even they must be taking 
 much on trust, and living by faith, as to not a few par¬ 
 ticulars in the great volume of providence now unrolling 
 itself before them—the sealed book which the Lion of 
 the tribe of Judah is only gradually opening. Saints 
 on earth, at any rate, are compassed about with many 
 infirmities ; exposed to manifold assaults of the devil ; 
 and so tempted and wounded in the war they have to 
 wage with evil that they find it no easy matter always to 
 feel that “ God’s commandments are not grievous.” And 
 even saints gone to their rest are waiting for the resurrec- 
 
OF FILIAL SERVICE. 
 
 3II 
 
 tion of the body. “ The family in heaven and earth that is 
 named of our Lord Jesus Christ”-—is broken, divided, tossed 
 and tried ; great part of it still journeying through the 
 wilderness ; none of it having, at the very best, anything 
 more than a sort of Mount Pisgah view, as yet, of the full 
 blessedness of the land of promise. 
 
 But it is otherwise when “ the Lord cometh again.” 
 A fresh song of praise bursts from the hosts of heaAmn, as 
 they accompany the “ first-begotten,” once more coming 
 forth,—the Father “ bringing him in,”—into the world, on 
 the final occasion of his re-union with his redeemed. The 
 great reconciliation is complete. The mystery of God is 
 finished—the mystery of his will, which he hath purposed 
 —“that he might gather together in one all things in 
 Christ, both which are in heaven and which are in earth.” 
 (Eph. i. 9, 10.) All are gathered together, all are one 
 in Christ. His service of obedience and atonement has 
 effected the full reconciliation; accomplished the eternal 
 purpose ; consummated the universal union. And now, 
 what remains ? What but this eternal glory and joy,— 
 “ His servants shall serve him ?” 
 
 The service of God, thus reached and realised, who may 
 venture to describe ? Some of its conditions, however, 
 are indicated in this passage (verses 3-5). 
 
 1. (Ver. 3.) “ There shall be no more curse.” Hot only 
 are we to be ou-rselves personally delivered from the curse ; 
 but nowhere all around is there to be any trace of its 
 malign influence ; and never again is there to be any 
 risk of its return. The personal justification, the re¬ 
 moval of the curse, which is all matter of faith now 
 in the hidden life of the soul—and, alas! too often but 
 dimly and doubtfully apprehended—will then be matter 
 of open discovery and proclamation. Our own hearts are 
 assured, and all the universe is advertised, that no curse 
 
312 THE ULTIMATE GLORY 
 
 can ever henceforth he our portion. Our bodies as well 
 as our souls are perfectly delivered. And then to us 
 creation’s groans are over. No blight of sin is on 
 the soil we tread; no taint of sin is in the air we 
 breathe ; no evil element is in the paths we have to 
 tread,—the works we have to do,—the pleasures we have 
 to enjoy,—the company we have to keep. All is holiness 
 and peace. Service may well be different from what is 
 now, when “ there shall be no more curse.” 
 
 2. (Ver. 3.) “ The throne of God and of the Lamb shall 
 be in the city.” No anarchy, or lawless liberty, or proud 
 self-government is there. Subordination, discipline, and 
 order prevail. God manifestly reigns. And he reigns in 
 a character that must charm away all jealousy, even in 
 the most sensitive of his subjects. “ The Lamb is in the 
 midst of the throne.” Subjection to that throne never 
 can be felt to be irksome. Never can any feeling of 
 impatience of such a yoke intrude ; nor the faintest 
 shadow of a suspicion of its being grievous; nor the 
 remotest desire to shake it off and be more free. One 
 look at ‘Ghe throne of God and of the Lamb” must ever 
 suffice to satisfy. 
 
 3. (Ver. 4.) “ They shall see his face.” It is a blessed 
 thing to see God’s face even now. The sight of it, by faith, 
 makes duty pleasant, and even trial sweet. Alas! how¬ 
 ever, that face is often hidden. Dark clouds of unbelief 
 roll in upon the soul. Or there is a frown, a shade, upon 
 my Lather’s loving countenance. My waywardness and 
 wilfulness have dimmed, as it were, his loving eye with 
 grief. What heart have I then for his work? AVliat 
 courage to fight his battles ? What strength to face 
 temptation ? What enlargement of heart or opening of lip 
 to show forth his praise, and teach transgressors his ways ? 
 How wearisome is the. whole business of obeying him and 
 
OF FILIAL SERVICE. 
 
 313 
 
 doing his will felt to he ! What a drudgery does it be¬ 
 come ! what a lifeless and joyless form ! “ Hear ! 0 Lord, 
 
 when I cry with my voice ; have mercy also upon me and 
 answer me. When thou saidst, Seek ye my face ; my heart 
 said unto thee, Thy face, Lord, will I seek ; hide not thy 
 face far from me, put not thy servant away in anger” 
 (Psalm xxvii. 7-9). What must it he for me, as God’s 
 servant, to serve him, when no such cry can ever any more 
 he heard—when I shall see his face always ! 
 
 4. (Ver. 4.) “And his name shall he in their foreheads.” 
 When we stand “with the Lamh on the Mount Zion” 
 (xiv. 1),—with the “ hundred, forty and four thousand,”— 
 we are sealed as his servants for preservation from the winds 
 of judgment. We have even now “ his Father’s name written 
 in our foreheads.” It is a hidden name : legible enough to 
 the Lamh, and to the angels executing his pleasure ; hut 
 not legible to an unbelieving world ; and, alas ! not always 
 legible to ourselves. In minMiim with the multitude who, 
 instead of that name, receive the mark of the beast in their 
 right hand or in their foreheads (chap. xiii. 16),—it is not 
 always easy for us to maintain our integrity as the Lord’s 
 servants and not his,—“ to keep ourselves unspotted from 
 the world.” But in that city, all have the same character ; 
 all are impressed with the same seal! From every brow there 
 flashes in glowing brightness the same new name—the name 
 that is above every name. There is no promiscuous fellow¬ 
 ship with the ungodly to disturb or deaden pious feeling ; 
 to disconcert or embarrass a pious walk. Nor in fellow¬ 
 ship with one another, is there any of that hesitancy 
 which too often casts a damp over pious meetings here. 
 There, all alike mutually know and are known. They 
 never can be hinderers,—they never can be other than 
 helpers,—of one another’s joy in serving the Lord. 
 
 5. (Ver. 5.) “ There shall be no night there, and they need 
 
314 THE ULTIMATE GLORY 
 
 no candle, neither light of the sun, for the Lord God giveth 
 them light.” All is open, beatific vision. " They that fear 
 the Lord and obey the voice of his servant” may some¬ 
 times “walk in darkness” here. It may be darkness that 
 dims, not only their comfortable assurance, but their clear 
 and certain perception of the path of duty. They see no 
 light; or the light they see comes fitfully, in gleams and 
 glimpses ; sharing the imperfection of the instruments and 
 channels through which it reaches them. It is midnight 
 with them, and they have only a little flickering candle to 
 shed its unsteady flame into the thick gloom in which they 
 are groping. Even if it is midday with them, and the 
 bright meridian orb is over their head, its scorching rays 
 may smite or blind them; or yonder cloud, no bigger than 
 a man’s hand, may in a moment clothe the sky in sackcloth. 
 Oh! to be where there is no night, to make the twinkling 
 taper welcome ; nor even any day, dependent for its clear¬ 
 ness on the glorious sun ! To know God and his will, not 
 circuitouslyj through means, ordinances, and providences ; 
 but directly, by immediate insight into himself and im¬ 
 mediate Communication from himself Even here, what 
 the Spirit shows us of the Eather and the Son,—though it 
 may not hinder the night being often dreary and the day 
 cloudy,—suffices, if the eye is single, to guide us in the 
 right way. What must it be to have the same Spirit open¬ 
 ing our eye evermore to the light which the Lord God him¬ 
 self gives,—in which he dwells,—which is his very nature ! 
 No more distraction, no more despondency, when—seeing 
 light in that light—“ his servants shall serve him.” 
 
 6. (Ver. 5.) “ They shall reign for ever and ever.” It is 
 as reigning with him that they “ see light in his light.” It 
 is from his point of view, as seated on his throne, that they 
 survey and contemplate all things. They have a common 
 concern with him in the government of the universe, which 
 
OF FILIAL SERVICE. 
 
 315 
 
 in a measure he shares with them. Their reigning with 
 him is partly the effect of their having learned to serve him; 
 otherwise, he could not so far trust them as to admit them 
 to any participation in his authority and rule. Hence the 
 welcome, “Well done good and faithful servant; thou hast 
 been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over 
 many.” But their promotion for faithful service is chiefly 
 valuable in their eyes because it enables them to render 
 service more faithful still. The position which they occupy 
 raises them above the questionings and heart-burnings, the 
 jealousies and misgivings, that are apt to rankle in the 
 minds of mere subjects. The confidence reposed in them 
 honourably binds them. Because “ they shall reign” with 
 him, therefore his “ servants shall serve him.” 
 
 Let us see, then, what sort of service God desires. 
 
 “ Bring no more vain oblations. Incense is an abomi¬ 
 nation unto me. The new moons and sabbaths, the 
 calling of assemblies, I cannot away with ; they are 
 a trouble unto me : I am weary to bear them” (Is. i. 
 13, 14). So the Father speaks from heaven. And so 
 also the Son speaks on earth. “ God is a spirit, and 
 they that worship him must worship him in spirit and 
 in truth.” “ The Father seeketh such to worship him 
 he is weary of all other worship. And I am come to 
 tell you so. Hay, I am come to see to it, that what 
 the Father seeks he shall surely find. Yes ! though it 
 is to cost me the shedding of my blood, to expiate guilt 
 and win the gift of the Holy Ghost,—that men, recon¬ 
 ciled and renewed, may give my Father what he wants— 
 their hearts. Let all formalists—all whose religion, such 
 as it is, and it is not much, is a mere weariness of the flesh ; 
 a painful perfunctory work of necessity ; a routine which 
 they dare not dispense with but cannot take delight in— 
 
316 THE ULTIMATE GLORY 
 
 hear this solemn warning. His servants,—the only servants 
 he cares to have,—are such as make his service a reality. 
 “ His servants shall serve him.” 
 
 2. And what is the first and indispensable condition of 
 our thus serving him ? Is it not to shake ourselves free from 
 the legal covenant which gendereth to bondage, and close 
 with the covenant of free grace and perfect peace ? Other¬ 
 wise, what Joshua said to the people when they so stoutly 
 declared “We will serve the Lord, for he is our God,” 
 may be said to us ;—“ Ye cannot serve the Lord, for he is 
 an holy God ; he is a jealous God ; he will not forgive your 
 transgressions, nor your sins” (xxiv. 19). He cannot accept 
 of any service rendered in self-righteousness. He cannot 
 overlook the radical vice of a heart not right with him. 
 We must renounce our own service, as placing us on a 
 right footing with God, and accept as our substitute him 
 whom the Lather commends to us as “ his Servant;”— 
 laying hold on “ the oath which he sware to our father 
 Abraham, that he would grant unto us, that we being deli¬ 
 vered out of the hand of our enemies, might serve him 
 without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him all 
 the days of our life” (Luke i. 73-75). 
 
 3. That we may “ stand fast in the liberty wherewith 
 Christ hath made us free,” we must beware, above all things, 
 of a servile spirit ; the spirit that is ever grudging what is 
 asked, and stretching to the utmost any license supposed 
 to be allowed ; the spirit that tries to steer very close along 
 the shore by the exact letter of the law; the spirit that 
 is for drawing the line very sharply between the lawful 
 and the unlawful—between what may perhaps be tolerated 
 and what is expressly forbidden. It is the spirit of bond¬ 
 age that is always prompting the questions,—must I? 
 may I ? may I not ? The “ Spirit of adoption whereby we 
 cry Abba, Lather,” speaks otherwise ;—“ 0 Lord, truly I 
 
OF FILIAL SERVICE. 
 
 .317 
 
 am tliy servant. I am thy servant and the son of thine 
 liandmaid. Thou hast loosed my bonds” (Psalm cxvi. 16). 
 
 4. The same Spirit of adoption enables ns also to enter, 
 vdth enlarged hearts, with clear intelligence and full 
 sympathy, into the vast and comprehensive plan of God, 
 for “ gathering together into one all things in Christ, both 
 which are in Heaven and which are in earth.” Thus Ave 
 keep out the spirit of bondage. The imagination and the 
 heart are filled with sublime views of God’s magnificent 
 purpose in his Son Jesus Christ our Lord ;—so as to he 
 ever anticipating that bright day Avhen we shall join the 
 assembled throng, Avhose highest glory is,—that ‘‘ reigning 
 with God,” they, as “his servants, serve him.” 
 
 Satan’s proud defiance is, “ Better to reign in hell than 
 serve in heaven.” Alas, it is as vain as it is proud ! In 
 the place of torment, God, in his terrible justice, reigns 
 alone. Satan, and his angels, and his victims, serve in 
 penal chains and penal fire for ever. But the saints who 
 have “ overcome are set down with Christ on his throne, 
 even as he overcame and is set down with the Father on 
 his throne.” All in the Father’s confidence, all in the 
 Father’s interest, all sharing the glory of the Father’s reign, 
 —they “ are before the throne of God, and serve him day 
 and night in his temple. And he that sitteth on the throne 
 shall dAvell among them” (Kev, Aui. 15). 
 
318 
 
 THE GREAT 
 
 IL 
 
 The Great Gospel Convoeation. ^ 
 
 “ Ye are come unto Mount Sion, and unto the city of the living 
 God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable com¬ 
 pany of angels, to the general assembly and church of the 
 first-born, which are written in heaven, and to God the 
 Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 
 and to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the 
 blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of 
 Abel.”—Heb. xii. 22-24. 
 
 The warning (25), “ See that ye refuse not him that 
 speaketh,” refers to the judgment of God on the genera¬ 
 tion of Israel which he brought out of Egypt. That indeed 
 is the warning which all through this epistle is held up 
 before the eyes of the believing Hebrews. Let them 
 beware of the sin of their forefathers. In their case, it 
 must be a sin peculiarly aggravated, in proportion as 
 their privilege is peculiarly high. Their forefathers stood 
 before God at Sinai, and heard him speak, as it were, “ on 
 earth” (25), “ his voice then shook the earth” (26). But 
 they themselves liave heard him, as it were, “ from heaven” 
 
 (25) , his voice “ shaking not the earth only but also heaven” 
 
 (26) , effecting a far more complete renovation, introducing 
 not a temporary but a permanent economy. It is in this 
 connection that a scene is here described having the same 
 relation to the new economy that the Sinai scene had to 
 the old. “ Ye are come” to this, as your fathers came 
 
GOSPEL CONVOCATION. 319 
 
 to that ; and you are to realise your position and its 
 responsibility accordingly.* 
 
 Of the three verses descriptive of the scene (22-24), 
 the first gives the place of meeting and the audience ; the 
 second, the actual convocation, or the parties convened ; 
 and the third, the business on hand, and the manner of its 
 transaction. 
 
 The first verse, giving the place of meeting and the 
 audience,—“ But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto 
 the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and 
 to an innumerable company of angels,”—needs little re¬ 
 mark. The place of meeting is “ mount Sion, the city of 
 the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem.” It is evidently 
 a place that is meant, not a society or church, as when it 
 is said, “ Praise the Lord 0 Jerusalem; praise thy God 0 
 Sion.” And it is evidently no earthly place. The earthly 
 Jerusalem was doomed; Sion was to be a desolation. It 
 is a heavenly locality, ideal to us now, but yet real, and 
 soon to be realised. The audience or spectators are the 
 angels. They were witnesses from above of the scene 
 at Sinai (Deut. xxxiii. 2 ; Acts vii. 35 ; Gal. hi. 19 ; 
 Heb. ii. 2). They are also witnesses of this scene. They 
 are not mere witnesses ; they are deeply interested par- 
 
 * Thus the contrast runs:—“ Ye are not come unto the 
 mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor 
 unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest, and the sound of a 
 trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard 
 entreated that the word should not be spoken to them any 
 more: (For they could not endure that which was commanded. 
 And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be 
 stoned, or thrust through with a dart: And so terrible was the 
 sight that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake:) But ye 
 are come unto Mount Sion,” &c. 
 
320 
 
 THE GREAT 
 
 ties. But it is as witnesses or onlookers tliat they are 
 here brought before us. 
 
 In this place and in this presence a meeting of a 
 solemn, and, as it would seem, judicial character, is con¬ 
 vened,—“ To the general assembly and church of the 
 first-born, which are written in heaven, and to God the 
 Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect.” 
 There is in the centre the President, and on either side a 
 company awaiting his award. 
 
 The president is “ God, the judge of all.” Some would 
 read, “ the Judge, the God of all.” They prefer such a 
 rendering, because it seems to divest the scene of its terror. 
 The Judge is presiding; hut he is to all who are before 
 him “ their God.” I think this view proceeds upon a very 
 inadequate, if not erroneous theory of the Spirit’s design,— 
 which is not really to abate fear, but to quicken it. God 
 is here enthroned; “ the Judge of all;” of all now before 
 him; their lawgiver, ruler, lord, and king. It is in that 
 character that he presides over the assembly. It is for 
 legislative and governmental purposes that he sits upon 
 the throne.''' 
 
 Two separate and distinct bodies are marshalled on 
 opposite sides of the throne. 
 
 I. On one side, there are “the first-born, which are 
 written in heaven.” They are the first-born ; distinguished 
 from among men, as the first-born among the Israelites 
 were from among their fellows ; or rather as Israel was 
 from all the world (Ex. iv. 22). They are in possession 
 of the birthright. They are partakers with Christ in all 
 the privileges of that right of primogeniture which pro- 
 
 * I believe the best scholars hold the ordinary rendering 
 to be the natural and legitimate construction of the clause. 
 The other is forced and ungrammatical. See Alford in loco. 
 
GOSPEL CONVOCATION. 321 
 
 peiiy and essentially belongs to him alone. He is “ God’s 
 Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things” (Heb. i. 2). 
 But in his inheritance he is not to be alone, as he is not to be 
 alone in what is the ground of it—namely, his filial relation 
 to the Father. It is the Father’s purpose that the Son shall 
 have partners in that relation, and in its fruit. Believers 
 are said to be “ predestinated to be conformed to the image 
 of his Son,” for this express end, “ that he may be the first¬ 
 born among many brethren” (Eom. viii. 29). 
 
 These then are “the first-born.” And, as the first-born, 
 they are “ written in heaven.” The peculiar privileges 
 belonging to the first-born in Israel, as well as the pecu¬ 
 liar right of property which the Lord claimed in them, 
 made it necessarv that an accurate register of them should 
 be kept (Numbers iii. 40). And so also there is a complete 
 register kept of the first-born in Christ. They are written 
 or enrolled in heaven. They are not lost sight of while 
 they are exposed to earth’s trials. “ The Lord knoweth 
 them that are his.” He “ calleth his own sheep by name 
 and he has their names recorded in heaven. This is their 
 joy ; “ In this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject 
 unto you ; but rather rejoice, because your names are 
 written in heaven” (Luke x. 20). This is their security 
 also against the devouring enemy on earth ; “ All that dwell 
 upon the earth shall worship” the beast, “whose names are 
 not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the 
 foundation of the world” (Eev. xiii. 8). And it is their 
 warrant and passport of admission at last into the New 
 Jerusalem ; “ There shall in no wise enter into it any thing 
 that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or 
 maketh a lie; but they which are written in the Lamb’s 
 book of life” (Eev. xxi. 27). 
 
 Such is the company here convened, at the foot of 
 the heavenly Sion, and in the presence of the holy 
 
 Y 
 
322 
 
 THE GREAT 
 
 angels, on one side of the President, who is God the Judge 
 of all. 
 
 They are convened as a company at once compre¬ 
 hensive and select;—comprehensive, for it is a “ general 
 assembly” ; select, for it is a church (fxxXjjir/a). 
 
 Both of these expressions are here used in their primary 
 meaning. They denote, not a permanent association, hut a 
 particular gathering; a meeting called for a purpose, and 
 on an occasion. In this view, the one expression—“ general 
 assembly”—brings out the wide and universal character 
 of the meeting ; it is the assembling together of the 
 entire body referred to. The other expression—“ church”-— 
 implies selection. The meeting is exclusive as well as 
 comprehensive. It is not a promiscuous or miscellaneous 
 crowd. It is a meeting of the whole body, but of none 
 else. It embraces all “the first-born who are written in 
 heaven,” but it shuts out others. All friends are here ; but 
 only friends. The whole family is admitted ; but strangers 
 must withdraw. 
 
 II. On the other side of the presiding Judge stands 
 another company, designated as “the spirits of just men 
 made perfect.” Who are they ? Not, as I apprehend, the 
 pious dead generally, but a particular class of the departed 
 people of God. I take them to be the collective body of the 
 Old Testament saints, as I take “the first-born which are 
 written in heaven” to be the entire household of New 
 Testament believers. And I ground this opinion on two 
 expressions which occur in the previous part of the pas¬ 
 sage, beginning at the end of the tenth chapter, of which the 
 last verses of this twelfth chapter are the close. 
 
 The first is the intimation at the outset, “ The just shall 
 live by faith” (x. 38). Starting from that great principle, 
 the writer goes on to define the faith by wdiich the just 
 live, and to give historical instances in illustration. So he 
 
GOSPEL CONVOCATION. 323 
 
 ushers in his noble catalogue, in the eleventli chapter, of 
 the grand old worthies of the olden time. For that eleventli 
 chapter, which should not be separated from the last 
 two verses of the tenth, is simply an appeal to the ex¬ 
 ample of the just who lived by faith before gospel times ; 
 and virtually, under chosen specimens, it includes them 
 all. 
 
 Now let the summing up of the glorious list be 
 noted, “ These all, having obtained a good report through 
 faith, received not the promise : God having provided some 
 better tiring for us, that they without us should not be 
 made perfect” (xi. 39, 40). Plainly the writer points to 
 some drawback or disadvantage connected with their Old 
 Testament state ; and just as plainly he points to its com¬ 
 plete removal through their becoming in some way par¬ 
 takers of some New Testament privilege. “ They without 
 us,” or apart from us, were “ not made perfect.” This may 
 mean merely in general that,—as “our eyes see and our 
 ears hear what many prophets and righteous men of old 
 desired to see and to hear but were not permitted,”—so 
 they also now see and hear it, and rejoice therefore witli 
 us in the actual accomplishment of the great redemption, 
 which was only imperfectly revealed to them in prophecy, 
 type, and figure. I am persuaded, however, that the 
 meaning is more pointed and precise. Especially taking 
 into account the remarkable phraseology of the verse now 
 under consideration,—distinguishing between “the first¬ 
 born written in heaven” and “ the spirits of just men 
 made perfect,”—I conceive the imperfection attaching to 
 the condition of Old Testament saints to have been just 
 this, that till Christ came, they were not and could not 
 be put in possession of the full blessedness which the son- 
 shi]) and heirship of “the first-born written in heaven” 
 imply. 
 
324 
 
 THE GREAT 
 
 It is to me a strong confirmation of this view, that it 
 harmonises so thoroughly with the representation given in 
 the Epistle to the Galatians (iv. 1-7) of the state of pupil¬ 
 lage in which Old Testament believers were, as contrasted 
 with the higher and freer filial standing of Christians. The 
 difference is made to turn mainly on the mission and mani¬ 
 festation of the Son, as the Son, and on the coming of the 
 Holy Ghost as the Spirit of the Son, In virtue of the Son 
 being “ made of a woman, made under the law,” “ the re¬ 
 demption from the curse of the law,” which the just who 
 lived by faith of old saw and embraced afar off, is now 
 complete. And in virtue of its having been “his Son” 
 whom “ God sent forth when the fubiess of the time was 
 come,” and of its being “ the Spirit of his Son” whom 
 he has been “ sending forth into our hearts ” since, we 
 “ receive the adoption of Sons,” and the Spirit in us “ cries 
 Abba, Father.” Is not this that “better thing which God 
 hath prepared for us, that they without us should not be 
 made perfect?” And is not the description—“the spirits 
 of just men made perfect”—simply an intimation that 
 they have come to share with us in that better thing now ? 
 
 Thus, then, it appears that the perfection of the state of 
 believers under the gospel, as contrasted with the imperfec¬ 
 tion of the state of believers under the law, consists in their 
 adoption as the sons of God, their participation with Christ 
 in his filial relation to the Father, being more fully de¬ 
 veloped and realised ; more distinctly indicated on the 
 part of God, and more thoroughly apprehended, felt, and 
 acted out by themselves. The difference, in fact, turns 
 upon the sense and recognition of the sonship and the 
 birthright. New Testament believers are “the first-born 
 written in heaven,” in all the extent and fulness of signifi- 
 cancy that can belong to these expressions. It is as pos¬ 
 sessing fully this privilege that they are convened in this 
 
GOSPEL CONVOCATION. 326 
 
 great assize. And of this very privilege their predecessors, 
 the Old Testament saints, are now partakers. Whatever 
 imperfection, in respect of the development and realisation 
 of their sonship, might mark their spiritual state on earth, 
 before the actual manifestation of the Son of God in the 
 flesh, is all now at an end. The wall of partition is broken 
 down. And when the souls of these righteous ones who 
 lived by faith are summoned to attend the wondrous 
 meeting at which all the first-born are assembled before 
 their God and Judge, it is not now any inferior or imperfect 
 position that they occupy. They come forth as “ the spirits 
 of just men made perfect.” They are complete in Christ.” 
 
 In so august an audience, in such near contact with 
 God the judge of all, the assembled company need and 
 welcome a Mediator and his mediation;—“And to Jesus 
 the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of 
 sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.” 
 
 First, there is a Mediator. There was a Mediator at 
 Sinai: Moses; who said,—“ so terrible was the sight,”—“ I 
 exceedingly fear and quake.” There is a mediator here : 
 one who, “ in the days of his flesh,” cried, “ How is my 
 soul troubled,”—“ How is my soul sorrowful even unto 
 death.” The terror of Sinai fell chiefly on Moses, as the 
 mediator then between Israel and Israel’s God and Judge. 
 A terror still more overwhelming falls upon Jesus, the 
 mediator now, not on Sinai but on Zion, between those to 
 whom he is “ the first-born among many brethren,” and that 
 “ God, the judge of all, before whom they stand.” And 
 through this greater terror, he is the mediator of a new and 
 better covenant. From Sinai, through the mediation of 
 Moses, the law was given ; uncompromising in its claims 
 and unrelenting in its penalties. From Zion, through the 
 mediation of Jesus, the law is given : satisfied in its highest 
 
THE GREAT 
 
 claims, and exhausted in its sternest penalties, by liis own 
 work of love. From Sinai, at the hands of Moses, the law 
 is given by a thundering voice, as a rule of life authorita¬ 
 tively enforced from without. From Zion, at the hands of 
 Jesus, the law is given also by the power of the living Spirit, 
 as a principle of life energetically working within. 
 
 Secondly, there is mediation. It is the sprinkling of 
 blood, or “ the blood of sprinkling.” And of that blood it 
 is said that “ it speaketh that it speaketh good things ; 
 that it “ speaketh better things than that of Abel,” or than 
 Abel. 
 
 Is there here any reference to what the Lord says in 
 emphatic reply to Cain’s impious defiance, “Am I my 
 brother’s keeper ?”—“ The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth 
 unto me from the ground” (Genesis iv. 10) ? That cry is 
 assumed to be a cry for vengeance, like the cry of the souls 
 under the altar, “ How long, 0 Lord, holy and true, dost thou 
 not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the 
 earth ?” Is it with this cry for vengeance, supposed to be 
 uttered by Abel’s blood, that Christ’s peace-speaking “ blood 
 of sprinkling” is contrasted ? 
 
 I think not. For one thing, I would ask, is it quite 
 clear that God on that occasion speaks of Abel’s blood as 
 cryhig for vengeance ? That is not expressly said, nor 
 is it at all necessarily implied. All that is meant may be, 
 and probably is, not that it is a cry for vengeance against 
 Cain’s life, but that it is a cry of witness against his lie, God 
 makes inquisition for blood. He asks Cain, Where is Abel 
 thy brother ? And the audacious falsehood of Cain’s reply, 
 “I know not,”—is refuted by the “poor dumb voice” of 
 his brother’s “ wounds” speaking for him. Besides, even if 
 we take the cry of Abel’s blood to be a cry for vengeance, 
 the introduction of it on the occasion of this great con- 
 \'ontion is unseasonable. To say of the atoning blood of 
 
GOSPEL CONVOCATION. 327 
 
 Christ, that it speaketh better things than blood that 
 cries for vengeance, is to pay it a poor compliment at the 
 best. 
 
 It is far more to the purpose, as it seems to me, to 
 understand the writer as referring,—either to the blood 
 which Abel shed, when “ by faith he offered unto God a 
 more acceptable sacrifice than Cain” (xi. 4),—or to the 
 testimony which Abel bears concerning the efficacy of that 
 sacrifice which by faith he offered. This last is probably 
 the real meaning. It is in accordance with the exact words 
 of the passage : “ the blood of sprinkling which speaketh 
 better things than Abel.” And it fits in, by a natural 
 allusion, to what has previously been said concerning Abel 
 (xi. 4), that, with special reference to the sacrifice which 
 by faith he offered, “ he being dead, yet speaketL” 
 
 Abel is the first of the Old Testament worthies cele¬ 
 brated in the muster-roll of the eleventh chapter, and in¬ 
 troduced into the scene now before us as “ the spirits of just 
 men made perfect.” He leads the van of that noble army of 
 martyrs—“ the cloud of witnesses compassing us about.” 
 And he does so, because he is the first on record to seal 
 his faith in the necessity and efficacy of an atoning sacri¬ 
 fice for sin. He acted on that faith when he offered as his 
 sacrifice, not “ the first fruits of the ground” as a mere ex¬ 
 pression of gratitude, but “ the firstlings ” of his flock as a 
 propitiation for guilt. He suffered for that faith when he 
 fell under his brother’s envious hand. He died a martyr 
 to the great truth, that “ without shedding of blood there 
 is no remission” (ix. 22) ; and of this precise truth, “ he 
 being dead yet speaketh.” 
 
 But, after all, how inadequately can he speak of it! 
 How vague and indistinct is any voice his offering or his 
 martyrdom can utter, in comparison with that “ blood of 
 sprinkling” which “speaks” now ! Abel’s testimony then. 
 
328 
 
 THE GREAT 
 
 embodied in the act he performed and confirmed by the 
 death he died, speaks of guilt expiated and the guilty 
 soul cleansed, only in a figure, through the slaying of a 
 lamb, a mere senseless animal, that could never be a worthy 
 substitute for the criminal at God’s bar; '‘For it is not 
 possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take 
 away sins.” But the blood of sprinkling now, the precious 
 ‘'blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God which cleanseth 
 from all sin,” speaks better things. It speaks not of re¬ 
 demption typically represented, but of redemption actually 
 accomplished—not of a figurative, but of a real atonement 
 —not of “ sanctifying” or cleansing “ to the purifying of 
 the flesh,” but of the “ purging of the conscience from dead 
 works to serve the living God” (Heb. ix. 13, 14). 
 
 Thus understood, the introduction of this “ blood of 
 sprinkling, speaking better things than Abel,” is entirely to 
 the purpose of the matter here on hand, the ratifying of a 
 great covenant of righteousness and peace. It is suitable 
 and seasonable as regards the comparison or contrast be¬ 
 tween Sinai and Zion. In the scene at Sinai there was in¬ 
 deed blood of sprinkling ; for only by the use of blood could 
 the people be sanctified according to the Lord’s command. 
 (Exod. xix. 10, 14). The blood of sprinkling, however, 
 then employed could speak only as Abel speaks. It was of 
 the same nature with Abel’s sacrifice, and could speak no 
 better things. But the blood of sprinkling that is available 
 here, at the foot and within the precincts of Mount Zion 
 —the blood that is to fit and qualify for an approach, not 
 to a tangible burning mountain, but to a glorious spiritual 
 city—that blood speaks assuredly better things by far. 
 It speaks of a sufficient ransom for condemned and de¬ 
 praved men found and provided by the living God himself. 
 It speaks of the ratification of a better covenant, founded 
 upon better promises. It speaks of the removal of the 
 
GOSPEL CONVOCATION. 329 
 
 whole burden of guilt from the conscience, and the whole 
 pollution of sin from the heart. And it so speaks these 
 better things as to unite in one the two companies on the 
 right and on the left of God, their common judge,—the 
 lirst-born registered in heaven and the spirits of just men 
 made perfect. All now are one, invested with the same 
 sonship, sprinkled with the same blood. 
 
 Now, having examined the several particulars of the 
 scene, let us combine them in one whole. Let us take a 
 general view of the picture. The veil of sense is with¬ 
 drawn, and what does the eye of faith see ? 
 
 Not “ the mount that might be touched,” but one that 
 can be only spiritually discerned—on which no hand can 
 as yet be laid, and no foot may tread. It is Mount Zion. 
 But it is jMount Zion more “ beautiful for situation” than 
 ever Israelite’s fond gaze beheld her—“ the joy,” not “ of 
 the whole earth” merely, but of the whole heaven —“ the 
 city of the great King” (Psalm xlviii. 2). For the mountain 
 is not like Sinai, lifting its dark and lonely head over the 
 dreary wilderness. The heavenly Jerusalem crowns its 
 summit and sweeps along its skirts. And instead of 
 burning fire she has “ the glory of God. And her light is 
 like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, 
 clear as crystal” (Eev. xxi. 11). 
 
 At the base of this glorious mount,—not yet entering 
 the heavenly city but assembled near it,—what a group 
 meets our view ! On one side, there is the whole vast 
 multitude of those who, under the dispensation of the 
 gospel, receive the adoption of sons. They are brought 
 together in holy convocation to meet their God—to meet 
 him as their Lawgiver, King, and Judge. On the other 
 side we see,—associated with them in fullest sympathy 
 and on a footing of entire equality,—the glorious company 
 
330 
 
 THE GREAT 
 
 of those who walked by faith under an imperfect dispensa¬ 
 tion, but to whose estate imperfection attaches now no more. 
 ]\Iyriads of angels are assembled as deeply interested spec¬ 
 tators, and something more,—occupying the surrounding 
 heights, and intently watching the procedure. 
 
 The real transaction, however, is between the people 
 met below the Mount beside the City, and the Being before 
 whom they stand. The transaction is through a mediator ; 
 who on the one hand has a covenant to promulgate on the 
 part of God, and on the other hand has blood to sprinkle 
 on the people. He comes from God to the people with 
 tables in his grasp on which are inscribed the exact 
 terms of the law. But it is the law satisfied, magnified, 
 and honoured, by his own infinitely meritorious righteous¬ 
 ness ; the law, moreover, now to be transferred, in that 
 new form of it, into the sinner’s heart, and made part and 
 parcel of his very nature as renewed by the Holy Ghost. 
 Thus the Mediator comes from God to the people, propos¬ 
 ing to them, not a legal covenant which must condemn, 
 but a gracious covenant which saves. And then, to bring 
 the people near to God, he has blood to sprinkle on them 
 —atoning blood. Bor this end “ he has received of the 
 Father the promise of the Holy Ghost.” And this sprink¬ 
 ling of such blood by such an agency,—this application of 
 tlie propitiatory sacrifice of Christ by the power of the 
 Holy Spirit,—speaks of what no other service or sacrifice 
 could promise. It speaks of peace with God, peace of 
 conscience, “peace in believing and joy in the Holy 
 Ghost.” 
 
 This, then, is the scene. Clearly enough it is for the 
 present ideal and spiritual. It is to be apprehended by 
 faith. But it concerns us deeply to apprehend the scene as 
 real, It must be matter of ])ersonal experience with us ; 
 
GOSPEL CONVOCATION. 331 
 
 spiritual, but uot the less on that account real. For it 
 is said, “ Ye are come to it.” 
 
 There are three applications of which, as it seems to 
 me, these words admit. 
 
 1. The first is that which is more immediately suggested 
 by the language “ Ye have come.” Your coming to Mount 
 Zion bears the same relation to your exodus, on the 
 one hand, and your march through the wilderness to 
 Canaan, on the other hand, that the coming of the Israel¬ 
 ites to Sinai did to theirs. The transaction at Sinai, let 
 it be remembered, is the intermediate link between the 
 exodus and Canaan. Instantly on their being brought out 
 of Egypt, God summoned the Israelites to meet him at 
 Sinai. He had a solemn business to transact with them. 
 Their first step out of Egypt was to the foot of the Mount. 
 God brought his ransomed people before him that he might 
 declare to them his covenant. It was a gracious covenant, 
 if they had been able so to understand it. It was ordained 
 in the hands of a mediator—Moses. And it was not 
 without blood of sprinkling for the sins of the people ; 
 blood typical, indeed, merely of the real atonement for sin, 
 but yet significant and satisfying so far to all spiritually 
 awakened souls. A transaction of this sort was a fitting 
 sequel to the exodus. And it was also a fitting prelimi¬ 
 nary to the command, “ Go up and possess the land.” 
 The redeemed stood before their redeeming God as their law¬ 
 giver, deliverer, king, and judge,—to know the terms on 
 which they were to be with him. It was meet that there 
 should be this understanding before they set out on their 
 brief march, for it should have been brief, to Canaan. 
 
 Now, if the New Testament Church were to be saved 
 by some such wholesale deliverance as this, its members 
 might be led out thus to meet their God ;—to be dealt with 
 collectively by him and to receive his instructions. That, 
 
332 
 
 THE GREAT 
 
 however, is not the Gospel method. Individually, by a 
 separate process in each mind, a distinct spiritual change 
 in every soul, God effects the rescue of his people. There 
 cannot, therefore, be any general gathering together, in a 
 literal sense, such as there was at Sinai. 
 
 But practically, in a real though spiritual sense, every 
 converted soul has to pass through an analogous spiritual 
 crisis. It is a momentous crisis, as regards both tlie exo¬ 
 dus and the pilgrimage; the escape he has made and the 
 way he has to go. It is, in fact, the settlement, once 
 for all, of the terms upon which he is henceforth to be 
 with his God, as his Sovereign Lord. It is his being con¬ 
 fronted and brought face to face with God, in a new state 
 and character, as redeemed by his grace and ready for his 
 work. 
 
 Let the believer place himself in this position on his 
 first closing with Christ. Let him know and feel what 
 it means. Have you been rescued from the city of 
 destruction ? Then, your first step is to come to this 
 Mount Zion. You “ are come” to it. There is the holy 
 hill of God, the city of the Lord, the heavenly Jerusalem. 
 And tliere are angels in countless throng, rejoicing over 
 one sinner that repenteth, ready to minister to the heirs of 
 salvation. And the holy men of old, “ of whom the world 
 was not worthy.” And all the faithful in Christ Jesus, 
 from the dying thief, and the martyr Stephen, down to the 
 last saint that is to be translated to glory. That is an 
 august enough assemblage, fitted to strike you down to 
 the ground with deepest awe. But that is not all. For, 
 looking up, what do you see ? Or rather, whom ? The 
 God with whom you have to do. Yes! it is God the 
 judge of all whom you meet, eye to eye, face to face. Do 
 you tremble—you, a man of unclean lips, seeing the King, 
 tlio Lord of Hosts ? Do you fall down as one dead ? Let 
 
GOSPEL CONVOCATION. 333 
 
 the IVIodiator minister to you the promises of the covenant 
 of grace. Let him sprinkle you afresh with atoning blood. 
 You stand erect among the first-born. 
 
 But hark! a voice! Before you leave the presence, 
 God speaks these 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 me.” 
 Thus, “out of Zion goes forth the law.” And other 
 words he speaks, words of greater love and of more quick¬ 
 ening power. “ I will put my laws into their mind, and 
 write them in their hearts : and I will be to them a God, 
 and they shall be to me a people : And they shall not 
 teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, 
 saying. Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the 
 least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their 
 unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I 
 remember no more ” (Hebrews viii. 10, 12). 
 
 Speak on. Lord, will you not now say, for thy servant 
 heareth. Let him speak to you his whole mind. And see 
 that you refuse not him that speaketh. Stand in awe, 0 
 believer, and sin not. Let God the judge of all, to whom 
 in circumstances so solemn you are broiight so very near, 
 deal with you and instruct you in all the way you have to 
 go. Let him deal with you thoroughly according to all his 
 good pleasure. Let there be here, and now, in this dread 
 audience, an entire adjustment of his claims and your obliga¬ 
 tions. And leave not the holy mountain until, a thorough 
 understanding being established between you and the liv¬ 
 ing God, the righteous judge, you are ready for going up to 
 take possession of the inheritance in face of all enemies, with 
 the light of his countenance shining upon you, and his love 
 shed abroad in your hearts through the Holy Ghost being 
 given unto you. 
 
 2. Another application of this phrase, “ ye are come ” 
 
334 
 
 THE GREAT 
 
 may be allowed. You are come to this scene, and here you 
 remain. This is your rest. You are ever coming to it. 
 You draw near ; you live near. 
 
 To what ? and to whom ? You are near the holy Zion, 
 the heavenly Jerusalem ; your conversation is in heaven. 
 You are near to holy angels and perfected saints. I do not 
 speak of conscious fellowship between them and you. No 
 actual intercourse may he enjoyed with them as yet. But 
 you are near; and faith ever realises the nearness. You 
 “ are come to them.” There they stand ; angels receiving 
 charge over you to keep you ; and the saints of old, Abel, 
 Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,—all the martyrs and 
 all the prophets testifying to you how, even in a state far 
 less perfect than yours, they found it no vain thing to serve 
 the Lord, and never once regretted that they had walked 
 as strangers and pilgrims on the earth. And you are 
 near to God ; to “ God the judge of alla reconciled God ; 
 but your ruler still, your king and Lord ;—all the more 
 entitled to rule over you and judge you, because he has 
 made you his “ firstborn,” and as such, partakers of the 
 very love he bears to his own Son, and the very inheritance 
 of all things to which he has appointed him. And you 
 are near to Christ Jesus, ever discharging as Mediator his 
 double office, ministering to you the new covenant, and 
 sprinkling you with atoning blood. 
 
 Is this indeed our spiritual standing ? Is this really 
 our spiritual life ? Then, what reason is there for fear and 
 trembling; for surely the place where we stand is holy, 
 and we are called to be holy as He before whom we stand 
 is holy. Is the Holy Ghost bringing us and keeping 
 us ever near to a scene like this? Do we see it, though it 
 be invisible? Do we feel it, though it be intangible? 
 Then let us not refuse “ him that speaketh.” Let us not 
 be of them that draw back unto perdition. It is in solemn 
 
GOSPEL CONVOCATION. 335 
 
 circumstances that God is ever speaking to us when lie 
 brings us in such a way so near to himself. “ If they 
 escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much 
 more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that 
 speaketh from heaven” (verse 25). 
 
 3. There is still one other application of the scene 
 which is surely not inadmissible. It is all matter of faith 
 with us now. But is it not one day to become matter of 
 sense ? It is spiritually apprehended now. Is it not to be 
 literally and actually realised at last? “I John saw the 
 holy city new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of 
 heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And 
 I heard a great voice out of heaven, saying. Behold, the 
 tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, 
 and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be 
 with them, and be their God” (Eevelation xxi. 2, 3). Is 
 not this the actual accomplishment of what is represented 
 here in figure? 
 
 The shaking of the earth at Sinai indicated the intro¬ 
 duction of a new economy. The shaking, not of the earth 
 only, but also of the heaven, which the apostle connects 
 with the scene on Zion, indicated a revolution more 
 complete. All temporal and typical ordinances were 
 superseded. Things capable of being shaken passed away. 
 Boom was made for the bringing in of “ things that 
 remain,”—the kingdom that cannot be moved” (verses 
 27, 28). This kingdom “we now receive.” But we re¬ 
 ceive it only spiritually and by faith. Our capital, our 
 fellow-subjects, our king, are all unseen. All, however, are 
 to be visible at last. The God of glory appears. Angels, the 
 church of the first-born, the worthies of the olden time—all 
 severally indebted to Christ, as their Saviour, cease not to 
 celebrate his praise day and night. Let us hopefully an¬ 
 ticipate this blessed gathering. Let us believingly taste, even 
 
336 GOSPEL CONVOCATION. 
 
 now, its blessedness, as well as its solemnity. Eeceiving 
 now by “ faith,” as we are to receive actually at last, the 
 “ kingdom which cannot be moved,” “ let ns have grace, 
 whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and 
 godly fear. For even our God is a consuming fire” 
 (verses 28, 29). 
 
III. 
 
 The Son calling his People Brethren. 
 
 “ For which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, 
 saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in 
 the midst of the church Avill I sing praise unto thee. 
 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again. 
 Behold I and the children which God hath given me.”— 
 Heb. ii. 11-13. 
 
 There is probably an allusion in this passage to the con¬ 
 dition which the Jewish law annexed to the right of 
 redemption. The redeemer must be a kinsman of the 
 party whose person or whose property was to be redeemed 
 (Lev. XXV. 25, 48, 49). This condition was doubtless 
 designed to guard against fraud, and to secure that the 
 interference with the ordinary course of law which the 
 right of redemption implied was really, in good faith, an 
 act of grace. When, therefore, the Son undertakes the 
 office of redeemer on our behalf, he must be in a position 
 to claim kindred with us. That is not his original posi¬ 
 tion. As the Son, he is the Father’s “fellow not ours. 
 But he becomes our fellow, our kinsman. And he does so 
 even though it involves his taking our place under the law 
 which we have broken; answering for us in the judgment; 
 sanctifying or cleansing us by his blood. “For which 
 cause,” in respect of his so thoroughly identifying himself 
 with us, and making common cause with us, “ he is not 
 ashamed to call us brethren.” It is a strong expression. 
 
 Z 
 
338 
 
 THE SON CALLING 
 
 He is not ashamed, because his calling us brethren is 
 more than a hare verbal acknowledgment or formal salu¬ 
 tation : it involves the conferring of real and substantial 
 brotherly benefits.* 
 
 It is to confirm this view that the three texts from the 
 Old Testament are here introduced. It is to show not only 
 that the Messiah does call his people brethren, but that 
 there is no reason why he should be ashamed to do so. 
 It is to prove,—not only generally that this relation of 
 brotherhood between Christ and his people is asserted in 
 Scripture,—but in particular that it is asserted in such a 
 way as to make it not nominal merely, but substantial and 
 real. 
 
 I. The first passage quoted here (verse 12), “I will 
 declare thy name unto my brethren : in tlie midst of the 
 church will I praise thee,”—is from the twenty-second 
 Psalm (verse 22). 
 
 That psalm is strictly Messianic. It is literally fulfilled 
 in the sufferings of Christ and the glory which followed. 
 No doubt the inspired author uttered his own sentiments 
 when he composed the psalm. The spiritual man also, 
 using the psalm now, does the same. Tiie oneness with 
 Christ which the Spirit works, through faith, implies as 
 much. But it is Christ himself; not of course Christ 
 standing alone and apart from his Church; but Christ 
 
 * The same thought is suggested elsewhere in this Epistle. 
 “But now they”—the patriarchs—“desire a better country, 
 that is, an heavenly]: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called 
 their God; for he hath prepared for them a city” (xi. 16). The 
 meaning evidently is, that God would have been ashamed,— 
 he would have counted it unworthy of himself,—to assume 
 or accept, with reference to his people, a merely nominal and 
 empty title, that did not secure to them a substantial benefit. 
 The meaning is the same here. 
 
HIS PEOPLE BRETHREN. 339 
 
 representing liis people, and taking tliem all to be bis body; 
 —it is he who speaks ; first in his agony (verses 1-21), 
 and then in his triumph (verses 22-31). 
 
 The beginning of his triumph is the verse here cited. 
 The first fruit of his victory is, that it places him in the 
 best and most favourable position for declaring his Father’s 
 name unto his brethren, so that in the midst of the church 
 or congregation composed of them he may praise the Father. 
 This is no new purpose on his part. He lias been all 
 along, in all his earthly ministry, keeping it in view. So 
 he appeals to his Father before his death,—“ I have de¬ 
 clared unto them thy name, and will declare it” (John xvii. 
 26). But at this crisis, after his death, when he is passing 
 from his finished work to its reward,—he can say, as he 
 could not fully say before, “ I will declare thy name unto 
 mv brethren.” 
 
 Yes! “Unto my brethren!” The emphasis lies there. 
 And accordingly, as a simple historical fact, it is worthy 
 of notice that it is after his resurrection that Jesus for 
 the first time uses this expression concerning his disciples, 
 —“ my brethren.”* To the women the risen Saviour says, 
 
 * I do not consider the Lord’s reply to those who told 
 him of his mother and his brethren standing outside of the 
 crowd, desiring to speak with him, as at all a parallel or equi¬ 
 valent instance ;—“ Who is my mother, and who are my 
 brethren 1 ... . Behold my mother and my brethren ! 
 
 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in 
 heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother” 
 (Matt. xii. 48-50). Evidently the Lord means nothing 
 more than that the moral and spiritual tie which binds him to 
 all his Father’s obedient subjects, is stronger and more sacred 
 than any mere family bond, however close and tender. There 
 is nothing special in the expression “ my brethren” or “ my 
 brother,”—any more than there is in the expressions “my 
 sister” or “my mother.” 
 
340 
 
 THE SON CALLING 
 
 “ Go, tell my brethren.” To Mary he says, “ Go to my 
 brethren and say ” How is this to be explained ? 
 
 In the first place, Jesus now enters upon that state in 
 which he can fully declare the Father’s name. He can 
 now unfold the character of God his Father in a light in 
 which it could never before be adequately seen; and he 
 can thus raise in the church a new song of praise. 
 Never before, never otherwise, could the name of God— 
 his nature, his character, his mind and heart, as the 
 Eighteous Father—be so declared as the Son is now in 
 a position to declare it. He can declare it fully and 
 effectually. He can declare it fully. He can declare it 
 as it shines forth, in all its light and love, in himself per¬ 
 sonally, and in his work now finished and accepted. He 
 can declare it effectually. He has received of the Father 
 the promise of the Holy Ghost to teach his people all 
 things. Hence the propriety of the profession coming 
 from his lips now. Passing from his cross to his crown, 
 the Lord is now most thoroughly able, both by revelation 
 to his disciples and by inspiration in them, to declare 
 the Father’s name, and lead among them the Father’s 
 praise. By revelation to them ;—for he has his own 
 wondrous person, as the God-man, and his own gracious 
 work, as the mediator, the ransom, the bleeding victim, 
 dying in their stead, and owned in his resurrection as not 
 having died in vain;—he has himself, in short, and his 
 cross, to be the means or medium for declaring the name 
 of the righteous Father. By inspiration also in them ; 
 for, ascending up on high and receiving gifts for them, he 
 gives the Holy Ghost, by whom they are taught to know' 
 the name of the righteous Father, as the Son declares it, 
 and to praise him as the Son praises him. 
 
 But, secondly, this is not all. There is a still closer 
 connection to be traced between the Lord’s calling his 
 
HIS PEOPLE BRETHREN, 341 
 
 people Ills brethren and his declaring to them the Father’s 
 name. It is not simply said,—they are my brethren,because 
 I declare unto them thy name; but I declare thy name 
 unto them as my brethren. They are my brethren when 
 I declare unto them thy name. It is as to my brethren 
 that I declare unto them thy name. Their becoming my 
 brethren is the condition of my declaring unto them thy 
 name, and the means of my doing so. Not otherwise 
 could I do so. For the discoveries which I have to make 
 to them concerning thee, 0 righteous Father, are such as I 
 could not make to any but my brethren. They must oc¬ 
 cupy the same position that I occupy, and be one with me, 
 as my brethren, in my relation to thee and my acquaintance 
 with thee. They must see thee from the same point of 
 view from which I see thee. They must come to know 
 thee by the very same sort of experience of thy love by 
 which I know thee, I must have them to be my brethren, 
 if I am to declare unto them thy name. 
 
 For this name of God the righteous Father,—this essen¬ 
 tial nature of his, as the righteous Father,—the holy love 
 that is in his heart, as the righteous Father,—-never can be 
 known at second hand. Even the Son cannot make us 
 know it, except by making us one with himself—one with 
 him in his personal, experimental, loving knowledge of the 
 Father, in whose bosom he dwells. He says this, I think, 
 very clearly on three different occasions. 
 
 1. (John i. 18), “ No man hath seen God at any time. 
 The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, 
 he hath declared him.” But how has he declared him ? 
 Not merely through his “ dwelling among us, full of grace 
 and truth ” (14); but through our “ receiving of his fulness, 
 even grace for grace” (16); grace answering and corre¬ 
 sponding to his grace ; the very grace of which he is full, 
 as “ the only begotten Son dwelling in the bosom of the 
 
342 
 
 THE SON CALLING 
 
 Father.” It is as dwelling himself in the bosom of the 
 Father that he sees the Father ; so sees him as to be able 
 to declare him to us. And it is by making ns partakers of 
 his own grace,—^by causing us to dwell, as he himself dwells, 
 in the bosom of the Father,—by embracing us in his own 
 filial oneness with the Father and filial fellowship with the 
 Father,—it is thus that he declares to us the Father. 
 
 2. (Mat. xi. 27), “No man know^eth the Father save the 
 Son and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.” And 
 to whom is it the Sou’s pleasure to reveal the Father ? To 
 whom but to “ the babes” to whom the Father himself 
 reveals “ the things which he has hid from the wise and pru¬ 
 dent?” And these babes ! Are they not the new-born babes, 
 the little children, who alone can see the kingdom of God ? 
 They are those wdiom, as born again,—born like himself of 
 the Spirit,—Jesus may call his brethren. As such, they are 
 placed by him in the very same position of advantage for 
 knowing the Father which proj)erly belongs to himself 
 alone. None can know the Father but the Son, and those 
 to whom, by making them his brethren in his sonship, the 
 Son reveals the Father. 
 
 3. (John xvii. 25, 26), “ 0 righteous Father, the world 
 hath not known thee.” Sad, but not strange. How 
 should the world, lying in the wicked one and estranged 
 from the Father, know him, so as to enter into his mind 
 and heart, understand his real character, and do him justice 
 in judging of his ways. Is there no one then to whom the 
 Father can look ? none to know, to understand, to sympa¬ 
 thise with him ? “I have known thee,” says the Son of his 
 love. And not only have I known thee. There are others 
 who have “ known that thou hast sent me.” To them “ I 
 have declared thy name,” and will yet more fully “ declare 
 it.” “ The love wherewith thou hast loved me,” and whereby 
 I have known thee, shall “ be in them, and I in them.” 
 
HIS PEOPLE BRETHREN. 343 
 
 Thus the Son undertakes to declare the Father’s name 
 to those whom in virtue of his incarnation, his obedience, 
 his sufferings, his death, and his resurrection,—all on their 
 behalf,—he is not ashamed to call his brethren. 
 
 And it is “ in the midst of the church or congregation” 
 composed of them, that he now praises the Father. “ I 
 will praise thee,” he says to the Father. But not alone 
 and apart wiU I praise thee ; as if I only, rightly knowing 
 thee, could worthily praise thee. I have now got a 
 church or congregation of brethren with whom I can asso¬ 
 ciate myself, and in the midst of whom I can praise thee. 
 
 The praise is on account of prayer answered and signal 
 deliverance experienced. “ I will praise thee,” I who but 
 yesterday “ made supplication, with strong crying and 
 tears.” The sharp cry of agony is changed into the trium¬ 
 phant language of praise ; praise, however, not as for 
 myself alone. “ In the midst of the congregation I will 
 praise thee.” For these, the congregation of my brethren-, 
 are interested in the deliverance on account of which I 
 have to praise thee ;—in what way, and with what depth 
 and intensity, they will begin to understand and feel when 
 I fully “ declare unto them thy name.” But for that they 
 would be incapable of any sympathy with me, either in my 
 song of praise, or in the terrible experience that preceded 
 and evoked it; and I must go apart and be alone in my joyj 
 as much as I once was in my grief. In the garden they, 
 all slept;—on the cross, they all forsook me and fled. 
 They could not go with me into my sufferings ; they could 
 not enter into the meaning of my shame and sorrow. To 
 call them, in these circumstances, brethren,—to expect them 
 as brethren to sympathise with me,—would scarcely have 
 been reasonable or fair. I might have been ashamed then 
 to call them brethren. And in point of fact, I had to make 
 allowance for them, as for a feeble flock, in whom the spirit 
 
344 
 
 THE SON CALLING 
 
 was willing but the flesh weak ; the scattered sheep of a 
 smitten shepherd ; to be pitied rather than to be blamed. 
 But it is not so now. I have declared and will more fully 
 declare unto them thy name. I give them such a discovery 
 of thy character, such an insight into thy heart, 0 righteous 
 Father, as casts a flood of light on all that I have had to 
 do and to suffer on the earth. The evil of earth’s sin— 
 the awfid justice of heaven—the dread reality of an atoning 
 sacrifice—the shedding of blood for the expiation of guilt— 
 the substitution of the holy one in the room of the guilty, 
 and the laying of their iniquities upon him ;—all this they 
 can now enter into and sympathise with, whatever might 
 be their inability before. And therefore, also, in the joy 
 and triumph which follow upon the anguish ended and the 
 victory achieved, they can now with heart and soul partici¬ 
 pate. I need not now be solitary in the utterance of my 
 thankful acknowledgments, 0 righteous Father. I have 
 brethren who now at last can go along with me and be one 
 with me, first in my agony and then in my triumph ; who 
 know “ the power of my resurrection” because they know 
 “ the fellowship of my sufferings.” There is a congregation 
 now gathered around me; the congregation of those to 
 whom as my brethren I declare thy name. In the midst 
 of that congregation, and carrying their full sympathy along 
 with me, I now, 0 righteous Father, will praise thee. 
 
 Surely, on such terms, he need not be ashamed to call 
 them brethren. 
 
 II. The propriety of the second reason why Christ is 
 not ashamed to call his disciples brethren, is not at first 
 sight very apparent. The saying quoted in the first clause 
 of verse 13, “I will put my trust in him,” may be found 
 in more than one Messianic passage, and I am not dis¬ 
 posed to fix very dogmatically on any one. I am inclined 
 to regard it as a sort of general reference ;—though I do 
 
HIS PEOPLE BRETHREN. 345 
 
 not at all object to its being held to be a version of that 
 word of Isaiah, in the passage to which the next quotation 
 refers, “ I will wait upon the Lord” (viii. 17). That certainly 
 is equivalent to ‘‘ I will put iny trust in hmi.” 
 
 But the more material question is ; how does our 
 Lord’s use of either of these forms of speech, or of any 
 similar language, prove that he is not, and need not be, 
 ashamed to call his disciples brethren ? 
 
 Plainly such language as this—“ I will wait upon 
 the Lord,”—or “ I will put my trust in him,”—is not, 
 and cannot be, the expression of any sentiment or feel¬ 
 ing proper to the original and everlasting relation sub¬ 
 sisting between the Lather and the Son. Never, at 
 any time, could the coequal and coeternal Son, with 
 reference to his own divine nature, as one of the Persons 
 in the ever-blessed Trinity, thus speak of the Father. 
 That he should be found in a position to use such language 
 is an instance of wonderful condescension. And that he 
 should use it in a position of oneness with us,—as re¬ 
 gards our state of dependence upon God and the necessity 
 of our continually exercising faith or trust in God,—is 
 indeed a proof of his conferring upon us so great and 
 substantial a benefit as may well make him not ashamed 
 to call us brethren. 
 
 “ I will put my trust in him.” Is not this the motto 
 and grand heading of the entire human life of the Saviour ? 
 Is not this the spirit and embodiment of his whole conduct 
 here below ? He did not live by the exercise of his own 
 prerogative or power, but as other men, by bread, or what¬ 
 ever God might be pleased to ordain. His miracles were 
 not done to support or relieve himself. As to all that was 
 personal to himself,—what he was to eat and drink—where¬ 
 withal he was to be clothed—where he was to lay his 
 head ;—as to all his personal experience, and especially as 
 
346 
 
 THE SON CALLING 
 
 to all lie had to suffer from first to last;—he had the very 
 same occasion for the exercise of trust or faith that we 
 have amid the anxieties and perplexities of our utmost 
 helplessness and want. And was not this faith on his part 
 sufficiently put to the test ? Was not the extent to which 
 he could go in saying,—I will put my trust in him,”— 
 thoroughly tried and proved ? And is he not therefore 
 well entitled to call us his brethren, and to ask us as his 
 brethren to learn of iiim ? Can we ever be in circum¬ 
 stances in which it can be more hard for us to say, I will 
 put my trust in God, than it was for him, in the wilder¬ 
 ness, in the garden, on the cross ? 
 
 And let us remember that the very fact of his having 
 power to deliver himself must be regarded as enhancing 
 the severity of such trial of his faith, and so enabling him 
 all the more to sympathise with us in the trial of our faith. 
 The consciousness of his being able, by a mere word, to 
 extricate himself out of all his troubles, must be taken 
 into account as an element of aggravation, when we see 
 him willing to face them all—naked as we are—dependent 
 as we are—submissive as he would have us to be—in the 
 spirit of implicit resignation and reliance,—“ I will put my 
 trust in God.” 
 
 Surely He is one who need not be ashamed to call us 
 brethren ! He is indeed a brother—a brother born for 
 adversity! He is our brother, being our companion in 
 tribulation ! 
 
 Hast thou a struggle, 0 poor soul, in saying “I will 
 put my trust in him V’ So had he. Thou hast ‘brother¬ 
 hood in thy struggle with him. Hear his loud cry ; “ ISlow 
 is my soul troubled ; and what shall I say ? Tather, save 
 me from this hour : but for this cause came I unto this 
 hour. Father, glorify thy name” (John xii. 27, 28). 
 
 Ah! this language of acquiescent and submissive reli- 
 
HIS PEOPLE BRETHREN. 347 
 
 ance,—“ I will put my trust in him,”—has a peculiar 
 pathos and emphasis imparted to it, when it is used as 
 language in the use of which we have brotherhood with 
 Jesus, For it is because he has been-in a position to 
 use that language himself,—and knows how hard it often 
 is to use it,—that he is not ashamed to call us brethren. 
 We imagine sometimes that this trust in God—this will¬ 
 ingness to leave all that concerns us to God—ought to 
 be always an easy and almost spontaneous exercise of 
 soul with one who really knows the Father’s name, and 
 lias got such cause to praise him as we have got. But 
 who knows the Father as the Son ? Who praises the 
 Father as the Son ? And yet he, in the days of his 
 flesh, found it difficult enough to say, “ I will put my trust in 
 him.” It cost him “ prayers and supplications, strong crying 
 and tears.” Why should we count it strange if it cost us 
 the like ? Bather let us be thankful that on this very 
 account he is not ashamed to call us brethren, because at 
 the very worst, in our utmost extremity,—when we find it 
 the hardest of all tasks to say “Thy will be done,” “I 
 will trust in thee,”—he can, as a brother, understand our 
 case ; he can enter into it. He can bring his own per¬ 
 sonal experience forward for our encouragement. He can 
 meet us as a brother in every trial ; and ever as he meets 
 us, and has fellowship with us as a brother, he can give us 
 courage, with whatever effort, to murmur,—“ I will trust and 
 not be afraid,” “ Though he slay me I will trust in him.” 
 
 III. The third reason given for Christ’s not being 
 ashamed to call us brethren is founded on a passage in 
 Isaiah (viii. 18), which is apt to be misunderstood, both as 
 it stands there, and as it is quoted here. It is given sub¬ 
 stantially in the same words by the Prophet and the Apostle ; 
 “ Behold, I and the children whom the Lord hath given me.” 
 
 This text, as recited in Hebrews, is sometimes held to 
 
348 
 
 THE SON CALLING 
 
 be an instance of our Lord’s calling us his children. But 
 he is never represented as sustaining that relation to his 
 people ;—not at least in any other sense than that in which 
 Abraham is said to have a seed. And at any rate his being 
 so represented here would be quite foreign to the writer’s 
 argninent, and, indeed, inconsistent with it. Even as used 
 by the prophet originally, the saying has no reference to 
 his own children, though some have so applied it. It has 
 a far higher import, as will be seen if its connection is con¬ 
 sidered.* 
 
 The prophet is describing the times in which he lives. 
 There is a general confederacy for evil among the people. 
 They associate themselves in defiance of the Lord. Are 
 there none found faithful among the faithless ? Yes, replies 
 this man of God. “ I will wait upon the Lord, that hideth 
 liis face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him” 
 (verse 1). Nor am I alone. I have brethren willing to be 
 fellow-vfitnesses, and, if need be, fellow-victims with me. 
 “ Behold, I and the children whom the Lord hath given 
 
 * For the Lord spcake thus to me with a strong hand, 
 and instructed me, that I should not walk in the way of this 
 people, saying, Say ye not, A confederacy, to all them to whom 
 this people shall say, A confederacy ; neither fear ye their 
 fear, nor be afraid. Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself: and 
 let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. And he 
 shall be for a sanctuary: but for a stone of stumbling, and 
 for a rock of offence, to both the houses of Israel; for a gin 
 and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many 
 among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be 
 snared, and be taken. Bind up the testimony, seal the law 
 among my disciples. And I will wait upon the Lord, that 
 hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for 
 him. Behold, I and the childi’en whom the Lord hath given 
 me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the Lord of 
 hosts, which dwelleth in Mount Zion (Is. viii. 11-18). 
 
HIS PEOPLE BRETHREN. 349 
 
 me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the Lord 
 of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.” 
 
 Such obviously is the meaning of the words, as origi¬ 
 nally uttered by Isaiah. And such also is their meaning 
 when put into the mouth of the Messiah. “ Behold I and 
 the children,”—the little ones,—“whom thou hast given 
 me;”—given me to he my brethren. Thus viewed they are 
 expressive of intense filial and brotherly affection. 
 
 Observe, in the first place, how lovingly he speaks of them 
 to the Father. They are “ the children”—the little ones. It 
 is the language of endearment. The elder brother presents 
 to his Father and their Father the little ones, mere babes, 
 infants who can but lisp thy praise, 0 Father; of whom 
 I said, Suffer them to come unto me. They are the little 
 ones—the childrem As such I love them, and delight to 
 have them as my brethren. I have revealed to them things 
 hidden from the wise and prudent; I have declared to 
 them thy name. They are the congregation in the midst 
 of which I rejoice to praise thee ; for “ out of the mouth of 
 liabes and sucklings I have perfected praise.” I teach them 
 to put their trust in thee, as I have done, 0 righteous 
 Father. Then how dear are these little ones to their elder 
 brother, as given to him by his Father ;—given to him in 
 covenant from everlasting;—given to him in right, as 
 bought with his blood ;—given to him in reality, being born 
 of the Spirit, in some sort as he was himself! With what 
 overflowing fulness of love,—the love of a true son and a 
 true brother,—does he present them to the Father! They 
 are mine—these children—these little ones ; mine, by 
 thine own gift, 0 Father. “Thine they were, and thou 
 gavest them me,” that I might be “ the first-born among 
 many brethren.” Be to them what thou art to me ; not 
 indeed as thou hast been to me from everlasting, but as 
 thou art to me now ;—now that I have become one with 
 
350 
 
 THE SON CALLING 
 
 “ the children whom thou hast given me now that they 
 have become one with me. “ Holy Father, keep through 
 thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they 
 may be one, as we are one” (John xvii. 11). 
 
 And now, secondly, observe for what end He presents 
 the little ones as his brethren to the Father. 
 
 Certainly, in the first instance, it is for present work 
 and warfare on the earth. So the original setting of this 
 gem indicates. He presents them to the Father to be jointly 
 with himself “for signs and for wonders in Jerusalem 
 from the Lord of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.” 
 Thou art not to be without signs, 0 righteous Father;— 
 without witnesses of thy character and purposes and plans, 
 in the world which knoweth not thee. Here am I for one. 
 And here also are these, the little ones, wdiom thou hast 
 given me ; whom I scruple not to associate with myself 
 in this office of being signs. I am not ashamed to call 
 them, in that view, my brethren, and to offer them to thee, 
 0 righteous Father, as my brethren, to be witnesses for 
 thee, as I have been. I have fitted and qualified them, as 
 my brethren, for that mission. I have given them the 
 very knowledge which I have myself of thy glorious name. 
 
 I have put my own song of praise into their lips. I have 
 made them partakers with myself in that grace of simple 
 trust which carried me safely through the pains and perils 
 of my witness-bearing. They are willing to be “ for signs.” 
 And “for wonders” too. They are willing and able, by 
 the help of the blessed Spirit, to be a very world’s wonder ; 
 to bear reproach, obloquy, persecution ; to seal, as I have 
 done, their testimony with their blood. So I present them 
 along with myself to thee, 0 righteous Father, to be “ for 
 signs and wonders” in the church and in the world. 
 
 But we need not limit this gracious presentation to the 
 present scene of trial. We may carry forward our view to 
 
HIS PEOPLE BRETHREN. 351 
 
 the day when the Lord Jesus shall appear, “to he glorified 
 iu his saints, and admired in all them that helieve.” 
 
 At that day it will he seen that he has indeed no cause 
 to he ashamed to call us hrethren;—that he has well sus¬ 
 tained a brother’s character, and well performed a brother’s 
 duty ; that he has kept back nothing of his Father’s light 
 or his Father’s love from us, for all things that he has 
 heard of his Father he has made known to us ; that he has 
 upheld us by his sympathy in the same faith which upheld 
 himself; that he has made us bearers of the same testi¬ 
 mony that he bore for his Father, and signs of the same 
 grace that he manifested, in the midst of a world of 
 “ despisers that can only behold, and wonder, and perish.” 
 
 Surely it is no vain thing to have the Son of the Highest 
 calling us brethren. He comes forth from the Father to 
 us as his brethren, and carries us back with him as his 
 brethren to the Father, that we may know the Father as 
 he knows him, and praise the Father as he praises him. 
 He is with us as our brother in all that calls for meek 
 patience, for quiet and simple trust, throughout our whole 
 pilgrimage and warfare here on earth. He presents us to 
 the Father as his brethren,—to be fellow-witnesses with 
 him of the Father’s grace now, and fellow-heirs with him 
 of the Father’s glory hereafter. 
 
 Such an elder brother is Christ to thee, 0 child of God ; 
 truly one who need not be ashamed to call thee brother. 
 Such an elder brother thou wilt find him to be, thou poor 
 prodigal, whosoever thou art, if thou wilt but suffer him to 
 act towards thee now a brother’s part. Far unlike that 
 elder brother in the parable, this elder brother comes to 
 thee in the far country of thine estrangement from God ; 
 deals with thee, pleads with thee, expostulates with thee ; 
 
352 THE SON CALLING, etc. 
 
 seizes thee, lays hold of thee, will not willingly let thee go, 
 until thou lettest him take thee home with himself to his 
 Father, waiting to he thine. Come, he cries, I will declare 
 to thee our Father’s name ; it is love. I will show thee 
 his nature ; it is love. I will open to thee his heart; it is 
 love ;—love to thee. Thou hast not known him. Thou hast 
 misunderstood him. Thou hast not done him justice. Thou 
 hast suspected, dreaded, disliked him. But see, here am I 
 to tell thee what he is, and how he feels toward thee. 
 Behold, in me, his gift to thee—to be the propitiation for 
 thy sins—how my Father loveth thee. Yes, 0 my poor 
 brother sinner, chief of sinners as thou art, believe me. 
 Believe, and join me, and join all my redeemed, in the 
 grateful song of praise. Let me have thee, as my brother, 
 to be one of the congregation in the midst of which I 
 am to praise our Father evermore. 
 
IV. 
 
 The Son learning Obedience by Suffering. 
 
 “ Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things 
 which he suffered; and being made perfect, he became the 
 author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.”— 
 Heb. V. 7-9. 
 
 The Lord Jesus is here set before us, first, as passing 
 tlirough a painful experience ; secondly, as by means of 
 that experience learning a necessary lesson ; and thirdly, 
 as becoming in this way qualified to bestow on his obedient 
 people all saving benefits. The experience through wliich 
 he passes is described not so much in its nature as in its 
 effects. We see the meek and holy sufferer offering up 
 “ prayers and supplications.” And these are of no ordinary 
 kind ; they are accompanied by strong crying and tears ” 
 (verse 7). And if the question is asked,—Why is that 
 sinless one subjected to such an afflictive discipline ?—is 
 there anything he needs to acquire at such a cost ?—there 
 is a key to the mystery. Son as he is, he has to learn 
 obedience by the things which he suffers; and so to be 
 made perfect. Nor is this all. The gracious end for which 
 he is to learn that lesson and to acquire that perfection is 
 not left to be conjectured. It is that he may become the 
 author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him. 
 
 The learner, the lesson, the result or issue,—all demand 
 our serious and attentive study. 
 
 Who and what is the learner ? A son ; the Son. Can 
 he bo a learner simply as the Son ? Consider his original 
 
 2 A 
 
354 
 
 THE SON LEARNING 
 
 nature, dignity, and rank; his co-equality with the Father, 
 as the Eternal Son ; of the same suhstance, equal in power 
 and glory; one with the Father and the Holy Ghost, in 
 the undivided essence of the Godhead, in the mysterious 
 fellowship and mutual relationship of the Trinity, and in 
 all the purpose of tiie divine mind,—specially with reference 
 to the ordering of the everlasting covenant. Thus essen¬ 
 tially one with the Father in nature, and thus intimately 
 related to the Father in person, the Eternal Son can learn 
 no lesson of obedience. But his incarnation renders him 
 capable of doing so ;—“ Being found in fashion as a man, 
 he became obedient” (Phil. ii. 6-8). In his state of humilia¬ 
 tion he learned obedience. And he learned it by becoming- 
 obedient even “ unto death and that death no ordinary 
 one, but “ the death of the cross death, with the sting of 
 sin, and the curse of the broken law. He learned it, in a 
 word, “ by the things which he suffered.” 
 
 For, even when incarnate, how could he without suffer¬ 
 ing have learned it ? 
 
 Imagine the Eternal Son, taking upon him the form of 
 a servant; uniting in his own person the two distinct 
 natures, the divine and the human; and the two distinct 
 relationships, that of a son, co-equal with the Father, and 
 that of a servant, under authority to the Father. Conceive 
 thus of the Lord from heaven, placed as Adam was in a 
 sinless and sorrowless garden, under no other obligation 
 than that of conformity to the law, which is his own as 
 well as the Father’s. How would he then and in these 
 circumstances have learned obedience at all ? He would 
 have been holy, no doubt. Holiness immaculate and invio¬ 
 lable, stainless and serene, would have characterised his 
 whole moral being. But it could scarcely have been holi¬ 
 ness having in it anything of the element of obedience. 
 
 But introduce now the circumstance of sufferings, and of 
 
OBEDIENCE BY SUFFERING. 355 
 
 such suffering. Bring this holy one into contact witli tlie 
 results of sin realised on earth, and place him under tlie 
 responsibilities of sin registered in heaven Let his life be 
 a life of suffering—of suffering, too, judicial and penal— 
 having in it the bitter ingredients of imputed guiltiness 
 and inflicted wrath. Then truly that God-man is in a 
 position to learn obedience. And the more intense his 
 sense of his filial relationship is, and the more inviolable 
 his holiness, so much the more complete must be the 
 lesson ; so much the more thoroughly must we regard him 
 as “ though he were a son, yet learning obedience by tlie 
 things which he suffered.” 
 
 The meaning of this wonderful economy—this ‘‘ great 
 mystery of godliness ”—“ God manifest in the flesh,” and 
 in the flesh “learning obedience by suffering,”—will Ik; 
 better understood when we consider the process, as it 
 were, or the manner, of the lesson ; the actual learning of 
 obedience in the school of affliction and pain. 
 
 But at the very outset, let the character which the Son 
 Ijore and the position in which he stood, when he was 
 learning obedience by tlie things which he suffered, be care¬ 
 fully noted. lie bore a representative character ; he stood 
 in the position of the head and surety of redeemed men. 
 lie was the second Adam. It was as the second Adam 
 that he learned obedience. That was the lesson which the 
 first Adam ouglit to have learned, and failed to learn. And 
 it was his failure that rendered it needful that there should -- 
 be a second Adam raised up to learn it. 
 
 There is here, I think, a great truth—a broad general 
 principle—to be announced. The learning of obedience is 
 an indispensable condition of the creature-state itself, or 
 of the creature-relationship to the Supreme. Any one, 
 whoever he may be, whatever his rank and character 
 
356 
 
 THE SON LEARNING 
 
 among tlie intelligences of the universe—any one placed, 
 wlietlier hy his own choice or not, in the state of a creature, 
 or in the relation in which a creature stands to God—must 
 necessarily learn obedience ; he has it to learn. And he 
 can learn it only by being tried. 
 
 It would seem, indeed, to be of the essence of that most 
 marvellous and awful gift which Ciod has associated with 
 intelligence,—the gift or endowment of free will,—the 
 power of spontaneous choice and action which makes in¬ 
 telligence to tlie creature so high and yet so hazardous a 
 boon,—that obedience, even to the most rightful and reason¬ 
 able authority, needs to be learned as a lesson or acquired 
 as a habit. Hence, whoever is constituted the head or re¬ 
 presentative of mankind must learn that lesson and acquire 
 that habit of obedience. That, therefore, was the appointed 
 task of the first Adam as well as of the second. And it 
 may help us to a right understanding of this whole matter 
 if we consider the principle which I have indicated as 
 applicable, in the first instance, to the original state of 
 man, or to the first Adam. 
 
 I. Thus applied, the principle may be found to cast some 
 little light on the economy of probation in paradise, on the 
 occasion of man’s temptation and fall. 
 
 1. Let us note what man, as originally made, had not to 
 acquire. Personally and perfectly innocent and holy, Adam 
 had nothing to learn in the way of pure tastes or a benign 
 temper. All within being serenity and peace, and all with¬ 
 out harmony and repose—had he been left untutored and 
 untaught—his simple, guiltless, guileless, naked character 
 would have expanded—not by any effort, but spontaneously 
 and naturally—into something like that lovely virgin bloom 
 which romantic dreamers have sought to paint as the per¬ 
 fection of uncontaminated humanity. But Adam was not 
 
OBEDIENCE BY SUFFERING. 357 
 
 merely an intellectual plant,—or, as it were, mere organised 
 matter, growing or grown into mind. He was a living 
 person, made expressly for personal converse with the 
 living personal God ;—made therefore in the image of his 
 Creator ;—made after that likeness in respect of high in¬ 
 telligence and holy affections—and above all, in respect of 
 the wondrous faculty of free will. 
 
 2. Being so made, what has he to acquire ? He has to 
 learn obedience. Many things, T repeat, he has not to learn. 
 All good dispositions are native to him, and not acquired. 
 But obedience is a habit, and he has to learn it. For the 
 learning of it he must be put to school; and to such a 
 school as shall teach obedience alone, and nothing else ; 
 not the things he has already by nature, but the thing he 
 needs to learn ; not other good qualities or faculties, but 
 obedience merely. 
 
 3. In this view, the barer the school the better. The 
 less furniture it has of any sort beyond the mere materials 
 of the single lesson to be learned, the more thoroughly is 
 it fitted to serve the purpose of teaching it. The less there 
 is in it of what appeals to anything the scholar already 
 possesses, the more perfectly may it teach the one thing 
 he has to learn,—namely obedience. 
 
 4. Now the school to which man was put was the for¬ 
 bidden tree. It was through that tree that he was to learn 
 obedience. All over the garden otherwise, he roamed of 
 his own free wiU ;—giving forth the fragrance and shining 
 forth in the beauty of his own holy innocency of soul;— 
 very much as the plants beneath his feet bloomed into 
 fresh verdure and blossomed into ripe fruit,—or as the 
 animals around, in their harmless gambols, gave ever new 
 exhibitions of beauty, gentleness, and love. But beside 
 the forbidden tree, he was at school; and as a scholar, he 
 had to learn obedience. This indeed was his dignity, as 
 
358 
 
 THE SON LEARNING 
 
 M'ell as liis danger. For to be the scholar of God, is more 
 than to be the child of nature. And fascinating as is the 
 charm of virgin innocency'—yet, had man used the office 
 of scholar well, he would have purchased for himself a still 
 better degTee. 
 
 5. And it was the best school he could have had for 
 learning obedience. For it was a school in which he could 
 learn nothing else. It was not a school in which he could 
 learn mtelligence ;—or exercise and quicken his faculties of 
 thought. That benefit he might have in walking with 
 God, and among the works of God, everywhere, over all the 
 garden. But in the school of the forbidden tree, there was 
 no dealing with his intelligence at all; no appeal to his 
 reason; no attempt to stimulate or satisfy his judgment. 
 Nor was it a school in which he could learn, if he had 
 needed to learn, any good affection of any sort. In God, 
 iu one another, in the creatures,—our first parents had ample 
 scope for the indulgence and expansion of all their affec¬ 
 tions. But in the school of the forbidden tree, the matter 
 upon which the lesson turned had nothing in it with which 
 the affections could deal at all. It was a prohibition and 
 a threat ; neither, on the one hand, justified to man’s 
 understanding, as founded on any reason ; nor, on the 
 other, coming home in any way to his heart. For it could 
 appeal to no natural sense of propriety, no natural percep¬ 
 tion of morality, no natural feeling of the sublime, the 
 pathetic, or the honest and good. All the more on that 
 account was it fitted for teaching the single lesson man had 
 to learn, the sole and simple lesson of obedience. 
 
 The very circumstance, therefore, which some have 
 made an objection to this procedure, is in fact its highest 
 recommendation. That the trial turned on what might 
 seem so insignificant and arbitrary a matter as the mere 
 eating or not eating of tlie fruit of a particular tree, is the 
 
OBEDIENCE BY SUFFERING. 359 
 
 very thing that fits it for being the school in which man is 
 to learn obedience. For, in fact, what else can he learn? 
 He cannot learn, for he is not taught, to understand ; he 
 cannot learn, for he is not asked, to approve ; he can only 
 learn to obey. 
 
 And had he learned Iris lesson right, he would have 
 passed in due time from that school under the discipline of 
 God here below, to some higher home of study in the 
 bosom of God above. He would have been raised from 
 his precarious position of probation, which could not last 
 for ever, to his meet reward in a state of confirmed security 
 and holiness and joy ;—having accpiired the only thing ori¬ 
 ginally wanting to his perfection ; having learned,—not to 
 be good and pure and holy, which he needed not to learn, 
 —but simply to obey. 
 
 6. And this, let it be farther noted, he would have 
 learned in a sense through suffering,—not indeed through 
 the suffering of pain, but through the suffering of patience, 
 
 ■—through passive submission, not voluntary action. Nor 
 could he otherwise have learned it. All goodness in him 
 l)eing natural or spontaneous, its exercise, even throughout 
 eternity, never could have taught him this lesson of mere 
 obedience. There must be positive restriction,—the formal 
 and express imposing of constraint,—implying, so far, 
 something of the nature of suffering. 
 
 But by what he suffers, if he will but suffer it, he 
 may learn obedience, and so through suffering be made 
 perfect. To the tasteful and graceful, yet perhaps the some¬ 
 what insipid charm of mere natural innocency, there may 
 be added the sterner and riper virtue of tried and tested 
 discipleship. The whole character thus assumes a firmer 
 texture. The gentle influence of good affections meets and 
 coalesces wdth the more robust staple of habitual obedience 
 to authority. And he conics out of the school in wliich 
 
360 
 
 THE SON LEARNING 
 
 mere suLiiiissioii lias been the only lesson,—instructed, im¬ 
 proved, accomplished, as a finished scholar, and not merely 
 a self-unfolding and growing child,—a man in the full 
 development of proved and perfected manhood. 
 
 Such might have been the schooling of man, and such 
 its issue, had he kept his first estate. 
 
 II. Eeturning now to the second Adam, the Lord from 
 heaven, we may be the better able, from the illustrations 
 that have been given, to follow him through some of the 
 actual lessons of that school in which he learned obedience 
 by the things which he suffered. 
 
 But how shall I venture farther? Wliat instances 
 shall I select of this amazing schooling of such a scholar ? 
 I can do nothing more than offer a few general, and gene¬ 
 rally characteristic, observations. 
 
 1. There is this peculiarity running through the whole, 
 that it is still as a Son, or as the Son, that he learneth 
 obedience. There is a vivid apprehension, a blessed realis¬ 
 ing, of his filial relationship to the Father that never leaves 
 him. The external manifestation of his original and 
 eternal Godhead he laid aside ; he made himself of no 
 reputation ; he veiled the glory of his divine sonship in a 
 tabernacle of humanity, when he was made flesh and dwelt 
 among us. But his sonship itself he never laid aside. The 
 unspeakable thought, of all that from everlasting to ever- 
 lastmg the Father is to him and he to the Father, was 
 never absent from his mind. “Wistye not that I must be 
 about my Father’s business,” is his prompt reply when 
 called in question for sitting with the Doctors at the age 
 of twelve. It is “his Father’s business” he must be about. 
 So he begms, and so he goes on. Throughout all liis work, 
 and amid all his sufferings, he is about “ his Father’s busi¬ 
 ness.” He learneth obedience as the Son. 
 
OBEDIENCE BY SUFFERING. 361 
 
 Is he charged as a Sabbath breaker—enduring on that 
 account the contradiction of sinners against himself?— 
 “ My Father worketh hitherto and I work” (John v. 17), 
 is the reply with which he sustains himseK in his obe¬ 
 dience to the spirit of the law, against those who could not 
 look beyond the letter. Is he met, when most graciously 
 proclaimmg himself as the good Shepherd, with that dis¬ 
 couraging question of unbelief, “ How long dost thou 
 make us to doubt ? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly” ? 
 —What a sense of his filial oneness with the Father per¬ 
 vades his answer ! It is evidently, under that trial, the stay 
 of his own soul;—“ I and my Father are one” (Jolm x. 30). 
 Or again, is he forced to upbraid the cities wherein his 
 mighty works were done ? See how he learns obedience, 
 even here, as to this most dark and trying sorrow,—the 
 seeming failure of his ministry ; and how he learns it still 
 as the Son,—“ I thank thee, 0 Father, Lord of heaven and 
 earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise 
 and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even 
 so. Father ; for so it seemed good in thy sight” (Matt, 
 xi. 25,26). “ I thank thee, 0 Father ”—“ Even so. Father.” 
 
 And not to multiply examples, let us come to the crisis 
 of his sufferings. Behold him m the garden. Was it other¬ 
 wise than as a Son that he learned obedience when, having 
 appealed so affectmgly to his Father’s pity, he yet uttered 
 so meekly the words of filial resignation, “ Father, thy will 
 be done ?” Or finally, as he hangs upon the cross, is it 
 not still as a Son that he learns obedience, when he com¬ 
 mends in filial faith, as the Son to his Father, first, the 
 souls of them that slew him, and then his own ;—“Father, 
 forgive them for they know not what they do —“ Father, 
 into thy hands 1 commend my spirit.” 
 
 2. But though he was the Son, it was a real obedience 
 that he learned by the things which be suffered. His 
 
362 
 
 THE SON LEARNING 
 
 being the Son did not divest the obedience he had to learn 
 of its true and proper character of obedience. Still less 
 did it exempt him, in the learning of it, from its accom¬ 
 panying pain and grief. The very contrary was the effect 
 of his intimate relation of sonship to the Father, and his 
 intimate sense of that relation. It made such obedience as 
 he had to learn all the more painful, and the learning of 
 it all tlie more trying. 
 
 For we must remember that as he never, in all his 
 sufferings, lost his apprehension of his filial oneness with 
 the Father, so he never, in any of them, made a stand upon 
 it, as giving him any privilege of exemption, or any power 
 of endurance or escape. 
 
 This, indeed, was the very temptation of the adversary 
 —to lead him into such a use of his sonship. It was thus 
 that he assailed him when,—immediately after the heavens 
 had been opened at his baptism, and the Holy Ghost had 
 descended upon him like a dove, and a voice from heaven 
 had proclaimed, “ This is my beloved Son,”—Jesus was “ led 
 up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the 
 devil” (Matt. iv. 1-10). For what is the devil’s plea? '‘If 
 thou be the Son of God.” That is his plea, all through 
 the three acts of the temptation. 
 
 (1.) Why should the Son of God suffer hunger, when 
 by the word of his power, as the Son, he has but to speak, 
 and the very stones will become bread ? (2.) Why should 
 
 the Son of God come in lowly guise, disguised as a poor 
 Nazarene, when, as the Son, he may make the summit of 
 his own temple his glorious throne, and summoning his 
 angels, to whom the Father giveth charge over him, cast 
 himself from its pinnacle, as on the wings of the winds 
 and in the chariot of the clouds, making his approach to 
 Israel ? (3.) Wliy, finally, must the Son of God receive 
 
 in’s kingdom only after much tribulation, wlien he may, 
 
OBEDIENCE BY SUFFERING. 363 
 
 at once and immediately, as the Son, recover and reclaim 
 it from the hands of the reigning Prince, on the terms of a 
 single act of courtesy—surely a very simple compromise ? 
 
 And how did the Lord meet this threefold temptation ; 
 —all throughout based upon an appeal to his sonship? 
 Was it not by declining to take advantage of any privilege 
 or prerogative belonging to him as the Son,—either for 
 lightening the pain,—or for covering the shame,—or for 
 abridging the term, of the obedience he had to learn ? He 
 is to live, like any other man, by bread, or in any way that 
 God may be pleased to appoint. He is to depend on his 
 Father’s promised help, only in the lowly path of duty 
 as a servant, and not, presuming on his sonship, to tempt 
 the Lord his God. He is not, as the Son, to act as if he 
 were free to make his own terms with the adversary ; he 
 is to worship the Lord alone, and him only is he to serve. 
 
 Thus, from the beginning. Son though he was, he yet 
 learned to obey. And so it was to the end. He miglit 
 have stood, as he tells us, upon his sonship, and claimed 
 deliverance from his final sufferings. What! he says to 
 the over-zealous disciple, who in the garden drew his 
 sword in his defence, “ Thinkest thou that I cannot now 
 pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more 
 than twelve legions of angels ? But how then shall the 
 Scriptures be fulfilled that thus it must be? The cup 
 which my Father giveth me, shall I not drink it ?” (Matt, 
 xxvi. 53-54 ; John xviii. 11). It was the very cup respect¬ 
 ing which he had just been praying in an agony that, if it 
 were possible, it might pass from him. As the Son, ho 
 might have prevailed to have it pass from him. But still 
 to the last he persevered in learning obedience. “ Father, 
 thy will be done!” 
 
 3. It was obedience alone that he learned by the 
 things which he suffered. It was all he liad to learn ; it 
 
364 
 
 THE SON LEARNING 
 
 was all he could learn, No lesson of holiness was to be 
 taught him by suffering save only the lesson of obedience. 
 There was no lust in him for pain or penance to chastise ; 
 no imperfect and unstable virtue for discipline to strengthen 
 and mature. Suffering could not add one gracious feature 
 to the consummate moral beauty of his soul; nor could it 
 be meant to eradicate any root of bitterness, or to quench 
 any hidden flame of desire. Obedience alone was “ the 
 peaceable fruit of righteousness” it could yield to him. 
 
 Hence, through all his sufferings, we find no trace what¬ 
 ever of suffering for mere suffering’s sake ; or suffering self- 
 imposed or self-inflicted; or suffering to please men or 
 devils; or suffering, finally, in wanton bravery and defiance 
 of pain. All that he suffered was by the Father’s com¬ 
 mand, and in execution and accomplishment of the Fa¬ 
 ther’s will. It is undoubtedly true that his sufferings 
 were all, from first to last, voluntary. It was spontane¬ 
 ously, of his own free will, that he gave himself to them 
 all. But still it was in compliance with the Father’s will 
 and for the doing of the Father’s work. It was obedience 
 still, however willing. “ No man,” he says, in reference 
 to the crowning instance of his sufferings,—his laying 
 down his life for the sheep,—“ No man taketh my life from 
 me, but I lay it down of myself; I have power to lay it 
 down, and I have power to take it again.” But observe 
 how he instantly and emphatically adds, “ This command¬ 
 ment have I received of my Father” (John x. 18). 
 
 4. Finally, let it be noted, it was ‘Hhe obedience” that 
 he thus learned (r^v v^iraxonv). It was the very obedience 
 needed, not for himself, but for the “many sons” he is to 
 “ bring unto glory.” It was the obedience which the first 
 Adam failed to learn that the second Adam learned, by 
 the things which he suffered. 
 
 The learning of it was not, indeed, by any means so 
 
OBEDIENCE BY SUFFERING. 365 
 
 easy, when the second Adam came to repair the damage 
 that the first Adam had done. But the issue is more 
 glorious by far. Let us mark, in this view,—first, the 
 difference between what the first and second representa¬ 
 tives of men had to learn ;—and secondly, the difference 
 between what might have been the position of all the race, 
 in covenant relation to the first Adam, if he had “ learned 
 obedience” through trial—and what actually is the state 
 of believers now, standing in covenant relation to the 
 second Adam, who has, in fact, in a far higher sense, 
 learned obedience by the things which he suffered.” 
 
 First, Let us compare, or contrast, the second Adam 
 with the first in the tasks assigned to them respectively. 
 
 Here the difference is vast. In the first instance, if 
 it could be said that obedience was to be learned through 
 suffering at all, it was through suffering without either 
 sin or the sense of sin—^through suffering in no way par¬ 
 taking of a judicial character. It was suffering, in short, 
 allowing it to be properly suffering, neither retributive 
 in its purpose, nor severe in its nature. For, on the one 
 hand, as to its design, it was not punitive or penal, but 
 preventive and probative merely,—intended not to punish 
 but to try. And on the other hand, as to its amount, it 
 implied no actual ordination of evil, but the mere with¬ 
 holding of what might seem to be good—restraint, there¬ 
 fore, merely, and not positive pain. Adam in Paradise 
 would have “ learned obedience,” had he simply suffered 
 the abridgment of his absolute discretion, to the extent of 
 abstaining from the forbidden tree. 
 
 Very different is the task of the second Adam. The 
 scene of his discipline and trial is not the school of an 
 unforfeited and unpolluted paradise, but the school of a 
 condemned cell—^the residence of prisoners, guilty, and 
 awaiting execution. The obedience he has to learn, wdien 
 
360 
 
 THE SON LEARNING 
 
 he takes the place of such criminals, is not mere abstinence 
 from what may condemn them ;—it reaches the endurance 
 of that actual condemnation which they have all already 
 incurred. In the capacity in which he has to “ learn obe¬ 
 dience,” lie stands as the representative, not of a race that 
 may fall, but of a people already fallen. And he has to 
 “ learn obedience,” to the full extent of undertaking all 
 their liabilities, and answering for all their sins. 
 
 Ah ! wdiat a burden is it that is thus laid on this Divine 
 learner in the school of suffering! 
 
 It is not the burden merely of keeping his eye from be¬ 
 holding—his heart from coveting—and his hand from 
 touching—a certain forbidden thing. It is the far, far 
 heavier burden of bearmg for us the guilt of that first 
 sin which our natiiral covenant-head, the first Adam, com¬ 
 mitted,—and of all our sins that have flowed from that dis¬ 
 mal source. What did he suffer ? And how, by all that he 
 suffered, did he learn obedience ? He “ bore our sins in his 
 own body on the cross.” He was “ made sin ” and “ made a 
 curse ” for us. He bared his bosom to the bolt of wrath that 
 should have scathed and destroyed us for ever. And when 
 the Father said, “Awnke 0 sword against my Shepherd, 
 against the man that is my fellow 1” the answer of the Son 
 was still the same, “ Lo I come, I delight to do thy will 0 
 God.” 
 
 Secondly, We may now see how much more precious 
 to us, as well as how much more costly to himself, the 
 attainment of the second Adam is, as compared with what 
 that of the first would have been, even if he had stood. 
 
 For what comparison can there be between the posi¬ 
 tion we might have occupied, as represented by a mere 
 innocent creature, trained and tried in obedience by a 
 slight and arbitrary test, and the position which we 
 may now occupy, as represented by the very Son of 
 
OBEDIENCE BY SUFFERING. 367 
 
 the Highest himself ;—and by him as “ though he were 
 a Son, yet having learned obedience by the things 
 Avhich he suffered” ? In the former case, our position at 
 the best would have been that of a servant reconciled to 
 service ; in the latter, it is that of a son taught, 0 how 
 willingly, to obey, hor let ns remember, the Lord as¬ 
 sociates and identifies us with himself, in respect of what 
 he personally is to the Father, as well as in respect of 
 what he has learned by the things which he suffered. 
 He makes ns one with himself in his sonship, as well as 
 in the obedience which, as the Son, he learned through 
 suffering. In fact, it is the sonship of the second Adam, 
 that makes his “ learning of obedience through suffering ” 
 so much more precious and profitable, than the first Adam’s 
 success, had he succeeded, would have been. Or rather, 
 it is the combination of these two—the depth to which he 
 descends as suffering for ns in obedience to the Father, 
 and the height to which he raises us as one with him in 
 his sonship—that completes his fitness for being our 
 Saviour. It is thus that “ being made perfect, he is the 
 author of eternal Salvation unto all them that obey him.” 
 
 For that is the practical issue of the wondrous educa¬ 
 tion of the Son of God in the school of suffering. 
 
 1. He is thus “ made perfect.” The expression is re¬ 
 markable. He himself uses it in anticipation of his suffer¬ 
 ings and their glorious issue (Luke xiii. 31, 32). The 
 Pharisees said “Depart hence, for Herod will kill thee.” 
 No ! he replies, I am not to be thus hurried. For all 
 Herod’s bloody purpose, I have some days yet for doing 
 good on the earth before I “ shall be perfected.” AYlien 
 the time comes, and not before, I shall be perfected : per¬ 
 fected by the very measure Herod proposes when he fain 
 would kill me. To the same effect, using the same word, 
 
368 
 
 THE SON LEARNING 
 
 the Apostle speaks, “ It became him, for whom are all 
 things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons 
 unto glory, to make the Captain of their salvation perfect 
 through sufferings” (Heb. ii. 10). 
 
 In several different ways, the sufferings of the Lord 
 may be regarded as constituting, or contributing to consti¬ 
 tute, his perfection or completeness. For one thing, they 
 fit him for having compassion on his jieople and sympa¬ 
 thising with them. They liave the same conflict which 
 he had ; the same temptations ; the same solicitations 
 and assaults of the adversary. And in all of these they 
 have this double consolation and encouragement. On the 
 one hand, they may remember that Jesus was really 
 tempted like as they are,—that he did not insist or pre¬ 
 sume upon his power and prerogative as the Son, but was 
 simply like them a servant and a sufferer in the hands of 
 his Father. On the other hand, they may be assured that 
 whatever support the unbroken sense of his Sonship 
 afforded to him, is afforded also to them ; inasmuch as 
 they also, in and with him, are sons. For, as he makes 
 himself one with them in their sufferings, so he makes 
 them one with himself in his sonship. 
 
 But the perfection reached through suffering has refer¬ 
 ence chiefly, beyond all doubt, to the Lord’s official char¬ 
 acter and ministry as the great “ high-priest of our profes¬ 
 sion,”—the representative of his people. In that character, 
 he occupies the place of the first Adam in Paradise. And 
 on behalf of those for whom he stands, he has to reach 
 that platform of confirmed acceptance to which Adam 
 would have been raised, when his temporary probation was 
 over, had he “learned obedience” by the thing wherein he 
 was tried. Our great high-priest, standing in this repre¬ 
 sentative position, must be proved as Adam was proved, 
 and perfected as Adam would have been perfected ; per- 
 
OBRDTENCE BY SUFFERING. 3()0 
 
 fected by passing from a condition of trial to one of finished 
 and complete victoiy. This was in large measure “ the 
 joy that was set before him,” for which “ he endured the 
 cross, despising the shame” (xii. 2). And this joy was per¬ 
 fected, when “ God exalted him to be a Prince and a 
 Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of 
 sins” (Acts V. 31). 
 
 2. Being thus “ made perfect, he became the author of 
 eternal salvation.” For now, on the footing of his obedience, 
 “ learned by the things which he suffered,”—and rewarded 
 as well as attested by his resurrection to glory,—he is in a 
 condition to bestow, not a contingent or conditional, but a 
 complete salvation; not the temporary enjoyment of an 
 opportunity of salvation, but eternal salvation itself. 
 
 How grievously do they dishonour him,—how sadly do 
 they detract from the perfection of his priestly character 
 and work,—who conceive of him as merely giving men 
 another chance, as it were, for trying, upon easier terms 
 than before, to win for themselves eternal life. Is this 
 all the effect of his interposition on our behalf ?—to put 
 us again upon probation ?—that we may try to succeed 
 where our first father failed ? Ho. Let us be sure that 
 the Son, in virtue of that obedience which he “ learned 
 through suffering,” and the '‘perfection” to which he thus 
 attained, is in a position to be to us at once and imme¬ 
 diately “ the author of eternal salvation.” He is complete 
 for us, and we are complete in him. We are “ of God in 
 him,” and he “ is of God made unto us wisdom, and 
 righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption” (1 Cor. 
 i. 30). 
 
 3. For fully finishing in us what he has fully obtained for 
 us, he requires nothing more than what is reasonable, when 
 he requires the same mind that was in himself He is 
 the author of eternal salvation to “all them that obey him.” 
 
 2 B 
 
370 
 
 THE SON LEARNING 
 
 For this obedience on our part is really nothing else than 
 sympathy with Jesus in his obedience. 
 
 Thus viewed, it is of a twofold kind. We are to obey 
 liim by submitting to him in the things which he suffered 
 for us. And we are to obey him by submitting to him in 
 the things which he would have us to suffer with him. 
 
 In the first place, we obey him when we submit 
 ourselves to his righteousness, or to himself as “ the 
 righteousness of God when, born of his Spirit and be¬ 
 lieving his gospel, we enter into his perfection as our great 
 representative. High Priest and surety, and into the com¬ 
 pleteness of that salvation of which he is become the author. 
 Our first obedience to the Son is to receive the fruit of his 
 obedience. We first honour him by believing in him; 
 renouncing for ever the vain conceit of our being saved by 
 any present or prospective or possible obedience of our 
 own ; not seeking to perfect our own peace with God, but 
 yielding ourselves up to him who is our peace, already per¬ 
 fected. Let us receive him, as the author to us personally 
 of “ eternal salvation.” Let us be sure that the obedience he 
 learned as the Son is infinitely perfect,—as the sufferings 
 by which as the Son he learned it are infinitely precious. 
 There is a perfection of merit in the obedience to justify 
 us wholly,—as there is a perfection of efficacy in the suf¬ 
 ferings to atone for all our sins. Let us not be disobe¬ 
 dient to him when he asks us to submit to him, in his thus 
 doing all and bearing all that, in the view of his FatheFs 
 righteous government and law, was needful for our eternal 
 salvation. 
 
 Then, let us submit to him,—as in what he obediently 
 suffered for us,—so in what he calls us obediently to suffer 
 with him. Let us bear this reproach ; take his yoke upon 
 us; take up his cross ; fill up the measure of his suffer¬ 
 ings. And let us do all this in the spirit of simple obe- 
 
OBEDIENCE BY SUFFERING. 371 
 
 dience : not as being profitable to him, or rendering any 
 favour or service that can avail him, or doing any great 
 thing, or exercising any great virtue ; but simply as, in and 
 with him, “ learning obedience through endurance and 
 suffering.” 
 
 For indeed it is a great thing to be thus going about 
 every duty, enduring every soitow, submitting to every 
 privation, simply as like-minded with him,—obedient to 
 him as he was to the Father, Truly, thus suffering with 
 him, we may expect to be glorified together; glorified in 
 the full joy and liberty of the day of the manifestation of 
 the sons of God. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 Printed by'9.. Clark, Edinburgh. 
 

 r 
 
 
 4^. 
 
 • > 
 
 
 
 ■'1 
 
 *■ 
 
 % 
 
 ♦ 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 # 
 
 \l; . •• 
 
 '. l'- 
 
 * 
 
 
 ■n 
 
 t 
 
 
 1 %. 
 
 m 
 
 i 
 
 # 
 
 f 
 
 
 * « 
 
 l- ■. ■ V 
 
 
 •. 
 
 
 • * . 
 
 4 
 
 * 
 
 ■i«-. 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 ■- • 
 
 
 * 
 
 > 
 
 . . ' I# 
 
 
 r 
 
 4 
 
 A 
 
 *: 
 
 ♦ 
 
 
 4. 
 
. /• -rrf - 
 • *. 
 
 ?1/V ^e-1 
 
 ' i .V, //1-'^. ^ . 
 
 .f * 
 
 ^ ■ <■ 
 
 W. 
 
 f •. X • 
 
 ;; • 
 
 ■'5»r 
 
 .V- 
 
 t'ww- ' 
 
 '■^.. A, 
 
 
 ■ >c «^.. ^ 
 
 (■ . ''•'- •- 'v> ■•■ 
 
 -t 1 -. , -. » - 
 
 
 -/ /'/ /V, 
 
 
 ^ / 
 
 ■' /,< 
 
 ' «4g ' 
 
 / / * ’ ' ■ *• • 
 
 P. '.' ' ’ r- '•/ ''''• ' ■ ^ i «’•■ ^ ‘ 
 
 
 
 Of** V 
 
 /V ■ / 
 
 }j- 
 ,:-* * 
 
 ., 't, 
 
 
 
 f: 
 
 i j 
 
 _< / 
 
 1 
 
 V