06.00. THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD BEING THE FIRST COURSE OF THE CUNNINGHAM LECTURES DELIVERED BEFORE THE NEW COLLEGE, EDINBURGH, IN MARCH 1864. BY ROB. S. CANDLISH, D.D.
PRINCIPAL OF THE NEW COLLEGE, AND MINISTER OF FREE ST. GEORGE’S CHURCH.
EDINBURGH ADAM AND CHARLES BLACK
1865 Printed by R. CLARK, Edinburgh.
EXTRACT DECLARATION OF TRUST, 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 Lectureship 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 Scotland, 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 occasionally 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 Council are to regulate the terms of payment of the lecturer. Third, The lecturer shall be at liberty to choose his own subject within the range of Apologetical, Doctrinal, Controversial, Exegetical, Pastoral, or Historical Theology, including what bears on missions, home and foreign, subject to the consent of the Council. Fourth, The lecturer shall be bound to deliver publicly at Edinburgh a course of lectures on the subjects 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 bound 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 publication shall be regulated by the Council. Fifth, 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, or such person as I may nominate to be my successor: 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 Sixth, The duties of the Council shall be the following:— (first), To appoint the lecturer and determine the period of his holding the appointment, the appointment to be made before the close of the Session of College immediately receding 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 Founder’s 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 particular, I contemplated 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 principal positions by authorities more or less favourable to my views. Various circumstances 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 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 asserted, at least fairly implied, in the writings 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.
Thus, for one thing, I am anxious to keep the relation of real and proper sonship quite 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 admit 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 sonship. 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 subjectship. And that I take to be the real state of the matter, so far as the sounder portion 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 subjectship realising itself, if one may so speak, in favourable circumstances and under favourable influences;—causing it to partake 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 “relation 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 instances in proof. For I claim all such instances as virtually on my side in this argument. They may not make the sonship 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 superiority of the future state of the, redeemed, as compared with man’s position in Paradise, he says :—“ I grant that this new spirit, 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, Nichol’s Edition.
More particularly, in another passage, he uses language so strong, that I would hold any controversy with him on the subject 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 servant 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 begets, 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,’ (Ephesians 4:24). They (i.e., apostates) are said to be sanctified (Hebrews 10:1-39) for that may have a counterfeit, namely, a setting apart to outward service by gifts and enlightenments; but to shew it is not true sanctification, 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 offices and services, and to that end do receive gifts and graces to lay out as talents, (Matthew 25:1-46) which, not improved, they lose, but being not made children, therefore it is they abide not always in the house, as Christ speaks (John 8:35)—“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 sonship 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 point,—its discovery or manifestation,—I have founded an argument 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 have had my attention called to a criticism of Delitzsch, which strongly corroborates my view.
It is a criticism on Psalms 73:15. “‘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 (Psalms 14:5). It is a generic name, as in Deuteronomy 14:1, Hosea 2:1. For hereby is the New Testament distinguished in this point of the uioqesi,a 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 could 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 connection between the believer’s sonship and that of Christ. I have not hesitated to avow my belief in the substantial identity of the relation. I have of course insisted upon certain very material differences. 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 nature. It may rest on different grounds and be differently constituted, in two different 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 fulness. 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 confounding 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 privilege 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 wouldbe 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 theologians 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 intimate connection, at least, of Christ’s sonship 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 baptised, not in the name of the unbegotten 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 the Spirit of his Son, crying, Abba, Father; and these are they 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 the 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 Word in us, in whom and through whom we cry, Abba, Father. And just so, too, in whomsoever 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 highinteresting. 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 justification), it is not possible that Christ should live in us without his relationship to his Father also forming itself in us, and our thus partaking in his sonship, 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 established. 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 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 opposing 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 ourselves 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.”—Christliche Glaube. ii. p. 194, 195. Nor may it be out of place to quote from Treffry a specimen of what he frequently 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 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 administration of the gospel is designed to establish, between the human spirit and God, a moral relation in some respect analogous to that which subsists between the divine Father and the divine Son.
“This was one of the objects contemplated 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 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 likeness of his. The SON 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 Ecclesiastical Polity (Book v. sec. 56) which contains 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 theology and of the Word of God. I ask no more than this, that the volume be considered as a whole before it is criticised in detail. And I think I am entitled to beg that favour; for whatever may be at first sight startling to some minds in my manner of treating the subject, can be fairly estimated only when my whole reasoning is examined.
EDINBURGH, 17th April 1865.
__________ * Pages 403, 404, edit. 1837. The italics and capitals are Treffry’s own.
CONTENTS.
LECTURE FIRST. 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 brethren’s sonship 162 Notes to Lecture Fourth 202
LECTURE FIFTH. The Manner of Entrance into the Relation; Adoption, as connected with Regeneration and Justification 208 Note to Lecture Fifth 251
LECTURE SIXTH. The Privileges and Obligations of sonship 253 Notes to Lecture Sixth 289
APPENDIX.
SCRIPTURAL EXPOSITIONS AND ILLUSTRATIONS.
1. The ultimate glory of filial service (Revelation 22:3) 2. The great Gospel Convocation (Hebrews 12:22-24) 3. The Son calling his people brethren (Hebrews 2:11-13) 4. The Son learning obedience by suffering (Hebrews 5:7-9)