There is one utterance of St. Paul, in h'« tipeech at Athens (Ac l"^^^), where he sayr :i all men aa such that they are the otl'spring (-yfvos) of God, because he has made us with tlie purpose that we shall know him ; he is not far from any one of us, since in him we live and move and have our being. Tliis relation is clearly not the same as that which the apostle in his Epistles ascribes to Christians when he says they are sons of God through faith in Jesus Christ. It does not include the blessings of freedom, of the spirit of adoption, or of being heirs of God. Hence, if this universal relation is to be called sonship, it must be clearly distinguished from that Christian sonship of which he speaks most frequently and most fully. But if it be considered that St. Paul does not use the word ' sons ' (ulol), but the more indefinite one ' oll'spring ' (yivoi), that he borrows this from a Greek poet, and that the only use that he makes of the state- ment is to show that since we are so like God it is foolish to think that the Deity can be repre- sented by material images, it cannot but appear very precarious to infer from this expression that St. Paul would say that all men are sons of God, or that the relation that is formed by our creation in God's image deserves to be called sonship. He does indeed tench that all things were created through and in the Son of God, who aiipeared on earth as Jesus Christ (Col !'»•") ; and ho declares in the warmest and most glowing language the love and kindness, goodness and patience of God towards all men, seeking to lead them to rei)ent- ance. If we think that these truths are fairly expressed by saying that God is the Father of all men, and they his sons, we may, on our own rcsponsibilitVi use these phrases j but we should reiiHiuber t)iat St. I'aul does not use them in such a sense, but means by being sons of God something far more blessed.
The Palestinian n|>ostles do not use the Paulino term 'adoption'; but they describe in dillerent waj's how men are made 'children' of God, employ- ing that word rather than ' sons,' because they em- phasi/o the spiritufJ birth by which we are re- newe<l.
•t. The Teaciiino op Jame."?.— In the Ep. of Jamea (1") God is called the Father of lights, from
whom Cometh down every good ginng and every perfect boon, and to whom must not be attributed any temptation to sin, because he is unchangeable in goodness. Then it is added : ' Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of lirst-fruits of his creatures' (1"). The 'we' here are clearly those who, aa afterwards said, have ' the implanted word,' which is able to save their souls (1-^). This reminds us of Jesus' Parable of the Sower and tlie .Seed, where the word of the kingdom is compared to seed having a living power of germination and pro- ducing new life, and the fruit of the good seed is said to be the sons of the IdnL'dom (.\lt 13*'), in opposition to the sons of the evil one. In Ja I'' God 18 called the Father absolutely, to show that he is truly and purely worshijjjied by visiting the widows and fatherless in their atHiction ; and in 3", where is exposed the inconsistency of blessing God while we curse men, God is called the Lord and Father ; but, as if to leave no doubt that all men are included, they are described, not as chil- dren of God, but as made after the similitude of God. It is maintained by many that since all men are made in God's image, and cared for by him with inlinite goodness and love, they are all his cliililren ; and if they think it best to use the phrase in that sense, no one can object to their doing so, and the thing meant is most cer- tainly taught in Scripture ; but it does not appear that the apostles called it by the name of sonsliip, and it does appear that they described believers as sons of God in a higher sense because born again by his word and Spirit.
5. The Teaching of Peter.— In 1 P 1' it is said that 'the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, according to his great mercy, begat us again to a living liope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, into an inheritance incor- niptible, undehled, and unfading, reserved in the heavens for us.' This by itself might be merely a rhetorical way of saying that the historical fact of Jesus being raised to life after his death and burial awakened in the souls of his followers a hope of immortal blessedness that made them practically new men, animating them with new life. But when we read further on in the same chapter (1 P 1^), ' having been begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the word of God which liveth and abideth lor ever,' we can hardly doubt that the apostle means to describe a change that is wrought, not merely by the impression made by an event even as great and important as the resurrection of Christ, but by an inlhience working directly on our souls, and making us, as afterwards described (2-), aa newborn babes in our religious life and relation to God. This corresponds to what Jesus taught of the need of being turned, so aa to become as little children (Mt IS^), aa well as of being begotten of the Spirit (Jn 3'"'). It seems, therefore, to be in ref. to this new birth that St. Peter speaks of Christians calling God, the impartial Judge, Father (I P 1"), not as in the AV, 'if ye call on the Father,' but 'if ye call hiin Father who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work." It is plainly not all men by whom God is to Iw aildre.s.se(l as Father, but bit- lievers in virtue of their having been begotten again. So, too, they are called to show them- selves obedient children (1"), or children of obedience. Throughout, the idea of birth is the |iromiiient one, rather than that of the relation and privileges of sons. These are not develoi>ea as they are by St. Paul and by the writer to tlio lleb., the only one specially mentioned being the inheritanco (I P 1*). It is in harmony with this coiiceptioD of believers being children of God bo'