A Family Dispute About Adoption

Abstract: In 1862, a trust was set up to fund a lectureship in honour of William Cunningham, the recently deceased Principal of the Free Church College in Edinburgh. Two years later, Robert S. Candlish delivered six lectures on the theme of The Fatherhood of God, and a year later, in 1865, they were published for the first time. Over the next five years, four further editions of the lectures appeared. Changes in those editions were caused by responses made to the lectures. Candlish claimed that previously very little attention had been given to the doctrine, but his treatment of the theme ensured that a lot of attention was given to his ideas. This article aims to identify the main features of his lectures and also some of the responses made to him.    

There were many competent theologians in nineteenth-century Scotland and some of their works continue to be valued for their insight and clarity. Sometimes they disagreed with one another, and the debates could be fiery at times. The theologians could be professors in university departments or denominational colleges, or they could be preachers and pastors in prominent or out-of-the-way church locations. It would not have been surprising to see discussions about the person of Christ or about the extent of his atonement or about the Holy Spirit and his work. What might not have been expected was a controversy on the doctrine of adoption or who it would involve, although there was a growing interest in some circles in the universal fatherhood of God. The latter detail may have caused some to wonder what R. S. Candlish would say when it was announced that he would give the inaugural Cunningham Lectures, made up of six lectures on the Fatherhood of God. When the series was published, they might wonder what others would say. His book, entitled The Fatherhood of God, did lead to replies by several prominent persons from academia and the pastorate.¹

R. S. Candlish – who was he?

Robert Smith Candlish (1806-73) was a prominent Scottish clergyman, recognised as the most influential leader in the Free Church of Scotland after the death of Thomas Chalmers in 1847. His status came about because of his involvement in the affairs of the denomination which, unlike today, was a major feature in the Scottish landscape throughout the second half of the nineteenth century. In addition to his ecclesiastical contributions, he was also the noted pastor of St George’s Church in Edinburgh where his preaching was greatly appreciated, as it was wherever he went to expound God’s Word. 

Candlish published several expository works such as on Genesis (1868) and 1 John (1871),² as well as an exposition of 1 Corinthians 15 entitled Life in a Risen Saviour (1858), an exposition of Romans 12 calledThe Two Great Commandments (1860), a volume on Scripture Characters (1850) and a set of discourses on the Book of Ephesians (1875). Further, he authored several books on important doctrines, including two different books on the atonement (1845 and 1861), a book on the Bible and divine revelation called Reason and Revelation (1859), and a volume of lectures opposing the theological outlook of F. D. Maurice (1854). He also provided a lengthy introduction to a republished edition of James Kidd’s Dissertation on the Eternal Sonship of Christ (1872). 

In 1862, Candlish became Principal of New College in Edinburgh after the death of William Cunningham and fulfilled this role while also continuing in his pastorate at St. George’s. One of the responses to Cunningham’s passing was the setting up of a lecture series called the Cunningham Lectures.³ It is not surprising, given his fame and capabilities, that Candlish was selected as the first lecturer. 

In this paper, I will first summarise Candlish’s lectures, then mention some responses made to them, before making some comments in conclusion.

The lectures

In the first lecture, Candlish, aware that the subject could be approached in several ways, said that his approach would be “to bring out the import and bearing of the Scriptural doctrine respecting the Fatherhood of God, as an influential element in Christian experience.”⁴ This intention led him first to consider “the relations which God sustains towards his intelligent creatures generally, and the place which the paternal relation holds among them” (p. 5). 

1. Man created as a subject and servant

While Candlish was of the view that the Scriptures should be the source of information about those relations, he recognised that ideas connected with the system of rational Theism would need to be considered because of its deductions about how God deals with the human race, and its claim that he acts in certain ways because he is the Father of all. Such a system, according to Candlish, proposes that every intelligent creature is in a threefold relation to God: he is the Creator who sustains them; he is the governor who rules by his law and judges them according to it; and it is possible for them to become his friends, even rising into experiencing his fatherhood. 

Candlish accepted that human experience provided evidence for the first two aspects of the relationship between God and his creatures, but he questioned whether there was any evidence for the third. He did not deny that God showed his goodness to humans and dealt kindly with them. Yet if God is their father merely by the act of creation or origination, then he will remain their father no matter what they become, and Candlish regarded such an understanding of divine fatherhood as wrong. Even when it is recognised that humans are made in the image of God, it does not mean that he is their father, because being in his image only means that they have the capacity to understand his will and to recognise their responsibility to obey his will and to receive either rewards for obedience or punishment for disobedience. Because of those realities, it is not possible, said Candlish, for humans to experience the fatherhood of God merely by creation.

Having said that, he did suggest that “It by no means follows that there may not have been from the first indications pointing to the higher relation of fatherhood, and a foundation, as it were laid for its subsequent adjustment and development.”⁵ What were those indications? One was the involvement of the Son of God in the work of creation, and the other was the divine intention to glorify the Son “through the unfolding of his filial oneness with the Father” (p. 19). 

Whether those indications were clearly revealed initially to or apprehended by humans cannot be known, but what can be said about them is that they would have realised that God becoming their Father would be an act of grace that would have to be revealed to them by God and not inferred by them from being his creatures. This would be the case even if humans and angels were his sons from their creation. The revealed relation of servants obliged to obey their Creator must remain separate from a paternal relation with him as their Father. 

2. Fatherhood of God revealed in Christ

In his second lecture, Candlish focused first on the Trinity and affirmed that “There are in the undivided essence of the Godhead relations, or ‘related states;’ and these are and must be from everlasting. The one living and true God is revealed, not as God absolute, but as God related; or as God subsisting from the beginning with certain internal relations; in a way, admitting, in some sense, of mutual action and reaction; of a certain reciprocity of loving and being loved” (p. 35). This means that “it is in the Son, as the Son, that the fatherly love of God flows forth in full stream. It flows forth to create and bless the countless multitude of intelligences who are, throughout eternity, to rejoice in calling the highest Father, in and with the Son” (p. 36). This is a reminder that the original paternal relation is eternal, and that it will be displayed in events that will occur in history in the created universe, particularly in the incarnation of the Son. 

The divine revelation of the eternal relation will be of benefit to angels as well as to humans. Candlish admitted that the Father, prior to the incarnation of the Son, could have used methods for introducing his Son to the angels so that they would worship him. Even if that had occurred, he was persuaded that the greatest insight they have had into the fatherhood of God “is connected to the incarnation and its accompanying incidents…. Certainly, for all created minds and hearts, the incarnation 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” (p. 40). While he did not expand here on what the eternal effects will be on the angels, he did assert previously that “It is that 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.”⁶

The incarnation did not result in the Son becoming two persons, nor in the one person having two sonships, nor in there now being two expressions of fatherhood towards the Son. For Candlish, this meant “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 Supreme 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” (p. 36). Candlish was careful to say that he did not mean that the human nature of Jesus became divine. He stressed that Christ’s “two natures, being distinct, and continuing to be distinct, may nevertheless, if united in one person, be embraced in one personal relationship” (p. 43).  

A second consequence of the incarnation was that the eternal Son became what he had not been previously, a subject and a servant. “The Son in the bosom of the Father, and the subject or servant learning obedience by suffering, is one and the same person. The Son is the suffering and obedient servant. The suffering and obedient servant is the Son” (pp. 54-55).

A third consequence of the incarnation was that the Son became a subject and a servant after sin affected the original relation with God. However, he did not take on a fallen human nature but one that was unaffected by sin, one that was like Adam’s before he fell. Yet the incarnation occurred in a fallen environment. He came to take on our liabilities, which meant that he now had “a relation involving guilt to be answered for, and the wrath and curse of God to be endured” (p. 58).

A fourth consequence of the incarnation is that it is permanent. For Candlish, this meant that the two relations of the person of Christ, that of Son of God and that of subject and servant, are indissoluble. Candlish was aware that some may shrink from the idea of permanent service by the Son in the future world. He found support for his interpretation in the words of 1 Corinthians 15:28, about the Son subjecting himself at the consummation of his mediatorial reign. 

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 welcome 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 his Father in his throne?⁷

3. Fatherhood of God in the Old Testament

The third lecture considered to what extent the Fatherhood of God was revealed or known before the incarnation of the Son. During that period, the Fatherhood could only be known by analogy with human fatherhood, and such allusions were made by pagans as well as by Old Testament writers. The example of a pagan use is cited by Paul at the Areopagus concerning the statement of pagan poets who said that humans are God’s offspring. Use has been made of that statement to suggest that Paul was affirming some kind of divine fatherhood whereas, according to Candlish, all the apostle was saying is that since humans have a “common source or origin” that is divine, it is irrational for them to worship idols. 

Before he considered Old Testament references on possible divine fatherhood, Candlish also referred briefly to the genealogy of Jesus in Luke which in English translations includes the statement that Adam was the son of God. For Candlish, all that is suggested in the genealogy is that Adam came from God and the reference is not an indication of a relationship with him.

The first Old Testament references he reviewed were the statements in Job where unfallen angels are described as sons of God (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; some modern versions have the translations ‘angels’ or ‘heavenly beings’). Candlish connected their possession of this title to them having resisted participation in the prior rebellion of Satan. The occasion of that rebellion tested them as subjects of God, and it is after that test they became sons of God. Candlish does not push here the obvious implication of his suggestion, which is that the unfallen angels were like Adam before his test, only subjects and not yet sons. Having passed the test, they became sons of God. 

Candlish then reviewed the verse in Genesis where the sons of God are distinguished from the daughters of men (Gen. 6:2, 4).⁸ For Candlish, the title ‘sons of God’ described those of the human race who called on God as distinct from the rest. In a similar way, the children of Israel were distinguished from the Gentiles in several passages that use paternal language in a figurative sense (e.g. Exod. 4:22-23; Jer. 31:9; Isa. 63:6; 64:8), but the title is not used to indicate divine fatherhood of individuals. There is, however, “a Son of God revealed in the Old Testament,” but he “is revealed as standing alone and apart” (p. 133). He is mentioned in Psalm 2 (vv. 7, 12), Psalm 89 (vv. 26, 27) and Isaiah 9:6. In addition to these details, we need to note “The very remarkable absence, in the recorded religious experiences and devotional utterances of the Old Testament saints, of the filial element” (p. 135).

Candlish then posed the question, “Does the New Testament afford no materials for helping us in the determination of the question?” He suggested two passages to consider. First, the statement at the close of Hebrews 11: “And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect” (Heb. 11:39-40). What is the “better thing” that Old Testament believers did not have? Candlish suggests that the “better thing” is described in Hebrews 12:22-24 where the Old Testament saints (“the spirits of just men made perfect”) appear with New Testament believers (“the church of the firstborn”). The New Testament saints are described in filial language, and the ‘perfection’ ahead for Old Testament believers is participating fully in that sonship. The other New Testament passage is Galatians 3:23–4:7 where Paul “draws a contrast between believers under the law and believers under the gospel.” There the Old Testament believers are described as heirs who had not received, to the same degree as New Testament believers, the awareness of the blessings connected to the coming of the Son of God and the Holy Spirit.⁹

For Candlish, the references to divine fatherhood in the Old Testament were analogical, drawn from the experiences of human fathers. A change occurred with the coming of the Son, and God now “means us to look exclusively, or all but exclusively, to the manner of life of his Son Jesus Christ, and to draw our notions of his fatherhood directly from thence…. There is presented before our eyes the actual working out, in human nature and human experience, of the only relation of fatherhood and sonship 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” (p. 96). 

4. What Jesus taught about the Fatherhood of God

Candlish clarified at the onset of this lecture that he did not deny that God was the Father of his people in Old Testament times; rather he stressed that the relationship was not fully revealed by him until the coming of Christ. Also, he acknowledged that Israel collectively was called God’s son; yet that relationship was not the same as the personal relationship of sons that individuals have with the Father.

As far as the teaching of Jesus is concerned, Candlish did not see any evidence that Jesus taught that humans were sons of God by creation; indeed, he says that Jesus ‘restricted the term to his disciples’ (p. 104). Another feature of Christ’s teaching on the subject was the number of times he pointed to his own relationship as the Son of the Father, including how the relationship pre-existed his becoming a man, indicating that although he had become a man he remained the same divine person he had been in eternity. 

Regarding the past eternity, Jesus said that the Father had loved him “before the foundation of the world” (John 17:24). He also said when speaking to the Father about the disciples that the Father had “loved them as thou hast loved me” (John 17:23). For Candlish, these two verses show that it is the same fatherly love that is known by Jesus and his disciples. Obviously, it is not possible for the disciples to remember that eternal love in the way that the Son can, and also “their power of apprehending and appreciating all that the relation involves must be immeasurably less than his” (p. 136), but that does not mean that the Father’s love for his people is not the same kind of love that he has for his Son, or that the Son did not reveal the reality of that love for them after he became incarnate.

Candlish reminds readers that there is only one example of Jesus using the term ‘our Father’ to refer to God and that is in the Lord’s Prayer. Does ‘our’ here mean Jesus and his disciples or does it mean a plurality of disciples praying together, but not with Jesus? Candlish accepted that the pronoun ‘our’ meant Jesus and his disciples, yet he did not believe that, if the other meaning were adopted, his overall argument would be affected adversely. Nevertheless, he “could not imagine Jesus and the apostles living for years together, sitting together at meals, walking together by the way, and yet not praying together” (p. 118). For Candlish, it was a question of Jesus’ identification with his people.

Still, for Candlish, it was after his resurrection that Jesus revealed the family nearness between him and his disciples. The first time he referred to them as ‘my brothers’ (John 20:17) was on his resurrection day when he instructed Mary to “go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.” Candlish pointed out that here Jesus welcomed “them into his own very relationship of sonship and subjectship combined” (p. 126).

Candlish was aware of the claim that his ideas were absent from the conclusions of the Church Fathers about the person of the Son. They, said he, were concerned about the uncreated origin of the Sonship of Christ. Still, he noted that a statement of Irenaeus could suggest the possibility that some of the Fathers spoke of the possibility of believers coming into a relation of sonship that he was arguing for: “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.”¹⁰

While Candlish argued for Jesus only describing believers as sons of God, he did not want to suggest that Jesus taught that the Father was indifferent to sinners; rather he revealed the Father’s interest and care for them in the parable of the prodigal son. The parable makes clear, in Candlish’s view, that the Father would have them as sons. 

5. Entrance into the relation: the connection of adoption with regeneration and justification

In this lecture, Candlish aimed to explain how believers “should be led to apprehend their sonship – not merely as a relation similar to sonship in a human family, – nor even as a relation similar to his [Christ’s] own sonship in the divine family, – but as substantially the same relation” (p. 138).

Candlish mentioned that the Holy Spirit provided a human nature for the Son: “His being born through the operation 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.”¹¹

In this, the humanity of the Son was different from the sinful humanity of those who would become sons of God. They could only become sons by experiencing regeneration by the Holy Spirit and then receiving justification from the Father through Christ’s righteousness imputed to them, a divine act which took them out of the state of condemnation for their sins. Yet regeneration and justification did not cause them to be adopted. Rather, adoption occurs because the Father also calls them to be his sons.

Candlish considered briefly the historical failure of theologians to distinguish between justification and adoption. He noted that Turretine “expressly and formerly includes adoption in his exposition of justification. He makes adoption nothing more than another name for the positive elements which all reformed divines held to be embraced in justification.”¹² In justification, they are pardoned and accepted by God because the penalty for sin was paid on their behalf by the sufferings of Christ. Instead of confining adoption to an aspect of justification, it should be regarded as an expression of the degree God shows in “the pure fatherly love which he has for his own dear Son; pouring it out upon him so lavishly that it overflows upon all them that are his” (p. 163).

Candlish argued that “the tendency has been to separate adoption somewhat from regeneration on the one side, and on the other side to confound it somewhat too much with justification” (p. 151). He argued that in regeneration believers receive the same nature as the Son in that they are born of God; in justification, they are no longer condemned criminals but righteous subjects, and suitable for recognition as sons.¹³ It is in the writings of John, both in his Gospel and his First Letter, where this connection becomes clear. An example is the way that John connects the new birth and changed life (1 John 2:29) to the standing of sons in the following verse (1 John 3:1).

6. The privileges and obligations of sonship

In this lecture, Candlish did not provide a list of features commonly given in discussing how believers relate to their heavenly Father, because usually such features are deductions by analogy from how a human father relates to his children. He did not object to such a list, but instead he focused on how Christ is the means of providing the privileges and fulfilling the obligations. Candlish turned to Romans 8 to highlight the privilege of adoption, which is the security it provides for those adopted. As Paul says, it is God’s eternal purpose for them to become conformed to the image of the Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. There is not anything that can destroy this relationship, and even as Jesus had peace when facing the troubles of life when he was here, so should those adopted. They can experience the rest, “the Son’s own rest, in the ever-present consciousness of his filial fellowship with the Father.” And the other detail 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.” By doing so, the Son was able to sustain “that joint character of the Father’s servant and the Father’s son, in which he glorifies the Father on the earth, and finishes the work which the Father giveth him to (John xvii.4).”¹⁴ Jesus, the Son of God, is the model for how to enjoy the privileges and fulfil the responsibilities of sonship.

As he closed this lecture, Candlish commented on his series. He hoped that his endeavours would cause others to explore the doctrine because he believed “the subject has not hitherto been adequately treated in the Church”. Even the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, while including statements on the doctrine, did not deal adequately with it, especially in that “no information whatever is given, nor is any opinion expressed, as to how the relation of sonship is constituted, or as to what its precise nature is, viewed in the light of the incarnation.” 

Yet, in his opinion, Question 65 of the Larger Catechism pointed to a way of appreciating the superiority of sonship. The question asked, “What special benefits do the members of the invisible Church enjoy by Christ?” The answer is that they “enjoy union and communion with him in grace and glory.” Candlish suggested that through this answer insights come by distinguishing the differences between justification, sanctification, and adoption: 

‘Justification,’ with ‘assurance of God’s love and peace of conscience’ in its train, is participation with Christ in his righteousness, or in his work of obedience and atonement, and is therefore communion with him in grace. ‘Sanctification,’ including ‘increase of grace and perseverance therein to the end,’ is our participation with Christ in his holiness or in his holy nature, implying not only the mortification of sin, but the attainment of a higher life, and is therefore communion with him partly in grace and partly in glory. ‘Adoption,’ carrying in its bosom ‘joy in the Holy Ghost,’ is our participation with Christ in his sonship, which, even as now realised on earth, and especially as being the crowning blessedness of heaven, is communion with him preeminently and emphatically in glory.¹⁵

The response to the published lectures ranged from the enthralled to the appalled. Some saw his claims as insightful, giving fresh light on a neglected doctrine. Others regarded them as edging on the heretical, especially in the way he linked the eternal sonship of Jesus and the creaturely sonship of believers. The responders I will mention were among the first to do so, and they knew him personally either through location or denomination. While there were several points on which they could have commented, they focused mainly on two: (1) was it clear from the Bible that Adam was not created as a son of God?; and (2) was it theologically possible to identify the sonship of believers with the sonship of the Son?

Response of Thomas J. Crawford

Thomas Jackson Crawford (1812-75) was Professor of Divinity in the University of Edinburgh and a much-respected conservative theologian in the Church of Scotland. Unlike Candlish, who advocated for a limited atonement, Crawford believed that Jesus died for all, and that his death for all was evidence for saying that all were children of God by creation.¹⁶ In 1866, he published a book entitled The Fatherhood of God, based on lectures he gave to his students, in which he dealt with some of the claims made by Candlish about sonship in his lectures.¹⁷ His book contains more than his interactions with Candlish, although it is obvious that he found little in Candlish’s new ideas that he could agree with. It is probable that Crawford’s decision to interact with Candlish indicates a widespread interest in Candlish’s proposals.

Servant and son?

Who was Adam? Regarding Candlish’s claim that man was created only as a servant and a subject of God, Crawford could see no reason for not also saying that he was created as a son. Candlish had argued that the two relations of son and subject would be in conflict, but Crawford noted that they would only be in conflict in sinners, but not in God’s dealings with humans. Nor did Crawford see any difficulty in describing the heavenly Fatherhood as analogous to human fatherhood. 

He admitted that references to divine fatherhood in the Bible usually applied to the household of faith, yet “At the same time, there are not wanting indications, more or less significant, in the Word of God, of a general paternity, which may in some sense be ascribed to Him with reference to all men, as His rational and moral creatures” (p. 33). 

The indications number seven and include Malachi’s linking of God as Father and Creator (Mal. 2:10), the statement in Hebrews 12:9 that God is “the Father of spirits”, of humans being made in the image and likeness of God, the genealogy of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke that says Adam was the son of God (Luke 3:38), Paul’s quotation from a pagan poet about humans being God’s offspring (Acts 17:26-29), the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 17), and the commandment to love God (Mark 12:30). 

Those evidences do not mean that it is possible for an unregenerate person to conclude from them that God is his Father: “It must be admitted, indeed, that fallen and sinful man cannot recognise God as in any sense their Father, to the effect of rendering acceptable homage to Him, or of cherishing true filial confidence and affection towards Him, until they have been regenerated by his grace” (p. 62).

How many sonships can humans know?

In addition to there being a “fatherhood of God in relation to all men as his rational and moral creatures”, there are also biblical references that reveal a special relationship of fatherhood between God and his people. This relationship begins when sinners are regenerated. It is “a Divine sonship, which is not a common prerogative of all mankind,––a sonship which originates in the special grace of God––is founded on the mediatorial work of the Redeemer––is restricted to those who receive Christ, or believe on His name––and is certified and sealed by the work of the Holy Spirit, producing filial disposition in the heart, and bringing forth the fruits of holiness in the conduct” (p. 166).¹⁸

For Crawford, this second form of sonship is not a mere restoration of what unfallen Adam had. Rather it is a sonship that originates in God’s sovereign grace, is connected to them receiving the benefits of the mediation of Christ, and it is given to those who have faith in Christ. Among the blessings of this second form of sonship is the prospect of glorification with Christ. 

This led Crawford to consider whether this sonship “is identical with that of the second person in the Godhead to the Eternal Father”. He affirmed that, while the difference between them is immeasurable, attention must be given to verses that indicate the blessings of the second form of sonship include experiences shared with the Son of God, such as being joint heirs with him, and of receiving from him the glory that the Father gave to him. So he concluded that there are “good and sufficient grounds for the persuasion that God’s adopted ones have fellowship with their Redeemer in the blessedness and dignity resulting from His sonship, in so far as these may be communicable to created beings; and that at all events the privileges enjoyed by them, in virtue of their union and communion with the Son of God, are incomparably more excellent and exalted than any which our first parents could have experienced in the earthly paradise” (p. 181). It is not obvious how this sonship experience differs from that promoted by Candlish.

How many sonships does Christ have?

Crawford responded to Candlish’s assertion – that “There are not two sonships belonging to Christ, but only one; for the relation of sonship, being strictly personal, must be one, as the person is one. There are not, there cannot be, two distinct relations of fatherhood and sonship subsisting between God and the Incarnate Word, one proper to His divine, the other to His human nature” – by disagreeing with him. Crawford argued that if “it be one of the properties or relations of man, as an intelligent and moral creature, formed after the divine image, and dependent on the divine care, to be a son of God, then must this human property or relation, as well as all others which do not involve anything sinful, be attributed, in respect to His human nature, to our Immanuel.”

What would this mean for the person of Christ? “What we ascribe to Christ is, two distinct relations to God – one proper to His divine nature and the other proper to His human nature. We apply to them both, indeed, the same human analogy of sonship, because we can find no better analogy to represent them. But we are not to be held on that accounts as affirming that they are identical. On the contrary, we believed them to be in many respects greatly dissimilar. The one is a divine, while the other is a human sonship…. It is not therefore a divided sonship which we ascribe to Him; but two distinct sonships, differing very materially, although from the poverty of language we are obliged to call them by the same name.”¹⁹ Crawford was aware that his assertion could be regarded as breaking the unity of Christ’s person. His answer to that assertion was that he was maintaining the fullness of each nature in the person of Christ, although that answer does not deal with the point of the assertion. 

His answer, however, enabled Crawford to agree with Candlish’s observation that “Our Lord led His disciples to form their conceptions of what it is to have God for their Father from what they saw and heard of His own filial intercourse with God.” Yet, for Crawford, “This filial intercourse, however, as I have formerly shown, is not to be regarded as a manifestation of the monogenetic sonship of His divine nature, communicated to and shared in by His humanity. It is rather to be regarded as a manifestation of that human sonship in its highest type and most consummate excellence, which, in common with all other human qualities and relations, the eternal Son of God assumed when He became incarnate.”

Response of Hugh Martin

Hugh Martin (1822-1885) was a minister in the Free Church of Scotland and a profound theological scholar. He considered Candlish’s book in a lengthy review of almost seventy pages in the British and Foreign Evangelical Review.²⁰ He recognised that the volume was a criticism of the Broad Church view of the universal fatherhood of God. Yet he also saw the book “as a contribution in the discussion of positive Christian doctrine that we think it eminently valuable” (p. 721). 

Martin agreed with Candlish that the doctrine of adoption historically had not been satisfactorily dealt with in Reformed or Puritan writings, or in British, European and American theological works and journals. He was aware of articles and sermons on adoption by various writers and preachers, but expanding the theology of adoption had not been a major focus for such. One exception was Calvin who, Martin claims, “held the positive doctrine of Dr Candlish’s lectures, and would have formulated the same views had the subject been formally placed before him” (p. 725). 

For Martin, the substance of Candlish’s volume was two propositions: “I. On the platform of nature or mere creation, there is between God and man no relation of proper Fatherhood and Sonship. II. On the platform of sovereign redeeming grace, the Sonship which believers enjoy is through communion with the Man Christ Jesus in his Sonship” (p. 728). 

Martin said of those propositions, “we most cordially concur.”²¹ To read his explanation of the second point is to experience mind-stretching doctrinal understanding of the human nature of the eternal Son as he now fulfils the roles given to him by divine covenant. And there is not space in this paper, or in my mind, to cover adequately Martin’s insights. But here are some details of his response.

Is man a son by creation?

Martin agreed with Candlish that Adam, while created as a servant of God, was not a son of God by creation and among his arguments were the following:

(1) One matter to consider is what is included in the claim that Christianity is primarily remedial. For some, it means that salvation is a recovery of what was lost at the fall, including the recovery of Adamic sonship. Christianity, however, is more than remedial. What it offers requires the Incarnation to have occurred. It includes the giving of eternal life, the life that is in the Son, rather than the life possessed by unfallen Adam. Salvation is not just a recovery of what Adam lost by his fall. 

(2) What about arguments based on the genealogy recorded by Luke, the parable of the prodigal son, and the quotation by Paul at the Areopagus? Martin argued that Luke’s purpose was only to show that Adam’s origin was divine, that Paul merely used a pagan quotation because it contained truth that suited his argument with his hearers, and that the parable of the prodigal son is actually about two sons, one of whom had the inheritance without repentance, and so is not a description of divine adoption.²² So those biblical references were not concerned with a divine sonship by creation.

(3) Martin also asked why the devil did not mention sonship when tempting Adam in the Garden of Eden. Satan was prepared to tempt the last Adam about his sonship. But his not tempting the first Adam in this manner suggests that he did not have that relation with God (p. 744).

Do believers participate in Christ’s sonship? 

Martin was surprised that Candlish was criticised for this claim. In Martin’s assessment, it was also the view of Calvin whose writings he quoted in support of Candlish’s teaching:

• “This gives us good reason for growing confidence, that we may venture more freely to call God our Father, because his only Son, in order that we might have a Father in common with him, chose to be our Brother” (Calvin on Luke 1:35). 
• “To this name (only-begotten Son) Christ has a right, because he is by nature the only Son of God; and he communicates this honour to us by adoption, when we are ingrafted unto his body” (Calvin on John 3:16). 
• “For what he possesses as his own by nature, he imparts to us by adoption, when we are ingrafted by faith into his body and become his members” (Calvin on John 8:36).²³

Candlish’s arguments had led to the criticism that he was deifying finite creatures by connecting adoption with Christ’s eternal sonship. Martin did not think Candlish had done so. 

Martin argued for the centrality of the Incarnation in helping to understand the sonship of Christ. The Incarnation brought no change to his eternal Sonship, but it did ‘modulate it into a new aspect, manifesting its communicability and mediating its communication’ (p. 759). Therefore, in approaching this subject we should keep in mind what it meant for Jesus, the eternal Son, to have a human nature permanently: “It is, then, the one only eternal Sonship which the Son, as the man Christ Jesus, possesses and enjoys. And if the Incarnation teaches anything concerning this glorious and ever blessed relation, it teaches that it is capable of being embraced in a thoroughly, an intensely human consciousness; of being apprehended and understood by a human intellect; of having its obligations imposed upon, and accepted by, a human conscience and a human will; and of having its endearments of love and confidence unspeakable enshrined and enjoyed in a human heart.”

Martin continues: “It is of the Sonship as thus specificated into a new aspect by the incarnation, that we affirm its participation by believers. And surely no one will deny that this new aspect, history, and experience of it, in the complex but undivided person of the Son, points at least in the direction of what we have affirmed, namely, that the incarnation manifests the communicability, and mediates the communication, of the Sonship.”²⁴

Martin also highlighted the union of believers with Christ. This union “is accomplished by the Spirit of the Son, in what is specifically a work of regeneration; and secondly, that it provides for, and gives entrance on, communion with the Son.” The outcome is that “the Mystical union between believers and Christ, effected by the Spirit, as the Spirit of the Son, and the Spirit of regeneration, and securing communion and community in all interests, possessions, and relationships, between the Head and the members, carrying with it the relative or relational grace of adoption, actually accomplishes the communication” (p. 759). We have fellowship in the Son and with the Son and through the Son forever.

Conclusion

A number of conclusions can be drawn from this theological debate, and I will make three. The first I would mention is how the debate between Candlish and Crawford is a good example of how to conduct such debates. They did it in public, through their lectures and books on the topic, which they adjusted in subsequent editions, in order to make clearer their statements in response to what had been said by the other. Where they agreed, they cordially mentioned it; when they disagreed, each retained his respect for the other.

A second conclusion concerns Candlish’s and Martin’s desire that the publication of Candlish’s volume would lead to further developments in understanding the doctrine of adoption, especially in its connection to the eternal sonship of Christ. This does not seem to have happened. One reason, of course, could be the complexity of trying to explain it. Yet although subjective, one can sense in the minds of Candlish and Martin a wonder of the glory of the divine as they verbally travel further into the consequences of the Incarnation, and that’s a good way to explore all our theological convictions.

A third conclusion is the importance of appreciating the astonishing details of God’s plan for his creatures. Whether or not we had the status of sons of God in Adam, we now have a greater sonship, the full revelation of which the whole creation is anticipating (Rom. 8:19-23). We need to remember the capacity of the human nature of the eternal Son through whom, by the Holy Spirit, we can experience to some extent, even in our earthly journey to the Father’s house, the wonder of family membership. Union with Christ is a wonderful doctrine, but it is more than a doctrine. It is a real experience now, and it will be a fuller experience yet when we shall see him as he is.

---

1. The book went through five editions, with changes made in editions two to four by Candlish as he responded to various comments. The fifth edition (1870) is the same as the first (1865), and he put all his responses into a separate accompanying volume called Supplementary Volume to Fifth Edition Containing Reply to Dr. Crawford, with Answers to Other Objections, and Explanatory Notes, Adam and Charles Black, 1870. ↩︎
2. C. H. Spurgeon in his Commenting and Commentaries says of the Genesis volume that ‘We venture to characterize this as the work upon Genesis, so far as lectures can make up an exposition; we have greatly profited by its perusal. It should be in every Biblical library.’ He says regarding the 1 John volume that ‘We set great store by these lectures. A man hardly needs any thing beyond Candlish. He is devout, candid, prudent, and forcible’ (C. H. Spurgeon, Commenting and Commentaries, Banner of Truth, rpt. 1969, pp. 49, 195). ↩︎
3. Candlish, in his opening lecture, says that the setting up of a regular series of lectures had been planned, with William Cunningham as the first lecturer. Obviously, his passing caused a rethink of those plans. The lectures were given in the Assembly Hall of the Free Church, on each Tuesday and Friday, of the first three weeks of March 1864, with the first lecture delivered on the afternoon of Tuesday, 1st March, at 2pm to a large audience. ↩︎
4. R. S. Candlish, The Fatherhood of God, Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1870, fifth edition, 5. Other quotations of Candlish in this section come from this volume. ↩︎
5. It may be that Candlish here was suggesting that the reward held out to Adam if he kept the terms of the Covenant of Works was promotion to a permanent state of sonship to God. That prospect was the opinion of James Henley Thornwell, the American Southern Presbyterian theologian (Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell, Vol. 1, Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1871, chapter on ‘The Covenant of Works’). ↩︎
6. This sentence comes from the second edition of his book (p. 74). It is interesting to note that in the fifth edition of his book, which is the one used in this article and which contains the original lecture, Candlish worded this sentence differently: ‘It is that manifestation of it, at all events, which must ever be most intensely interesting to the lost family of mankind, for its momentous bearing practically on their everlasting state and prospects’ (p. 40). ↩︎
7. Candlish, The Fatherhood of God, 161. Those wishing to see how Candlish connects Jesus’ reigning eternally as God and serving endlessly with his people can consult Discourse 6 in his Life in a Risen Saviour (Adam and Charles Black, 1863, 77-90), where he expounds on this verse from 1 Corinthians 15. ↩︎
8. Most versions translate the phrase as ‘sons of God’, although commentators are not agreed about who is in mind. Some suggest human descendants of Seth, others suggest fallen angels, and others suggest powerful humans. Candlish only mentions the first suggestion, even as he did in his commentary on Genesis. ↩︎
9. Candlish, The Fatherhood of God, 85-92. ↩︎
10. Candlish, 129. He also refers to Athanasius (pp. xxii-xxiv). ↩︎
11. Candlish, The Fatherhood of God, 143. ↩︎
12. Candlish, The Fatherhood of God, 158. ↩︎
13. ‘Faith, uniting him to Christ, and making Christ and Christ’s righteousness his, secures his being absolved from guilt and accounted righteous. He is now rectus in curia, a free subject, and therefore capable of sonship’ (Candlish, p. 150). ↩︎
14. Candlish, The Fatherhood of God, 191. ↩︎
15. Candlish, The Fatherhood of God, 197. ↩︎
16. See Thomas J. Crawford, The Atonement, William Blackwood and Sons, 1871. ↩︎
17. Thomas J. Crawford, The Fatherhood of God, William Blackwood and Sons, 1867, second edition. Other citations from Crawford in this section come from this volume. ↩︎
18. Crawford, 166. ↩︎
19. Crawford, 218-19. ↩︎
20. Hugh Martin, ‘Candlish’s Cunningham Lectures,’ The British and Foreign and Evangelical Review, Number 14, 1865, 720-87. Candlish said of Martin’s review, “I feel bound specially to notice the article in the British and Foreign Evangelical Review, October 1865. The author of that article is evidently very competent to deal with the theological and ecclesiastical aspects of this question, viewed in the light of church history and church controversies. I do not profess to go so deeply into the subject as he does, and I do not know that I could endorse all that he says. But I congratulate the Church on his advocacy of what I hold to be an important view of the gospel of Christ. And if there is to be any further discussion of the subject, I consider him to be eminently a fit person to take a leading part in it” (Candlish, The Fatherhood of God, xxviii). ↩︎
21. Martin did not accept every detail in Candlish’s book: “Dr Candlish, in maintaining them, may have here or there used an expression which we are not prepared to endorse, and presented an argument the validity of which we would not undertake to vindicate. But he has, we believe, as successfully maintained, as he has sagaciously asserted, these very distinct and intelligible positions”‘Candlish’s Cunningham Lectures,’728. ↩︎
22. Martin’s opinion of these three common arguments for a sonship by creation was  that ‘The arguments drawn from the parable of the prodigal son; from Paul’s quotation at Athens of a heathen poet; and from Luke’s genealogical table; are not worthy of the slightest serious attention’. ‘Candlish’s Cunningham Lectures,’ 742. ↩︎
23. Martin, ‘Candlish’s Cunningham Lectures,’ 752. ↩︎
24. Martin, ‘Candlish’s Cunningham Lectures,’ 766. ↩︎