human nature. "Every man," meaning the same. "Many sons," comprehending the same. "Brethren" of the great sanctifier; "The church." These are the children mentioned in our text, who are partakers of flesh and blood.

Having ascertained in the first section of our inquiry, that the children mentioned in our text comprehend the whole human family, we may attempt

2dly, To show who is the Father of these children. This question is settled at once by the author in the context, in the following words which have been noticed; "For 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." These many sons, who are brought unto glory, are the children mentioned in our text, and he for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, is the Father of these children.

If it seem incorrect to the hearer, to call all men the children of God, and if any objection be made to this doctrine on account of the sinfulness of man's character, our argument may be supported by the following considerations.

If

St. Luke in tracing the genealogy of Jesus carries it up to the creation of man, and says; "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.” it be proper to call Adam the son of God, it seems also to be proper to call all the descendants of this first man, the children of God.

If the objection be urged on account of the sinful character of man, we reply, that the children do not destroy this relation by disobedience. For as the relation of parent and child certainly exists before the child becomes active in obedience, or disobedience; it would be false reasoning to argue that obedience could constitute this relation, or that disobedience would disannul it. The Lord says, by the prophet Jeremiah; "Turn, O backsliding children, saith the Lord; for I am married unto you." Thus the divine Being ad

dresses the wicked by the endearing appellation of children.

That it is consistent with the doctrine of Jesus to allow that sinners are the children of God, this divine teacher fully shows where he teaches us to pray, and say; "Our father which art in heaven-forgive us

St. Paul, speaking to the Athenians, as recorded in the 17th Acts, said; "God that made the world, and all things therein,-hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined 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." According to this declaration, "all nations of men" are the offspring of God. Let us inquire, 3dly. What this relation of all men to the divine Being consists in ?

It seems that the simple fact of man's being created, or formed of the dust of the ground by the hand of God, is not altogether a sufficient cause to account for his being called his offspring; for it is evident that all other creatures and things were equally the production of the divine Power; but the beasts of the field, the fowl of heaven, the fish of the sea are not called the offspring and children of God.

If a man, who is a mechanic, contrive and make never so curious or valuable a piece of machinery, it would not justify our calling him the father of this production of his skill, nor would it justify our calling this machine the son, child, or offspring of him who made it. But if a man have born to him a child, this child partakes of the very nature of the parent, and it is this participation which constitutes the relation of father and child. So if the "Father of spirits" has so constituted man, that he is a partaker of his nature, he

is, in a most proper and divine sense the child and offspring of God.

This is the nature of the relation which constitutes all men the children of God, and this relation lies at the foundation of the divine economy, by which we are amply provided with all things which appertain to life and godliness. This relation accounts for all which we read in scriptures of the love, mercy, and compassions of the divine Being towards man. We cannot conceive the possibility of any being's loving that which is totally different from itself.

But man "is the image and glory of God," and it iş as consistent with the nature of things, for God to love his own image in mankind, as it is for parents to love their image in their children.

This relation accounts for the moral obligation that men are under to love God above every other object. "Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength,' is not an arbitrary command, but is established on the nature of the divine relation in which we stand to our Father which is in heaven. If there were in nature any thing more calculated to happify mankind than is the divine Being, that thing would certainly have the greatest claim on our love.

But this is not the case; there is not in the whole universe any thing so favorable to man, as is the Father of his spirit. God is the fountain from which we came, and nothing but God can satisfy the soul.

David said; "As the heart panteth after the waterbrooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O God. My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God." If water were not a part of the composition of the human body, we should never feel a desire for it, nor could it give us the least refreshment. So if we were not partakers of the divine nature in our constitution as mortal beings, we could never feel the least desire for God, nor could the communications of the divine Spirit give us life or any refreshment. How eagerly does one who is thirsty receive the cooling draught, and with what

exquisite pleasure does he slake his parching thirst. Jesus says: "If any man thirst let him come unto me and drink;" Drink what? The spirit of truth which is a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

This divine relation, which constitutes all men the children of God, explains the meaning of such passages as the following; "For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God:-For we know that, if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened; not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life." In these passages men are represented as the sons of God, and while they are in the earthly house of this tabernacle, they are considered in a state of bondage, from which they groan to be delivered; and the state into which they are to enter when the earthly house is dissolved, is the glorious lib erty of the children of God, to inhabit a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

Now if man was wholly of an earthly nature, if the natural elements which constitute his earthly house of this tabernacle compose the whole of his nature, would there be the least shadow of sense in such scriptures?

To conclude this general inquiry concerning the children mentioned in our text, we may ask, in what way the passage under consideration is to be understood, unless this divine relation of mankind to the Father of our spirits be granted? "The children are partakers of flesh and blood;" If the children were nothing but flesh and blood, why is it said, that they are partakers of flesh and blood? "He (Jesus) also himself likewise took part of the same." I Jesus con

sisted only of flesh and blood, is it intelligible language to say, he took part of the same?

But the christian hearer will say at once, that he has no doubt that Jesus partook of the divine nature, and stood in a constituted relation to his Father, and was something besides flesh and blood. Now when all this is conceded, the hearer's attention is invited to reconsider a part of the context which has been noticed; "For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one; for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren." If Jesus, who is the sanctifier, and mankind who are sanctified by him, are all of one, so that he is not ashamed to call men his brethren, then it is plain that the nature of the relation of Jesus to the Father is the nature of the relation of every man to the Father of our spirits. And this agrees with the scripture which saith that Jesus is "the first-born among many brethren."

The hearer is cautioned against supposing that we mean to level the blessed Redeemer to no more than equality with ourselves, by contending that the relation in which we stand to our Father and his Father; to our God and his God, is the same in which he himself stands; for though all this is evident from the scriptures, yet it is also contained in them, that "God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name that is above every name that is named, whether in this world or that which is to come; that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father."

We may now notice the moral condition which our text and context give to the children named in the text, and concerning whom we have endeavored to direct the foregoing researches.

On this question we may say but little; as the subject is rendered sufficiently clear by the scripture under consideration and its connexion.

In our text, these children are said to be partakers