universe would have been deprived of its most invincible evidence of grace." Now, these are true, beautiful, and far-reaching utterances, the significance of which Dr. Fairbairn himself does not seem to apprehend. If God, as he argues, must be incarnated in "a visible Sonship”—if that visible Sonship must come "in the form of humanity"-if that visible Sonship in human form must have come apart from "the accident of sin," then we earnestly and urgently inquire— If sin had never existed, at what time was it most likely that the Son of the Father would become the God-Man-the Visible God? Surely! before man was created, and not after the human race had existed for thousands of years upon the earth, and been developed, in measure, out of the natural condition into that which is spiritual. Apart from sin, what reason can be imagined for a flesh and blood Incarnation of the Divine Son, late in time and after humanity had far advanced on its upward and heavenly way, and become more or less spiritual-even physically, and therefore like unto the angels'? There is no ground for such a conception, either in reason or in revelation. Canon Gore and

others have given expression to the same belief stated by Dr. Fairbairn, that the Son of God must have become Incarnate, even though man had never sinned; but Dr. Denny in his admirable work on Studies in Theology most truly says (p. 101), "Scripture never gives the faintest hint of any opening for the mind in this direction." And why? Because the Lord God was already Man, and frequently appeared as such in Old Testament times. Dr. Denny does not see this, and must therefore believe that but for the Fall and the consequent need of Incarnation and Redemption, the Divine Son would never have become Human at all. But if so, then how could He have made known the Father? (Matt. xi. 27). Had the Divine Son been only Divine, how could He have become the Revealer of God? If the Father is invisible, the Son as God must also be invisible, and therefore could not bring the Invisible into view. It needs more than God to reveal God unto men, for men are unable to rise above the level of their own nature, and can only apprehend that which is human. Truly, "it were mere impertinence to imagine that but for the accident of sin the

universe would have been deprived of its most. invincible evidence of grace," but it was not so deprived, for the Creator was God-Man-the Divine Ideal of man. It was in His 'image and likeness' that the first man was made, and all through the periods of the old dispensations the Visible God frequently appeared unto men as Man.* Indeed, He never appeared as anything else, for He was the Primal Man-the Perfect Man; and had humanity never fallen under the power of sin and death, He would have been to all men their Teacher and Exemplar for evermore. It was the Divine Man by whom all things were created. The invisible Father created nothing directly, but everything through the agency of the Visible Son, who being originally in the form of God,' became the Maker of the universe and the great Mediator between God and men. What says Paul? He was 'the image of the invisible God—the firstborn of all creation: For in him were all things

* Gen. iii. 8; Gen. xviii. 2; Gen. xxxii. 24, 30; Acts vii. 2; Exod. iii. 6; Exod. xxiv. 9-11; Num. xii. 4-8; Josh. v. 13-15; Judg. xiii. 22; Ezek. i. 26-28; Dan. iii. 24, 25.

created that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions, principalities or powers; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and by him they all consist' (Col. i. 15, 16). And what says John?' He was the beginning of the creation of God' (Rev. iii. 14).

The agnostic evolutionist, on looking back to the origin of things, sees no visible God above and behind them, and therefore speaks of the great First Cause as "unknown." It is true that God in Himself is the Great Unknown, for no man knoweth the Father, save the Son.' But the Great Unknown is not "Unknowable," for . He that knoweth the Son knoweth the Father also.' 'He that hath seen me,' said Jesus, 'hath seen the Father.' Now, the Son could have made these glorious declarations to Adam in Eden just as well as to the disciples in the days of His 'flesh,' for even then He was the revelation of the unseen Father. 'No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father he hath declared him.' He declared and manifested the Father from the beginning to both angels and

men. Nature could never have been an adequate and satisfying manifestation of God, and a BookRevelation like the Bible could never have made Him known as He required to be known. The revelation needed was Personal, ay! and the personal revelation and manifestation of God was a necessity apart altogether from "the accident of sin." Dr. Fairbairn is right-more so than he is aware of when he says, "If God is to become the real Father of man and man the real son of God, then all the energies, loves, and ideals of the unseen Paternity must be incarnated and organized in a visible Sonship, that they may become creative of a mankind which shall realize the filial ideal." He who was originally 'in the form of God,' was 'the image of the Invisible,' or in other words the Invisible brought into view. The Son of God became Man before Creation, that He might reveal the invisible Father to all His children, for only thus could He become the visible "Image" and "Form" of God. When this glorious fact comes to be clearly apprehended and taught by the Christian Church, the agnostic sons of science and many others may be led to the feet of the God-Man