life to the offspring. It is illustrated in the whole vegetable world, from its lowest to its highest forms. It characterizes the entire animal kingdom, and culminates in man, in whom the added moral element signalizes the intimacy and identity of the tie between parents and children, all fallen and ruined in the fall of the father of all. God made Adam in his own holy image. But fallen Adam "begut a son in his own likeness, after his image and called his name Seth." (Gen. v. 3.)

The significance of the relation between the eternal generation in the Godhead and these creature generations will be seen, if we reflect that, but for the illustrations presented in the latter, we would have no means of forming the most remote conception of the nature of the former; and that the Spirit of inspiration uniformly uses them as the means of imparting all the knowledge which we possess concerning that inner mystery of the adorable Godhead. We may hence, without hesitation, conclude that the illustration thus found is not accidental,-that man was constituted as he is for the express purpose of illustrating the divine mystery in question; and that this was one of the features of the image and likeness of God which was impressed on Adam in his creation. It is, of course, the fact that the parallels between these two are but distant analogies. But, on the other hand, that those analogies are real, and convey to us just and true conceptions, though limited, of the divine realities, follows from the use made of them by the Spirit of inspiration; unless we are to suppose ourselves mocked by a semblance of revelation which only misleads. As the eternal generation is the connective of an ineffable nearness, unity and love, and of a community of likeness and of Godhead, between those blessed Persons, so the natural generation of the human race, the propagation and derivation of life from parent to child, is the bond and spring, even in our fallen state-how much more, had man remained unfallen-of a sweetness, tenderness and identity of affections and of interests, between parent and child, the necessary result of a realized oneness of nature, life and blood.

Intermediate between those already spoken of, is that generation by which believers become children of God,-that, the neces

Re

sity of which our Saviour asserts in such emphatic terms. specting it the following points are revealed and signally characteristic:

1. Of it the Holy Spirit is the seed. "Ye must be born again; born of the Spirit." (John iii. 3, 5, 6.) He is "the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus," who dwells in God's people. (Rom. viii. 2, 9, 11.) "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." (1 John iii. 9.) "Born again, not (ex) of corruptible seed, but (ex) of incorruptible; (d) by means of the Word of God which liveth and abideth forever." The prepositions here discriminate between the efficient cause of grace, the incorruptible seed, the Holy Spirit, and the Word, the instrumental means.

2. Thus life, the life of God, is transfused into the dead soul. "The Spirit of life in Christ Jesus" dwells in us, imparting divine life, so that Paul says, "I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me." (Gal. ii. 20.) God sent his Son into the world "that we might live through him." (1 John iv. 9.) The language of these and similar statements is brief and simple. Yet how profound the significance! How amazing the grace! Born of God. "Made partakers of the divine nature." (2 Peter i. 4.) Indissolubly united to the blessed Godhead by the indwelling in us of the very Spirit of God, and that as a principle of divine life, a bond of union and channel of fellowship with the Father and his Son Jesus Christ! (1 John i. 3.) Where is the creature in the universe of such exalted rank that he may dream of aspiring to the dignity and privilege of the redeemed, enjoyed by virtue of being begotten. of God?

3. All the blessings of grace and glory with which believers are endowed spring out of and are inseparably dependent on this divine birth. At the ascension of the Lord Jesus, the Holy Spirit in all his fulness as the agent of grace, was given to him by the Father. (Acts i. 4, 5; ii. 33; John iii. 34.) That Spirit remaining in Christ as his Spirit is by him, in regeneration, shed upon and enters into God's people as the Spirit of life. Thus, "as the body is one and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one

Spirit are we all baptized into one body, . . . and have been all made to drink one Spirit." (1 Cor. xii. 12, 13.) Thus our regeneration unites us to the Lord Jesus, as "members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones." (Eph. v. 30.) Hence, to the sonship of regeneration is added part in the closer filial relation of the only begotten Son. "And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." (Gal. iv. 6.) “And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ," who is "the first born among many brethren." (Rom. viii. 17, 29.) Thus, upon the regeneration, by which we are born of God, are suspended all the riches of the glory of the eternal inheritance. "Brethren, now are we the sons of God; and it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that when he shall appear we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." (1 John iii. 2.) Blessed be God!

Other points present themselves. But these are sufficient. And now we return to the question propounded by the reviewer, "Why the re-creation of man in the image of God constitutes him a son, while the first creation of him in the very same image constituted him only the servant of God." Answer.-1, Because the re-creation is much more than a creation. It is, literally and in the profoundest sense, a birth, whereby the life of God is derived to the dead soul of man, and the child of grace is united to the very persons of the Godhead, by a most intimate and indissoluble union. 2, Because the image of God into which the heirs of grace are born unspeakably transcends that in which Adam was created.

On the general subject, our conclusion is, that the phrase, "Fatherhood of God" is properly used in two relations only. In a metaphorical sense, it means that general divine beneficence which comprehended the holy angels in common with Adam in his original estate, and which now graciously presides over the whole human race. Literally and in its proper meaning, it belongs exclusively to the relation which the eternal Father sustains to his eternal Son, and which, through regeneration of the Spirit, and by consequent union with Christ, believers share with him.

SAMUEL J. BAIRD.

IV. REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT IN THE

CHURCH.

To the general principles of church government presented in the October (1890) number of the QUARTERLY, no intelligent Presbyterian will object. To the application of those principles we feel constrained to make an earnest protest. The whole matter at issue may be embraced under two questions: 1st, Does the authority of the session include the control of the temporal affairs of the church? and, 2nd, If it does, is its authority exclusive of all other authority in the management of these affairs? The deliverance of Presbytery, which was sustained by Synod, answers both in the affirmative, and makes the authority of session absolute and its decision final, except as it may be overruled by the higher courts.

By the answer to the first question, the authority of session is declared to be "exclusive of all other authority in the matter of calling a congregational meeting to consider the temporal affairs of the church." By the second, the board of deacons have no right "to call or have called" such a meeting, "when in their judgment it is expedient to consult the body of the people concerning their temporal affairs." By the third, it is decided that the session has "the abstract authority" "to decide wher and what, if any, changes shall be made in the house of worship, or in the method of seating the congregation." But it is added, "it would not be expedient to use the power without consulting the congregation, except in extraordinary cases." The thing that gave rise to these inquiries will illustrate more fully the bearings of this decision. The question of changing somewhat the arrangements of the seats in the house of worship, and also of the abolition of rented pews, had been long agitated in one of the churches. The board of deaons, to whom the management of the temporal affairs of the church had been by long usage committed, requested the session to call a meeting of the congregation to consider and decide these mat

ters. The session declined to comply, but claimed authority to decide, and did decide, that no change in either should be made. In view of this decision Presbytery was memoralized to decide the questions here propounded.

It will be seen from this that absolute authority is given to the session, not only in the matter of calling the congregation together, but also to decide when and what, if any, change shall be made in the arrangement of seats, and the distribution of pews. It is in effect a positive exclusion of the body of the people from any voice in the arrangement of those affairs in which they are primarily interested, and which depend on their contributions.

In opposition to this decision, we claim that the session, by the constitution of the church, is excluded from the control of its temporal affairs.

First, this is proven by its distinctively spiritual character and functions. This Dr. Vaughan thinks, "spirituality gone to seed," but certainly not so "seedy" as that theory that would exclude the church from all educational work, while her standards require high educational qualifications in her ministers. Yet the same high authorities exclude the one and grasp the other with the utmost tenacity. The principle of incidency holds good or fails. as the need of the argument requires.

It is argued that this exclusion of the session from control of temporal affairs "is refuted by the absurd alternative of a body altogether outside of the church, necessary to manage the property and income on which the very existence and work of the church depend." (Page 570.) Very strong language follows this, and if the argument were as forcible as the language in which it is clothed it would be unanswerable, but, unfortunately, the doctor is fighting a man of straw, conjured up by his own imagination. We asserted that the congregation was, in its legal aspect, a different body from the church. Perhaps my language was not explicit enough to prevent misconception; nor can I recall the exact wording, but the idea intended was, The church, as such, is not recognized by the state; it can hold no property, nor do trustees appointed by the state hold property for it, but for the congregation. That congregation, as an organized body, may be made up of those