at the usual place of public worship for such purpsse. And it shall always be the duty of the session to convene them when requested by a majority of the persons entitled to vote." Here comes in a power back of and superior to the session, that may compel it to act even in opposition to its own convictions of expediency. The authority of the session is not therefore exclusive of the people's authority, but subject to it, and we think by necessary inference, not exclusive of the authority of the deacons when the management of the temporal affairs has been committed to them, and when they are unwilling to assume responsibility for these affairs without consulting their constituents. The argument of Daniel Webster, as quoted, might seem to conflict with this view, but with due deference to such high authority in civil affairs, we submit that the analogy halts fatally for this argument. It is always hazardous to argue from the principles of civil to those of ecclesiastical law, and in this case, though the analogy seems perfect, yet at one point it fails. If the legislators in the civil commonwealth refuse to carry out the will of the people, only a short time will intervene before they can choose others who will do it; but in the church the offices are perpetual. There is, indeed, an appeal to the higher courts, but even these may fail to give a remedy; and, as a last resort, if the elders have become unacceptable by reason of this failure, they may be retired from office; but the provisions for this are so complicated and involve so much that is distasteful that the retiring of the majority of the session is utterly impracticable, or, if possible, would be only after such delay as might be ruinous to the church. It is doubtful whether the power to depose or retire an elder furnishes any possible relief. The session is the only body authorized to dissolve the relation of an elder to the church; but if the session persists in proceedings that make them unacceptable to the people, the only remedy would be for them to depose themselves, or a majority of them, which is rather an improbable issue.

This will appear as an extreme case, one rarely met in the practical working of the church; but it is "extreme cases that prove principles," and such cases have occurred, in which the session ignored the wishes of the people, and their power was that

of an irresponsible oligarchy. Now, if it be possible that such things may occur, in the two specific cases provided for in the book, how much more in such as are not provided for, and in which absolute authority is left in the hands of the session.

The case becomes still more palpably wrong when the answer to the third question is considered. It imperils all the rights of the congregation. The session might order the sale of the property, the building of a house, any changes in the property it might desire and see fit to order, and direct its executive officers to carry out their will. If its authority is supreme, as the argument of the author asserts, they possess all authority necessary to accomplish their purpose, and can command the money. (See Dr. Vaughan's argument, page 569.) The right to command implies the duty to obey; and so everything rests in the hands of the session. Disobedience to lawful authority subjects to discipline, and the same authority that can prevent the action of the people in one case can compel it in the other. This is representative government "gone to seed," truly. Abstractly the session has a right to do these things, concretely it would be a very unwise and impolitic thing to attempt them, so says the Presbytery and the venerable Synod. We are tempted by the thought of what is involved in this abstract authority, to reiterate some of the vigorous language of the article reviewed, but forbear to speak evil of dignitaries, or bring railing accusation against any, but console ourselves with the thought, that "all synods and councils, since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err, and many times have erred, and therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both."

D. C. IRWIN.

V. THE ROYAL TEACHING PREACHER.

We will not at this time pause to discuss the questions of the authorship and design of the Book of Ecclesiastes. We are willing to accept the traditional view, and attribute it to the great name with which it has usually and for many ages been associated. Adopting this view, we may well say that Ecclesiastes is a most. remarkable book, written by a most remarkable man, in a most remarkable age, among a most remarkable people. David had founded a great kingdom on the western Mediterranean with his capital at Jerusalem, extending from the Euphrates to Egypt. Syria and Edom and Arabia yielded him uncounted tribute. The Phoenicians were his commercial allies. The commerce of Persia and Africa and India passed across his kingdom, and the caravan trade of all Central Asia poured its riches into the lap of Judah and Israel. Egypt, and Babylon, and the Hittites, the three powers of the East which held the balance of power and disputed with each other the empire of the world for a thousand years, were in eclipse for a season, beaten small by internal dissensions and external foes. David's kingdom stood forth among the nations as the only great and glorious kingdom on earth for eighty years. He and his people saw universal empire in easy grasp, and he numbered the people and mobilized the entire military strength of his kingdom to this end. But his hand was stayed and his plans were blasted by the plague from the Lord.

He

He had a mission of conquest, but not with the sword. had a promise of universal empire for himself and his seed, and the time seemed opportune.

Solomon came to the throne with the arts of peace. It was necessary to consolidate the kingdom with commerce and culture, with learning and religion. His mission was to consecrate the civilization of his day. It was no mean civilization. There is no place for fashionable hypotheses of barbaric and semi-barbaric codes and customs in that day. Agnosticism itself now begins to concede the substantial truth of the world-wide tradition of a golden

age in the earlier times. The deeper the archæologist explores into those old civilizations, the more profound is his astonishment at the records. At Jerusalem gold and silver were multiplied as the stones in the streets. Art and architecture, tapestry and needlework, stonecutting and metallurgy, tillage and vine-dressing reached the very climax of excellence.

That people had a mission-a God-given mission-first proclaimed to Abraham ten centuries before, "I will bless them that bless thee and curse them that curse thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed."

The kingdom was unique, with Jehovah, the Second Person of the Trinity, as the civil head of the commonwealth, himself appointed to be universal king. The time seemed opportune to bless all nations of the earth and to prepare the nations for the coming of David's son, in whom the covenant should be completely fulfilled. Only a viceroy was needed with the requisite endowments.

Plato's ideal commonwealth was now, if ever, to be realized. Mentor's ideal kingdom, so beautifully unfolded to Telemachus, his royal pupil, seemed about to have a realization, of which Mentor nor Apollo ever dreamed.

Solomon was raised up and equipped with wisdom-wisdom to rule, an "understanding heart to judge the people," to "discern between good and evil." And (because he chose this, the Lord said, "I have given thee a wise and understanding heart; so that there was none like thee before thee, neither shall any arise after thee like unto thee. And I have also given thee that which thou hast not asked, both riches and honor; so that there shall not be any among the kings like unto thee all thy days."

His wisdom was all-embracing for acquisition of knowledge, and equally effective for imparting the same to admiring pupils. All forms of learning and wisdom and knowledge met in him. He was a poet, for his songs were a thousand and five; he was a philosopher, for he spake three thousand proverbs; he was a preacher, and the pulpits of all ages discuss his themes; he was a scientist, comprehending the whole range of natural history; a botanist and a dendrologist, for "he spake of trees, from the cedar that is in Lebanon even to the hyssop that springeth out of

the wall"; he was a zoologist and an ornithologist, an entomologist and an ichthyologist, for "he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes;" and, withal, he was a teacher, for he "spake" of all these things," and there came of all people to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all kings of the earth which had heard of his wisdom."

Nor did he stand alone, for there was wisdom in the "children of the east country" and in "Egypt." He had peers, though not his proper equals, in "Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, and Chalchol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol." Could we find such a man to-day, and plant him at one of our great centres of travel, commerce, or education, we would have a great university, to which learned professors and eager pupils alike would flock, and wealth would pour unstinted offerings at her feet; so there, kingsand queens were his pupils. The queen of Sheba, herself the wisest among women, "came to prove him with hard questions," and "she communed with him of all that was in her heart," and "Solomon told her all her questions; there was not anything hid from the king which he told her not;" and her voluntary tuition offering was "an hundred and twenty talents of gold, and of spices very great store, and precious stones."

Yet his kingdom failed. Alas, alas! Solomon was but a man; his head reeled and turned in the very zenith of his glory; he grew dizzy in those heights; wealth and luxury did their corrupting work for himself and his people. His very wisdom became a snare, and both his wisdom and his power were prostituted to ignoble aims. Lust and sin marred his work and cut off his opportunity.

We have not the heart to unfold the story of his polygamy, idolatry, covetousness, and oppressions, fitly ending in the decay of his kingdom and the secession of ten tribes to Jeroboam, and the centuries of decay and cursing, of which he himself sowed the seeds amid regal splendor.

The Book of Ecclesiastes recounts his experiences of life. He drank at every fountain of mere human good. He tells the story fairly; he tells the story honestly; he tells it sadly, almost bitterly. "Vanity of vanities," you read in the opening; "Vanity of van