afraid with any amazement." He shows that the holy women of old were thus adorned with the graces of the Spirit, being in subjection to their own husbands, of whom Sarah seems to be the chief. She excelled in the duty of a wife. She obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. Our learned translators did not see proper to favour us with a literal translation of this word, nor has any commentator, that we have had access to, in connexion with the duty of husband and wife.

The word that is here translated lord, which is in Hebrew adonai, is said to occur very seldom in the Old Testament, the literal translation of which is, "my stays, or pillars.' See Concordance in Supplement to the Comprehensive Commentary, word LORD. So Sarah called Abraham her "stays, or pillars," her temporal supports, and this exactly corresponds with the character of husband which we have endeavoured to describe. And well he deserved the appellation. She acknowledged him as standing in the relation to her of "stays or pillars," which surely entitled him to reverence and gratitude. "Let the wife see that she reverence her husband." There is another appellation given to husband,-Baali, or lord,-of which we have already given the explanation, from Mr. Henry's Commentary on Hosea ii. 16. The literal translation of which is, "my owner, patron and protector," and was predicated of God. But God told them he would no more be called Baali, but Ishi, which signifies "my husband," or literally, "my man," a very appropriate appellation for a Christian husband, being a compilation of love, sweetness, and familiarity. When God represents himself thus, as husband, it might be sufficient for

worm man.

Sarah's conduct as a wife is here brought forward as an example for wives. "Whatever was written aforetime was written for our learning." All the means we have of knowing how Sarah discharged the duty of wife is by examining her conduct in that relation from the divine record. Did Sarah's obedience consist in her being a mere machine in the hand of Abraham? Was her will always subject to his will in every thing that did not "appertain to the conscience?" Was her personality merged in him? We think not. As it respects her character as wife, she was none of your pas

She

sive people, who obtain their rights by "concession.” spoke out fearlessly to maintain her rights and prerogatives, except when she saw proper to relinquish them herself. She would neither put up with insult herself, nor suffer those under her charge to be insulted, without using means for redress. Strange that this resolute, dignified character is held up as the example for wives. She was not quite so passive with her meekness, and so quiet in spirit, as to be silent when her rights were invaded. We think if she had lived in our day, she would not be pronounced a very submissive and obedient wife by our strict theological and moral teachers.

It is imperiously a woman's province, as well as a man's, to know her rights. God has given her those rights, and she has corresponding duties, and she should use every lawful means in order to have her rights restored, if deprived of them, with all meekness and humility. Tame submission to what is wrong is no virtue. In the character of stays or pillars, or lord, did Sarah call upon Abraham to redress her grievance. When her maid treated her insolently, she said unto Abraham, "My wrong be upon thee; the Lord judge between me and thee." She looked to Abraham to have her wrongs redressed. It is a man's duty not only to honour. his wife, and treat her well himself, but he is to see to it that all the members of the family honour her, and treat her well, as he is the stronger vessel. When Sarah dealt hardly with her maid, she fled from her face, and the angel of the Lord found her, and accosted her as Hagar, Sarah's maid. How strange this-a person would have supposed she would have been called Abraham's maid-surely Hagar did not appertain to Sarah's conscience. And the angel of the Lord said, "Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands," Gen. xvi. 5-9. Astonishing! not unto Abraham! A person would have supposed that Abraham had charge of all these matters. 66 Behold, as the eyes of servants look unto the hand of their masters, and as the eyes of a maiden unto the hand of her mistress, so our eyes wait upon the Lord our God." Ps. cxxii. 2. Does not all this look a little like the equality of rights and of authority? Sarah next calls upon Abraham to redress her grievanceshe saw the son of Hagar mocking her son, and would not permit him to be insulted. The apostle informs us "that he

that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit." Gal. iv. 29. Sarah took cognizance of the matter, and called upon Abraham to redress her grievance, and "cast out the bond-woman and her son." Sarah was his only lawful wife, and would have no rival in his affections, and her son was the only lawful heir to their estate. Gen. xxi. 10. She said that "the son of the bond-woman should not be heir with her son." There is no evidence that Hagar was a slave-when she transgressed she was turned out of their service-there is not a word of selling her or her son. He would have been an heir of the estate had not precautionary means been adopted to prevent it. If Sarah had been under Abraham's command in every thing that did not "appertain to the conscience," we do not think that the contrast between the two would have been so great as to freedom. We do not think that it appertained to Sarah's conscience whether Ishmael resided in the family or not. When Sarah told Abraham to "cast out the bond-woman and her son," &c., the thing was very "grievous in his sight; because of his son." Why was he grieved? Why did he not interpose his authority, and tell Sarah she was a usurper, to assume any authority there, except what "appertained to her conscience," as he was the ultimate appeal?*

* Sarah's character, abstractly considered, as an obedient wife, is very much admired by gentlemen; but when her character is brought up in a practical point of view, they censure her severely. Her practical obedience as wife does not suit for a standard of obedience for our modern gentlemen. We have heard her bitterly censured, even by divines of the "orthodox" stamp. Now this is certainly very inconsistent for any who profess to have due reverence for all Divine revelation. The apostle, in Gal. iv. 29, 30, undoubtedly sanctions Sarah's conduct. Ishmael forfeited his right of membership in the family by his insolent unbrotherly conduct towards his younger brother; he was old enough to have known better-he is supposed to have been at least seventeen years old, some think older, and he was actuated by a wicked persecuting spirit, so the apostle informs us. The peace of a family is not to be destroyed by one obstinate ungovernable member, or rather two ungovernable members -his mother had showed herself to be of the same spirit. Their posterity always remain a wild, ferocious, ungovernable people, "their hands against every man, and every man's hand against them." It would appear that he and his mother were sent off without sufficient provision for their journey. They lost their way, and wandered in the wilderness, and their water became spent, but they might have had money; they were at least as well provided for as was Jacob when he left the parental home. Gen. x. 28-32. Sarah was certainly very much to blame

What a pity Abraham had not been indoctrinated into our republican code of ethics, he would have understood his prerogatives better. Sarah was sanctioned in her demands, or rather commands, by God himself, who said to Abraham, "In all that Sarah hath said unto thee hearken unto her voice." Gen. xxi. 9, 14. Is this what the apostle calls the meek obedient wife-the mother of the faithful? The apostle differed in opinion with our modern doctors as to what was an obedient wife. It appears from the above that women are not required to be passive drones. Sarah acknowledged the relation that Abraham sustained to her, as "lord, or stays, or pillars," as he is the stronger vessel. We have no evidence that he ever offered to abridge her liberty. He was a security of her liberty, as became the father of the faithful. It is easy to see from the spirit Sarah manifested, even to her old age, that she had not been crushed or degraded; she knew her own standing in the scale of creation. She knew if Abraham was "her stay, and pillars," she was his crown and his glory. She also knew she was a corner stone, polished after the similitude of a palace, (as she was one of the faithful,) an active agent on this theatre of action. There is no evidence that ever Abraham gave her a command, except the one we have previously mentioned, "to bake some cakes," and she could not think hard of that, as he assisted in preparing the meal himself. Gen. xviii. 6, 8. If the history of the case is to be our guide, Abraham was more obedient unto Sarah than she was to him. And there is not such a prominent example of the obedience of a wife to a husband in all Divine revelation.

Mr. Z. Marryat, who completed Mr. Henry's exposition on Peter, says, "Sarah obeyed her husband by following him when he went from Ur of the Chaldees, not knowing whither he went."

(though she thought she was doing right) for the unlawful means she advised to be adopted to bring about the purposes of God. Gen. xvi. This was the cause of their family broils.

Hagar sustained an unlawful relation to Abraham, and he was severely corrected for it; particularly, wounded in his parental affections. And Hagar had not a proper estimate of her dignity as a human being, but submitted to her degradation without remonstrance. They lived in a dark age of the world compared with ours. "Where little is given, little is required."

We do not know how that was, but we do know that God told Abraham to leave his country and kindred, and from his father's house go into a land that he would show him. When God commanded Abraham, it was equivalent to commanding Sarah: as God had joined them together, they were not to be separated, and on the supposition that Abraham was the mouth of God to her, it was nothing more than subjects have been to kings. Mr. Marryat further says, "The subjection of wives to their husbands is a duty which has been practised universally by holy women in all ages." True, so Peter says. But if we were to judge of the subjection by the facts in Sarah's case, it is a little different from the character of the subjection in modern times. But fashions will change. See verse 7, the apostle directs the husband in his duty; he says, "Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as to the weaker vessel. As being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers be not hindered." Dwell with them according to Christian knowledge-know the relation she sustains to you-she is your own body, whom you are to nourish as the Lord the church-treat her as you would wish to be treated, supposing your relations were reversed; know that she is your associate in the government of the family, as saith the fifth precept of the decalogue. Know the responsible station which she occupies in that relation, as your help-meet-"let your heart safely trust in her," know that she is the mother of your children, (if God has bestowed that gift upon you,)-know that your instructions, combined with the law of the mother, shall be ornaments of grace to their heads, and chains about their necks. Prov. i. 8,9. Again, "Your commandment and their mother's law, the commandment is a lamp, and the law is a light; when they go, it shall lead them; when they sleep, it shall keep them; and when they awake, it shall talk with them." Prov. vi. 20, 23. Honour your wife on account of the important relation she sustains-honour her in your household -treat her as your companion, as your associate in the government of your family-show respect to her opinions, particularly in the presence of children-sustain her government in the family, as did the father of the faithful. This is all necessary on your part, because she is the weaker ves