the churches, because it was not permitted unto them to speak. If they would learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home, who he knew were well qualified to instruct them, for it was a shame for women, or wives, thus to gabble or talk in the church." In the twenty-eighth verse, he orders men to keep silence in the church, if their speaking was not for edification. He is no respecter of persons. Taking into view the degraded state of women in the Roman empire at that period, propriety of conduct could not be expected in ordinary cases, as they were recently emancipated slaves. The wife, under the Roman government, was considered the husband's slave, and becoming elevated to the standing of his equal, being informed that there was "neither male nor female in Christ Jesus," she carried her liberty to licentiousness. It is very possible the custom of proposing questions for information or discussion was entirely prohibited. A few ignorant women had still persisted in the custom. We all know, in our times, it would be equally as improper for men to behave in this way as for women, interrupting constituted assemblies. Strangers, coming into their assemblies, might be permitted to ask questions for their information; but in their own members it was entirely unnecessary. The apostle, reproving these women for speaking in the church, says nothing that could be tortured into the idea that they were doing any thing like preaching, or had any qualification to preach, or were under any supernatural impulse of the Spirit. If they had been under the impulse of the Spirit, it would not have been necessary to have told them, "If they wanted to know any thing to ask their husbands at home"-unless it is claimed that the husband's teaching is superior to the teachings of the Spirit of God; or what disobedience to the husband would it be for them to preach? There is nothing in the judicial law to prevent a wife from preaching. Deborah sat as a judge of that law, and she was a married woman; she was set officially over the husband. Was she a "whited wall professing to judge after the law, and acting herself contrary to the law?" We think not. Huldah was also a married woman. It is evidently the law of their own church organization that the apostle alludes to, which debarred all unqualified persons, either men or women, from interrupting religious exercises by talking, or proposing foolish and unlearned dence. The mass of testimony on this subject conflicts with these isolated passages. One portion would be sufficient, if clearly expressed, to establish the principle, if no conflicting passages, or facts, or examples, existed. But the very reverse of this is true. All the ingenuity of the commentators, who have come under our review, has been utterly inadequate to reconcile these contradictions, on the hypothesis that women were prohibited from exercising their gifts in public assemblies. We will now give the two passages referred to, in the order they stand in the New Testament:"Let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And, if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home, for it is a shame for women to speak in the church," 1 Corinth. xiv. 34, 35. "They are commanded," is a supplement not in the original. From the first of this chapter until the thirty-fourth verse, the apostle was speaking of those who were supernaturally gifted, including both men and women, as supernatural gifts were bestowed on men and women indiscriminately, which had long before been predicted by the prophet Joel, ii. 28, 29; and the apostle informs us that these gifts were given "for the edification of the church, for the work of the ministry," &c., consequently he would not subvert the intention of the Holy Spirit, he speaking by the same Spirit. Christ's kingdom is not divided against itself. The gifts of the Spirit appear to have been poured out on the Corinthian church in a very abundant manner. The gifts of the Spirit appear to have abounded rather than the graces. This puffed them up, and was the occasion of their walking very disorderly. In the ninth chapter of this Epistle, he reproves men for profaning the ordinance of the supper by drunkenness and gluttony. In the thirty-fourth and thirty-fifth verses, he reproves women sharply for improper conduct. It appears they were in the habit of asking questions; this, it is scarcely necessary to say, was not from any supernatural impulse of the Spirit, because those who had the gifts of the Spirit were qualified to teach others, and had no need of teaching from men. Women persisted in this course of asking questions, and thus became very troublesome. The apostle orders them "to keep silence in the churches, because it was not permitted unto them to speak. If they would learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home, who he knew were well qualified to instruct them, for it was a shame for women, or wives, thus to gabble or talk in the church." In the twenty-eighth verse, he orders men to keep silence in the church, if their speaking was not for edification. He is no respecter of persons. Taking into view the degraded state of women in the Roman empire at that period, propriety of conduct could not be expected in ordinary cases, as they were recently emancipated slaves. The wife, under the Roman government, was considered the husband's slave, and becoming elevated to the standing of his equal, being informed that there was "neither male nor female in Christ Jesus," she carried her liberty to licentiousness. It is very possible the custom of proposing questions for information or discussion was entirely prohibited. A few ignorant women had still persisted in the custom. We all know, in our times, it would be equally as improper for men to behave in this way as for women, interrupting constituted assemblies. Strangers, coming into their assemblies, might be permitted to ask questions for their information; but in their own members it was entirely unnecessary. The apostle, reproving these women for speaking in the church, says nothing that could be tortured into the idea that they were doing any thing like preaching, or had any qualification to preach, or were under any supernatural impulse of the Spirit. If they had been under the impulse of the Spirit, it would not have been necessary to have told them, "If they wanted to know any thing to ask their husbands at home"-unless it is claimed that the husband's teaching is superior to the teachings of the Spirit of God; or what disobedience to the husband would it be for them to preach? There is nothing in the judicial law to prevent a wife from preaching. Deborah sat as a judge of that law, and she was a married woman; she was set officially over the husband. Was she a "whited wall professing to judge after the law, and acting herself contrary to the law?" We think not. Huldah was also a married woman. It is evidently the law of their own church organization that the apostle alludes to, which debarred all unqualified persons, either men or women, from interrupting religious exercises by talking, or proposing foolish and unlearned questions. The apostle directs them, "If they want to know any thing, to ask their husbands at home," who, he knew, were capable of giving them instruction; and because women are specially mentioned, we are not to infer that men are privileged to act in this disorderly manner. Because the tenth commandment forbids a man to covet his neighbour's wife, it does not authorize a woman to covet her neighbour's husband. If it is a general prohibition that women are not to speak in the church, so the direction is, also, as general and as imperative that if they wanted to know any thing, they are to ask their husbands at home. Here is a direction from God's word that the state of society makes it manifestly impossible to be carried out, except to a very limited extent. Many women have no husbands. And we believe we might affirm without fear of successful contradiction, that with the exception of the ministers of the gospel, who make it professionally their duty to be informed on religious subjects, religious information is more extensively diffused among women. A great majority of men, "Gallio-like, neither know nor care for any of these things." We suppose, to take Christendom in the aggregate, there are three professors among women for two among men, and in cities we might put the number to six women for one man. "Those that are despised hath God chosen." We hear of some Presbyterian congregations that have scarcely male members enough for church officers. Now, if this direction is to be general, it is an anomaly from all other directions given by God. Every other source, from which we are to receive any benefit, is in some good degree adapted for its communication. Why are not our church courts as scrupulous in directing women "if they want to know any thing to ask their husbands at home," as they are in debarring them from speaking in the church. Mr. Henry, in his commentary on this passage of scripture, (or rather Mr. Brown, who completed this part of the Commentary,) with the usual amount of gentlemanly selfesteem, says, "As it is the woman's duty to learn in subjection, it is the man's duty to keep up his superiority by being able to instruct her." What if the God of nature has not endowed him with this capacity? He seems to talk as if it was an infallible rule that man had talents capable of instructing her if he would cultivate them. Was Nabal in the fault because he did not keep up his "superiority" by being able to instruct Abigail? He was in the fault, because he did not put what gifts he had to good purpose; but true it was nature had not qualified him to be able to teach her. It is easily seen that this portion of scripture is not designed for general direction. If it is an injunction "If women want to know any thing they are to ask their husbands at home," it plainly implies that it was always a Christian duty in a wife to have less knowledge than her husband. If not, how can she "be taught by him at home?" It is equivalent to saying, that she must not, or need not, go to church at all, as her husband is appointed her special teacher. And as the apostle says, "If they want to know any thing," it certainly implies that she must take his opinion, be it right or wrong. When Cornelius was told to send for Peter, and he would tell him what to do, was not Cornelius to do what Peter said? And if the husband is appointed to the same duty, the wife is certainly to believe whatever he teaches, be it right or wrong, or take for granted that he occupies a seat in the infallible chair, and cannot do wrong. A note on this passage of scripture from Macknight, in the Comprehensive Commentary, says, "Christ had not permitted women to speak in the church as teachers of men, neither had the law of Moses, for it commanded them to be in subjection. to the men." Was Deborah in subjection to the men? or were the men to her? We wonder where this command is contained in the law of Moses!! We have never seen it. Can it be the fifth precept of the decalogue that stands at the head of the second table of the law?-the first commandment with promise? Where is there any command in the Old or New Testament for woman to be obedient to man, except in his official standing? Some of our brethren are very good at making scripture, in order to support a favourite theory. And suppose there was a command for women to obey men, how would that forbid them to preach? Man is told to be obedient to his father and his mother, and to "fear his mother and his father." Does that forbid him to preach? And we are told to be obedient to the civil powers, and servants are told to be obedient to their masters-should that forbid them to |
