Woman, the instrument to gain converts to Christ! Rabbi Eliazar says, "Let the law be burnt rather than give it to a woman.' And we fear that there are a goodly number of Rabbi Eliazars yet, who would rather souls would perish than be saved by the instrumentality of a woman! Where was the man who manifested such an inflexible sense of justice, and such an intrepidity of character, in announcing it, as did the wife of Pilate? Matt. xxvii. 19. She was the only person who spoke out, and bore public testimony against that most wicked deed, for which the sun, as ashamed, hid his face, and shrouded the world in darkness. With all the boasted privileges of women at the present day, what would be thought of a woman that would give such directions to her husband, when on the judicial bench, as did Pilate's wife? Would she not be branded as a usurper thus to teach, particularly when such a high state of excited feeling existed when "Crucify him, crucify him," was echoed from an enraged, ferocious multitude, instigated by high priests and religious rulers of that day? And what ardent love and devotion did women show to Christ at the time of his crucifixion! They showed as much fortitude and self-devotion as the most intrepid of the other sex ;-as much did we say? Nay, superior intrepidity and self-devotion. Christ was denied by one disciple, and betrayed by another. Women followed him to the cross and to the grave. They were last at the former, and first at the latter. "Not she with trait'rous kiss her Saviour stung, She, when apostles shrunk, could danger brave, They did not fear the rude insults of the soldiery and rabble who surrounded the cross of their dying Lord; nor yet did they consider it any breach of delicacy to visit his sepulchre at the dawn of day, although surrounded by a Roman guard. Those women were neither ashamed nor afraid to own Christ on earth. They had no sickly sentimentality, no fastidious delicacy about " female etiquette and modesty." They knew there would be no sequestered corner set apart for women at the day of judgment. They knew Christ and his cause were of far more importance than men's opinions of "female etiquette." Christ saw proper to confer the honour upon them, to be the first to proclaim a risen Saviour. This ministry was conferred on them both by an angel and Christ himself, Matt. xxviii. 7, 10. The women are the only witnesses of the testimony of the angels who declared that Christ rose from thedead. When the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all, with one accord, in one place, and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, &c. The multitude were amazed, conjecturing what this could mean. Peter informs them that it was in fulfilment of the prophecy of Joel. "And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and on my servants and on my HANDMAIDENS Will I pour out in those days of my Spirit, and THEY SHALL PROPHESY. The apostles had received their commission previously to the day of Pentecost, but they had not received their qualifications, nor was the commission limited to them only, but to whomsoever the Lord our God would call. Which is manifestly true from future calls to others to exercise the same official functions, others receiving similar gifts, and impelled by the influence of the spirit to exercise those gifts, was certainly a call immediately from God. And if men and women had not both received these gifts on that day of Pentecost, and exercised them, the apostle could not have said that the prophecy of Joel was then beginning tn be fulfilled, for it was but beginning to be fulfilled. Mr. Henry, in his comment on this portion of scripture, thinks that the spirit was poured out on men and women in fulfilment of the prophecy of Joel. He says, "This power shall be given without distinction of sex, age, or outward condition, or in general, men and women whom God calls his servants and his hand-maids. The mention of the daughters and the hand-maidens would make one think the women noticed chapter i. 14 received the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, as well as the men, chap. xxi. 9 And Paul finding abundance of the gifts, both of tongues and prophecy, in the church of Christ, saw it needful to prohibit women's use of those gifts in public. 1 Cor. xiv. 26, 34.” Could there be a more public place than Jerusalem, where these women were first gifted with the Spirit, and impelled by its influence to exercise it? "Is God man that he should repent?" Will the influence of the Spirit on those women and the Spirit by which Paul spoke contradict each other? Certainly not. It was on a most peculiarly public and momentous occasion when these individuals were impelled to speak, at the very outset of the promulgation of the gospel. "It was to go out from Jerusalem." Those daughters and handmaidens were chosen instrumentalities at that all-important crisis by the immediate hand of God. "They were endowed with power from on high" for this purpose, and their sound went through all the earth, and their words to the world's end. As Jerusalem, on that occasion, was crowded with visitors from every nation under heaven, would it not be reported through every country that men and women were indiscriminately preachers among the Christians? So we see women spoke in the Christian church at its very first organization, at a time when we might expect correct precedents. Could there be any superior commission given them than what they received? They had their commission from the upper sanctuary; they were set apart to this office by the Holy Spirit. It was not necessary they should receive any from man; it had been predicted many years before that these events were to take place in the last days. This day of Pentecost was but one day. It is agreed on all hands that the latter days mean the whole period of the gospel dispensation. We all know that the supernatural effusions of the Spirit have long since ceased with both men and women, but the ordinary still remain. If women exercised extraordinary gifts in the first promulgation of the gospel, why not exercise ordinary gifts now? And we have positive testimony for the fact that women were endowed with the supernatural gifts of the Spirit. Philip had four daughters who were virgins, "who did prophesy." Acts xxi. 9. For as much, then, as God gave them like gifts as he did men, and those gifts were expressly given for the edification of the church-for the work of the ministry is it supposable that Paul could or would withstand God? To say, "I suffer not a woman to teach," or exercise those God-given gifts. And we read of a woman, in conjunction with her husband, teaching a no less personage than an eloquent Apollos, a man mighty in the scriptures. Was this woman not suffered to teach a man? There is no evidence she was supernaturally gifted. Supposing it was in private, did she not continue the same immutable woman? Adam was first formed, and the woman was in the transgression-would not these reasons have as much force in private as in public? This husband and wife occupied the theological chair. They were assuming an authority over the Presbytery that judged of his qualifications, (if there were any such assembly that did judge of his qualifications.) Some may be ready to sneer at this, as a friend of ours did to us, he said, "It is quite a discovery that Priscilla was D. D., S. Y. P., at Ephesus." But we do not claim the title of D. D. for her, but she did the duty of that office; it is having the qualifications to discharge the duties of an office that we look at. We have read of teachers "who had need to be taught themselves which be the first principles of the oracles of God." We think far more of qualifications than we do of empty titles. We think the Rev. D. D. Paul, or the Rev. Apollos, or Cephas would sit with as ill grace as D. D. to Priscilla. Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or Priscilla wanted none of these trappings to adorn them. If it is true that to have the qualifications to fill an office is where the honour lies, then Priscilla had the honour, and so far as Christian knowledge was concerned, she was better qualified to preach the gospel than was an eloquent Apollos. If she was only prevented on account of her physical structure, she need not regret it, as the matter is of very little consequence. If man was advanced on account of his physical structure, he has little to boast of, if the animal is the test, and not the moral and the intellectual. But, thanks be to God, the animal is not the test. "He is no respecter of persons"-he has declared this over and over again. There is neither male nor female in Christ Jesus. Gal. iii. 21. "There is neither male nor female," there are no exclusively privileged classes among Christ's disciples-no monopolists-not only is there no distinction of eternal salvation between male and female, for that was preached in the garden of Eden. Not only have women the same right to the sealing ordi nances of the gospel as men, but they have the same rights and privileges; which is plain from the apostle's reasoning in the succeeding chapter-all are sons of God, and they all have a like share of privileges and immunities. And Paul is most particularly governed by this principle, although he found it necessary in two instances to reprove women sharply for improper conduct. He speaks of women with as much affection, and cordiality and respect, and equality, as he does of men. He shows this on different occasions, particularly in his different greetings. Rom. xvi. 3. He calls Priscilla, whom he puts first in order, and Aquila, his "helpers in Christ Jesus." God had set helps in the church, or they were Paul's fellow-labourers. He says, "Salute Andronicus and Junia my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles." He calls them his kinsmen, (man being the generic term,) though Junia is a woman's name. See note Comprehensive Commentary. "Junia, a wife or sister of Andronicus, Bl. [Apostles.] Whit. Kop. &c., &c., take it to mean they were eminent teachers, apostles being sometimes used in the lower sense, as in 2 Cor. viii. 23, Phil. ii. 25. But there (in both) the article is not found, as here, which I think determines it to mean apostles in the highest sense, and so most commentators." (Bloomf.) Be this as it may, we know they were eminent characters as Christians, were active agents, and had been imprisoned on that account, also had long sustained that character, as the apostle says they were in Christ before him. Verse 12, "Salute Tryphena and Tryphosa, who labour in the Lord. Salute the beloved Persis, which laboured much in the Lord." Tryphena and Tryphosa are two women that laboured in the Lord. They assisted the apostle in his work. The beloved Persis, another woman, laboured much in the Lord: she excelled the preceding. Is it supposeable that this was some manual labour, "baking cakes, or washing shirts, or darning stockings," that these women were employed in, which is, in no place in scripture, called labouring in the Lord? Sixth verse, "Greet Mary, who bestowed much labour on us." Now this is evidently some kind of bodily labour that Mary had bestowed on Paul and his company. But does he call it labouring in the Lord? By no means. No such language is made use of respecting |