question, we build no doctrines of this character on the traditions of men. If those learned gentlemen had read their Bibles more carefully, and searched for Scripture customs, instead of Eastern heathen customs, they would have discovered that all the priests ministered with their heads covered. The high priest had the mitre, and golden crown upon the mitre. The other priests had bonnets, Exod. xxviii. 36, 40. A crown was always considered an emblem of authority— that is, not bare-headed. And then they proceed to speak of the man's headship, as if it constituted him a kind of deity, not a kind of a deity, but a deity altogether. In the seventh verse, where it is said man ought not to cover his head, &c., they say, "man invested by God over the whole creation, may be considered as the image or type of God, and as it were, a ray from his brightness, just as viceroys and rulers are sometimes metaphorically said to be the image of their sovereign. For says Rosenmueller, man is placed in the highest rank of this world, and in respect to woman, is a kind of secondary god. Compare Gen v. 1, 2-23, and Exod. iv. 16, where Moses is to be to Aaron, in a certain sense, instead of God." (!!) Now, let the Pope beat this if he can. He only claims to be Christ's vicegerent. Does not God expressly say, "let us make man in our image, and let them have dominion," previous to the creation of either man or woman? So God "created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, male and female, created he them; and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea," &c. &c. Was human nature made by piece-meal?

How is man invested by God with authority over the whole creation? Was not woman invested with as much authority as man; man is only the generic term: "Let them have dominion, and let them subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea," &c. And does not the fifth precept of the decalogue give her the same authority in the human family as man? Where is it said that man was given dominion over woman? Forsooth, because the wife was told to obey her husband, then, that gives man dominion! What is the extent of his dominion, to love, nourish, and cherish. her, as the Lord the church? As Christ loved the church,

and gave himself for it, to lay down his life for her sake, if necessary, to love her as himself.

What, man invested with authority over the whole creation, indeed!-the son invested with authority over the mother! Is the son "A kind of a secondary god" to the mother respecting authority? What similarity is there between Moses being in the place of God to Aaron, and man being in the place of God to woman? "God spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." And the words God spoke to Moses, Moses spoke to Aaron-he was the mouth of God to Aaron extraordinary. Huldah might be said to be in the place of God to King Josiah and the nation of Israel. "Go and inquire of the Lord for me," said Josiah, because she was the mouth of the Lord for the time being, just as Moses was to Aaron. But what similarity is there between their situation and man's with respect to woman? To man and woman was given dominion over the beasts, but not over one another. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth. Satan is the god of this world, and the prince of the power of the air, and he, like man, wished to be worshipped. But we know he will not contest the godship with man; for when any other being is worshipped but God, they worship the devil. For our part, we will not acknowledge, either Satan or man, "secondary" or tertiary god. We will say with Christ, "Get thee hence, Satan, (or man,) for it is written thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."

Poor worm, man, whose breath is in his nostrils, and is, as yesterday, claiming to be the image of God respecting authority! Man says, "I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High." This arrogance they are taught by their prophets, (their preachers;) and the people love to have it so. "Hast thou an arm like God? Or, canst thou thunder with a voice like him? Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go and say unto thee, Here we are? Deck thyself now with majesty and excellency, and array thyself with glory and beauty; cast abroad the rage of thy wrath, and behold every one that is proud, and abase him. Then will woman also confess unto thee that thine own right hand can save thee." Man has

enough to do to rule himself, and more than enough, and "he that ruleth his spirit is better than he that taketh a city." Both man and woman were created in the image of God's moral perfections, with rational and immortal souls, endowed with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, which is far better than authority. The apostle shows it is God's intellectual and moral perfections, of which man is the image, Coloss. iii. 10, Eph. iv. 24. "Let us make man in our image, and let them have dominion." Being created in the moral and intellectual image of God, previous to receiving dominion, this qualified them for having dominion. Man's ardent thirst for dominion is at the foundation of this whole matter; Diotrephes-like, he loves to have the pre-eminence. Another version of the same sentiment from the Comprehensive Commentary on the 11th chapter of 1 Corinthians, 7th verse: -"Another reason against this conduct" (of man praying or prophesying with his head covered, and woman prophesying with her head uncovered) 66 was, that the man is the image and glory of God, the representative of that glorious dominion and headship which God has over the world. It is the man who is set at the head of this lower creation, and therein bears the resemblance of God. The woman, on the other hand, is the glory of the man, she is his representative-not but she has dominion over the inferior creatures, as she is a partaker of human nature, and so far God's representative too, but it is at second hand; she is the image of God, inasmuch as she is the image of the man." Where is it said that she is the image of the man? Mr. Henry is mistaken here, for the purpose of giving her dominion was uttered before either of them was created :-" Let us make man, and let them have dominion." Verse 8, "The man was first made, and made head of the creation here below, and therein the image of the Divine dominion." The Divine dominion over what? Over the beasts. And one of their lords was still absent. God had not finished his plan of creation; it could not be said respecting man that all was very good, for it was not good for man to be alone. The wise man saith, "Wo to him that is alone when he falleth, for he hath not another to help him up." As creation advanced, previous to woman's creation, the creatures advanced in perfection;

but, according to our commentators, creation suddenly retrograded. Was not man's rib as fit a material to create a human being out of as dust? Mr. Henry, we suppose, will be thought good authority. He says, Gen. ii 21, 23," The man was dust refined, but woman dust double-refined, one remove farther from the earth." She was "double-refined, one remove farther from the earth!" Now, it may be she has lost the preaching material in the second process, to wit, the earthy. Mr. Henry further says, "The woman was made of a rib out of the side of Adam-not out of his head to top him, not out of his feet to be trampled on by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved." God saw proper to transfer a part of Adam's system, and it no more belonged to Adam after it was transferred, than any other piece of property belongs to the original proprietor after a legal transfer. And what did Adam say in view of the fact that the woman was made of him? He said this is now "Bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh." And the Almighty draws the inference from these premises: "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh," Matt. xix. 5. Is there any inferiority here? Instead of being really a foundation for any inferiority, it makes them perfect equals.

We believe the sentiment, that all men are created equal, which is considered orthodox; and we know of no better proof than that they were all made of one blood. Mr. Henry says, on the passage we have under review, 1 Corinth. ix. 8, "And the woman was made out of the man, and shone with a reflection of his glory, being made superior to the other creatures here below, but in subjection to her husband, and deriving that honour from him out of whom she was made." So it seems woman was created a wife, yoked, fettered, and manacled. Astonishing! Superior to the ourang-outang, but inferior to man. We suppose, then, she is the connecting link between the creatures and man, and does not really belong to either party. A monster, truly! What a degraded, subordinate, inferior position is the mother of mankind represented as occupying in the midst of her children! Such a subordinate and infe

rior being by nature was the mother of our Lord,-by means of her was he made a partaker of humanity. He was made of a woman, Gal. iv. 4. Of her "inferior, second-handed nature," was he made a partaker! Blasphemy. He says, 66 Honour, out of whom she was made." We wonder where the gentleman got his honour. It is fashionable now-a-days for the man to be of the woman. What an "honour" it is to him for this poor, inferior, subordinate to give him birth who grades between man and the brute creation! Again, he says, verse 9, "The woman was made for the man to be his help-meet, and not the man for the woman; she was naturally, therefore, made subject to him, because made for him, for his use, and help and comfort." So it seems it was for man's pleasure that woman is and was created. Her comfort and happiness, and the glory of God were never consulted. Nothing but an arrogant slave-holder would talk in this style about his slaves; very few would have the hardihood to do it, to say that his slaves were made for his use,-woman made for his use, indeed! Mahometan sensuality! "She was naturally, therefore, made subject to him." Then every woman, by nature, is made for every man's use, help, and comfort, and naturally made subject to him. Grand doctrine for sons to be taught! As our commentators are very fond of ancient customs, the ancient Romans had a custom of throwing their slaves, when they ceased to be a help, use, and comfort, into the fish-ponds to feed the fish. Now, if woman is just "made for man's use, help, and comfort,” would it not be as well to despatch her, this way or some other way, when she fails to answer the end for which she was designed?

He further says, " And she who was intended to be always in subjection to the man, should do nothing in Christian assemblies that looks like an affectation of equality." As man walks into Christian assemblies on his two feet, should not woman go in on all four, and be seated under his footstool, lest she should do any thing that "looks like an affectation of equality?" He further says, verse 10, "She ought to have power on her head, because of the angels; power, that is, a veil, the token not of her having power or superiority, but being under the power of her hus