Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

far as any other human being is concerned; but we do not know where Dr. Scott finds a man distinct from a body, for we suppose it would take both head and body to constitute a man. What! woman to stand at the judgment-seat of Christ, to render an account of the deeds done in the body, and man to rule that body? We have been told from the pulpit that the husband was set over the wife to enforce her obedience to the moral law; that is, the moral law can be kept by the woman being plyed as machinery. Can he, by his machinery, propel woman to love the Lord her God with all her heart, soul, strength and mind, and her neighbour as herself? The Apostle has relieved man of the burden of taking care of the woman, on account of her being of his body, and has balanced accounts, and says, 66 as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman.". 1 Corin. xi. 12. So we see there is not the smallest pretext for dominion arising from this source.

We have already said that there was a legal transfer of a portion of Adam's body by the Great Proprietor. It was no more his in law than any other piece of property belongs to the original proprietor, after it has been legally transferred. As far as man and wife are concerned, they are but one flesh; they have equal claims on one another as far as it is lawful to surrender themselves, and the wife has as much power over the husband's body as the husband has over the wife's. So the Apostle says, 1 Corin. vii. 4. But, as creatures of God, they are individually responsible to him alone. It is really astonishing to see the mass of incongruities and absurdities and conflicting sentiments that have been exhibited on this question by wise and learned men, and we trust good men. There was but one idea which pervaded the minds of commentators on this question: that the male sex were set up as the only governors and rulers in the human family, and that the females were mere appendages of man, with scarcely a claim to the rights of moral and intellectual beings; and they could see this taught by signs and symbols wherever the sexes were spoken of throughout all divine revelation! These commentaries are the standards of public opinion on this question. We hear nothing new advanced. Women's rights stand statu quo for many centu ries; or, indeed, rather retrogrades according to our moral and theological teachings.

We will now give but a slight specimen of the incongruities from Mr. Henry, whose character in many things stands justly high as a commentator. In commenting on Gen. ii., beginning at the twenty-first verse, he says Adam was first formed, then Eve, 1 Tim. ii. 13, and she was made of the man and for the man, which he proves from 1 Corin. xi. 8, 9, and goes on to say, "All which are urged as reasons for the humility, modesty, silence, and submissiveness of that sex in general, and particularly the subjection and reverence which wives owe to their own husbands;" that is, we suppose, it must teach the mother humility and modesty, silence and submissiveness to the son, as she is of that sex. But, begging Mr. Henry's pardon, he is mistaken in what he quoted from 1 Corin. xi. 8, 9; they were not urged as reasons for silence and submissiveness of the sex, but were only urged as a reason why she should have her head covered when she was addressing a public assembly. Then he goes on to compliment her by saying, "If man is the head, she is the crown-a crown to her husband. -a crown of the visible creation; the man was dust refined, but the woman dust double-refined-one remove farther from the earth." We relinquish the claim to double refinement; as the Almighty is a perfect chemist, it is not necessary for him to double-refine by a second process. He further says, "that woman was taken out of man's side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected."

Now, we ask how this quadrates with his submissiveness, &c. &c.? In commenting on chapter third, he says, "It was the devil's subtilty to assault the weaker vessel, though the woman was perfect in her kind,-we may suppose her inferior to Adam in knowledge, strength, and presence of mind." If so, she was not equal to him. But the woman did not appear to be very absent-minded when she was conversing with the serpent. She related the prohibition distinctly, and added "neither shall ye touch it," and the penalty annexed, "lest ye die," Gen. iii. 3. Henry showed himself to be a true son of Adam; thus, reproaching her Maker: if she was inferior in knowledge, strength, and presence of mind, it was not her fault. But we would not suppose, from the correction she received, that she was deficient in knowledge or presence of mind, as the Almighty does not

expect to reap where he does not sow. But the mother of mankind must be stultified to exalt the man, and to show she is a creature designed to be ruled. It would be quite as plausible to say that Satan assailed the strongest mind first, supposing the weaker would necessarily follow.

One thing we will here premise, by which spurious and lawful authority can be distinguished. Usurped authority degrades its victims; thrusts at the intellect; represents its vassals as ignorant and imbecile, unfit to act for themselves. But lawful authority elevates its subjects; is pleased when their good qualifications are applauded. For example, the parental. See how David was pleased when they prayed that Solomon's throne might be greater than his throne, 1 Kings i. 37. The civil ruler,-see how Solomon prays for wisdom to judge such a great people: 1 Kings iii. 9. The Christian minister,-see how Paul, in honour, prefers others to himself: Rom. xvi. 17. Usurped authority;-the Roman Catholic church declares the laity unfit to judge for themselves in spiritual matters. The slaves in our country are held in bondage, because they are an ignorant and imbecile race, incapable of "taking care of themselves." And the authority we have now under consideration, is a kindred spirit. We have heard man's great powers of mind which he had in superabundance above woman, lauded in the marriage ceremony!—he was reminded, that his great powers were to be exercised for the good of his weaker companion-(Was this in Nabal and Abigail's marriage ceremony?) If we wished to produce imbecility in any portion of the human family, we could not adopt a better plan, than always to represent them, and treat them as such.

We do not think, that Eve would lose by comparison with Adam, in either moral or intellectual endowments, so far as scripture history is concerned. Of one thing we are sure, that both were possessed of higher endowments than they made good use of. But there is not one iota of testimony of the idiocy of Eve compared with Adam, which has been represented by some of our theological writers, and poets have sung; which has been swallowed as a sweet morsel. Milton represents Adam and Eve's appearance in the garden of Eden as espied by Satan as follows:

"though both,

Not equal, as their sex not equal seem;
For contemplation, he, and valour formed;
For softness, she, and sweet attractive grace;
He for God only, she for God in him:

His fair large front and eye sublime declared
Absolute rule. She for God in him!"

Idolatrous nonsense! which cannot be surpassed by his holiness the Pope, notwithstanding it is a much admired passage by many who would bawl out lustily against the idolatry of Popery. Nor is this idolatrous sentiment peculiar to Milton,-for says Rosenmuller, "Man is placed in the highest rank of this world, and in respect of woman is a kind of secondary god." See Comprehensive Commentary, vol. v., p. 293. Now, does not this "outstrip the pope?" as he only professes to be God's vicegerent. Here is a sentiment embodied in a recent popular work, without any mark of disapprobation-nor have we ever heard any sentiments of this character disapproved of by the conservators of theology, a source from which it might be expected. Surely protestants ought to "pull the beam out of their own eyes," before they can see clearly to pull the same extraneous substance out of their neighbour's eyes. They have forgotten that Christ expressly taught, that there are neither lords many, nor gods many, in his kingdom. He alone is master, and all his disciples brethren.

tree.

The history of the fall is very brief, just enough to let us know the origin of our calamitous situation, and the blessed promise of our recovery. But if we were to risk a conjecture at the reason of the serpent selecting Eve, it was the circumstance of her being alone, adjacent to the forbidden She should not have gone into the way of temptation, she should have avoided the forbidden tree, Prov. iv. 15, "Avoid it, pass not by it; turn from it, and pass away." This seems to be embraced in the prohibition, "neither shall touch it," Gen. iii. 3. God had said it was "not good for man to be alone,' -nor was it good for woman, "two are better than one." This subtle adversary, is not a timorous foe, he also assailed the Lord Jesus Christ, when he found him alone in the wilderness, Matt. iv. 1, 11. We do not think that our brethren, since the fall, have shown themselves any better than women, in resisting temptation to evil, with

[ocr errors]

all their boasted superiority in knowledge, strength, and presence of mind. Facts are stubborn things. But to re

turn to Mr. Henry.

وو

In commenting on Gen. iii. 16, he says, "The whole sex by creation equal with man, is for sin put under subjection, and made inferior, and forbidden to usurp authority," (wonder if either sex is permitted to usurp authority,) and proves it from 1 Tim. ii. 11, 12,-the very same place which he quoted to show they were inferior by creation, viz., the mother put under subjection to the son, as he says, "The whole sex is made inferior, and put under subjection.' These incongruities will not do; God's moral precepts are like the natural planets, which revolve in their own orbits, without coming into collision. And in the same paragraph, he says, "If man had not sinned, he would have always ruled with wisdom and love;" but said, at the beginning of the same paragraph, "That woman was put in subjection and made inferior, on account of sin." Now, he holds out the idea that man was ruler by creation, consequently it was no new infliction on account of her transgression-then commenting on fifth chapter, second verse, where creation is again recapitulated, said, "Adam and Eve were made immediately by the hand of God, both made in God's likeness-Therefore between the sexes, there is not that great distance and inequality, which some imagine," intimating there is some inequality, though he had said before, "they were created equal." What a zig-zag production. What is morally crooked cannot be made straight. But without following the commentators any further at present, through their diverse meanderings, we will return again to the sacred volume; and we find Adam and Eve were pronounced one flesh, and we have never been informed from sacred history, and we will receive no other authority in the decision of this question, which part of the human system can justly assume the appellation of I, myself, to rule the other part of the body-we will therefore take it for granted, that they were perfect equals, perfectly holy and therefore happy, but mutable. Alas!" man in honour abideth

not."

We will proceed to examine, if man was invested with authority over woman, in consequence of the fall. It pleased the Great Creator of the Universe to test man's obedience

« FöregåendeFortsätt »