man also by the woman." Now, these few words cover the whole ground of what he said respecting the man, as far as any supposed honour would accrue from man being the source. The apostle here balances accounts between man and woman, and places them on an equality. Even Christ, who is head over all things, was made of a woman. As she is a mother in the human family, where is her honour ? If the apostle's reasoning has so much weight respecting the man's headship, why is not his authority equally as imperative respecting the woman's mothership? Because that would be unpalatable food for man's self-esteem. Suppose a woman did wear a veil on her head to show the headship of the man, what would the token be ? Why, that she was, perhaps, the bodyship of some D. D.; yes, that she was the D. D. himself; for the apostle says, "He that loveth his wife, loveth himself; for they are no more twain, but one flesh." Now, the D. D. put a veil on himself, to show that he was in subjection to himself. If he is her headship when she goes into the worshipping assemblies, she is his bodyship when he goes into the same, or when he is officiating in the sanctuary; and, if the woman prayed, or prophesied with her head covered, to show the man's headship, he prayed or prophesied with his head uncovered, to show her bodyship. And the body is equally as honourable and useful as the head,the body, where the heart has its lodgement, the great fountain of life, and, to use scripture figures, the seat of the intellectual and moral faculties. ،، God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked, that there should be no schism in the body."

This gasconade of R. is all one-sided, a pompous magisterial array of authority and power in true slaveholder style, without one word of it being for the good of the governed, but just like their prototype, Nebuchadnezzar, "to show the might of man's power, and the honour of his majesty!!" Is this the principle of Christianity? We trow not. Our Saviour says, "If any would be great, let him be the servant;" if any are placed in authority, it is to subserve the interests. of their fellow-men. "There are neither lords many nor gods many in Christ's kingdom; his disciples are all brew

thren."

Now, R.'s array of authority and power is just the opposite of this; it is not the principle of Christianity. We wonder if "the devil" has not had something to do in the formation of such principles-we know he hates the woman. "I will put enmity between thee and the woman." And in no other way can it be accounted for that such a crusade is carried on against the woman; for it is perfectly suicidal. Would it be the promptings of love or of hatred to our fellow-creature that would suggest such sentiments as R. has advanced? The apostle tells us, that "He that loveth his wife, loveth himself." Then, he is not to represent her as occupying a position other than he would wish himself to occupy.

We have a detail of "Eastern customs in ancient times," and such is the custom to this day, that the veil was an acknowledged token of the subjection of the woman to the power and authority of the man, and not the most remote hint given that it denoted her to be under the protection of a husband whose honour and ardent love were pledged for her protection, to the extent of his ability, even at the risk of his life. Her honour is his honour. It is perfectly suicidal for a man to degrade his wife; the degradation of the wife does not elevate him, and if the husband has so much power and authority as he is represented to have, it is nothing to boast of. He has the more responsibility and the greater accountability. But it is plain that the accountability is never taken into view. Christ sometimes puts a mark on his servants, or seals them, but it is for their honour and protection. Ezek. ix. 4: Rev. vii. 3. There is another power which marks its vassals, and holds them in bondage, that "no man can either buy or sell save those who are thus marked."

The authority we have under review is an older member of the same family: of the latter, the family resemblance is so striking that it cannot be mistaken. The one is Aholah, the husbandly authority is Aholibah.

R. proceeds to consider the second clause of the verse, the reason assigned by the apostle why the woman ought to have power on her head, namely, because of the angels. He says, "That is, let the woman have a veil upon her head in token of subjection to the power of her husband. All who

entertain a respectful idea of inspiration, will agree that the reason here assigned must be pertinent and forcible, calculated to convince the Corinthian women that it was their duty to appear in their public worshipping assemblies with a veil upon their heads. But the meaning of this reason does not appear so clear to us, and hence a variety of explanations has been offered." The all-absorbing idea with R., is that the veil upon her head was a token of subjection to her husband, and it is altogether conjecture that it was a veil at all. By our quotations from R., it is seen that he professes to believe that he has proved his position incontrovertibly, respecting this power on her head; that is, when the apostle says, that "the woman had power on her head," he meant to convey the idea that her husband had power "over" her "head." So we see the apostle's words are not signs of his ideas, according to R., but are just like a nose of wax that can be shaped into any form. But as to the reason assigned by the apostle, "because of the angels," he thinks it a little more difficult.

He considers Dr. Gill's opinion very absurd; for he says it is his method to "give a host of opinions, and then seems to give preference to the most absurd." The opinion adopted by Scott, Henry, and Doddridge, he considers more worthy of respect, namely, "That the angels here spoken of are those good spirits who minister to the heirs of salvation." He offers two objections to this opinion, 1st. That it is not a matter of revelation that angels are always present in our worshipping assemblies. A second objection, which he thinks more forcible, is, that God certainly is present, and if it had been out of respect to any spiritual being, it certainly would be to God himself. But one weighty objection he brings up against their veiling their faces, because of the presence of angels: he says, "to us, also, there would appear more of a smack of popery about this interpretation than we would be willing to attribute to the apostle Paul. True, it is not exactly a worshipping of angels, but it certainly looks that way. Nothing similar can be pointed out in scripture -enforcing duty out of veneration to the presence of angels." So R. repudiates the opinions of Gill, Scott, Henry, and Doddridge, but adopts the favourite idea for the last half century, that the angels referred to were spies sent by

the heathen to observe and report any misdemeanors in their Christian assemblies. "As angel sometimes signifies a messenger, an agent, a legate, an ambassador." And he says, "Frequent examples occur in profane writers in which it," (angel) "signifies a spy. And if the spies sent by the heathen saw these women throw aside their veils, interpreting this act by the language of custom, they would go away and report that Christianity caused the women to throw off the authority of their husbands; that it was a system therefore calculated to destroy all good order, and turn the world upside down." The direful consequences of this we have already endeavoured to describe, armies of Amazons, &c.

Our New Testament gives no intimation of this panic among the heathen on account of wives not wearing their veils. It may be in R.'s copy, but we are certain it is not in ours.

Suppose those heathen spies saw a Christian mother in the public religious assemblies devoting her child to God in baptism, the father without ingulfed in heathen obscenity and debauchery, blaspheming the name of God and Jesus Christ; or, as in our day, wallowing in his own filth at the groggery, uttering imprecations and blasphemies. We say, supposing the spy would see the woman thus dedicating her child to God when the heathen statutes said she had no authority over that child; but that both she and her child were her husband's slaves. The spy would go away, and "report that Christianity caused women to throw off the authority of their husbands; it was, therefore, a system calculated to destroy all good order, and turn the world upside down."

Now, supposing this mother had the veil on her head when she was thus dedicating her child to God-coming under solemn obligations that she would endeavour to train up this child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, thus assuming an authority that the heathen statutes utterly denied her. Would the wearing of the veil allay the clamour against Christianity on account of its "disorganizing, revolutionary tendencies?" No, they would suppose action spoke louder than wearing of veils. Or, would Christianity deny that mother the right of thus devoting her child to

God to appease the heathen? No, "the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife," and, in consequence, the child was federally holy, and had a right to the ordinance of baptism.

As to the latter clause of the verse under consideration, "because of the angels," we cannot form any definite opinion who those beings were, whether angels or men, nor has it any particular bearing on our practice; but it is of momentous importance to us, in a practical point of view, to ascertain who was this august Potentate that the apostle has given explicit directions for a part of those who constituted their public religious assemblies to veil their faces in token of his power and authority over them in the house of God. He appears to be the special object of worship. R. says, "It would appear more of a smack of popery about wearing a veil through courtesy to a holy angel, when in their worshipping assemblies, than he would wish to attribute to the apostle Paul. Nothing similar to it can be pointed out in scripture." Now if wearing a veil through courtesy to angels, in the house of God, looks like worshipping angels, how much more would it appear like worshipping angels if we wore it in token of their power and authority over us, in the character of worshippers, for in no other character did they enter into the house of God than as worshippers? Is there any thing similar to this in the scriptures, for any one to wear a token of the authority of any created being over them, when they appear in God's more immediate presence in the character of worshippers? No, there is nothing similar in scripture, and nothing similar in the civilized world. Now, we say, it is of momentous importance to inquire who this great personage is,-"Who exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God?" Is it the parental authority, the highest and most absolute on earth? No, it is not the parental; it falls prostrate in the temple of God —her Father in heaven is then her only parent. Does the apostle direct her to wear a veil in the house of God in token of the civil ruler's power and authority over her? No, God is the only king in his temple: there would be too much of man-worship in such directions to "attribute to

power

and