the apostle Paul." Although there was a charge preferred against the Christians in Paul's day, "that they did contrary to the decrees of Cæsar." Acts xvii. 6, 7. No, there is no king nor potentate in the civilized world who requires any such homage. Is it the gospel minister, an ambassador for Christ, who ministers in spiritual things? If any human being should have power and authority in the house of God, one would suppose it to be the minister of the gospel. No, one of the very chief of gospel ministers said he was their "servant for Christ's sake;" he had no dominion over their faith, was not to "lord over God's heritage." Is she a slave, that she must veil her face to show that her master has power and authority over her? No, even that hideous monster, slavery, never appears with its yokes, whips, and manacles, in the temple of God; a slave carries no token of his degradation into the house of God. Is his holiness the Pope, the occupant of St. Peter's chair, with the "keys of the kingdom" designated, and must she veil her face in token of his power and authority over her, when she enters into the temple of God? No, the Pope claims no such reverence. If he did, we would hear it trumpeted by Protestants through the length and breadth of the land. Is she to veil her face in token that the angels have power and authority over her? No, angels would receive no such adoration, they would say, "See thou do it not; I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren: worship God." Rev. xix. 10. And R. says, that would appear to be a "smack of popery" to wear a veil, even through courtesy to a holy angel. But how much greater "smack" to wear it to show he had power and authority over her, when appearing in the character of a worshipper? Or is she to veil her face when she enters into their public religious assemblies in the character of a worshipper, to show that God alone has power and authority over her? It was most reverential for her to veil her face before Him before whom holy angels veil their faces. R. says, it is not in token of God's authority and power over her when she appears in the character of a worshipper, but it is a token that her husband has power and authority over her. Commentators say, that "man is a secondary god to woman," and Milton says,

"He for God only,

She for God in him."

R. endorses these sentiments, if not in word, yet in spirit. Now the popish church, in her most degenerate times, never advocated so fulsome a man-worship as is here exhibited. Papists make a kind of a deity of the mother of our Lord, and protestants degrade the mother of mankind, and of our Lord too, to deify themselves. Protestants have no room to find fault with papists for worshipping saints or angels. True, it cannot be said to be a worshipping of saints or angels; we know husbands are not angels: and true it is that no saint would have any desire to have his wife worship him. No saint, if his graces are in exercise, would have any desire to have such an amount of authority over his fellowcreature as the husband is represented to have over the wife. He knows the responsibility is tremendous. "And who is sufficient for these things?" If he is invested with the authority, he knows he must exercise it; there is no alternative: and he knows he would be treating her as he would not wish himself to be treated. The wife must appear veiled in the public religious assemblies in token of her husband's power and authority over her! For what purpose should his power and authority come into the house of God? She appeared there in no other character than a worshipper, and whatever homage she paid to any being in that house, it must be of the character of worship; and she must worship her husband!! perhaps the vilest of the vile, literally wallowing in moral pollution! Is it any wonder that God should give up such proud boasters to degrade themselves in pollution, as "pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall?" If it would be right to worship any human being, which we utterly deny, we would choose the popish method, and choose our objects of worship, and not worship indiscriminately one class of human beings, which, to say the least, is in a lower grade of morality in the aggregate, than the worshippers.

We see that there is no lawful authority on earth that demands any such homage; not even the spurious authorities, popery and slavery, have the audacity or arrogance to claim any such homage. Consequently, the husband is the greatest despot in the civilized world, claiming both temporal and spiritual dominion. Her husband, her own flesh. "She is bone of his bones, and flesh of his flesh." "Made of one blood," consequently equal. Companions, who take sweet

counsel together, and walk to the house of God in company-myself is so much superior to myself, that myself must worship myself! Ishi, my man, a compilation of love, sweetness, and familiarity, sitting meekly, without any emblem of power-his laws having no penalties, love his sceptre, his only weapon. "Arise, my love, my fair one, and come away." His wife is his crown and his glory. Is not this a twohorned lamb, (his wife being his crown, his sceptre, love his only horns,) speaking like a dragon? Rev. xiii. 11. Wear a veil in token of the husband's power and authority! What is the extent of his authority? The length and breadth of his authority is, "to love, nourish, and cherish her, as the Lord the church, who loved it, and gave himself for it." And what is the extent of his power? The use of his affections, bones, and muscles, for the purposes here specified; and this is a far easier task for him than to rule and govern her, for he has more than he can do to govern himself. And her obedience and submission must correspond to his duty. The wife's going about with a rag on her head, in token of her husband's power and authority, has no tendency to nourish her-nor does it tend to cherish her, comfort her, and gladden her heart. We have it from indubitable testimony, and not 'travellers' stories,' that it was "the custom in ancient times, in eastern countries, that the husband was to cheer the wife." Hear it: "When a man hath taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war, neither shall he be charged with any business; but he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up his wife which he hath taken," Deut. xxiv. 5; that is, it took him one year to adjust her veil, and break her to the yoke. Why was the power and authority of the husband over the wife so glaringly portrayed among the heathen, more than any other power and authority? Did it not look rather puerile for such powerful and warlike nations to be frightened to see wives throwing off their veils, considering it an "insurrectionary indication," that would "turn the world upside down." Wives are not generally very belligerent. Might not the unmarried women form a combination and overturn the empire? We wonder what badge of subjection they carried, lest it should "excite the prejudice of the world against Christianity." Would it not be more reasonable for the male part of the community to wear a badge, to

show they were under the power and authority of the civil ruler? From what we have seen and heard of the world, there is more to be dreaded from that quarter than from wives. And there was a charge preferred against the Christians of Paul's day, that they did "contrary to the decrees of Cæsar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus, and crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also;" but not one word said about wives throwing off their veils. There was the civil authority, the parental authority, and the slaveholding authority, all despotic, and we do not hear one word of their subordinates wearing any token of their power and authority. This despotic authority is proved by so many signs and symbols, that it is killed with proof. What proves too much, proves nothing.

Now, here is a despotism established, the greatest in the world, a temporal and spiritual despotism; the husband's power and authority lying on the woman like an incubus, placing its iron heel upon her neck, even at the altars of God, where there is perfect liberty, as far as man is concerned, provided they do not invade the rights of others; and all this without the least foundation from scripture, as we have already demonstrated. It may be in the Alcoran, but we are sure it is not in the Bible, either in letter or spirit. Now for what purpose was this done? The custom of wearing a veil, in token of the husband's power and authority, R. limits to eastern countries. What practical bearing does he intend it shall have on us? It is intended to degrade the woman, to elevate the man, to show that "man and woman are not on a level," and although the custom of wearing the veil, he does not think binding now, still the husband's authority remains the same. Where does he get his authority to dispense with the wearing of the veil? Has he succeeded by this in proving that "men and women are not on a level? No, it does not bear on the woman at all, it is only the wife. All women are not wives. It only goes to show how degrading it is to be a wife. What! degrading to be made one with perhaps a D. D. What! degrading to be a D. D.'s body! Astonishing!

The apostle says, "Marriage is honourable in all," but R. asserts that it degrades the woman to be a wife; he gives no

other reason to show that "men and women are not on a level," excepting the power and authority that the husband has over the wife. And supposing the husband has as much power over the wife as Satan was permitted to exercise over Job, does that show that "men and women are not on a level," as moral and intellectual beings? Was Satan superior to Job, because he had power and authority over him? Or suppose the husband had all the power and authority R. claims for him, which is more power than Satan was permitted to exercise over Job. R. says, the apostle directed the women to wear their veils, to show their husbands' power and authority over them, which, if worn, and "construed according to the custom of that day," would sanction the husband's authority, and husbands in heathen countries, at the time the New Testament was written, had the power to judge and punish the wife at pleasure, even to the taking of life. This is more authority than "the devil" was permitted to exercise over Job, for he had not power over Job's life. On the supposition that the husband had all the power and authority R. claims for him, would that prove that "men and women were not on a level," as moral and intellectual beings? He cannot conceive of a human being elevated in any way but by possessing power and authority. Is the possession of power and authority in itself calculated to elevate the possessor? Instead of its elevating tendency, it is demoralizing. Having the qualifications to exercise power and authority on Christian principles, is wherein the honour lies. As R.'s object was to show how superior man was to woman, he should have shown us how much superior man's moral qualifications are to woman's, and how benevolently he has exercised his power and authority "in ancient times, in eastern countries," and in modern times, in western countries.

For any thing R. says, a Mussulman would be perfectly qualified to perform the duties of a Christian husband, and he is very much pleased with a Mussulman's wife or wives' style of dress. The "veil" he considers perfectly evangelical! But, as power and authority are the sine qua non for human elevation, he should have given us some examples from scripture history of husbands commanding their wives, and exercising authority over them. A few facts, to prove the