tuted her king, as we believe king and head are considered synonymous. He is also her prophet-" If they want to know any thing," &c. &c.; and, to complete his honour, though he is too modest to ask it, he can show by equal authority that he is her priest. These offices cannot be separated they are a threefold cord that cannot be broken. "Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it." Now, there is more evidence that he is her priest than that he is either her king or prophet. WILL OUR BRETHREN TRY IT? Then let them atone for her sins and suffer for her guilt! What is the reason we hear nothing about their priestly office? They usurp the offices of prophet and king. These being the husband's official duties, as well unbelieving as believing, the ignorant as the learned, the imbecile as the wise; thus stood Nabal and Abigail; but any person of "common sense," by consulting the history of Abigail, would perceive that she was much addicted to the heinous sin of becoming tired of her station as a learner. As she was so manifestly derelict in duty, in this respect, would it not have been opportune for the preacher to have brought her forward as an example, to deter wives from committing like flagitious sins?

We have already shown that the lecturer said, "Women might be permitted to speak among their own sex, but that they were totally prohibited from speaking in promiscuous assemblies, or to be teachers of men.' This is the extent of all that was said on this part of the subject; there was no direction given as to how this speaking was to be conducted. Whether the woman was to appear in the character of a preacher to her own sex, or whether as an ordinary member of the assemblage she was to address the meeting, as the Christian church was modelled after the order of the Jewish synagogue. Was there an order of women in the Jewish synagogue whose duty it was to teach their own sex? Nothing of the kind is practised in our day-we should wish to have the advice of those who are set over us to dictate in spiritual matters. It is certainly a very intricate, "delicate question," how this would comport with woman always being a learner; not only a learner in a public assembly, but a learner in the family." She is to be taught by her husband at home, and she should be content with her station."

If a woman should attempt to teach her own sex in public, she would be usurping the place of the gospel minister, and if she should go into the family to teach, she would be usurping the prerogatives of the husband, the most august potentate in the world. Is it not a most abstruse question how she can teach her own sex, and always be a learner? Such a regulation as this calls loudly for the advice and counsel of a casuistical conclave. It might have thrown some light on women's instrumentality, if the lecturer had spoken of the women who were supernaturally endowed at the first promulgation of the gospel. His subject would naturally have led to this, as he was speaking of supernatural gifts, and said, "Those gifts were given for the edification of the church."-Or in what sequestered corner those women peeped and muttered, or how their gifts edified the church. If it is said in reply, that they spoke to their own sex, and thus edified the church—we ask, if a collection of women constitute a church, what difference is there between them and gospel ministers? We will take the liberty of guessing, perhaps those women preached in a hamlet, where there were only "two or three gathered together,"-their auditors an inferior portion of the human family-what, inferior in moral or intellectual attainments? Ono, dear reader, that would be a small matter. The momentous and only cause of their inferiority was, they had no beards. Having a fine meetinghouse, standing in a pulpit, and addressing a large assembly of people ornamented with beards, are indispensable to constitute a minister of the gospel. Instead of degrading women to speak to their own sex, it elevates them-it is an honourable and prominent part of the gospel ministry to preach the gospel to the poor and despised.

There is not the least shadow of scripture evidence that women ever preached exclusively to their own sex. It is manifest that they spoke publicly on the day of Pentecost, and the apostle regulates their personal appearance when they spoke in the church in the eleventh chapter of this epistle. Nor is there an instance on scripture record of any being inspired to speak to one portion of the community with an inhibition of speaking to the other. It is a distinction unknown in the gospel, and in direct opposition to it; for all Christ's disciples are brethren, "there is neither male nor

female," &c. Nor is there any evidence that they whom the apostle addressed as "helpers in Christ Jesus, and his fellow-labourers, and true yoke-fellows," were inspired at all. The apostle often mentions Priscilla with great affection and respect, and denominates her and her husband his "helpers in Christ Jesus." No intimation was given that she was inspired, though she became discontented with "her station of being a learner," and presumed even to teach an eloquent Apollos, a man mighty in the scriptures. The apostle "salutes Tryphena and Tryphosa, who labour in the Lord; salute the beloved Persis, who laboured much in the Lord,"-three women, with many others we could mention. Might not woman's instrumentality have received a passing remark in the lecture, since God has seen proper to record those women as labourers in the gospel when the labours of many men have sunk into oblivion, even the labours of a majority of the apostles of our Lord?

Scripture history is entirely silent as to the ministry of a majority of the twelve apostles after the death of Christ. There is no mention made of any, excepting Peter, John, the two Jameses, and perhaps Jude. These are all that are mentioned in scripture history, except incidentally. Acts vi.2.

Now, when God has seen proper to bury the labours of a majority of the apostles of our Lord in oblivion, and their instrumentality is never mentioned in scripture after the death of Christ, with the above exceptions, whilst many women have the honour of being by name enrolled as labourers in the Lord's vineyard, wherefore then should we not be afraid. to speak against the instrumentality of women, "lest haply we be found to fight against God?"

It would exhibit as much wisdom for our ecclesiastics to adopt Dr. Clark's opinion on this question-it has not lowered his clerical dignity in the least. It is as follows: "Romans xvi. 12. Tryphena and Tryphosa. Two holy women, who it seems were assistants to the apostle in his work; probably by exhorting and visiting the sick. Persis was another woman, who it seems excelled the preceding; for of her it is said, she laboured much in the Lord. We learn from this, that Christian women, as well as men, laboured in the ministry of the word. In those times of simplicity, persons, whether men or women, who had received the knowledge of the

truth, believed it to be their duty to propagate it to the ut most of their power. Many have spent much useless labour in endeavouring to prove that these women did not preach. That there were some prophetesses, as well as prophets, in the Christian church, we learn; and that a woman might pray or prophesy, provided she had her head covered, we know; and that whoever prophesied, spoke unto others, to edification, exhortation, and comfort, St. Paul declares in 1st Corinthians xiv. 3. And that no preacher can do more, every person must acknowledge; because to edify, exhort, and comfort, are the prime ends of the gospel ministry. If women thus prophesied, then women preached." See Dr. Clark's Commentary on this passage.

We think people might be better employed than to torture their imagination in producing arguments to show how little any portion of the human family is to exercise their intellect, making that to be a heinous sin which is their special duty. There is enough for us all to do, and a wide field for all our labours, physically, intellectually, morally, and religiously.

We know that such expressions as, "Women were always to be learners, and should be content with their stations," are only rhetorical flourishes of commentators, or pulpit orators, in order to embellish their opinions. They have no idea of its being carried out, only so far as it suits their own purpose; but it tends to degrade women: such language is well calculated to lower their standing in society, and subvert their influence. It was never hinted at in the lecture, that a woman was a rational and accountable being, who was to think and judge for herself, and to "search the scriptures to see whether these things were so." She was put under the ban of her husband, and those who had no husbands were classed under the same law of subjection indiscriminately; the vilest of men were exalted above the most intellectual and moral woman. The matter of the lecture, and the manner in which it was delivered, were sufficiently overbearing to characterize the most inveterate slaveholder, when descanting on the moral and intellectual standing of his slaves. The most polluted of husbands would feel himself elevated above the most distinguished, moral, and intellectual woman, and his heart would be hardened against her influence. Any

person having the hardihood to doubt these opinions, was charged with idiocy. The lecturer was "surprised that any person having common sense could have a contrary opinion." He pointed out no way by which women could promote the interests of religion. He did say that what he had advanced must not be construed so as to prevent a woman from instructing her children; but how does this comport with the other part of his lecture-" she was always to be a learner," &c.? Suppose she is the mother of sons who are young men, how is she to teach them when she is "totally prohibited from teaching a man?" Is not this doctrine calculated to deafen the ears of sons against her instruction? The apostle says, "If I build again the things which I destroy, I make myself a transgressor." That women are not to usurp authority, and to assume a magisterial, dictatorial air, is a truth-nor are they to interrupt speakers in congregated assemblies by asking questions not pertinent; neither are men to usurp authority, and to assume a magisterial, dictatorial mien, notwithstanding this is the common practice of a majority of men.

There is no opinion in this lecture peculiar to an individual. There is an overwhelming majority of both clergy and laity, particularly those who claim for themselves the title of the "orthodox," who hold the same opinions which are expressed in the lecture. There are many, perhaps, who would not express their opinions in a congregated assembly in language quite so exceptionable, and yet it is just the language of what is styled our popular " orthodox" commentators. Their opinions, however, are rather behind the age. It is our sincere desire to treat the authors of the opinions, on which we have been freely animadverting, with respect and regard, yet we look with indignation upon these sentiments. We respect and regard men of character and good standing, yet we respect and regard truth and the rights of humanity more than the standing of any man.

If men are invested with the power and authority which are claimed, their responsibility is tremendous, and if woman is such a subordinate, she has no responsibility, except "unargued to obey;" neither is man honoured by his position, unless he has moral and intellectual qualifications commensurate to his responsibility, and yet man's moral and intel