part of the community more opposed to woman's enjoying what they themselves call human rights, and which they represent as inseparable from humanity, than a certain class of the abolitionists. They only want to remove the burden of slavery off one shoulder of woman, and place it on the other, and be the slaveholders themselves. Her husband is the master to all intents and purposes, except that he cannot transfer his authority; and because the wife is a subordinate to her husband, and he is a man and she is a woman, therefore every woman is subordinate to every man, according to their logic. It is passing strange that it never occurred to men to reason in this way; the husband is to love, nourish, and cherish the wife as Christ loved the church, and he is a man, and she is a woman; therefore every man is to love, nourish and cherish every woman as Christ does the church. Or, reason in this way: the son is to fear, honour, and obey his mother; and he is a man, and she is a woman; therefore every man is to fear, honour, and obey every woman. A rule is not good, unless it works both ways.

To show the position that anti-slavery men suppose woman to occupy, from scripture authority, we will give some extracts from Barnes on Slavery. In showing how property in slaves differs from the property right that is held in some lawful relations, he says, "Slavery is not the kind of property which a man has in his wife or child; there may be something in common in these relations, but except in arguments in defence of slavery they are never confounded. In the condition of a wife and child there is, indeed, a want of a right of suffrage, and of eligibility to office. The relation of husband and wife is voluntary-that of master and slave is not."

This is the old cuckoo note-every woman is a wife-a woman loses her right of suffrage and eligibility to office because her husband is her representative, that is, she voluntarily resigns her right of suffrage and eligibility to office which she never possessed.

He says, "There is no right of sale, there is no right to sunder the relations for the mere sake of gain. It is true that some of these things have occurred in certain times and places, and that the power of purchase or sale has been understood to be connected with the relation of husband and

wife. And that even parents have claimed this power over their children-(he thinks that more strange for parents to claim this power over their children)-but this has always been understood as an abuse of power, and is not fairly implied in the relation." An abuse of power, indeed! it is a usurpation of power without any foundation. What more property right has the husband in the wife than the wife has in the husband? The husband has no more authority over the wife's body than the wife has over the husband's; and she has as much authority to sell him as he has to sell her, unless might gives right. Neither of them has any right to make any such disposal, nor in the nature of things can they do it. What would the husband sell? His right to honour his wife?-his right to her being his body? Can he sell his body separate and apart from his head? Can he sell his right to love her? When he thus loved her he loved himself. Can he sell his right to love, nourish, and cherish her as the Lord the church? or his right to "care for the things of the world, how he may please his wife?" or the right she has over his body? or the right to "leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and they twain to be one flesh ?" Can he sell these rights? What other property right has he in her but this? Why bring up the husband's propertyright in the wife as having any analogy to slavery, or any thing "common" in the relations of husband and wife, and master and slave? That is the scripture view of it which Mr. Barnes professes to give. That there is a striking analogy, and, indeed, a parallel, between husband and wife and master and slave, according to our civil, moral, and theological teachings and enactments we acknowledge, but not according to scriptural views. Mr. Barnes proceeds to show the unscriptural character of slavery, from its violating relative duties as it respects the marriage relation. He shows that the master takes the husband's place. He says, "In the New Testament the husband is declared to be the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church, and as such has a right to rule in his family." The husband has only a right to do part of the ruling in the family. The fifth precept of the decalogue says something about the mother having some rule in the family. Is the moral law to govern this

headship, or is the headship to govern the moral law? And Solomon talks about the "law of the mother" being very ornamental, and talks about a very heavy penalty being inflicted on him who "despiseth to obey his mother." And the virtuous woman (Prov. xxxi.) showed that she considered herself as having some authority in the family. What authority, according to Mr. Barnes, has the wife to entertain strangers, clothe the naked, or feed the hungry? Mr. B. further says, "The wife, as such, is commanded to be subject to her husband, to recognise his authority-(to recognise his authority! Wonder where this text is)-to obey him, to love him-(wonder if the husband is not to love the wife, his own body. Mr. Barnes' Bible says nothing about it)— to submit to him in all things." This is not scripture. "As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives be to their own husbands in every thing." This is scripture. Subject to what? For the husband to love, nourish, and cherish them as the Lord the church; love them as their own bodies. He says, "Now this command is practically nullified in every case where slavery exists; the master, not the husband, possesses supreme authority (so the husband possesses supreme authority) in relation to every slave, male or female, and his will is to be obeyed, and not that of the husband, if they ever came into conflict. The master, too, by the laws of all slave-holding communities, has the power of enforcing obedience by punishment, even when it is against every wish and will of the husband, (that's the rub; if the husband was willing, it would then be well enough to enforce obedience by punishment.) He says, "This power extends to the manner of employing her time-to her whole domestic engagements— to her hours of labour and of rest—to her food and raimentto her habitation, and to every comfort." So the husband's rights are egregiously violated by slavery, as he has the sole direction of all the wife's domestic arrangements; if so, would it not be necessary that our young gentlemen should be instructed in a thorough course of housewifery, to qualify them to take the oversight of that department when they become husbands? He goes on further to show how she is taken out of the hand of her husband. He says, "Evenwhen the husband is sick, there is no power of enforcing any right which the wife has, by the laws of marriage in the

Bible, to attend on him and sooth his sorrows-nothing prevents the master from setting at naught the whole law of God on the subject." So the complaint here is, that the wife cannot attend on the husband when he is sick-no way of "enforcing" her to do this duty. Wonder if it is not the husband's duty to attend on the wife when she is sick, and "sooth her sorrows?" We suppose that would be naturally included in nourishing and cherishing. Indeed, so far as regards the letter, it is the husband's special duty to attend on the wife when she is sick, and sooth her sorrows, if he is to love her as himself. But as to the spirit of the Bible, we are sure there is no distinction between husband and wife in this respect.

Next, he goes on to show "how slavery interferes with the natural right which a father has over his children—the master owns them, not the father." He does not say one word to show that the mother has any property-right in them, or authority over them, nor one word that it is the mother's duty to instruct them. It is probable he would consider it the mother's duty to do the labour, and the father's to have the credit as aliment for his self-esteem. It is not worth while to speak about mothers and their duties with any respect. He says, "He (the father) is to instruct them in the ways and duties of religion-to lead their devotions-to seek to prepare them for heaven-to be their counsellor and adviser in regard to the duties and perplexities of life; the whole question, whether a father may perform these duties at all, rests with the master." We wonder if Mr. Barnes would permit a mother to come under vows in the baptism of her child, in conjunction with the father, or does he not frequently admit a mother to dedicate her child to God in baptism without the father's co-operation? If he does,

where does he get his authority for admitting her to come under baptismal vows, which she has no authority to perform?

No doubt but Mr. Barnes predicates his opinion of the father's duty and the mother's exclusion on Eph. vi. 4, as our brethren are disposed to catch at straws to support their aristocracy. The disposition they manifest to distort portions of scripture in order to favour their love of self-glorification or dominion, is astonishing. The apostle, in Ephe

sians vi., after exhorting children to be obedient to their parents, father and mother, proceeds to exhort the parents to their duties. He says, "And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath, but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." It is directly understood, because he addresses the parents under the appellation of fathers, that the mother is not included, contrary to all other portions of scripture that treat of the subject, and contrary to their own practice in baptismal engagements. Are we to understand the apostle, because he did not address the female parent under the appellation of mother, that she is to provoke her children to wrath, and is not to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord? It is plain that they are the same individuals whom the apostle exhorts in verse 4 to "bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord," to whom he had in the preceding verses exhorted children to be obedient. We have seen this portion of scripture, previously adduced, to show that all the authority was vested in the father to bring up his children "in the nurture and admonition of the Lord," and the mother had no authority, except in case of the father's death or absence. Where is there any portion of scripture that can be tortured into such an idea? What would be the effect in many families, if mothers would neglect the religious training of their children? Does not the whole duty of training children frequently devolve on mothers? Are there not often irreligious and profligate fathers, who, instead of bringing them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, set a pernicious example? This is a more frequent occurrence, than for the profligacy to be on the mother's part.

We will venture to affirm that Mr. Barnes never thought of carrying out his theory practically. Gentlemen have got into a habit of talking in slaveholder's style about women. They do not think it worth while to talk of the position of women with any respect, or even truthfulness, no matter how important the station they occupy. There is no station in the human family of greater importance than that of the mother. They are enemies to the human family that would lower her responsibility, or detract from her honour, or weaken her influence.

It is no wonder Mr. Barnes compares husband and wife