that cometh up from the wilderness leaning on her beloved?" How could He have supported her, if she had refused to lean on him?

We by no means wish to be understood as saying, that it would always be the husband's duty to comply with the wishes of the wife, for in many instances it would be entirely wrong. But from the example we have before us, it is plain that it is as much his duty to comply with the wife's requests, provided they are right, as for her to comply with his, under the same circumstances; and that one has no commanding power over the other, as they stand in this respect on an equality of condition, which is most obvious.— He has no means of enforcing his laws or commands, he can inflict no penalty. A command or a law without a penalty amounts to no more than an advice. Christ as king inflicts a disciplinary penalty: "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten," Rev. iii. 19, Ps. lxxxix. 32, 33,

We have been very lengthy in our illustrations of the metaphor head, as we considered it very important in the decision of the question under consideration. As the metaphor is taken from the individual human system, we have endeavoured to show what functions it is represented to exercise. We have shown, when the body is made a figure, that it is the functions which each member exercises in the animal economy, that is spoken of, and has nothing to do with ruling. That the government of the individual is democratic and that the head has not the attributes to rule according to scripture figure, as wisdom is always located in the heart, and that Christ is never spoken of as ruling the church in his mystical character as head, but acts in that capacity as nourisher and cherisher, or as head of influences, which we have shown to be the case, from the functions he is represented as exercising, when he is represented as husband of the church.

We have already said that our brethren can see their authority portrayed through all Divine revelation by signs and symbols-and these signs are explained according to existing usages, or, in many instances, they prove it by a play on words. Because a head of authority's business is to rule less or more, according to the laws of the organization, they take it for granted that the head of the individual

must exercise the same functions as the head of authority: never consulting scripture whether these things are so, and constructing most important principles on the traditions of men, which exert a most powerful influence in practiceturn one half of the human family into mere machines, and lay a responsibility on the other half that they are wholly unqualified to meet.

The wise man tells us that "He that ruleth himself is better than he that taketh a city." We all have enough to do to rule ourselves, and more than enough-" it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps," Jer. x. 33; and when he cannot direct his own, how can he direct woman's? But blessed be God, woman is not left to be directed by her erring fellow worm, for the Lord is her lawgiver, the same as he is to man-the same moral law directs both; it is portrayed by an unerring hand, as we have endeavoured to demonstrate in the preceding chapter.

Christ has legislated for the family himself, and constituted woman an executive officer equal with the man, and has made her responsible to him, for her equal quota of duties in every feature in the family capacity.

We have already said, there is often a play on words without considering their connexion. As the word submit is made use of in Ephes. v. 22, in relation to wives, and be subject' and 'obedient' in others, lexicographers are consulted for the literal explanation of these words, and they are found to be words importing tremendous authority, and the same words are made use of to enforce obedience to civil rulers, therefore the husband's authority over the wife must be of the same character. We have heard this promulgated from the sacred desk. We were not told whether he had the same means of enforcing his authority, to wit, the sword; but as the husband's authority is proved altogether by inferential reasoning, it is a legitimate inference, that where an individual is placed in such high authority, they must have the requisite means to enforce it.

We will now proceed to examine whether these words, submit, be subject, and be obedient, &c., mean absolute subjection on the part of the governed, and unlimited authority on the part of those who govern, provided they do not infract the conscience. Eph. v. 21, "Submitting yourselves

one to another in the fear of God:" 1 Peter v. 5, an exhortation of the same import, where both submit and be subject are used: 1 Cor. xvi. 15, Paul exhorts the church of Corinth, to submit themselves unto the house of Stephanas for their work's sake, and to every one "that helpeth with us, and laboureth." What a formidable host of sovereigns, according to this way of interpretation!--not only Stephanas himself is to be submitted to, but his house and "all that helpeth with us, and laboureth." Now we know, that there were some women that helped with the apostle, and laboured, some that laboured much in the Lord; and it is more than probable, that Stephanas's household was in part composed of women.

It appears, these women were set up over the Christian portion of the whole region of Achaia with the same authority as the civil ruler, or Nero the emperor. Because the

apostle made use of the same word, when speaking of their duties to them respectively. There is not one which we have named who had the least authority to command (with the exception of Nero) though some of them may have had official standing. Still, it is evident the apostle had no reference to that, as the whole house of Stephanas is mentioned. But for their work's sake they were to be honoured and respected. Rom. x. 3, the apostle finds fault with the Jews for wishing to establish their own righteousness, and not submitting themselves to the righteousness of God; which submission would have been entirely of a passive character. And in a passive sense did Christ become obedient unto death, Phil. ii. 3. A great company of the priests are said to be obedient to the faith, Acts vi. 7. Thus, we see, neither submit, subject, nor to be obedient defines the character of the submission, subjection or obedience; but it must be defined or explained by the connexion in which it stands, and the duty the person owes us, and it may be either active or passive obedience.

Having shown that the words submit, subject, and be obedient, are to be defined by the connexion in which they stand, or the relative duties of the persons to whom they are addressed, we will proceed to give some thoughts on the relative duties of husband and wife, in the passage we have already cited, Ephes. v. 22, 23. See verse twenty-second;

66

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord"--twenty-third, "for the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church, and he is the saviour of the body"-twenty-fourth: "therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing-wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands," &c. In doing so, you show obedience to God's commands, and by this, you enhance your own interest and happiness, because your husband is constituted your head, even as Christ is constituted head of the church.

The head is a highly important member in the animal economy; it is not only the source of support, but it acts as a sentinel to the body, and it is also more exposed to injury, and is anatomically better protected. The husband's character in temporalities corresponds to Christ in spiritual matters-He is the provider and protector of the wife; he is the saviour of the body; as the literal translation of Baali or lord imports. My patron, my protector, and my owner;' which character entitles him to reverence and gratitude. The husband is the source, or means by which the wife is enabled in a pecuniary point of view to perform her duty to God, to herself, and to her fellow man, (this is the general rule)—"Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ (in his mystical character,) so let the wife be to the husband in every thing." The church is weak and inadequate of herself, and has not the means to perform her duty to Christ as king and lawgiver, but by union to him, he graciously gives her the means, and he gives her amply, and entreats her to accept of it-" Drink abundantly, O beloved," which she is to receive freely, and not to be too proud to depend on her husband for her support. How could a husband perform his duty as nourisher and cherisher, if the wife were too self-sufficient and haughty to submit to his nourishing and cherishing.

A sister who is supported by a brother in the same way, would be obligated to submit, and be subject, as far as her support was concerned; nay, a father or mother who is supported by a child, would be under obligation to submit and be obedient, so far as that is concerned. How could a child support a parent, who is always offering resistance to any method he proposed for their support? The wife must cooperate with the husband in his labour of love for her support.

She should attend, when he knocketh and saith, "Open to me, my sister, my love; for my head is filled with dew, and my locks with the drops of the night." He had encountered the dews of the night, and inclemencies of the weather, for her support and preservation. Should she not anticipate his footsteps, and open even before he knocks, and not say, "I have put off my coat, how shall I put it on? I have washed my feet, how shall I defile them?" He is exposed to many perils in consequence of his labour-he is "in journeyings often," for her support-"in perils of water-in perils on the sea, in perils in the wilderness, in painfulness, in watchings, in hunger and thirst, and often in cold," &c., &c., imitating his Master's example, who gave himself for the church: in all these adventures she is an equal participant, and will not his love constrain her to love and reverence him, who suffers so much on her account, and show it by her cheerfulness to respond to his solicitations? Above all, she must reverence him, because God has commanded her to reverence him, whom he hath appointed to be her temporal supporter.

We apprehend the true way of ascertaining the authority of any officer, and our corresponding obedience, is by examining his own commission, and for this purpose we will examine the husband's duty, from the same chapter, Eph. v. 25, 33, and see how it corresponds with the duties of the wife, which we endeavoured to explain-"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that He might sanctify and cleanse it, with the washing of water by the word; that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be holy, and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives, as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself; for no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth, and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: for we are all members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father, and his mother, and shall be joined to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless, let every one of you in particular, so love his wife even as himself: and the wife see that she reverence her husband." This phraseology is truly remarkable, for an