capacity, but she ruled the kingdom, and to this God set his seal. In answer to the prayers of Esther and her associates, God so softened the heart of the heathen despot, that he treated the request of his wife with a husband's courtesy, and more than a husband's courtesy; not only giving her her due, the half of the rule in the family, but more than her due, even before she requested. He answered and said, "What wilt thou, Queen Esther, and what is thy request? and it shall be even given thee to half of the kingdom."-This he did three times, Esther v. 3. Now she had no more claim on his kingdom than Prince Albert has on Queen Victoria's; yet he committed the whole charge of a very important. transaction, in which the well-being of his kingdom was very much involved, into the hands of Esther for her to manage as she saw proper,—giving her his seal to affix to whatever she was pleased to enact, and no man could reverse what was sealed with the king's seal.

What kind of example was this to the ladies of Persia and Media? if it had been our brethren's aim to have been searching for a place where the wife had the ascendency, they could not have selected a more apt illustration in any history than the above, and all this sanctioned by the immediate interposition of God. Not because God would wish the reins of government put into the hands of woman, over man. No, we deprecate the idea; they are equals. But because the woman was right in this case, and she was a most signal instrument, in the hand of God, for the preservation of his church from a most malicious and unprovoked extirpation.

It appears Ahasuerus had become tired of subjecting his wife to his will. No doubt he had often heart-achings, for the rash manner in which he had divorced Vashti: he did it in the heat of passion. But he treats Esther with particular courtesy. The dim light of nature taught him to honour his wife. As his edict of every man bearing rule in his own house is adduced as an example for us in modern times, we will take the liberty of most respectfully recommending a number of our modern theological and moral teachers to receive a lesson from Ahasuerus, on the subject of conjugal courtesy. We give this recommendation from high authority, to which the God of heaven affixed his seal, and not the heathen statute book.

We have said before, if the husband is to rule, his government is an anomaly. That he has no precept given him, how he is to execute his authority, nor for what end he holds it; it is never made one of his duties to govern, he has no means of enforcing his authority, he has no example for ruling his wife, nor has he a promise to support him, nor a penalty for his non-performance. Ahasuerus and Memucan have been claimed as his prophets, but by weighing their teachings in the balance of the sanctuary, we find tekel written legibly upon them, there is no government of God's appointment similar to this.

The parent, who has the highest and most extensively delegated authority of any government on earth, as those under his care are in a state of minority, and incapable of judging for themselves, has a direct precept given him how he is to exercise his authority, and the end for which he holds it, Ephes. vi. 4, with numerous other passages, and a promise, Prov. xxii. 6, the means of enforcing his authority, Prov. xiii. 24, and xxiii. 13, and he also incurs a penalty, if he does not perform his duty, 1 Sam. ii. 27-throughout; iii. 11, 14.

The minister of the gospel has an exact precept, "These things command and teach," 1 Timothy iv. 11; a promise, Matt. xxviii. 20, and the end for which the ministry was instituted, Ephes. iv. 8, 12, and disciplinary means, I Cor. v. 13, and a most appalling penalty annexed for non-performance, Ezek. xxxiii. 2: the civil officer has his duty portrayed Ps. lxxxii. Prov. xxxi. 8, 9, Jeremiah xxii. 2, 3, with numerous other passages-and the end for which it was instituted, 1 Tim. ii. 2, a promise, 1 Kings. xi. 38, and the means of enforcing it, Rom. xiii. 4, and a penalty annexed for nonperformance, Jer. xxi. 12; xxii. 18, 19.

We have heard it said that necessity is the mother of invention, and man is famed for seeking out many inventions. As scripture is altogether silent respecting the duty of a man ruling his wife at all, consequently, we have no direction showing how it is to be performed (as ruling is a work of supererogation.) We have seen rules proposed as a substitute, for what they suppose an omission of the Spirit, which we will here take the liberty to insert, and

First, "His government should be exercised, compatibly with the strongest and most tender affection.

"Secondly, Consonantly with sound reason. Thirdly, According to the idea of companionship. "Fourthly, Consistently with religion, or the claims of God."

I. "Compatibly with the strongest and most tender affection." We answer, if he loved her as his own body, he would not wish to rule her at all; because, if he were the body, and she the head, he would not wish her to rule him. "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."

II. "Consonantly with sound reason.' "Sound reason says, that when an individual is to stand at the judgment-seat of Christ, to give an account of the deeds done in the body, he should have the government of that body himself, as far as any other human being is concerned. "Call no man master, for you have a Master in heaven."

III. "According to the idea of companionship." This, we answer, is a reason why he should not rule her at all. Companions do not rule each other; they only take sweet counsel together.

IV. "Consistently with religion, or the claims of God." This is no rule for governing at all; it only directs where they should not govern; indeed, all the rules are of that character. But we have already shown, that God has claims on her, in every relation of life, both as an individual, and in every feature of the family capacity. So, according to his last rule, she cannot serve two masters. Now, the above rules for their government have not one portion of Scripture to support them, but are unscriptural, as we have already demonstrated;-at least we cannot find these rules in the Bible. They must be from some of those spurious Epistles, which are not admitted as canonical. But our rule can be found in Canticles throughout, together with Ephes. v. 25, 33, and other kindred passages. We have seen grounds for the husband's authority to rule, which are said by some of the masters in our Israel, to be strong and impregnable: these we will here insert. 1. "The woman was made after the man: Adam was first formed, then Eve." We answer, that is only a reason why she should not usurp authority over him. An older brother in a family has no right to govern the younger. His duty is only to protect: "Throw thy skirt over me, for thou art my kinsman."

Do our brethren consider their elder brother as a ruler? Does Christ govern in his character as our elder brother? 2. "She was made for the man: the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man." We answer, they are of one blood, consequently created equal, and even so is the man also by the woman, which makes them perfect equals, even Christ, who is the "head over all, was made of a woman.' 3d, "She was made for the man: neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.' "We answer; she was created his equal, and to be his help-meet, not to be governed, but to assist him in governing, not to be plyed as machinery. 4th, "She was first in the transgression. Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, was in the transgression." We answer, if he is without sin, let him cast the first stone; he took it freely, without being deceived, and transgressed the covenant-"By the transgression of one, many were made sinners;" consequently it gives him no right to rule her; but it is a reason why she should not usurp authority over him. The promise was to the seed of the woman: "A virgin shall conceive," &c. 5th, It is part of her penalty, "Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." We answer, Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord. He never was commissioned a minister of God to be an avenger, consequently he is a usurper. This rule being penal, is one unanswerable reason why he should not exercise it. Christ does not inflict any of the penalties of the broken covenant upon the church. He suffered its penalty, for her in his own body on the tree. 6th, "The headship is expressly committed to the man." We answer, his headship corresponds to the mystical headship of Christ to the church, by which he is to love, nourish, and cherish her, but not to rule and govern. Christ only is her master, his disciples are all brethren. 7th, "The Holy Spirit in the strongest terms enjoins her obedience." Obedience to what? for him to love, nourish, and cherish her, as the Lord the church. Not quite the strongest terms; he does not say, "The ravens of the valley shall pick out her eye, and the young eagles shall eat it." It is not said, "If she resist him, she will receive damnation."

Now, the grounds that are here given, are antagonistical with the gospel of Christ. It is here supposed, that the

authority is conferred on the husband, from some inherent superiority, or as a reward for his meritorious deeds. The woman was in the transgression. All authority in Christ's kingdom is for the special good of the governed; the one possessing authority is the servant. There is no higher dignity in Christ's kingdom than servant. Our Lord confers no offices to inflate the individual with pride-He was himself, meek and lowly, and "came to minister, not to be ministered unto."

Our brethren generally seem to manifest a remarkably tolerant spirit, when they concede, that the husband's authority over the wife, must be consistent with religion, or the claims of God. By this they hope to throw the responsibility off themselves of woman's destiny in the other world, but in this they are determined to govern her.

"It is not easy to understand what is meant by the claims of God." The claims of God are a broad basis-" Fear God, and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man." But we suppose that "consistent with religion, and the claims of God," according to their definition, mean, that she still retains so much of her individuality as entitles her to worship God according to the dictates of her own conscience, in houses of public worship; that is, she may worship in what branch of the church she pleases, or attend to private devotional exercises. Would not a slave-holder give the same privileges to his slaves, under the same circumstances when there was no danger of the mind of the slave being polluted with the principles of liberty?

We will now give a specimen of our theological teachings on this subject. The husband is represented as the sole lawgiver in the family; to his laws she must meekly and patiently submit, with a more than Garrisonian non-resistance, (which they profess to abhor) "unargued to obey," except his commands conflict with her conscience. Now, can a creature thus circumstanced have any duty to perform but implicit obedience to her master? It would be a high-handed usurpation, for her to urge such a pretence, unless ordered by her husband. "Obedience is more acceptable than sacrifice." The Lord "will not accept of robbery for burnt offering." We have heard woman's inferiority shown from Gen. i. 26, 28: "And God said, Let us make man in our