nations of her own sex, without attaining to the dignity of

the other."

"A woman moved is like a fountain troubled,

Muddy, ill-seeming, and bereft of beauty."-SHAKS.

It seems never to have occurred to Dr. Wayland, that there was any meekness, patience, or self-denial, to be exercised by the husband-no "caring for the things of the world, how he might please his wife," but always issuing his mandates how he might please himself. He has, indeed, spoken very handsomely in the same chapter, where he considers them equals and companions, on the condescension and complacency that husband and wife are to exercise to one another, namely, when each one treats his companion as they would wish to be treated. But, as they will not always thus conduct, the question arises, which of the two has the privilege of departing from the golden rule? As departing from this rule is more congenial to corrupt human nature, who would we suppose would have this privilege conferred upon them but the husband? Who should be "wise in his own eyes and prudent in his own sight" but the husband? So long as husband and wife remain of one opinion, there is no sacrifice to be made on either side. A master and a slave can live amicably in this situation. A slave does not feel the master's authority when they are of the same opinion.

It appears to be considered as a matter of necessity, that the right of deciding must rest with either husband or wife, because it cannot be decided by "numerical majority.' Necessity is the perpetual plea of tyrants. It is blasphemy to say that God is under necessity to adopt any regulation that is not right in itself, or to divest any of his rational and accountable creatures of free agency. Has he not taught us in his word that "two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their labour? for, if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow; but wo to him that is alone when he falleth, for he hath not another to help him up. "It is not good for man to be alone;" so saith the Spirit of God.

Has He not given a panacea in his word that will destroy all contention or strife? "All things whatsoever ye would

that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." And the apostle Peter, just after he had given directions for the conduct of husbands and wives, says, "Finally, be ye all of one mind; have compassion one of another; love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous." We could multiply portions of scripture to a large extent, exhorting those who are united together in bonds of fellowship, to "be of the same mind and live in peace." Is it not a wonder that the expedient had not been adopted for one to think for all, and enjoin obedience on the residue ? What wars and contentions might not this regulation have prevented! There is neither a natural nor a moral impracticability for two or more to conduct business on a perfect equality of authority without any decision by a "numerical majority." It is common for partnerships in business to exist for many years on a perfect equality of authority; and the united wisdom of two is often of as much utility as their united funds for the success of their business. There is more cause of jarring between partners in business, as their interests are not so identified as are husband and wife. It may be said that partners in business can dissolve the contract at any time. The very consideration that the marriage contract is indissoluble, would make the parties more particular to cultivate peace and harmony. There are frequently two judges on the bench, entirely equal in authority, and justice is considered more secure in their hands than if there were but one. Two sovereigns have occupied the same throne with equal authority. Human nature is bad enough; but still it is not so bad, that two cannot live amicably together without one being master and the other a slave. When did ever slavery promote peace? The most important tribunal in our land does not act on the principle of "numerical majority," to wit, our petit juries. Here are twelve men that cannot render a verdict, except all agree in judgment. There might be, and are, serious injuries sustained by this regulation, a case might be continued from court to court, ad infinitum. Notwithstanding, it is of more importance to have the consolidated judgment of twelve men than that it should be decided by a " numerical majority." So, we say, if the judgment of twelve men is better than seven, the

judgment of two is better than one, in the case of husband and wife.

But Dr. Wayland says, "As the husband is the individual who is responsible to civil society, as his intercourse with the world is of necessity greater, the voice of nature and revelation unite in conferring the right of ultimate authority upon him." High authorities, truly-" revelation and nature !" Our republicans tell us, "that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are among our natural rights, and are inalienable;" so much for nature.

Where is it said in revelation, either by precept or example, that the husband is the ultimate appeal where they cannot agree in judgment? There are three cases on record in revelation, and only three, where husband and wife differed in opinion respecting family regulations, to wit, Abraham and Sarah, Gen. xxi. 10, 12; Isaac and Rebekah, Gen. xxvii.; and Nabal and Abigail, 1 Sam. xxv. Was Abraham the ultimate appeal? was Isaac the ultimate appeal? or was Nabal the ultimate appeal? Now, these are all approved scripture examples. Rebekah's stratagem was by no means right, but the end she had in view was right, because her choice of the sons was God's choice, as had been previously revealed to her, Gen. xxv. 23. But Sarah and Abigail did nobly. Did they obtain their purposes by "concession?" Precepts may be misunderstood, but examples cannot. We have no desire to prove from this that the wife has the ultimate authority; but we do affirm that she has equal authority, and her opinion as good a right to be ultimate, if she is right, as his, under the same circumstances. "But the husband is the individual responsible to civil society." Well, as the husband is responsible for the wife's conduct, he certainly should have the control over her actions, and also the power in his hand for this purpose; and we have precedent for this. Sir William Blackstone says, that "the husband, by the good old law, (English law,) might give his wife moderate correction; for, as he has to answer for her misbehaviour, (" responsible to civil society,") the law thought it reasonable to intrust him with this power of restraining her, by domestic chastisement, in the same moderation that a man is allowed to correct his apprentices or children." He adds, that, "in the polite

reign of Charles the Second, the power of correcting began to be doubted, and yet the lower rank of people, who were always fond of the old common law, still claim and exercise their ancient privilege. The good old common law allowed the husband to whip and beat his wife, so that he performed this salutary infliction with a lawful weapon, and a broomstick was solemnly adjudged to be such lawful weapon, and a rod not larger than the thumb was not objected to, unless it was of iron; but if so, and death ensued, it was murder!" We think it is plain, that ultimate authority, and ultimate power to enforce that authority, go hand in hand. Of what account is authority without the power to enforce it? If the authority is conceded, the right to enforce it is also conceded. It may be said, the law of the relation will not admit of physical chastisement. True, the head cannot inflict any pain on the body without feeling its poignancy, nor has it the means. But, if the husband stands in the same relation to the wife as Christ does as king to the church, Christ subdues the church to himself by disciplinary chastisement. "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten, Rev. iii. 19. "Then will I visit their transgressions with a rod, and their iniquity with stripes," Ps. lxxxix. 32. How is the husband more responsible to civil society than the wife? Because the husband generally makes the contracts, and, indeed, the wife cannot make a legal contract in her own name. Slavery is always true to its own interests; it is always best to keep her dependent. Who make the laws that govern society? Men create legal inabilities in women, and then make it a pretext for further oppression. But is the wife not responsible to civil society equally with the husband? She is entirely so in all criminal cases; and is she not as much the sufferer in all pecuniary embarrassments as the husband? Is she not as responsible, both morally and naturally, for the well-being of the family as he is? Nay, we believe more so. And does the law exclude her from intercourse with civil society? We have reference now to God's law-not to law made by man's device. "She considereth a field and buyeth it." Yes, she is here a legal purchaser; "she is like the merchant-ships, she bringeth her food from afar; she maketh fine linen, and selleth it," Prov. xxxi. It is a small matter to be judged

by man's judgment. Is she not responsible to God in every feature of the family capacity? Did not Dr. Wayland see the momentous responsibility in which he was involving the husband? which ought to have been the weighty and great consideration with the doctor, that God held the husband responsible for the whole government and well-being of the family.

But still Dr. W. says, "her happiness is increased no less than the husband's, by giving him the right of ultimate decision, as her power is always greatest in concession." If "the voice of nature and revelation unite in conferring ultimate decision upon the husband," the wife has no right to it, and has nothing to concede. What we understand by this is, she must cringe, and fawn, and concede, that the right to give or withhold is vested in him, " her author and disposer. And that he has a right to command her "submission and obedience to every thing not appertaining to the conscience," and do this in order that she may have her power increased. Perhaps we do Dr. Wayland injustice in this exposition; but it really appears to us not susceptible of any other legitimate interpretation. But, with due deference to Dr. W.'s opinion, we will say to our female readers who are wives-If you are convinced from God's word that you are automatons in all matters in relation to this world, submit to it without a remonstrance on your part; do not act the hypocrite for the sake of obtaining free agency, for that does not belong to you. If with your husbands rest the responsibility of deciding all matters where you cannot agree, they must do it,-your husbands can neither give you rights nor take them away. It is God who gives rights; it is he who prescribes duties. That is, your husbands have no moral right; that they have generally the physical power to take away your rights, we admit. And thousands and tens of thousands have found an untimely grave in consequence of these opinions. A great many women understand the art well of gaining a precarious power with their husbands "by concession " and coquetry. It has been pretty well tested in numerous instances, and by observation, that, as a general rule, those who are the loudest in acknowledging their husband's supremacy, and that they have all the rights they want, are the very persons who, in practice, take the supremacy to themselves.