tion, the differences of sex become more marked. Woman's voice becomes softer, her face and hands more delicate, her dress more elaborate, and with this outward change there is an inward change corresponding. There is the old progress of the married pair from homogeneity to heterogeneity, from likeness to difference. The idea that woman is to be more like man in the progress of civilization is all a delusion, since it is only in civilization that the more subtle characteristics of the sexes are made manifest. And the more woman is civilized, the less she desires to be like man, the less possible it is for her to be like man. Civilization and Christianity bring her up gradually, from her slavish subjection and oppression, to a place where her natural equality is recognized and respected,--but they will only make her more truly woman, not more nearly man. Her subordination of office will

be more and more perfectly seen in the Christian humility and gentleness and endurance of her character, and in her indisposition to assume the place or do the work of man. In the very creation of mankind in the garden of beauty, undefiled by the slimy track of the serpent as it was, God ordained the subordination of women and the differences of nature that make that subordination inevitable; and it is the greatest heresy of modern radicalism to denounce as barbarism this divinely appointed relation of the sexes. Dr. Bushnell tells us that the Buddhist women of China, who believe that they existed as dogs and cats before they came into this world, and call their present despised condition as women by the name of the "bitterness," earnestly pray their god Buddha to grant them his favor, that in the next transmigratory state they may enter upon life in the position of men, and of men in good circumstances. Have we actually fallen upon a time when women so little value the dignity and privileges of womanhood, as to seek even in this life to be no longer women, but men? Napoleon said that the great need of France was good mothers. Is it possible that women can conceive that it lies nearer their true powers and duties to be good politicians?

I fear, too, the effect of these fundamental heresies upon the marriage bond. When you look upon woman as only a second edition of man, you lose the true idea of marriage as the unity of two different personalities. Marriage is a very different thing from the union of two friends, or the partnership of two merchants. It is the bringing together of two halves, and the making of them one, of halves that greatly differ from each other. Man and woman are complements to each other, and the entire rounded being is only made up by the united life of the two. Therefore it is a union for life; and the violation of faith on either side cuts at the very root of all morality. It is a union constituted by God, and dissoluble only by his hand in death. Now the moment you make woman to be man, forgetting that she is not identical with man but different, that moment you turn marriage into a partnership, which, like some other partnerships, has no binding obligations to it, any longer than both parties are satisfied with its continuance. It is no longer a union, but a confederation, as the rebels said of our national government, and so may be dissolved at will. Wrong views of the nature and position of women lead directly and logically to this result. And in practice, it is not so far away. We have a leading woman apostle of this movement declaring that "true marriage dwells in the sanctuary of the soul, beyond the cognizance or sanction of state or church," and intimating that

unhappiness in the relation is a proper reason for seeking happiness elsewhere. I am pained to hear even John Stuart Mill saying that it is a pity not to give a woman who is the body-slave of a despot, the opportunity of trying her fortune twice. I am solicitous about the effect of the Woman's Rights agitation, not so much on account of the direct objects it seeks, as on acount of the false underlying principles which are assumed in it. We live in a time of such general migration, that the restraints of home and the care for established reputation are far too little thought of. Desertions of husbands by wives and wives by husbands, and divorces for trifling causes, have been destroying in the public mind the idea of the sanctity of marriage. And we must guard against the spread of any principles which will strengthen these evil tendencies of our day,-- for the moment marriage becomes a mere partnership, womanhood is dead, and a death-blow is struck at public virtue. And what shall we say to the claim to the suffrage which is made for woman? I am aware that many good men advocate the admission of women to the privilege of the ballot. But, while I desire to give to women the largest liberty and the widest influence which the best of the sex desire, I have most serious doubts whether both of these, as well as the interests of society, will not be compromised by conferring upon them the franchise. And that for the same reason that underlies all my former arguments, namely, that the putting of political power into the hands of women is not only contrary to any right theory of true womanhood, but contrary also to any right theory of the family. The power of rule seems to me to have been vested in the head of the family, that he may act for them, or rather that they may act through him. There is a shrinking from the publicity and collisions of politics, which seems a part of the nature of woman, and to lie down deeper than the effects of education or circumstances. The law, that seems to some so faulty, has caught a glimpse of the fact that man and wife are one, and that the individual is not the true unit of civil society, but the family. If I am not mistaken, the whole argument for the suffrage rests upon the unconscious assumption that a woman is a man, instead of constituting in her normal relations a part of a higher unity--a unity in which she is a part and man is a part, but of which he, by virtue of his office, as man and as head, is the proper representative. But even allowing that she is the same as man, does it follow that the possession of humanity gives a natural right to the ballot? Not so, for if this were true, all might vote,— the fact that one was a human being would determine the right to the franchise. But children do not vote; the sick and the absent do not vote; the criminal and the insane do not vote. Others vote as their representatives, or rather, their interests are represented by those whom the state allows to vote. A whole half of the male population do not vote at all. Voting then is not a natural right, for government is representation, and only those vote to whom society thinks it for its best interests to grant the franchise. Women then have no right to the suffrage, simply on the ground that they are a part of humanity. If they have the privilege of voting, it must be because society thinks it for the interest of women themselves and for the interest of the State that they should vote, and so has actually conferred the privilege upon them.

When it comes to the question of expediency and advantage, also, the preponderance of argument is against it. Add to the pernicious effect upon

the family of making the married pair two instead of one, the other dangers
of destroying all the dignity and delicacy of womanhood in primary meet-
ings and party caucuses,-add female corruption and intrigue, such as
we have seen recent specimens of at Washington, to the already serious evils
of our political situation,-intensify political bitterness and strife by that
feeling of partizanship which belongs more to women than to men,
and I think we can see only evil in the measure. It is said that the pres-
ence of women will refine and adorn our elections and public councils.
But women are naturally not so much better than men,- the same publicity
of life and mingling with the rude and boisterous crowd would after a time
take the edge off from their manners and neutralize their influence. A great
part of women's refining influence hitherto has been due to the fact that they
have not been accustomed to a public life. Whether their purifying power
could long withstand the corruptions of modern politics is more than doubt-
ful. Besides all this, it seems to me that neither they nor the State at large
need their votes. They do not need these votes to protect their own rights.
Their husbands and brothers are ready to give these to them. They are not
without representation. Those they love best are their representatives.
To admit them to the franchise is to declare that men and women are two
different classes upon the same level, whereas the truth is, these two classes
are,
both in theory and in practice, one. In the vote of the husband, the wife
bears her part of silent and powerful influence,- in the votes of men, the
whole class of women is represented also. When one of our late reformers
said she did not care to vote, if she only might talk, she unconsciously and
by accident gave the true solution of the whole matter. Woman's place is
not that of direct political power, but of indirect influence through those
who wield the power.

It has been common to scout the Bible, as antiquated and worn out, and to deny it any place in deciding upon the claims of modern philosophies and reforms. But there is a constant surprise and gratitude to the Christian as he sees how the principles of Scripture, enunciated so many thousand years ago, are still applicable to these days in which we live, throwing the most vivid light upon human relations and setting before us most clearly the way of personal duty. I have aimed to make my treatment of this subject a simple application, to one of the most perplexing questions of our time, of the old truth of God. I may have failed to convince you, but I trust we have seen that while woman can claim equality with man in nature, she misses her true place and work when she forgets that she is different from him, and in office subordinate to him. She gains most herself, and does most for others, when she recognizes this divine order and accepts the place of man's helper, without aspiring to fill that of man himself.

The Woman's Rights Convention, which held its sessions in this city during the past week, adopted a series of resolutions among which I find the following: "Resolved, that as the duty of every individual is self-development, the lessons of self-sacrifice and obedience taught woman by the Christian church have been fatal, not only to her own highest interests, but through her have also dwarfed and degraded the race. And then come two others in which, if I do not misunderstand them, woman is urged to take reason instead of revelation for her guide, make the present life instead of

the future the object of her care, and so escape from the subjugating influences of priestcraft and superstition. And yet all that woman has she owes to Christianity, and all that she has won has been won by the increasing power of this very gospel of self-sacrifice, which she is now called upon to reject. So fatuous and ruinous are counsels of those who prefer the light of an unsanctified reason to that which streams from the word of God. I am glad that Frederick Douglass had the judgment to point out that selfdevelopment and self-sacrifice are not inconsistent with each other. The Convention passed these resolutions, but they do not express the sentiments of the true friends of woman, they do not express the sentiments of true women themselves. Self-development through self-sacrifice, this is not only the law of woman's being,- it is the law of all being - ev even that of the Son of God,— and, when woman forgets it, she casts away her crown. Her true place and work is that of man's helper. This she may be in the married state, and doubtless here her highest work and most lasting influence reside. But, whether she be married or not, she still may in a most true sense be man's helper. With many holy ministries of counsel, of admonition, of invitation, of example, she may elevate, refine, purify, society; she may relieve distress, and stimulate to noble achievement; she may point the young and the old alike to Jesus her Savior. And here, in this spiritual help, the glory of every true woman lies. She can speak, when others words would not be heard. She can reach depths of the soul by the tones of her voice, and the modesty of her demeanor, and the clearness of her faith, which men cannot reach. Oh, let these powers be used for Christ, in the family, in the Sabbath school, in the social circle, and many of you, my sisters, may have the joy of welcoming sinners to the kingdom of God. "With works such as these❞— I quote from Adolph Monod's sermon on the Life of Woman-"with works such as these to do, are you jealous of still greater works reserved for others? Let me wake in you a holy jealousy,— let me lead you to appreciate the position in which God has placed you. Conform yourselves to his views, without a word of complaint or regret; and, putting away all ambitious views of change, cherish a joyful fidelity to your peculiar mission, and a heart which envies nothing but a more active charity and a more profound humility. Woman, in fine, whoever thou art and wherever thou art, take to thy heart this word: 'I will make for him an helpmeet,' and determine, without more delay, to justify the definition which God has given of thee!"

XLI.

WOMAN'S WORK IN MISSIONS.*

I should greatly feel the honor of addressing this assembly of Christian women, if I were not so deeply impressed with the responsibility. I have been awed as I have gone into the engine-room of an ocean steamer, and have looked at the lever which could unlock its sources of strength and set the great vessel moving on its way. That lever I should have hardly dared to touch. So I feel, as I stand before this Woman's Missionary Society. It is a solemn thing to influence, in any degree, the movement of these forces for good. I do not flatter myself that I can add to the wisdom of your counsels. I shall be content, if I can give to these earnest workers before me some new stimulus and hope. And this I can best do by speaking to you first of the great things which Christ has done for woman, and then of the great things which woman may do for Christ.

Think for a moment what woman was in ancient society, and what she is now in heathen lands, and you will see how much she owes to Christ. There was the general polygamy of the nations of the East, which made woman only the toy and slave of man, and which, while it degraded her intellect and depraved her heart, made true conjugal affection aud family peace impossible. Among the Greeks, though there was but one wife, the wife was still in a state of perpetual subjection. In Athens, she was allowed no true education or instruction; was.permitted only scant intercourse with her nearest relations, and even with her own husband,- lived indeed in a separate part of the house from him, and was dependent for her principal society upon her slaves. The husband found his advisers and confidants among educated courtesans, and these held an actually higher place in social esteem than the lawful wife. The wife was treated all her life long as a minor, the widowed mother, instead of being the guardian of her own children, herself fell to the guardianship of her eldest son. And, to crown the whole, the husband might put away his wife at will, and at any time take another younger, and fairer, and richer. In Rome, the stricter form of marriage put the wife completely at the mercy of the husband, giving him, as despot of the family, even the power of life and death. But this form of marriage had one advantage - it could not be easily dissolved. The commoner form was dissoluble upon the slightest pretexts. Caius Sulpicius Gallus divorced his wife because she had gone into the street without a vail. Cicero repudiated his first wife, in order to take a wealthier; and put away this second, because she was not sufficiently sorry for his daughter's death. Woman came to be so despised that the Censor Metellus, 170 years before

---

* An Address before the Annual Convention of the American Women's Baptist Missionary Society, delivered in the First Baptist Church, Rochester, April 18, 1883.