Woman loves liberty as well as man, and sometimes is not very particular as to the manner of obtaining it. She can either steal it or act hypocritically to obtain it. And some men can be wheedled out of their supposed sovereignty by presenting adulation to their self-esteem. Like

a child in the carriage, give him a part of the reins in his hand, and tell him he is driving, he conceits he is managing the whole concern.

We look with pity and disgust at the low artifice which women, in less civilized nations than our own, are compelled to resort to, in order to obtain a precarious ascendency over their absolute masters, their husbands. "In Persia, the mother instructs the daughter in all the voluptuous coquetry by which she herself acquired precarious ascendency over the absolute master, her husband."-(See Mrs. Childs' History of Women.) And the principles we are taught on this subject, in our enlightened country, are the same, modified by our high state of civilization, and are demoralizing in their tendencies-giving a kind of pseudo-worship to the creature, in order to obtain a pittance from his grace of those rights which a beneficent God has bestowed upon every individual alike in the human family. It is the duty of both husband and wife to concede. "Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity seeketh not her own." "Let the husband care for the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and also let the wife care for the things of the world, how she may please her husband."

As to the dignity of sex that Dr. Wayland claims for the male; if bone and muscle constitute the dignity of the sex, we will concede the dignity to our brethren; and, if they consider to be "angry and turbulent" is a premium bestowed on account of their animal structure, and adds to their dignity, we do not envy them their badge of distinction. But Solomon says, "He that hath no rule over his own spirit, is like a city that is broken down and without walls," and not she only, but he also. We think it rather a poor certificate for his qualifications to rule, when he cannot rule himself. We would suppose the sex in the aggregate, that is the truest transcript of Him who said, "Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly," has the dignity. Man has inflicted a great injury on himself by entertaining

the opinion that he is privileged to conduct in a manner that would be very unbecoming in woman. From whence come a greater part of our murders but from those angry, turbulent passions? Indeed, the very principle of the husband's authority over the wife is predicated on the idea of man's right to be self-willed and wise in his own conceit, and is a caterer of his angry passions.

We will now give another extract from Dr. Wayland, p. 312, on the duty which the marriage covenant imposes on both parties. He says, "The laws of marriage, both from scripture and reason, make the husband the head of the domestic society. Hence, when difference of opinion exists, (except as stated above, where a paramount obligation binds,) the decision of the husband is ultimate: hence, the duty of the wife is submission and obedience. The husband, however, has no more right than the wife to act unjustly, oppressively, or unkindly; nor is the fact of his possessing authority in the least an excuse for so acting. But as differences of opinion are always liable to exist, and as, in such case, one or the other party must yield, to avoid the greatest of all evils, in such a society-continual dissension-the duty of yielding devolves upon the wife; and it is to be remembered, that the act of submission is in every respect as dignified and as lovely as the act of authority: nay, more, it involves an element of virtue which does not belong to the other. It supposes neither superior excellence nor superior mind in the party which governs, but merely an official relation, held for the mutual good of both parties, and of their children. The teaching of scripture on this subject is explicit; see 1 Pet. iii. 1, 7, Campbell's translation. "Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands, that if any obey not the word, they also may, without the word, be won by the conversation of the wives; while they behold your chaste conversation united with respect. Whose adorning, let it not be that adorning of plaiting the hair and of wearing of gold, and of putting on of apparel; but let it be the inward disposition of the mind, which is not corruptible; even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with your wives according to knowledge, as with the weaker party; rendering respect to them, as heirs with you

of the grace of life.' That is, if I understand the passage, conduct towards them, as knowing that they are weak, that is, needing support and protection; and, at the same time, rendering them all that respect which is due to those who are as much as yourselves heirs to a blessed immortality. A more beautiful exhibition of the duties of the marriage relation cannot be imagined."

Well, we must say that Dr. Wayland has adopted a pretty good expedient to prevent dissension, to prevent two individuals from falling out, to destroy one of the parties, and the weakest one too, from whom nothing was to be dreaded. But does he suppose any one will part with life without a struggle? We believe this very principle has been the prolific source of the greatest part of all the broils and contentions that have taken place in families. Human nature is not so constituted as to possess arbitrary authority over an equal, without abusing it. Nor can human beings be comfortable, when at mature judgment, under absolute submission and obedience. Man was not born to command, nor woman to obey.

"If I was born a lordling's slave,

By nature's law designed;

Why was an independent thought
E'er planted in my mind?"

So, it seems, the wife constitutes no part of the sovereignty of the domestic society; she herself is as low a subordinate as any member of the society,—as low as the child in the lowest stage of minority, or even a slave. A hired servant would surely not put himself under the yoke of obedience and submission to his employer's will, in every thing which did not "appertain to the conscience." The wife has no more authority in this society, according to Dr. W., than Prince Albert has in the government of Great Britain. Has not Dr. Wayland separated what God hath joined together? So far as husband and wife are concerned, they are declared one; and no one member of the body, can act separately and apart from the rest. "The head cannot say to the feet, I have no need of thee." Sever it from the body, and a few gasps would end its existence. We must always keep in view, that it is the individual human system which is made the figure of husband and wife united;

and the functions-which each member exercises in the physical organization that is spoken of,—not our intellectual or moral faculties. This sovereign head is a monster in creation, a being all head, without heart, lungs, or limbs. He is not of the family which the apostle speaks of. That body gives more abundant honour to that part which we think less honourable-"that there should be no schism in the body," 1 Cor. xii., but that all the members should be equal. This head is an arrogant schismatic.

The human system is a democracy, none of the members are absolute sovereigns over the rest, they all have a voice in what concerns their own interest-you deserve, would-be sovereign head, to be called before their tribunal, charged with usurpation and tyranny-you have offended the body whom you should delight to honour, and you justly deserve the infliction of a penalty-"If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out." Your body is weak and defenceless, and not able to resist your oppression. But remember, God will call you to judgment, for the manner in which you deal with your associate,-"for she is thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant," Mal. ii. 14. She is your companion, your equal, not your vassal. Companions take sweet counsel together; they do not rule one another. Your duty is to love, nourish, and cherish her. Husband and wife united are the head of the domestic society; but the husband's relation as head to the wife is of a very different nature to the relation that they sustain to the family as heads. The family is not their bodies; children do not stand in the relation of bodies to their parents. There is no other relation on earth that can be compared to husband and wife: so far as that relation is concerned, they form but one individual. And although husband and wife constitute but one in that relation, mystically one, yet they both retain their individuality. The wife is no more merged in the husband than the husband is in the wife, she still retains her individuality, she still remains the immutable woman, owing duties to God in that character, the same as before marriage. Marriage creates new duties, but obliterates none,-hence it can divest of no rights. What say the fourth and fifth precept of the decalogue? There is no mistake here; these prescribe the duties of heads. of families, and are dedicated to both husband and wife.

Are these to be nullified, to keep the husband in temper, or is the husband's temper to be governed by them? "I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say." We cannot see a scintilla of difference in Dr. Wayland's description of the wife's duty and the slave's as to submission and obedience, there is evidently a little more caution used, in expressing the wife's duty, than the slave's; it is not so plainly expressed. Perhaps he thought it would not look well on paper. Lest we misapprehend Dr. W., we will give an extract from the chapter which treats on slavery. He says, "the duty of slaves is also explicitly made known in the Bible. They are bound to obedience, fidelity, submission, and respect to their masters, not only to the good and kind, but also to the unkind and froward; not, however, on the ground of duty to men, but on the ground of duty to God. This obligation extends to every thing, but matters of conscience. When a master commands a slave to do wrong, the slave ought not to obey. The Bible does not, as I suppose, authorize resistance to injury; but it commands us to refuse obedience in such a case, and suffer the consequences, looking to God alone, to whom vengeance belongeth. Acting upon these principles, the slave may attain to the highest grade of virtue, and may exhibit a sublimity and purity of moral character, which in the condition of the master, is absolutely unattainable." We have already given the extract in relation to the wife's duty, as to submission and obedience. But for the purpose of comparing the wife's duty with the slave's, as to submission and obedience, we will again give the extract which treats of this. He says, "The law of marriage, both from scripture and from reason, makes the husband the head of the domestic society. Hence, when difference of opinion exists, (except, as stated above, where a paramount obligation binds) the decision of the husband ist ultimate. Hence the duty of the wife is submission and obedience. The husband, however, has no more right than the wife to act unjustly, oppressively, or unkindly; nor is the fact of his possessing authority, in the least an excuse for so acting. But as differences of opinion are always liable to exist, and as, in such case, one or the other party must yield, to avoid the greatest of all evils in such a society,—continual dissension, the duty of yielding devolves upon the wife.