Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

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 their children. The teaching of scripture on this subject is explicit."

Now, the wife's duty as to submission and obedience is to extend to all things, ("except as stated above, where paramount obligation binds.")

Here let us inquire into this paramount obligation: on page 308, in speaking of what neither of the parties in the marriage contract surrenders, he says, "Neither party surrenders to the other any control over any thing appertaining to the conscience," and assigns reasons for it. We have previously given the extract in full.

Now, it may be from the obtuseness of our mental faculties, but we really cannot see the difference between the wife's duties and the slave's, as to submission and obedience. He says, That "the slave's obligation to obedience extends to every thing but matters of conscience" and adds, That "the duty of the wife is submission and obedience, except, as stated above, where a paramount obligation binds," and we find that obligation is, "what appertains to the conscience." Now, the woman is placed in no authority in the domestic society according to Dr. W., and consequently she has no duty to perform in that society, "appertaining to the conscience," except obedience to her husband. She has a negative, provided he commands her to do any thing inconsistent with the dictates of her conscience, but no positive authority whatever. She has not free agency; she has not the authority of her own physical organization, except so much as 66 appertains to her conscience." He only talks of the husband interposing his authority when they cannot agree. On these terms a person might live with the emperor of Morocco, the greatest despot in the world, as long as you act according to his pleasure-his will is the constitution and laws of the country; and the husband's is the same. We see one very essential point of difference between the ground of the wife's submission and obedience and the slave's, ac

cording to Dr. W. The slave renders obedience on the ground of duty to God, not on the ground of duty to man. But the wife renders submission and obedience to the husband on the ground of her duty to man; that is, it flows from their respective relations: hence the husband's duty, in the exercise of authority, must correspond with the wife's duty as to submission and obedience: but not so with the slaveholder.

Now, we think Dr. Wayland has given us explicit teaching on this question, in language that cannot be easily misunderstood, where scripture has failed. We here have the duty of husband and wife portrayed with perspicuity. We complained that Dr. Paley is too indefinite. He is of the opinion that a wife is entitled to so much of her rights as would not entirely divest her of her pursuit of happiness. This gave her a claim to authority in the family, which might be very troublesome, and it gave him trouble to apportion duties of children to their parents. He says, "in a competition of commands between father and mother, the father is to be obeyed."

We will take the liberty to supply Dr. Paley with a text in proof of this:-"The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it," Prov. xxx. 17. Where, in the word of God, is provision made for competition in the commands of father and mother? Where God is silent, it ill becomes man to dictate. A competition. of commands between father and mother would be calculated to engender disobedience to both. Now Dr. W. has none of this trouble, as he divests the woman of all authority in the domestic society; consequently there can be no competition of authoritative commands between father and mother. A person will certainly not profess to have authority over another in a society, when they have none over themselves. Her duty is "submission and obedience" to every thing that does not "appertain to the conscience."

Dr. Wayland says his opinion of personal liberty is "in strict accordance with the memorable sentence in the declaration of independence: "We hold these truths to be selfevident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that

among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," page 207. Now, if this is true, if a violation of these rights be allowed in a small degree, why not in a great degree? Where will the limit be fixed, and if he may interfere with one right, why not with all? Dr. W. has divested the wife of every right in the domestic society except the right to life, and to be obedient and submissive to her husband; and he has just as good a right to do that, as Dr. Paley had to take the principal part of her rights. How magnanimous are our republicans!! Dr. Wayland sends the wife a begging to the husband, to obtain some privileges through his grace, which she has to obtain by concession. We have said, that we could not see any difference between the wife and the slave, as to obedience and submission.

As it respects the elements of virtue, which are not attainable in the exercise of authority, Dr. W. places the husband and slave-holder precisely in the same category. He places both the slave and the wife in a more exalted position, as it regards virtue, than he does either the slave-holder or the husband. See the above extracts. No doubt of this; the situation in which the wife is placed, makes her quite the superior-she is represented as exercising more than the meekness of a Moses, a complete non-resistant. “What thou bidst, unargued, I obey." And the husband exercising the arbitrary sway of the Sultan, without any view to his qualifications. "It supposes neither superior excellence, nor superior mind," and for what reason? Why, merely to keep him in temper. She is represented to the world, to angels and men, à conspicuous spectacle of moral sublimity. Patience under sufferings ennobles every great character. She is also incomparably the greatest ruler of the two. "He that ruleth his own spirit, is better than he that taketh a city;" the husband hath not taken a city, he has only subdued a poor fragile woman to his will.

Since our brethren are disposed to make such a distinction, from the inmost recesses of our heart we thank them for our position. It certainly is a wise choice to select the one which involves the most elements of virtue. "Blessed are the peace-makers, for they shall be called the children of God." "Envy thou not the oppressor, and choose none of his ways," Prov. iii. 31. Yes, the wife is a conspicuous.

spectacle of moral sublimity, if in the way of her duty; according to our moral and theological teachings, she lives a life of crucifixion. Woman has a love of liberty as well as man-the love of liberty is inseparable from accountability: she has the same attributes as man, and has the same desire for their exercise,-she has "an understanding by which truth is discovered, and by which means are adapted to their appropriate ends-passions and desires by which she is excited to action, and in the gratification of which her happiness consists-conscience to point out the limit within which these desires may be rightfully gratified, and a will which determines her to action. The possession of these is necessary to human nature, and it also renders every being so constituted a distinct and independent individual. She may need society, but every one needs it equally with every other one, and hence all enter into it on terms of strict and evident reciprocity." Wayland's Moral Science, page 202,-on the nature of personal liberty. We have substituted she for he, as we suppose woman is a person, it makes no difference. How the Dr. reconciles the opinions advanced in this extract with what he has advanced in respect to the duty of a wife, we cannot devise, without supposing her not a person, but a thing.

We will make few more extracts from Dr. W., on the duty of reciprocity. He says, "We find all men possessed of the same appetites and passions, that is, of the same desire for external objects, and the same capacity for receiving happiness from the gratification of these desires, ***** and hence we see that the relation in which human beings stand to each other, is the following: every individual is created with a desire to use the means of happiness which God has given him in such a manner as he thinks will best promote that happiness; and of this matter he is the sole judge. Every individual is endowed with the same desires which he may gratify, in such a manner as will not interfere with his neighbour's means of happiness; but each individual has, also, the physical power of so gratifying his desires, as will interfere with the means of happiness which God has granted to his neighbour. From this relation it is manifest that every man is under obligation to pursue his own happiness in such a manner only, as will leave his

neighbour in the undisturbed exercise of that common right which the Creator has equally conferred upon both; because in no other manner can the evident design of the Creator, the common happiness of all, be promoted. That this is the law of our being, may be shown from several considerations; 1st, by violating it, the happiness of the aggressor is not increased, while that of the sufferer is diminished! While, by obeying it, the greatest amount of happiness of which our condition is susceptible, is secured; because by obeying it every one derives the greatest possible advantage from the gifts bestowed upon him by the Creator."

Now let us apply this test to the case of husband and wife. By depriving the wife of her rights in the domestic society, the happiness of the husband is not increased, but lays a responsibility on him that he is wholly unable to meet; and the happiness of the wife is diminished. She is painfully conscious of injury, because her instinctive desire of liberty is interfered with. Whereas, by giving her the exercise of her rights, the greatest amount of happiness of which their condition is susceptible is secured; because both would enjoy their rights, the happiness of both will be increased by enjoying them in common; and by giving her the exercise of her rights, each one will derive the greatest possible advantage from the gifts bestowed upon them by the Creator. They both will have the due use of their intellectual faculties, and be sustained in the exercise of the Christian graces. There is no "element of virtue" excluded by this regulation.

Another extract: "If it be said that one class of men is not under obligation to observe this rule (reciprocity) in its conduct towards another class of men, then it will be necessary to show that the second class are not men, that is, human beings; for these principles apply to men, as men; and the simple fact that a being is a man, places him within the reach of these obligations, and of their protection.". (But a woman is not a human being, but an automaton, hence she is beyond the reach of these obligations;) "and lastly, if it be true that the Creator has given to every separate individual control over those means of happiness which He has bestowed upon him, then the simple question is, which is of the highest authority, this grant of the Creator, or the desires

« FöregåendeFortsätt »