instrument of writing, purporting to be directions, and a commission put into the hand of an individual, to invest him with the kingly authority that Christ has over the church, without the bare mention of the exercise of one function, belonging to the kingly authority. The priestly office is alluded to twice, but no allusion to the kingly, "He is the saviour of the body," "as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it." Now, what is the reason our brethren do not arrogate to themselves the priestly office of Christ? They have as much scripture authority for that, as for the kingly. Will the husband try the priestly, atone for the wife's sins and suffer for her guilt? Christ's offices cannot be divided; if the husband is the wife's king, he must also be her priest. We would have supposed the husband's commission should have read thus: husbands, rule over and legislate for your wives, as Christ rules over and legislates for the church "in every thing." But not a word of this. What! the husband invested with the kingly authority, whilst it is left optional with him whether he will exercise it or not! Most preposterous! To what is the wife to be subject? Why, for him to love, nourish, and cherish her, as the Lord the church. This is the end for which she is to be subject. Her subjection must be commensurate with his duty. Husbands are directed to love their wives, even as Christ loved the church, of which he gave the strongest evidence, when he gave himself for it. So ought husbands to spend, and be spent for the good of their wives. Christ also gave the church the means of sanctification, or spiritual food; that she may appear in due time a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing. Christ honours and glorifies the church. He is pleased when she looks "fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners." The husband should sustain the wife's authority in the family. So ought husbands to honour their wives, and as much as in their power provide them with every necessary good thing. The wife may be very unlovely, yet as God has constituted her the husband's body, he is to love, nourish, and cherish her, as he does his own flesh,--notwithstanding it may be even loathsome: thus does Christ with all the mystical members of his body, both in their individual and associate capacity. The church has been a very undutiful and ungrateful spouse to

Christ, nevertheless he still continues to love, nourish, and cherish her.

We are not left here to conjecture in what character Christ represents himself. It is in his mystical character, in which, as we said before, he gives no laws, but manifests himself, as nourisher and cherisher; in like manner is the husband to nourish and cherish the wife. Blessed be God for this arrangement. He has constituted the woman weak and fragile, in her physical organization, compared with man. But the special reason is, she has a work assigned her which nature has not qualified the man to perform, on which depends the continuation of our species, which constitutes her an object of commiseration and sympathy, and renders her incapable of supporting herself. And for this purpose God appoints him nourisher and cherisher, and, that he may do it with cheerfulness and love, he constitutes her his own body. To which nourishing and cherishing she is to submit with cheerfulness and thankfulness. This violates none of her duties to herself, to her fellow man, or to God. And it infringes none of her husband's duties or rights, and imposes no burden on him, that he is inadequate to perform, in an ordinary state of health and capacity, with her proper co-operation. This duty might a Nabal render to an Abigail.

It requires no amount of superior intellect—it gives full scope for all the Christian gifts and graces. We have been asked by clergymen, if we did not hate this portion of scripture, in consequence of the opinion we hold on this question. We replied, that we loved all God's word, but this was one portion, among others, for which we had a peculiar regard— this portion of scripture points out the husband's duty definitely and the wife's corresponding obedience; and shows he has no authority to rule over the wife, for he is to love her as himself. He is to rule her no more than he would wish to be ruled, were their situations reversed. None but Divine wisdom could have devised a figure so well calculated to represent the endearing bonds that exist between husband and wife, or a figure that so strikingly represents the husband bearing the wife's griefs, and carrying her sorrows, and vice versa, as does this beautiful portion of scripture. If the most distant extremity experience pain, it is immediately communicated to the head. Or if one member of the body suffers

pain, of any kind, all the other members feel its poignancy, and suffer with it.

Nay! say our republicans, "she resigns her liberty as a small recompense for his support and protection;" that is, like Esau, she sells her birthright inheritance for a mess of pottage. No, she cannot alienate her liberty, for the plain reason that the duties it imposes are unchangeable. And if she could sell her liberty, she would be giving what would not enrich him, and make her poor indeed. His happiness is as much enhanced by union with her, as her happiness is enhanced by union with him. Her inability to support herself is, in a great measure, in consequence of her relation to him. From the present arrangements of society, men generally have monopolized every lucrative as well as honourable employment, and men receive double remuneration for the same amount and same kind of labour; and in consequence women have it not in their power to accumulate wealth as men. Notwithstanding all the disability they labour under, there are many women who support themselves genteelly, and even accumulate wealth. And as to man's moral improvement, he is certainly as much the gainer as is the woman, with all his boasted superiority. Criminal calenders show a great diminution of crime in married men, compared with unmarried.

We think, if our brethren would consider the awful responsibility they assume, by placing themselves on Christ's throne in the family, and wielding his sceptre over an accountable immortal being, perhaps with superior moral and intellectual endowments to themselves, they would shudder at the idea; but the responsibility is never taken into view. The light manner in which this subject is treated, even by those who are the greatest devotees of the husband's kingly authority, is really surprising: they merely make it a matter of jest! There is nothing more common, particularly at our marriage celebrations, than to hear even the minister himself cracking his jokes, about the husband's authority, and the wife's obedience! Is it a matter of joke for a man to be inducted into the kingly office of Christ over his fellow traveller to an endless eternity? "They should be serious, in a serious cause."

We hear of no such jests made about the obedience of

children to parents, or obedience to civil rulers, or ministers of the gospel. Now, none of the preceding wields such a sceptre as does the husband. Why is it made a matter of jest? Is it because it is too ludicrous to be treated with seriousness? It really appears so. What adds to the husband's responsibility is, the extreme intricacy with which his authority is involved. If he is to rule, he has no precept, nor example, to direct him how he is to rule his wife, or that he is to rule her at all: ruling his wife is never mentioned as one of his duties.

It is a remarkable truth, although the husband is represented to be such an absolute monarch, even in the nineteenth century, when human liberty is so well understood, and his authority professedly founded on God's word, that there is not one example in scripture, that is, an approved scripture example, of husbands commanding their wives.

Husbands solicited their wives in a respectful manner when they wished them to perform any thing,-such as, "I pray thee," Gen. xii. 13; 1 Kings xiv. 2:—in the same manner the wife accosted the husband, 2 Kings iv. 10-22. We have heard one example brought forward, and delivered from Moses' seat, of Abraham commanding Sarah to bake cakes, for some strangers who were to eat bread with him, Gen. xviii. 6. Now, it seems to us, that they were much pressed for testimony, having the history of a dynasty of absolute sovereigns for a period of nearly four thousand years; and not a word of one of them issuing a law or a command, except one telling his wife to bake cakes! Well, if we admit of this as a command, we will just balance accounts, by referring the reader to ch. xxi. 10, where Sarah gave Abraham a command, which directly proves our position, of the equality of authority, though her cominand was of a little more importance than baking cakes!

We have said that there is not one approved scripture example, of husbands commanding, or giving a law. Ahasuerus did command Vashti, Esther i. 10, 11; but we deny that it is an approved scripture example. It was an indecent immodest command, of an eastern despot, a heathen debauchee. Ahasuerus did issue a decree, suggested by Memucan, "that every man was to bear rule in his own house," Esther i. 22; but we deny that Memucan, or Ahasuerus, had any

authority to reveal God's will, or was any way inspired by God, or that he had even the inspiration of Balaam's ass; although Mr. Henry quotes this portion, as a proof of every man ruling his own house.

When he is commenting on Prov. xiv. 1, "Every wise woman buildeth her house," &c., he tries to prove, that “it is hers to take care of, but her husband's to rule over." Many a southern slave takes care of her master's house. And we have heard others quoting this portion as Divinely inspired!! as a rule of conduct for us. They might, with equal propriety, when in want of a wife, order in all the fair young virgins in their region of country, and shut them up in a seraglio, in order to make a selection, as did Ahasuerus, by the advice of his counsel. That Ahasuerus or Memucan did not deliver the oracles of God is evident-it is manifest there was no light in them, because they did not speak according to the law and testimony. The law of God had placed the woman, by statute, as a ruler in the house, indirectly in the fourth, and directly in the fifth precept of the decalogue, and that they did not speak according to the oracles of God is further proved, because that Vashti was divorced for a reason that was never authorized by God. Moses did suffer them to put away their wives, but was it because he wished "every man to bear rule in his own house?" No, that greatest of commentators, the Lord Jesus Christ, tells us that because of "the hardness of their hearts, Moses suffered them to put away their wives," Matt. xix. 8: it was for the protection of the wife; and that hard-hearted people the Jews, were severely rebuked for their deed of treachery to their wives, and were told, that the Lord God of Israel hated putting away, Mal. ii. 14, 16, excepting for a breach of the marriage contract. Matt. xix. 9. God never sanctioned putting away, but hated it, excepting in the case specified above. So it is past controversy, that Memucan and Ahasuerus did not speak by the authority of God, and their decrees are no rule of action for us. We do not go to the heathen statute-book, for our Christian ethics.

But the story is not all told,-what is the sequel? Did every man in the realm, subsequent to this edict, bear rule in his own house? No, Ahasuerus himself violated his own edict, and Esther the queen, did not only rule in a family