All quotation marks, hyphens, dashes, apostrophes and
colons have been transcribed as entity references.
All apostrophes and single right quotation marks are encoded as
’.
Any hyphens occurring in line breaks have been removed; all hyphens are
encoded as ‐ and em dashes as —.
All quoted sections that are italicized in the original are enclosed in
<q>; all other quoted sections are transcribed without encoding. All
text encoded as <emph> is to be rendered in italics unless specified
in the "rend" attribute. All names that appear in all caps are
enclosed in <name>.
The list of pamphlets following p. 23 has been omitted.
By
(preface)
In this edition all the controversial portions have been expunged, some
new matter added, and the whole produced in a cheaper form, and thus, I
trust, rendered better adapted for general circulation.
Our only object in this issue is the elicitation of the truth. We hold
that error can in the end be profitable to no cause, and least of all to
the cause of Christ. If therefore we were not fully satisfied as to the
correctness of the views herein set forth, we should fear to subject them
to the light ; and if we did not deem them of vast importance to the
interests of Christ's kingdom, we should prefer to hold them in
silence. Believing however that they will bear the strictest
investigation, and that their importance cannot easily be
over-estimated, we feel bound to propagate them to the utmost of our
ability.
In this paper we shall endeavour to meet the most common objections to
female ministry, and to present, as far as our space will permit, a
thorough examination of the texts generally produced in support of these
objections. May the great Head of the Church grant the light of His Holy
Spirit to both writer and reader.
and moral pursuits, we must be allowed to claim the same privilege for woman ; nor can we see the exception more unnatural in the one case than the other, or why God in this solitary instance has endowed a being with powers which He never intended her to employ.
There seems to be a great deal of unnecessary fear of women occupying
any position which involves publicity, lest she should be rendered
unfeminine by the indulgence of ambition or vanity ; but why should woman
any more than man be charged with ambition when impelled to use her talents
for the good of her race. Moreover, as a labourer in the
GOSPEL her position is much higher than in
any other public capacity; she is at once shielded from all coarse and
unrefined influences and associations; her very vocation tending to exalt
and refine all the tenderest and most womanly instincts of her nature. As
a matter of fact it is well known to those who have had opportunities of
observing the private character and deportment of women engaged in
preaching the gospel, that they have been amongst the most amiable,
self-sacrificing, and unobtrusive of their sex.
"We well know," says the late Mr. Gurney, a minister of the
Society of Friends, "that there are no women among us more generally
distinguished for modesty, gentleness, order, and right submission to their
brethren, than those who have been called by their Divine Master into the
exercise of the Christian ministry."
Who would dare to charge the sainted Madame Guyon, Lady Maxwell, the
talented mother of the Wesleys, Mrs. Fletcher, Mrs. Elizabeth Fry, Mrs.
Smith, Mrs. Whiteman, or Miss Marsh with being unwomanly or ambitious.
Some of these ladies we know have adorned by their private virtues the
highest ranks of society, and won alike from friends and enemies the
highest eulogiums as to the devotedness, purity, and sweetness of their
lives. Yet these were all more or less public women, every one of them
expounding and exhorting from the Scriptures to mixed companies of men and
women. Ambitious doubtless they were; but theirs was an ambition akin to
His, who, for the "joy that was set before Him, endured the cross,
despising the shame:" and to his, who counted all things but
dung and dross, and was willing to be regarded as the off-scouring
of all things that he might win souls to Jesus and bring glory to God.
Would that all the Lord's people had more of this ambition.
Well, but, say our objecting friends, how is it that these whose names
you mention, and many others, should venture to preach when female ministry
is forbidden in the word of God? This is by far the most
serious objection which we have to consider--and if capable of
substantiation, should receive our immediate and cheerful acquiescence; but
we
think that we shall be able to show, by a fair and consistent interpretation, that the very opposite view is the truth. That not only is the public ministry of woman unforbidden, but absolutely enjoined by both precept and example in the word of God.
And, first, we will select the most prominent and explicit passages of
the New Testament referring to the subject, beginning with 1 Corinthians
xi. 1-15: "Every man praying or prophesying, having his
head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or
prophesieth with her head uncovered, dishonoureth her head: for that
is all one as if she were shaven," etc. "The character,"
says a talented writer, "of the prophesying here referred to by the
apostle is defined 1 Corinthians xiv. 3, 4, and 31st verses. The reader
will see that it was directed to the 'edification, exhortation, and
comfort of believers;' and the result anticipated was the conviction
of unbelievers and unlearned persons. Such were the public services of
women which the apostle allowed, and such was the ministry of females
predicted by the prophet Joel, and described as a leading feature of the
gospel dispensation. Women who speak in assemblies for worship, under the
influence of the Holy Spirit, assume thereby no personal authority over
others; they simply deliver the messages of the gospel, which imply
obedience, subjection, and responsibility, rather than authority and
power." Dr. A. Clarke, on this verse, says, "Whatever may be
the meaning of praying and prophesying in respect to the man, they have
precisely the same meaning in respect to the woman! So that some women at
least, as well as some men, might speak to others to edification,
exhortation, and comfort. And this kind of prophesying or teaching was
predicted by Joel ii. 28, and referred to by Peter (Acts ii. 17). And, had
there not been such gifts bestowed on woman, the prophecy could not have
had its fulfilment. The only difference marked by the apostle was, the man
had his head uncovered, because he was the representative of Christ:
the woman had hers covered, because she was placed by the order of God in
subjection to the man; and because it was the custom both among Greeks and
Romans, and among the Jews an express law, that no woman
should be seen abroad without a veil. This was and is a custom through all
the East, and none but public prostitutes go without veils; if a woman
should appear in public without a veil, she would dishonour her
head--her husband. And she must appear like to those women who
have their hair shaven off as the punishment of adultery." See also
Doddridge, Whitby, and Cobbin.
We think that the view above given is the only fair and
common-sense interpretation of this passage. If Paul does
not here recognise the fact that women did actually pray and prophesy in the primitive Churches, his language has no meaning at all; and if he does not recognise their right to do so by dictating the proprieties of their appearance while so engaged, we leave to objectors the task of educing any sense whatever from his language. If, according to the logic of Dr. Barnes, the apostle here, in arguing against an improper and indecorous mode of performance, forbids the performance itself, the prohibition extends to the men as well as to the women; for Paul as expressly reprehends a man praying with his head covered as he does a woman with hers uncovered. With as much force might the doctor assert that in reproving the same Church for their improper celebration of the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. xi. 20, 21), Paul prohibits all Christians, in every age, celebrating it at all. "The question with the Corinthians was not whether or not the women should pray or prophesy at all, that question had been settled on the day of Pentecost; but whether, as a matter of convenience, they might do so without their veils." The apostle kindly and clearly explains that by the law of nature and of society it would be improper to uncover her head while engaged in acts of public worship. We think that the reflections cast on these women by Dr. Barnes and other commentators are quite gratuitous and uncalled for. Here is no intimation that they ever had uncovered their heads while so engaged; the fairest presumption is that they had not, nor ever would till they knew the apostle's mind on the subject. We have precisely the same evidence that the men prayed and preached with their hats on, as that women removed their veils, and wore their hair dishevelled, which is simply none at all. We cannot but regard it as a signal evidence of the power of prejudice, that a man of Dr. Barnes's general clearness and acumen should condescend to treat this passage in the manner he does. The doctor evidently feels the untenableness of his position; and endeavours, by muddling two passages of distinct and different bearing, to annihilate the argument fairly deducible from the first. We would like to ask the doctor on what authority he makes such an exception as to the following: "But this cannot be interpreted as meaning that it is improper for females to speak or to pray in meetings of their own sex." Indeed! but according to the most reliable statistics we possess, two-thirds of the whole Church is, and always has been, composed of their own sex. If, then, no rule of the New Testament is more positive than this, viz. that women are to keep silence in the Churches, on whose authority does the doctor license them to speak to by far the larger portion of the Church.
A barrister writing us on the above passage, says "Paul
here takes for granted that women were in the habit of praying and prophesying; he expresses no surprise nor utters a syllable of censure, he was only anxious that they should not provoke unnecessary obloquy by laying aside their customary head-dress or departing from the dress which was indicative of modesty in the country in which they lived. This passage seems to prove beyond the possibility of dispute that in the early times women were permitted to speak to the "edification and comfort" of Christians, and that the Lord graciously endowed them with grace and gifts for this service. What He did then may He not be doing now? It seems truly astonishing that Bible students, with the second chapter of the Acts before them, should not see that an imperative decree has gone forth from God, the execution of which women cannot escape; whether they like or not, they 'shall' prophesy throughout the whole course of this dispensation; and they have been doing so, though they and their blessed labours are not much noticed."
Well, but say our objecting friends, hear what Paul says in another
place:--"Let your women keep silence in the Churches, for
it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under
obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will
learn* anything, let
them ask their husbands at home; for it is a shame for women to speak in
the Church" (1 Cor. xiv. 34, 35). Now let it be borne in mind this
is the same apostle, writing to the same Church, as in the above instance.
Will any one maintain that Paul here refers to the same kind of speaking as
before? If so, we insist on his supplying us with some rule of
interpretation which will harmonize this unparalleled contradiction and
absurdity. Taking the simple and common-sense view of the two
passages, viz. that one refers to the devotional and religious exercises in
the Church, and the other to inconvenient asking of questions, and
imprudent or ignorant talking, there is no contradiction or discrepancy, no
straining or twisting of either. If, on the other hand, we assume that the
apostle refers in both instances to the same thing, we make him in one page
give the most explicit directions how a thing shall be performed, which in
a page or two further on, and writing to the same Church, he
expressly forbids being performed at all. We admit that "it
is a shame for women to speak in the Church," in the
sense here intended by the
___________________* "Learning
anything by asking their husbands at home," cannot mean
preaching. That is not learning, but teaching
"the way of God." It cannot mean being inspired by the Holy
Ghost to foretell future events. No woman having either taught or
prophesied, would have to ask her husband at home before she knew what she
had done, or understood what she had said. Such women would be only fit to
"learn in silence with all subjection." The reference is
evidently to subjects under debate.
Page 8
apostle; but before the argument based on these words can be deemed of any worth, objectors must prove that the "speaking" here is synonymous with that, concerning that manner of which the apostle legislates in 1 Corinthians xi. Dr. A. Clarke, on this passage, says, "according to the prediction of Joel, the Spirit of God was to be poured out on the women as well as the men, that they might prophesy, that is teach. And that they did prophesy or teach is evident from what the apostle says (1 Cor. xi.), where he lays down rules to regulate this part of their conduct while ministering in the Church. All that the apostle opposes here is their questioning, finding fault, disputing, etc., in the Christian Church, as the Jewish men were permitted to do in their synagogues (see Luke ii. 46); together with attempts to usurp authority over men by setting up their judgment in opposition to them; for the apostle has reference to acts of disobedience and arrogance, of which no woman would be guilty who was under the influence of the Spirit of God."
The Rev. J. H. Robinson, writing on this passage, remarks:
"The silence imposed here must be explained by the verb, to speak
(lalein), used
afterwards. Whatever that verb means in this verse, I admit and believe
the women were forbidden to do in the Church. But what does
it mean ? It is used nearly three hundred times in the New Testament, and
scarcely any verb is used with so great a variety of adjuncts. In
Schleusner's Lexicon, its meaning is traced under
seventeen distinct heads, and he occupies two
full pages of the book in explaining it. Among other meanings he gives
respondeo, rationem reddo,
præcipio, jubeo; I answer, I return a reason, I give rule
or precept, I order, decree." In
Robinson's Lexicon (Bloomfield's
edition), two pages nearly are occupied with the explanation of this word;
and he gives instances of its meaning, "as modified by the
context, where the sense lies, not so much in
lalein
(lalein) as in the
adjuncts." THE PASSAGE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS
ONE OF THOSE TO WHICH HE REFERS AS BEING SO "MODIFIED BY THE
CONTEXT." Greenfield gives, with others, the
following meanings of the word: "to prattle--be
loquacious as a child; to speak in answer--to answer, as in
John xix. 10; harangue. plead, Acts ix. 29.; xxi. To
direct, command, Acts iii. 22." In
Liddel and Scott's Lexicon, the following
meanings are given: "to chatter, babble; of
birds, to twitter, chirp; strictly, to make an
inarticulate sound, opposed to articulate speech; but also
generally, to talk, say."
"It is clear then that
lalein may mean
something different from mere speaking, and that to use this word in a
prohibition does not imply that absolute silence or abstinence from
speaking is enjoined; but, on the contrary, that the prohibition applies
to an improper kind of speaking, which
is to be understood, not from the word itself, but, as Mr. Robinson says, from 'the context.' Now, 'the context' shows that it was not silence which was imposed upon women in the Church, but only a refraining from such speaking as was inconsistent with the words, 'they are commanded to be under obedience,' or, more literally, 'to be obedient:' that is, they were to refrain from such questionings, dogmatical assertions, and disputations, as would bring them into collision with the men--as would ruffle their tempers, and occasion an unamiable volubility of speech. This kind of speaking, and this alone, as it appears to me, was forbidden by the apostle in the passage before us. This kind of speaking was the only supposable antagonist to, and violation of 'obedience.' Absolute silence was not essential to that 'obedience.' My studies in 'Biblical criticism,' etc., have not informed me that a woman must cease to speak before she can obey; and I am therefore led to the irresistible conclusion, that it is not all speaking in the Church which the apostle forbids, and which he pronounces to be shameful; but, on the contrary, a pertinacious, inquisitive, domineering, dogmatical kind of speaking, which, while it is unbecoming in a man, is shameful and odious in a woman, and especially when that woman is in the Church, and is speaking on the deep things of religion."
Parkhurst, in his lexicon, tells us that the Greek word
"'lalein,' which our translation renders speak, is
not the word used in Greek to signify to speak with
premeditation and prudence, but is the word used to signify to speak
imprudently and without consideration, and is that applied to one who lets
his tongue run but does not speak to the purpose, but says nothing."
Now unless Parkhurst is utterly wrong in his Greek, which it is apprehended
no one will venture to affirm, Paul's fulmination is not launched
against speech with premeditation and prudence, but against speech devoid
of these qualities. It would be well if all speakers of the male as well
as the female sex were obedient to this rule.
We think that with the light cast on this text by the four eminent Greek
scholars above quoted, there can be no doubt in any unprejudiced mind as to
the true meaning of "lalein" in this connection. And we find
from Church history that the primitive Christians thus understood it, for
that women did actually speak and preach amongst them we have indisputable
proof. God had promised in the last days to pour out His Spirit upon all
flesh, and that the daughters as well as the sons of mankind
should prophesy.
And Peter says most emphatically, respecting the outpouring of the
Spirit on the day of Pentecost, "This is that which is
spoken of by the prophet Joel," etc. (Acts ii. 16, 18.)
Words more explicit, and an application of Prophecy more direct than this does not occur within the range of the New Testament.
Commentators say, "If women have the gift of prophecy, they must
not use that gift in public." But God
says, by His prophet Joel, they shall use it, just in the same
sense as the sons use it. When the dictation of men so flatly opposes the
express declaration of the "sure word of prophecy," we make no
apology for its utter and indignant rejection.
Presbuteros, a talented writer of the Protestant Electoral Union, in his
reply to a priest of
Rome,*
says:--
"Habituated for ages, as men had been, to the diabolical teaching
and delusions practiced upon them by the papal 'priesthood,' it
was difficult for them, when they did get possession of the Scriptures, to
discern therein the plain fact, that among the primitive Christians
preaching was not confined to men, but women also, gifted with power by the
Holy Spirit, preached the gospel; and hence the slowness with which, even
at the present time, this truth has been admitted by those giving heed to
the word of God, and especially those setting themselves up as a
'priesthood' or a 'clergy.' As shown in page 66,
God had, according to His promise, on the day of Pentecost poured out his
Holy Spirit upon believers--men and women, old and young--that
they should prophesy, and they did so. The
prophesying spoken of was not the foretelling of events, but the
preaching to the world at large the glad tidings of salvation
by Jesus Christ. For this purpose it pleased God to make use of
women as well as men. It is plainly the duty of every
Christian to insist upon the fulfilment of the will of God, and the
abrogation of every single thing inconsistent therewith. I would draw
attention to the fact that Phoebe, a Christian woman whom we find in
our version of the Scripture (Rom. xvi. 1) spoken of only as any common
servant attached to a congregation, was nothing less than one of those
gifted by the Holy Spirit for publishing the glad tidings, or
preaching the gospel. The manner in which the apostle (whose
only care was the propagation of evangelical truth) speaks of her, shows
that she was what he in Greek styled her, a deacon (diaconon) or preacher
of the word. Our translators speak of her (because she was a
woman) only as 'a servant of the Church
which is at Cenchrea.' The men 'deacons' they styled
ministers, but a woman on the same level as themselves would be an anomaly,
and therefore she was to be only the servant of men
ministers, who, in the popish sense, constituted
the Church!"
___________________* We strongly commend this pamphlet to
the perusal of our readers. It contains much valuable information as to
the origin of much of the popish nonsense of our times. Published by the
Protestant Electoral Union 14, Tavistock Street, Covent Garden, Price
6d.
Page 11
The apostle says of her--"I commend unto you Phebe our sister, who is a minister (diaconon) of the Church which is at Cenchrea: that ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you." To the common sense of disinterested minds it will be evident that the apostle could not have requested more for any one of the most zealous of men preachers than he did for Phebe! They were to assist "her in whatsoever business she" might require their aid. Hence we discern that she had no such trifling position in the primitive Church as at the present time episcopal dignitaries attach to deacons and deaconesses! Observe, the same Greek word is used to designate her that was applied to all the apostles and to Jesus Himself. For example: "Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister (diaconon) of the circumcision" (Rom. xv. 8). "Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers (diaconoi) by whom ye believed" (1 Cor. iii. 5). "Our sufficiency is of God; who also hath made us able ministers (diaconous) of the new testament" (2 Cor. iii. 6). "In all things approving ourselves as the ministers (diaconoi) of God" (vi. 4). The idea of a woman deacon in the "three orders!"--it was intolerable, therefore let her be a "servant." Theodoret however says, "The fame of Phebe was spoken of throughout the world. She was known not only to the Greeks and Romans, but also to the Barbarians," which implies that she had travelled much, and propagated the gospel in foreign countries. See Doddridge, Cobbin, and Wesley, on this passage.
"Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my
fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles; who also were
in Christ before me" (Rom. xvi. 7). By the word
"kinsmen" one would take Junia to have been a man; but
Chrysostom and Theophylact, who were both Greeks, and consequently knew
their mother tongue better than our translators, say Junia was a
woman. Kinsmen should therefore have been rendered kinsfolk; but
with our translators it was out of all character to have a
woman of note amongst the apostles, and a
fellow-prisoner with Paul for the gospel: therefore let
them be kinsmen!
Justin Martyr, who lived till about A.D. 150, says, in his dialogue with
Trypho, the Jew, "that both men and women were seen among them who
had the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit of God, according as the prophet
Joel had foretold, by which he endeavored to convince the Jews that the
latter days were come."
Dodwell, in his dissertations on Irenæus says, "that the
gift of the spirit of prophecy was given to others besides the apostles;
and, that not only in the first and second, but in the third
century--even to the time of Constantine--all sorts and ranks of
men had these gifts; yea, and women too."
Eusebius speaks of Potomania Ammias, a prophetess, in Philadelphia, and
others, "who were equally distinguished for their love and zeal in
the cause of Christ."
"The scriptural idea," says Mrs. Palmer, "of the terms
preach and prophesy, stands so inseparably connected as one and the same
thing, that we should find it difficult to get aside from the fact that
women did preach, or, in other words, prophesy, in the early ages of
Christianity, and have continued to do so down to the present time to just
the degree that the spirit of the Christian dispensation has been
recognised. And it is also a significant fact, that to the degree
denominations, who have once favoured the practice, lose the freshness of
their zeal, and as a consequence, their primitive simplicity, and, as
ancient Israel, yield to a desire to be like surrounding communities, in a
corresponding ratio are the labours of females discountenanced."
If any one still insists on a literal application of this text, we beg
to ask how he disposes of the preceding part of the chapter where it
occurs. Surely, if one verse be so authoritative and binding, the whole
chapter is equally so; and therefore, those who insist on a literal
application of the words of Paul, under all circumstances and through all
time, will be careful to observe the apostle's order of worship in
their own congregations. But, we ask, where is the minister who lets his
whole Church prophesy one by one, and himself sits still and listens while
they are speaking, so that all things may be done decently and in order?
But Paul as expressly lays down this order as he does the rule for women,
and he adds, "The things that I write unto you are the commandments
of the Lord" (ver. 37). Why then do not ministers abide by these
directions? We anticipate their reply--"Because these
directions were given to the Corinthians as temporary arrangements; and,
though they were the commandments of the Lord to them at that time, they do
not apply to all Christians in all times." Indeed; but unfortunately
for their argument, the prohibition of women speaking, even if it meant
what they wish, was given amongst those very directions, and to the
Corinthians only: for it reads, "Let
your women keep silence," etc.; and, for aught this
passage teaches to the contrary, Christian women of all other Churches
might do what these women were forbidden to do; until, therefore, learned
divines make a personal application of the rest of the chapter, they must
excuse us declining to do so of the 24th verse; and we challenge them to
show any breach of the Divine law in one case more than the other.
Another passage frequently cited as prohibitory of female labour in the
Church, is 1 Timothy ii. 12, 13. Though we have never met with the
slightest proof that this text
has any reference to the public exercises of women; nevertheless, as it is often quoted, we will give it a fair and thorough examination. "It is primarily an injunction," says the Rev. J. H. Robinson, "respecting her personal behavior at home. It stands in connection with precepts respecting her apparel and her domestic position; especially her relation to her husband. No one will suppose that the apostle forbids a woman to 'teach' absolutely and universally. Even objectors would allow her to teach her own sex in private; they would let her teach her servants and children, and perhaps, her husband too. If he were ignorant of the Saviour, might she not teach him the way to Christ? If she were acquainted with languages, arts or sciences, which he did not know, might she not teach him these things? Certainly she might! The 'teaching,' therefore which is forbidden by the apostle, is not every kind of teaching any more than, in the previous instance, his prohibition of speaking applied to every kind of speaking in the Church; but it is such teaching as is domineering, and as involves the usurpation of authority over the man. This is the only teaching forbidden by St. Paul in the passage under consideration."
"If this passage be not a prohibition of every kind of teaching,
we can only ascertain what kind of teaching is forbidden by the modifying
expressions with which
didaskein stands
associated: and, for anything these modifying expressions affirm to
the contrary, her teaching may be public, reiterated, urgent, and may
comprehend a variety of subjects, provided it be not dictatorial,
domineering, nor vociferous; for then, and then only, would it be
incompatible with her obedience."
The Rev. Dr. Taft says, "This passage should be rendered 'I
suffer not a woman to teach by usurping authority over the
man.' This rendering removes all the difficulties and contradictions
involved in the ordinary reading, and evidently gives the meaning of the
apostle." "If the nature of society," says the same
writer, "its good and prosperity; in which women are jointly and
equally concerned with men; if in many cases their fitness and capacity
for instructors, being admitted to be equal to the other sex, be not
reasons sufficient to convince the candid reader of woman's right to
preach and teach because of two texts in Paul's epistles, let him
consult the paraphrase of Locke, where he has proved to a demonstration
that the apostle, in these texts, never intended to prohibit women from
praying and preaching in the Church provided they were dressed as became
women professing godliness, and were qualified for the sacred
office."
"It will be found," says another writer, "by an
examina-
tion of this text with its connections, that the teaching here alluded to stands in necessary connection with usurping authority, as though the apostle had said, the gospel does not alter the relation of women in view of priority, for Adam was first formed, then Eve."
"This prohibition," says the before-named barrister,
"refers exclusively to the private life and domestic character of
woman, and simply means that an ignorant or unruly woman is not to force
her opinions on the man whether he will or no. It has no reference
whatever to good women living in obedience to God and their husbands, or to
women sent out to preach the gospel by the call of the Holy
Spirit."
If this context is allowed to fix the meaning of
didaskein in this text, as it
would in any other, there can be no doubt in any honest mind that the above
is the only consistent interpretation; and if it be, then this prohibition
has no bearing whatever on the religious exercise of women led and taught
of the Spirit of God: and we cannot forbear asking on whose skirts
the mischief resulting from the false application of this text will be
found? Thank God the day is dawning with respect to this subject. Women
are studying and investigating for themselves. They are claiming to be
recognised as responsible human beings, answerable to
GOD for their convictions of duty; and, urged
by the Divine Spirit they are overstepping those unscriptural barriers
which the Church has so long reared against its performance.
Whether the Church will allow women to speak in her
assemblies can only be a question of time; common sense, public opinion,
and the blessed results of female agency will force her to give us an
honest and impartial rendering of the solitary text on which she grounds
her prohibitions. Then, when the true light shines and God's words
take the place of man's traditions, the Doctor of Divinity who shall
teach that Paul commands woman to be silent when God's Spirit urges
her to speak, will be regarded much the same as we should now regard an
astronomer who should teach that the sun is the earth's
satellite.
Another argument urged against female preaching is, that it is
unnecessary; that there is plenty of scope for her efforts in private, in
visiting the sick and poor and working for the temporalities of the Church.
Doubtless woman ought to be thankful for any sphere for benefiting her race
and glorifying God. But we cannot be blind to the supreme selfishness of
making her so welcome to the hidden toil and self-sacrifice, the
hewing of wood and the drawing of water, the watching and waiting, the
reproach and persecution attaching to her Master's service, without
allowing her a tittle of the honour which He has attached to the
ministration of His gospel. Here, again, man's theory and
God's order
are at variance. God says, "Them that honour me I will honour." Our Lord links the joy with the suffering, the glory with the shame, the exaltation with the humiliation, the crown with the cross, the finding of life with the losing of it. Nor did He manifest any such horror at female publicity in His cause as many of His professed people appear to entertain in these days. We have no intimation of His reproving the Samaritan woman for her public proclamation of Him to her countrymen; not of His rebuking the women who followed Him amidst a taunting mob on His way to the cross. And yet, surely, privacy was their proper sphere. On one occasion He did say, with reference to a woman, "Verily, I say unto you, wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her" (Matt. xxvi. 12; see also Luke vii. 37-50).
As to the obligation devolving on woman to labour for her Master, I
presume there will be no controversy. The particular sphere in which each
individual shall do this must be dictated by the teachings of the Holy
Spirit and the gifts with which God has endowed her. If she have the
necessary gifts, and feels herself called by the Spirit to preach, there is
not a single word in the whole book of God to restrain her, but many, very
many to urge and encourage her. God says she
SHALL do so, and Paul prescribes the manner
in which she shall do it, and Phebe, Junia, Philip's four daughters,
and many other women actually did preach and speak in the primitive
Churches. If this had not been the case, there would have been less
freedom under the new than under the old dispensation. A greater paucity
of gifts and agencies under the Spirit than under the law. Fewer labourers
when more work to be done. Instead of the destruction of caste and
division between the priesthood and the people, and the setting up of a
spiritual kingdom in which all true believers were "kings and priests
unto God," the division would have been more stringent and the
disabilities of the common people greater. Whereas we are told again and
again in effect, that in "Christ Jesus there is neither bond nor
free, male nor female, but ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
We commend a few passages bearing in the ministrations of woman under
the old dispensation to the careful consideration of our readers.
"And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel
at that time," etc. (Jud. iv. 4-10). There are two
particulars in this passage worthy of note. First, the authority of
Deborah as a prophetess, or revealer of God's will to Israel, was
acknowledged and submitted to as implicitly as in the cases of the male
judges who succeeded her. Secondly, she is made the
military head of ten thousand men, Barak refusing to go to battle without her.
Again, in 2 Kings xxii. 12-20, we have an account of the king
sending the high-priest, the scribe, etc., to Huldah, the
prophetess, the wife of Shallum, who dwelt at Jerusalem, in the college; to
inquire at her mouth the will of God in reference to the book of the law
which had been found in the house of the
Lord. The authority and dignity of Huldah's message to the king does
not betray anything of that trembling diffidence or abject servility which
some persons seem to think should characterize the religious exercises of
woman. She answers him as the prophetess of the Lord, having the signet of
the King of kings attached to her utterances.
"The Lord gave the word, and great was the company of those that
published it" (Ps. lxviii. 11). In the original Hebrew it is,
"Great was the company of women publishers, or women
evangelists." Grotius explains this passage, "The Lord shall
give the word, that is plentiful matter of speaking; so that he would call
those which follow the great army of preaching women, victories, or female
conquerers." How comes it that the feminine word is actually
excluded in this text? That it is there as plainly as any other word no
Hebrew scholar will deny. It is too much to assume that as our translators
could not alter it, as they did "Diaconon" when
applied to Phebe, they preferred to leave it out altogether rather than
give a prophecy so unpalatable to their prejudice. But the Lord gives the
word and He will choose whom He pleases to publish it; not withstanding the
condemnation of translators and divines.
"For I brought thee up out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed thee
out of the house of servants; and I sent before thee Moses, Aaron, and
Miriam" (Mic. vi. 4).
God here classes Miriam with Moses and Aaron, and declares that
He sent her before His people. We fear that had some of our
friends been men of Israel at that time, they would have disputed such a
leadership.
In the light of such passages as these, who will dare to dispute the
fact that God did under the old dispensation endue his handmaidens with the
gifts and calling of prophets answering to our present idea of preachers.
Strange indeed would it be if under the fulness of the gospel
dispensation, there were nothing analogous to this, but "positive and
explicit rules," to prevent any approximation thereto. We are
thankful to find, however, abundant evidence that the "spirit of
prophecy which is the testimony of Jesus," was poured out on the
female as fully as on the male disciple, and "His daughters and His
handmaidens" prophesied. We commend the following texts
from the New Testament to the careful consideration of our readers.
"And she (Anna) was a widow of about fourscore and four years,
which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and
prayers night and day. And she coming in that instant, gave thanks
likewise unto the Lord, and spake of Him to all them that looked for
redemption on Jerusalem" (Luke ii. 37, 38). Can any one explain
wherein this exercise of Anna's differed from that of Simeon,
recorded just before? It was in the same public place, the temple. It was
during the same service. It was equally public, for she
"spake of Him to all who looked for redemption in
Jerusalem" (see Watson on this passage).
Jesus said to the two Marys, "All hail! And they came and held
Him by the feet, and worshipped Him. Then said Jesus unto them, Be not
afraid: go, tell my brethren that they go before me
into Galilee" (Matt. xxviii. 9, 10). There are two or three points
in this beautiful narrative to which we wish to call the attention of our
readers.
First, it was the first announcement of the glorious news
to a lost world and a company of forsaking disciples. Second, it was as
public as the nature of the case demanded; and intended
ultimately to be published to the ends of the earth. Third, Mary was
expressly commissioned to reveal the fact to the apostles; and thus she
literally became their teacher in that memorable occasion. Oh, glorious
privilege, to be allowed to herald the glad tidings of a Savior risen! How
could it be that our Lord chose a woman to this honour? Well,
one reason might be that the male disciples were all missing at the time.
They all forsook Him and fled. But woman was there, as she had ever been,
ready to minister to her risen, as to her dying Lord--
"Not
she with traitorous lips her Savior stung,
Not she denied Him with
unholy tongue;
She, whilst apostles shrunk, could danger
brave;
Last at the cross, and earliest at the
grave."But surely, if the dignity of our Lord of His message
were likely to be imperiled by committing this
sacred trust to a woman, He who was guarded by legions of angels could have
commanded another messenger; but, as if intent on doing her honour and
rewarding her unwavering fidelity, He reveals Himself first to
her; and, as an evidence that He had taken out of the way the curse under
which she had so long groaned, nailing it to His cross, He makes her who
had been first in the transgression, first also in the glorious knowledge
of complete redemption.
"Acts i. 14, and ii. 1, 4. We are in the first of these passages
expressly told that the women were assembled with the disciples on the day
of Pentecost; and in the second,
that the cloven tongues sat upon them each, and the Holy Ghost filled them all, and they spake as the Spirit gave them utterance. It is nothing to the point to argue that the gift of tongues was a miraculous gift, seeing that the Spirit was the primary bestowment. The tongues were only emblematical of the office which the Spirit was henceforth to sustain to His people. The Spirit was given alike to the female as to the male disciple, and this is cited by Peter (16, 18), as the peculiar speciality of the latter dispensation. What a remarkable device of the devil that he has so long succeeded in hiding this characteristic of the latter day glory! He knows, whether the Church does or not, how eminently detrimental to the interests of his kingdom have been the religious labours of woman; and while her Seed has mortally bruised his head, he ceases not to bruise her heel; but the time of her deliverance draweth nigh."
"PHILIP THE EVANGLELIST HAD FOUR DAUGHTERS,
VIRGINS, WHICH DID PROPHESY." FROM EUSEBIUS, THE ANCIENT
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORIAN, WE LEARN THAT PHILIP'S DAUGHTERS LIVED TO A
GOOD OLD AGE, ALWAYS ABOUNDING IN THE WORK OF THE LORD. "MIGHTY
LUMINARIES," HE WRITES, " HAVE FALLEN ASLEEP IN ASIA. PHILIP,
AND TWO OF HIS VIRGIN DAUGHTERS, SLEEP AT HIERAPOLIS; THE OTHER,
AND THE BELOVED DISCIPLE, JOHN, REST AT EPHESUS."
"And I entreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which
laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my
fellow-labourers" (Phil. iv. 3).
This is a recognition of female labourers, not
concerning the gospel but in the gospel, whom
Paul classes with Clement, and other his fellow-labourers.
Precisely the same terms are applied to Timotheus, whom Paul styles a
"minister of God, and his fellow-labourer in the gospel of
Christ" (1 Thess. iii. 2).
Again, "Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my helpers in Christ Jesus;
who have for my life laid down their own necks; unto whom not only I give
thanks, but all the Churches of the Gentiles" (Rom. xvi. 3, 4).
The word rendered helpers means a
FELLOW-LABOURER, ASSOCIATE
COADJUTOR,*
working together, an assistant, a joint labourer, a colleague.
+ In the New
Testament spoken only of a co-worker, helper in a Christian work,
that is of Christian teachers.
++
How can these terms, with any show of consistency, be made to apply merely
to the exercise of hospitality towards that apostle, or the duty of private
visitation? To be a partner, coadjutor, or joint worker with a preacher of
the gospel, must be something more than to be his waiting-maid.
___________________* Greenfield.
___________________+ Dunbar.
___________________++ Robinson.
Page 19
Again, "Salute Tryphena and Tryphosa, who labour in the Lord.
Salute the beloved Persis, which laboured much in the Lord" (Rom.
xvi. 12). Dr. Clarke, on this verse, says, "Many have spent much
useless labour in endeavouring to prove that these women did not preach.
That there were prophetesses as well as prophets in the Church we learn,
and that a woman might pray or prophesy provided that she had her head
covered we know; and, according to St. Paul (1 Cor. xiv. 3), whoever
prophesied spoke unto others to edification, exhortation, and comfort, and
that no preacher can do more every person must acknowledge. Because, to
edify exhort, and comfort, are the prime ends of the gospel ministry. If
women thus prophesied, then women preached."
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither male nor female,
for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. iii. 28). If this passage
does not teach that in the privileges, duties, and responsibilities of
Christ's kingdom, all differences of nation, caste, and sex are
abolished, we should like to know what it does teach, and wherefore it was
written (see also 1 Cor. vii. 22).
As we have before observed, the text, Corinthians xiv. 34, 35, is the
only one in the while book of God which even by false
translation can be made prohibitory of female speaking in the Church; how
comes it then, that by this one isolated passage, which, according to our
best Greek authorities,
* is wrongly
rendered and wrongly applied, woman's lips have been sealed for
centuries, and the "testimony of Jesus, which is the spirit of
prophecy," silenced, when bestowed on her? How is it that this
solitary text has been allowed to stand unexamined and unexplained, nay,
that learned commentators who have known its true meaning as
perfectly as either Robinson, Bloomfield, Greenfield, Scott, Parkhurst, or
Locke have upheld the delusion, and enforced it as a Divine precept binding
on all female disciples through all time? Surely there must have been some
unfaithfulness, "craftiness," and "handling of the word
of life deceitfully" somewhere. Surely the love of caste and
unscriptural jealousy for a separated priesthood has had something to do
with this anomaly. By this course divines and commentators have involved
themselves in all sorts of inconsistencies and contradictions; and worse,
they have nullified some of the most precious promises of God's word.
They have set the most explicit predictions of prophecy at variance with
apostolic injunctions, and the most immediate and wonderful operations of
the Holy Ghost in direct opposition "to positive, explicit, and
universal rules."
Notwithstanding however all this opposition to female ministry on the
part of those deemed authorities in the
___________________* Disinterested witnesses every one
will allow.
Page 20
Church, there have been some in all ages in whom the Holy Ghost has wrought so mightily, that at the sacrifice of reputation and all things most dear, they have been compelled to come out as witnesses for Jesus and ambassadors of His gospel. As a rule, these women have been amongst the most devoted and self-denying of the Lord's people, giving indisputable evidence by the purity and beauty of their lives that they were led by the Spirit of God. Now, if the word of God forbids female ministry, we would ask how it happens that so many of the most devoted handmaidens of the Lord have felt themselves constrained by the Holy Ghost to exercise it? Surely there must be some mistake somewhere, for the word and the Spirit cannot contradict each other. Either the word does not condemn women preaching, or these confessedly holy women have been deceived. Will any one venture to assert that such women as Mrs. Elizabeth Fry, Mrs. Fletcher of Madely, and Mrs. Smith have been deceived with respect to their call to deliver the gospel messages to their fellow-creatures? If not, then God does call and qualify women to preach, and His word, rightly understood, cannot forbid what His Spirit enjoins. Further, it is a significant fact, which we commend to the consideration of all thoughtful Christians, that the public ministry of women has been eminently owned of God in the salvation of souls and the edification of His people. Paul refers to the fruits of his labours as evidence of his Divine commission (1 Cor. ix. 20). "If I am not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord." If this criterion be allowed to settle the question respecting woman's call to preach, we have no fear as to the result. A few examples of the blessing which has attended the ministrations of females, may help to throw some light on this matter of a Divine call.
At a missionary meeting held at Columbia, March 26th, 1824, the name of
Mrs. Smith, of the Cape of Good Hope, was brought before the meeting, when
Sir Richard Otley, the chairman, said, "The name of Mrs. Smith has
been justly celebrated by the religious world and in the colony of the Cape
of Good Hope. I heard a talented missionary state, that wherever he went
in that colony, at 600 or 1000 miles from the principal seat of government,
among the natives of Africa, and wherever he saw persons converted to
Christianity, the name of Mrs. Smith was hailed as the person from whom
they received their religious impressions; and although no less than ten
missionaries, all men of piety and industry, were stationed in that
settlement, the exertions of Mrs. Smith alone were more efficacious, and
had been attended with greater success than the labours of
those missionaries combined." The Rev. J. Campbell, missionary to Africa, says, "So extensive were the good effects of her pious exhortations, that on my first visit to the colony, wherever I met with persons of evangelical piety, I generally found that their first impressions of religion were ascribed to Mrs. Smith."
Mrs. Mary Taft, the talented lady of the Rev. Dr. Taft, was another
eminently successful labourer in the Lord's vineyard.
"If," says Mrs. Palmer, "the criterion by which we may
judge of a Divine call to proclaim salvation be by the proportion of fruit
gathered, then to the commission Mrs. Taft is appended the Divine
signature, to a degree pre-eminently unmistakable. In reviewing her
diary, we are constrained to believe that not one minister in five hundred
could produce so many seals to their ministry. An eminent minister
informed us that of those who had been brought to Christ through her
labours, over two hundred entered the ministry. She seldom opened her
mouth in public assemblies, either in prayer or speaking, but the Holy
Spirit accompanied her words in such a wonderful manner, that sinners were
convicted, and, as in apostolic times, were constrained to cry out,
'What must we do to be saved?' She laboured under the sanction
and was hailed as a fellow-helper in the gospel by the Revs. Messrs.
Mather, Pawson, Hearnshaw, Blackborne, Marsden, Bramwell, Vasey, and many
other equally distinguished ministers of her time." The Rev. Mr.
Pawson, when President of the Wesleyan Conference, writes as follows to a
circuit where Mrs. Taft was stationed with her husband, where she met with
some gainsayers:--'It is well known that religion has been
for some time at a very low ebb in Dover. I therefore could not help
thinking that is was a kind providence that Mrs. Taft was stationed
among you, and that, by the blessing of God, she might be the instrument of
reviving the work of God among you. I seriously believe Mrs. Taft to be a
deeply pious, prudent, modest woman. I believe the Lord hath owned and
blessed her labours very much, and many, yea, very many souls have been
brought to the saving knowledge of God by her preaching. Many have come to
hear her out of curiosity, who would not have come to hear a man, and have
been awakened and converted to God. I do assure you there is much fruit of
her labours in many parts of our connection."
Mrs. Fletcher, the wife of the sainted vicar of Madeley, was another of
the daughters of the Lord on whom was poured the spirit of prophecy. This
eminently devoted lady opened an orphan house, and devoted her time, her
heart, and her fortune, to the work of the Lord. The Rev. Mr. Hodson, in
referring to her public labours, says, "Mrs.
Fletcher was not only luminous but truly eloquent--her discourses displayed much good sense, and were fraught with the riches of the gospel. She excelled in that poetry of an orator which can alone supply the place of all the rest--that eloquence which goes directly to the heart. She was the honoured instrument of doing much good; and the fruit of her labours is now manifest in the lives and tempers of numbers who will be her crown of rejoicing in the day of the Lord." The Rev. Henry Moore sums up a fine eulogium on her character and labours by saying, "May not every pious churchman say, Would to God all the Lord's people were such prophets and prophetesses!"
Miss Elizabeth Hurrell travelled through many counties in England,
preaching the unsearchable riches of Christ; and very many were, through
her instrumentality, brought to a knowledge of the truth, not a few of whom
were afterwards called to fill very honourable stations in the Church.
From the Methodist Conference, held at Manchester, 1787, Mr. Wesley
wrote to Miss Sarah Mallett, whose labours, while very acceptable to the
people, had been opposed by some of the preachers:--"We
give the right hand of fellowship to Sarah Mallett, and have no objection
to her being a preacher in our connection, so long as she
preaches Methodist doctrine, and attends to our discipline."
Such are a few examples of the success attending the public labours of
females in the gospel. We might give many more, but our space only admits
of a bare mention of Mrs. Wesley, Mrs. Rogers, Mrs. President Edwards, Mrs.
Elizabeth Fry, Mrs. Hall, Mrs. Gilbert, Miss Lawrence, Miss Newman, Miss
Miller, Miss Tooth, and Miss Cutler, whose holy lives and zealous labours
were owned of God in the conversion of thousands of souls, and the abundant
edification of the Lord's people.
Nor are the instances of the spirit of prophecy bestowed on women
confined to by-gone generations: the revival of this age,
as well as of every other, has been marked by this endowment, and the
labours of such pious and talented ladies as Mrs. Palmer, Mrs. Finney, Mrs.
Wightman, Miss Marsh,
* with numberless
other Marys and Phebes, have contributed in no small degree to its
extension and power.
We have endeavored in the foregoing pages to establish, what we
sincerely believe, that woman has a right to teach. Here the
whole question hinges. If she has the right, she has it
independently of any man-made restrictions which
___________________* The record of this lady's
labours has long been before the public.
"English Hearts and Hands," in a
truly fascinating manner, describes the wonderful success with which those
labours have been attended. Well has it been for the spiritual interest of
hundreds that no sacerdotal couclave has been able to place the seal of
silence upon her lips, and assign her to 'privacy as her proper
sphere.'
Page 23
do not equally refer to the opposite sex. If she has the right, and possesses the necessary qualifications, we maintain that, where the law of expediency does not prevent, she is at liberty to exercise it without any further pretensions to inspiration than those put forth by that male sex. If, on the other hand, it can be proved that she has not the right, but that imperative silence is imposed upon her by the word of God, we cannot see who has authority to relax or make exceptions to the law.
If commentators had dealt with the Bible on other subjects as they have
dealt with it on this, taking isolated passages, separated from their
explanatory connections, and insisting on a literal interpretation of the
words of our version, what errors and contradictions would have been
forced upon the acceptance of the Church, and what terrible results would
have accrued to the world. On this principle the Universalist will have
all men unconditionally saved, because the Bible says, "Christ is the
Saviour of all men," etc. The Antinomian, according to this rule of
interpretation, has most unquestionable foundation for his dead faith and
hollow profession, seeing that St. Paul declares over and over again that
men are "saved by faith and not by works." The Unitarian,
also, in support of his soul-withering doctrine, triumphantly refers
to numerous passages which, taken alone, teach only the humanity of Jesus.
In short, "there is no end to the errors in faith and practice which
have resulted from taking isolated passages, wrested from their proper
connections, or the light thrown upon them by other Scriptures, and
applying them to sustain a favourite theory." Judging from the
blessed results which have almost invariably followed the ministrations of
women in the cause of Christ, we fear it will be found, in the great day of
account, that a mistaken and unjustifiable application of the passage,
"Let your women keep silence in the Churches," has resulted in
more loss to the Church, evil to the world, and dishonour to God, than any
of the errors we have already referred to.
And feeling, as we have long felt, that this is a subject of vast
importance to the interests of Christ's kingdom and the glory of God,
we would most earnestly commend its consideration to those who have
influence in the Churches. We think it a matter worthy of their
consideration whether God intended woman to bury her talents and influence
as she now does? And whether the circumscribed sphere of woman's
religious labours may not have something to do with the comparative
non-success of the gospel in these latter days.
Butler & Tanner, The Selwood Printing Works, Frome, and London.