wide-spread than that of man, in that more of her sex are graduated from our schools-qualifies her to embrace. It was Saturday, the last day of the week of prayer in January, when four American missionary sisters and one brother were gathered for their daily noon season of united supplication in their native tongue for the outpouring of God's spirit upon the people of Harpoot. Two missionary brethren had gone out to labor among the villagers of the plain. The one brother left at the station while leading the meeting urged that the four sisters should take an active part. They hesitated; they had never done it in man's presence. They ventured now, and God apparently approved. That very day an Armenian sceptic, who had been accustomed to put Aristotle in the place of the Bible, a man of wealth and influence, while sitting in his office, was suddenly, as by a mighty rushing wind, overwhelmed with a conviction of his sinfulness before God, and he soon became a meek and laborious servant of Christ. How preposterous to suppose that those women were immodest, or irreverent to their husbands in their act of prayer! How much greater the danger that other sisters like them, all over Christendom, will fail to embrace such golden opportunities for good! Miss West holds religious meetings with the Armenian women in destitute parts of Turkey and Syria. Often a number of men linger around the door to pick up a few spiritual crumbs that fall from the table. She denies them admittance, not because of Turkish scruples, but of the American interpretation that women are not to teach religion in the presence of men. A new missionary comes to the field, preaches to the natives, and Miss West translates to them his sermon. She does it so well that an Armenian delegation visit her, and beseech that she will come down and preach to them sermons of her own. She says, nay; because the Book says, "Let your women keep silence," though she evidently suspects there is some error in the interpretation or logic of the application.2

8. The perpetuity of a law depends upon its reason. If 1 Romance of Missions, pp. 581, 582. 2 Ibid., pp. 25, 605, 606, 657.

the reason remains the law continues. Hence the meaning or binding nature of a command may be ascertained, if doubtful, by consulting the reason for its existence. Blackstone says, "The most universal and effectual way of discovering the true meaning of a law, when the words are dubious, is by considering the reason and spirit of it; or the cause which moved the legislator to enact it. For when this reason ceases, the law itself ought likewise to cease with it. An instance of this is given in a case put by Cicero."1

Professor Moses Stuart in giving biblical instruction often quoted the expressive phrase: Ratione manente manet ipsa lex. The reason for woman's office as helpmate, and not head, ceases not, nor ever will in the mortal state; hence the office, and requirement for acquiescence in it, continue. The reason why woman should closely veil her face in public has ceased in Christian countries, and the requirement has ceased. So the reason for her absolute silence has ceased, and the requirement also. She does not now bow to the restraint of a thick veil, she need not now maintain silence to maintain her modesty, or to symbolize her submission. Why, then, always be silent? The reason for humility and Christían affection among brethren has not been set aside, nor ever can be; and the requirement of these virtues is still in force. The reason for washing one another's feet, as expressing that humility and affection has been set aside, and also the obligation to perform that act. The command is satisfied with such other conduct as is expressive of fraternal fellowship and of" preferring one another" (Rom. xii. 10). So the requirement of woman's silence is satisfied with a modest behaviour and a cheerful adherence to her office as wife in the marriage state.2

1 Commentaries, Vol. i. p. 61.

More than five years since Rev. Dr. R. W. Patterson of Chicago applied to this subject the legal principle that the law continues while the reason continues, and ceases when the reason ceases. But his use of this axiom was to show the permanent obligation of woman's silence, in that she ever will be in subjection to man. The present writer, only a few days previous, in another publication, applied the same axiom to the same subject. Neither could have

V. Man's headship and woman's partnership with him as wife, will always maintain distinctions in their callings and conduct while the two natures continue. Some principles are settled in the divine economy for mankind. Man and woman are fitted for different service in the main. The inherent laws of the two natures are not mutable like the customs of speech. Every true woman desires her husband to be her leader and protector, and in general he is fitted for that place. It is usually his calling that supports the family. If she is conscious of better education and talent than her husband has, still, it is her nature to recognize him as head, and herself as helpmate. Her help may often consist in being wiser than he. But her choice is to make him the hero, though herself be the heroine. In public affairs she wishes him to go forward, and without special reason will not herself go in advance. Yet, rational exceptions do legiti mately occur. Elizabeth Fry, providentially, was more conspicuous than her husband. But he scripturally, and in the family really, was still head. A Florence Nightingale may come from Crimean battle-fields or American hospitals, and, telling a promiscuous audience of human sufferings and wants, and of woman's work to allay them, may infuse sympathetic interest and benevolent principle into thousands of human hearts. How in our state of society can woman's relation to man be thereby unfavorably affected? No principle of Scripture can by that act be weakened in its hold upon the mind. Only a custom, once important to the principle, now unimportant unless in the Orient, is violated. With us the violation, for such a cause, is better,- is it not? than the observance. A missionary lady who has buried her husband on his field of toil on the other side of the globe, returns to us bringing her little children. She has golden been indebted to the other for the suggestion. But the latter employed the principle to show that the duty of woman's "proper reverence and submission remains; for marriage remains"; 'that the reasons for her veiling and her strict silence do not remain, and therefore the duty to observe them ceases'; and that the rule demanding her silence is now satisfied with modest, helpful, and appropriate demeanor.

words with which to tell the wonderful works of God wrought through her companion in that far-off land. She feels an incitement to do it, and multitudes of women and men, would gladly hear her. Does any real principle demand that the men be excluded? No! It is only an old, or Oriental rule, by which we need not be governed. In yielding to this apparently providential call, she may so do it that neither her spirit nor act shall violate the modest and retir ing nature peculiar to her sex. She may do it in fulfilment of her office as helpmate of her husband; perfecting his mission by rehearsing the story of his toils and success for his Master.

There was an office for prophetess in the apostolic days. Daughters should prophesy as well as sons (Acts ii. 17). Both in their office spoke to "edification, and exhortation, and comfort" (1 Cor. xiv. 3). Prophetesses must have had hearers. When Paul's company came to the house of Philip, who had four daughters which did prophesy (Acts xxi. 9), it seems probable that in their small assemblies those daughters spoke. They could be heard there and remain veiled, if custom in so small a company required it. It may be that all women were at liberty to speak in churches assembled in private dwellings (Rom. xvi. 5). At the prayer-meeting held when Peter was miraculously released from prison, there were at least two, and doubtless more, women in the house (Acts xii. 12, 13). They could there speak and pray veiled, and yet be heard. The assemblies referred to in 1 Cor. xi. seem to have been of a more private character, such as those where the Lord's supper was observed, spoken of in the same chapter. Probably unbelievers were not present. But in the congregations named in the fourteenth chapter, where the silence of women is enjoined, unbelievers were often present (vs. 23, 24), and the congregations were doubtless larger. There only two or three addressed the meeting (vs.

1 The above view was adopted by the present writer without knowing that any other person had even considered it. When this Article was nearly all in type he learned that Meyer, the noted commentator, after holding other views through several editions of his work on First Corinthians, in his fifth and last

27, 29),1 not at their seats, but from a platform in front of all. In such circumstances women might well keep silence. But in the eleventh chapter where Christ is spoken of as "head" of the church and man as "head of the woman," man is taught to have his own head uncovered when praying or prophesying, and woman to have hers covered (vs. 4-7, 10, 13). The implication is that men did pray and prophesy. Why not also that women did? Even more is said requiring women to veil their heads when praying and prophesying, than requiring men not to cover theirs. The natural conclusion is that some women did pray and prophesy in the smaller and more private assemblies. We cannot think the apostle would take the pen of inspiration and write about the right method of doing a thing when it was not to be done by any method. He spoke not of services in secret. The cov ering of the head was for appearance before God among fellow-beings.

But these prophetesses may have been cases of exception among women. They were to pray and prophesy only under the influence of the Spirit. And the Holy Spirit now is never the author of confusion, immodesty, or impropriety. It was under his apparent call that Elizabeth Fry spoke in promiscuous audiences. She expressed her fear that some women would be too forward, and speak when not called by the Spirit. She resolved not to resist the Spirit, and not to go farther than the Lord evidently led her. She once wrote, "I am of opinion that nothing Paul said to discourage women's speaking in the churches, alluded to their speaking through the help of the Spirit, as he clearly gave directions how they should conduct themselves under such circumstances, when they prayed or prophesied." 2 With equal care and prayer woman now will not transcend the proprieties of (German) states that he has changed his opinion, and now holds that the permission to pray and prophesy given in the eleventh chapter pertains to the smaller assemblies, and that the prohibition in the fourteenth chapter pertains to the larger ones. The smaller assemblies, he implies, do not mean the family circle. A woman would not veil her face in the presence of only her husband and children.

1 See Alford.

? Memoirs Vol. ii. p. 336.