because she was deceived, and the man was not deceived. Whatever rights the woman had before the fall-and according to the Scripture hypothesis I know not what they were-I should judge from that passage that the author of it believed that previous to the first transgression, man and woman were equal, and that neither was ruler ; but in consequence of this fall, just as the man was subjected to death for sin, so woman was subjected to her husband on account of her transgression; and especially on this account, that she was first in the transgression, that she was deceived, and not man was deceived.

These passages show, that whatever rights of equality she once had, she forfeited them. If there had been no passage in the Bible on this subject, except that one in Genesis, we might suppose that on account of the evil she brought upon the world, the first woman, only, forfeited her rights, and that her offspring might have their rights; but Paul plainly says, that the curse was extended to all her offspring, and that every woman descended from Eve, is on that account bound to be in obedience to her husband; and her husband is entitled to rule over her, and refuse or fail to gratify her desires, as he may think fit.

There are some other passages in the New Testament which bear upon this point, and which profess to give additional reasons why man should be the lord, and woman the subject. These passages we may find in the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, and his Epistle to Timothy. One of these reasons is that "man is the head of the woman, just as Christ is the head of man," and God the head of Christ; that woman is the glory of man, just as man is the glory of Christ, or Christ the glory of God. The argument is, that man was made first, and on that ground woman is to be in subjection, and man have the pre-eminence, for “man was first formed" and then Eve ; that man was not made for woman, but woman for man, and on that account woman should be perfectly subject to man, and he should consult her welfare, just so far as is identical with his interest, and no farther.

We know the interpretation that man is not made for institutions, but institutions for man, as “man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for man." It means that the Sabbath must give way

whenever man's interests require; and institutions must be trampled

upon whenever man's developments require it. It means that the nat

lights

institution has no right to respect or reverence, or to be spared in any way whatever, at the expense of man; that man is in fact, next to God, the only being whose interests should be regarded; and that woman should not be regarded, except so far as she is conducive to the happiness, the glory and the welfare of man. This passage appears to me to treat woman not as an individual but as a thing; not as an end, but as a means; not as one whose happiness is to be promoted on her own account at all, but whose happiness, education, place in society, and duty, are all subservient to man; and who is to be treated in all things simply as an instrument for man's elevation, pleasure, security and happiness. This doctrine, that woman was made for man and not man for woman, not only excludes any idea that woman is to be equal with him, but that in every case woman should be subject unto him.

There is another passage, which gives another reason for man's superiority and woman's subjection. It is this, that "man was not of the woman, but woman was of the man," that man was not taken from the side of woman, at the creation, but woman was taken from the ribs of the man, and that she therefore has no title to herself. She was made of the materials of man's body, therefore she is to be regarded as man's property, subservient to, and dependent upon him; just as the branch depends upon the tree, so the woman made out of man, formed of materials supplied by the man, must be entirely subservient to man's authority, pleasure and interest.

There are some other passages which bear directly upon this subject, but they are of a character similar to those which I have quoted. Their meaning and tendency are plainly the same, it is not therefore necessary to refer to them. But there is another order of passages which does deserve to be noticed. Paul, in perfect accordance with the wording and the spirit of all these scriptures, represents that women should be subject to their husbands in all things, just as the Church is subject to Christ, in all things. Christ, according to the scripture theory, is absolute in authority and power. The will of the Church is nothing, unless it be in harmony with the will of Christ.

Every movement of the Church is false and wicked, which is not in accordance with the will and law of Christ. The Church is therefore required to be in absolute subjection to Christ; and the woman is to be subject to her husband in all things, as her husband is subject unto Christ. It is impossible to command an absolute subjection in plainer and more absolute words. I know it is said that the word "subjection," does not imply obedience. I differ from the friend, who takes that view. The word subjection does imply obedience, as cer-. tainly as that one subject to a ruler, implies obedience to the ruler. But suppose it did not imply obedience, it certainly implies inferiority, and that is all we have to contend for. But even if the word "subjection" does not imply obedience, there is a passage where obedience is expressly commanded. You read in Paul, that "the woman is to be in obedience to her husband, as also saith the law;"and if you go to the words of Peter, on this same subject, you will find that he uses both the words, that he requires women to be both subject and obedient. You will also discover that his words are in perfect agreement, when he requires "the wife to be subject to the husband in all things," bad as well as good. You will find, that what Peter requires, is, that the example of the ancient women, should be followed by all women, and that the especial example he cites, is a wicked example: "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 godly conversation of their wives; whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair or of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; but let it be of the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which in the sight of God is of great price. For after this manner in the old time, the holy women also, who trusted in God adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands; even as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord; whose daughters ye are so long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement."

Now mark, the husbands are not Christian husbands, who may be supposed to be well instructed in Christian principles. These women are the wives of Pagan, worldly, unconverted husbands; for the

Apostle, you see, recommends this obedience as a means of the conversion of their husbands. Here then, we have both subjection and obedience enjoined upon wives, and that, to their pagan husbands. These wives are promised, that provided they do obey, they shall be daughters of Sarah. Our friends know, that the only commands put upon Sarah, according to the record, were to tell certain lies for Abraham's benefit. He was traveling into another country, as we are expressly told, in the Jewish scriptures, and he feared that if the people of that country found that Sarah was his wife, some one might become in love with her, and might kill him to get possession of her so he instructed her to say she was his sister, and then they could take Sarah without feeling it necessary to kill Abraham; and "Sarah obeyed." (A voice in the audience, Sarah was his sister.)

MR. BARKER.-Then father Abraham was living in just as bad a state, for incest is as bad as lying,—at least I judge so,--and perhaps a little worse. However, she was not the sister of Abraham. She was the daughter of one of Abraham's parents, but not the daughter of the other. No matter about that, however, she was to obey Abraham, and you are to be privileged to be called her daughters, so long as you imitate her example. (Another interruption.)

MR. BARKER.-I would recommend those who interrupt me, to take notes of what I say, and reply to me when I am done. (A voice : We shall not have time.)

MR. BARKER.-I will tell you what I will do, if you who oppose me, will give me time to discuss this subject fully. I will stay here ten days to hear, and will take ten days to reply-if that time is necessary,—and I am a farmer, and at this season of the year, you may well suppose, my time is as valuable as anybody's. (A voice: I tell you, those opposed can't get a chance to answer.)

MR. BARKER. You tell a lie, sir! (Hisses.) I shall leave the priests to have all the honor of interrupting me to themselves. I believe I have stated the argument of the priesthood correctly. I believe I have done it justice. All that I have been endeavoring to prove, they have been endeavoring to prove. All that I have been endeavoring to establish this morning, the priests will endeavor to establish, in proportion as this cause moves on, and invades their

circle, viz., that the Bible stands in direct opposition to this movement. I believe I have stated the argument as honestly and concisely, as they have stated it themselves. I am satisfied that they are perfectly just, sound and conclusive, supposing their premises to be sound; namely, that the Bible is the word of God, and that all its teachings are infallible and true.

I know, some interpretations were given by our friend, Mrs. Mott, inconsistent with the views I have given; and some, also, by President Mahan. He challenged any one to show, that the pulpit dealt partially with man in distinction from woman. I have only to say, then, that the pulpit is against the Bible, for the Bible deals partially with man. Every woman is there required to offer a sin-offering at the birth of a child, but the man is not required to offer a sin-offering for being the father; and if the new-born is a female child, the offering must be somewhat more expensive, in atonement for bringing forth a female child. If that be not partiality, there is no such thing as partiality; and if the priesthood are not partial to man, at the expense of woman, then the priesthood and the Bible are at variance, and they are false to its teachings.

Besides, every pulpit should teach the doctrine of woman's subjec‐ tion to man. It is not taught in one part of the Bible alone, not in the Old only, but in the New Testament; and the priesthood ought, therefore, to inculcate it, or give up their professions of belief in the divine authority of the Bible. Moreover, everybody must be aware, that the churches now, tolerate polygamy and concubinage. I was reading in a religious newspaper, a list of some crimes which God would not tolerate, and among them, idolatry was instanced; but there were other sins which God saw fit to tolerate, sins not inconsistent with a state of grace, and among those sins, was polygamy.

I have seen a report published by the American Board of Missions, in which this doctrine was laid down; at least so far as this, that they did not feel at liberty to expel a man at their missionary stations for polygamy, or refuse church fellowship to those who were living in concubinage. This is the doctrine of the Old Testament, and they tell us that the Old is also of divine inspiration, and the persons in the Old Testament, to whom we are referred in the New, as examples