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 certainly 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 subjection 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 the Old Testament, to whom we are referred in the New, as examples

in

of piety, are Abraham, Jacob, Solomon, David and others. Now if a man can have a number of wives, and concubines also, and a woman at the same time, not a number of husbands, then the Church and the Bible deal partially with men and women, and require a different standard of perfection; and I ask the priesthood to give a single instance in the Bible, in which God is said ever to have tolerated a woman in having several husbands or concubines. The Church and Bible are then partial, and they who deny this, are not in harmony with truth.

I understood Mrs. Mott to say, that the Old Testament was not binding, but I think she must say, that the example of Sarah is, since Peter requires all to be like her, and call their husbands lord, and do as their husbands bid them; and there is not, in either the Old or New Testament, a single word against the conduct of this woman.

1

If Miss Brown can show that I am in error, I suppose I shall be benefited by her remarks, as much as any other person will be; and it may be, I shall receive instruction from her, for I am as free to hear a sermon from a lady, as from a gentleman, and a little more gladly.

Now I have stated, that the only question is, either as to the right interpretation of these passages, or the authority of the book in which they are found. I ought to observe, that the interpretation I have given them, is the one given by all the orthodox clergy of the day; indeed I should say, the clergyman or the woman was not orthodox, but heretical, who should swerve from these interpretations; just as I regard those Geologists who labor to interpret the Bible in harmony with modern science, as heretics, though perhaps unconscious of their own heresy.

But this is not only the interpretation of the orthodox clergy at this day, but it is the interpretation which has been given from the beginning. The Jews interpret them the same way now, as they ever have done; and they laugh at those who propose to force another and a different interpretation upon them. The whole Christian world, with the exception of here and there a conscious or unconscious heretic, give this interpretation. The Fathers give the passages this interpretation; the traditions of the Church, as transmitted to us by

the Church of Rome; the Episcopals, the Methodists, the Baptists, the Presbyterians, all give this interpretation. There is not an exception, and every minister in the Church thinks so, so far as I am acquainted..

I know that other constructions may be forced upon the scripture. A minister once proved, to his own satisfaction, that a certain song of Solomon contained the whole body of divinty; and I once heard an ignorant clergyman preach quite a good sermon from, "Hey diddle, diddle, the cat's in the fiddle," as a text. I know it is possible to force a meaning into words directly opposite to their legitimate meaning. Swedenborgian clergymen believe, that the common meaning of the Bible is false, contradictory of itself, and contradictory to science, but containing an internal meaning, which is true. They maintain, that the words of the Bible have three meanings. That the first meaning, which appears to be natural, is often false; but that the second and third meanings are true. That the first meaning is adapted to the child; the second meaning to the intellect, or spiritual man; the third to the affections, or the social man.

The same difficulty, which exists in Christendom, exists in every country where sacred books are found. In Mohammedan countries, the woman is kept under subjection, and regarded as having no soul. They ground their doctrine on the Koran, and I have no doubt, that if Mohammedan women should get up a movement for their rights, they would find it as easy to force a different meaning upon the Koran, as some among us find it, to force a different construction upon Genesis, or St. Peter, or St. Paul. But all such forced interpretations, appear to me, to be unworthy. The idea, that God should give a book, some three or four thousand years ago, as a revelation to man now, which must be not only not understood, but mis-understood for three thousand years, and he not give them a hint of it; the idea, that if God speaks to man, he speaks just as an ignorant man would, and what he speaks, it is impossible that men should understand, or even guess at-I say, the idea is monstrous. Treat the Bible as you would treat other books, and treat other books honestly, and then I know what interpretation of the Bible will be received as true, and what respect will be given to it.