Female Ministry; or, Woman's Right to Preach the Gospel, by Catherine 
Mumford Booth

Published: London, Morgan & Chase, 1859

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         FEMALE MINISTRY; OR, Woman's Right to Preach the Gospel.
                                   By 
                               MRS. BOOTH.

        "And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy."--Joel.

                                 London:
                             MORGAN & CHASE, 
                            38, LUDGATE HILL.
 
                             PRICE ONE PENNY.
      Quantities can be had at considerable reduction from MR. BOOTH,
               Gore Road, Victoria Park Road, London, N.E.




PREFACE.

   The principal arguments contained in the following pages were published 
in a pamphlet entitled Female Teaching, which, I have reason to know, has 
been rendered very useful.

   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.



FEMALE MINISTRY; 
OR WOMAN'S RIGHT TO PREACH THE GOSPEL.

   THE first and most common objection urged against the public exercises 
of women, is that they are unnatural and unfeminine. Many labour under a 
very great but common mistake, viz. that of confounding nature with 
custom. Use, or custom, makes things appear to us natural, which, in 
reality, are very unnatural; while, on the other hand, novelty and rarity 
make very natural things appear strange and contrary to nature. So 
universally has this power of custom been felt and admitted, that it has 
given birth to the proverb, "Use is second nature." Making allowance for 
the novelty of the thing, we cannot discover anything either unnatural or 
immodest in a Christian woman, becomingly attired, appearing on a platform 
or in a pulpit. By nature she seems fitted to grace either. God has given 
to woman a graceful form and attitude, winning manners, persuasive speech, 
and, above all, a finely-toned emotional nature, all of which appear to us 
eminent natural qualifications for public speaking. We admit that want of 
mental culture, the trammels of custom, the force of prejudice, and one-
sided interpretations of Scripture, have hitherto almost excluded her from 
this sphere; but, before such a sphere is pronounced to be unnatural, it 
must be proved either that woman has not the ability to teach or to 
preach, or that the possession and exercise of this ability unnaturalizes 
her in other respects; that so soon as she presumes to step on the 
platform or into the pulpit, she loses the delicacy and grace of the 
female character. Whereas, we have numerous instances of her retaining all 
that is most esteemed in her sex, and faithfully discharging the duties 
peculiar to her own sphere, and at the same time taking her place with 
many of our most useful speakers and writers. Why should woman be confined 
exclusively to the kitchen and the distaff, any more than man to the field 
and workshop? Did not God, and has not nature, assigned to man his sphere 
of labour, "to till the ground, and to dress it"? And, if exemption is 
claimed from this kind of toil for a portion of the male sex, on the 
ground of their possessing ability for intellectual 

Page 4

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 

Page 5

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 

Page 6

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 

Page 7

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 

Page 9

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.) 

Page 10

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."

Page 12

   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 

Page 13

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- 

Page 14

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 

Page 15

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 

Page 16

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 

Page 17

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, 

Page 18

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 

Page 21

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. 

Page 22

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.