. and Eve were both living at the time, and lived many years afterwards. The probability is, that Adam and Eve were not more than one year older than Cain, and there was no need for Cain to rule the family. It is more than probable that Abel was dependent on Cain for his temporal support in a great degree-Cain being a tiller of the ground, from which source comes bread the staff of life, and Abel's avocation being that of a shepherd, from which source, in that period of the world, nothing but milk could be obtained -as the permission to eat flesh was not given until after the flood; and Cain's physical strength gave him the power, and he did rule over him with a vengeance. It has been objected to as being a prophecy, because "shall rule over you," is used instead of will rule over you. Now the very same language, which we have just considered, is made use of respecting Cain and Abel. The same word shall, is used respecting the servitude of Canaan, Gen. ix. 25, 27, (which is the slave-holder's indisputable commission, to inflict the curse on the Canaanites;) the same word is used, respecting Abraham's posterity being servants in the land of Egypt, Gen. xv. 13, also Matth. xxvi. 23, 34, with numerous other passages, which are prophecies. And on this mode of reasoning, the serpent was also a commissioned officer to inflict a penalty on the woman and her seed. "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed it shall bruise thy head, and thou shall bruise his heel," Gen. iii. 15. Another objection to its being a prophecy, is, because it is not universally and individually fulfilled; because every man does not exercise this rule over his wife. Now we think there never was a prophecy of so extended a nature more literally and universally fulfilled. It is sufficient for the fulfilment of a prophecy, if it is fulfilled in a majority of cases, and women are ruled by men, religiously, politically, and in the domestic circle. It was prophesied of Christ, that all who should "see him, would laugh him to scorn," when he would be in his agonies on the cross, Ps. xxii. 7, 8. Now, we know all did not laugh him to scorn, for he had some who deeply sympathized, but a great majority reviled him. We could give many more examples, but let this suffice. great room for ridicule, were it not excluded by the grave character of the question. Eve being represented as weak and imbecile, compared with Adam's exuberant intellect, she being committed to his government and care, by the Creator. "As a man rules over, yet carefully defends and tenderly takes care of his own body.' Adam neglects her instruction and care; weak and comparatively ignorant, she is suffered to wander alone, encountered by the wily adversary, she is deceived by his subtlety. Adam, instead of exercising his superior abilities by firmly withstanding the temptation on her offering the fruit, participates in the transgression, after witnessing the baneful effects it produced on her. As far as Adam and Eve were respectively concerned, he is rewarded and she is most ignominiously punished. He has the privilege conferred on him to be set officially over her, to inflict the divine penalty; and on parity of reasoning, Satan is also a commissioned officer, to inflict the penalties. of the broken covenant on the woman:-thus the wrath of God has called into action both earth and hell to be his avengers-ministers of his wrath on poor imbecile woman. But our opinion is, that whilst man and Satan are volunteers in this magnanimous business, God in his providence overrules it, as a correction to both man and woman. That God ever appointed either man or Satan to any such official dignity, we utterly deny. This is man's commission: "As ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise," Luke vi. 31. We do not envy the head or the heart of the man who may suppose it would have added any thing to Adam's happiness, to have been appointed an avenger to chastise Eve for her sins. She must have viewed him as an executioner of God's wrath, and not as "a nourisher." Even supposing her to be a gracious person, "no chastisement is joyous, but grievous," not correcting her as a parent for her profit, but, for her punishment; as a functionary of the law, and he at the same time a partaker with her, in her sin. Some cruel slave-holders understand what intense sufferings of mind they add to those of body when they force the husband to apply the brutal lash to the wife. We consider it an important inquiry in the decision of this question, to ascertain, if possible, from the brief history of that period, how the father of mankind discharged the duties of his distinguished office, of ruling his wife. Scripture history is entirely silent respecting Adam's agency after the fall, except in naming his wife, and as father of his children. We find, when Cain was born, Eve gave him his name, as some think, considering him to be the promised seed, Gen. iv. 1. Again, when Seth was born, she gave him his name, indicating that she claimed the promise; verse 25, not one word of Adam's ruling. We are gravely told, that naming his wife is a further token of his dominion: if so, then Eve had all the authority over the sons. We have already said, that our brethren can see the emblem of their dominion, portrayed in signs and symbols, throughout all divine revelation. But it does not appear to us, to be an infallible evidence of authority; we hear that the neighbours of Naomi, named her grand-son, Ruth iv. 17, and called him Obed, a servant. Now it does not appear that they had any great authority over the child: we could give many more examples, but let this suffice. But as to the name Adam gave his wife; did he give her some unmeaning appellation, merely for the purpose of designating her? or did he call her wife, the correlate of husband, to remind her of his authority to rule her? No, he calls her Eve, which is life, because she was the mother of all living, in a sense that man is not the father, being the mother according to the flesh of the Lord Jesus Christ; designating her official standing in the human family, as one that was to be honoured, and obeyed, he evinced, he had no "enmity" to the woman-he was a good husband, he honoured his wife, and taught his sons by his example to honour their wives. Have his sons followed the example of their great progenitor? have they honoured woman, the mother of mankind? is she ever spoken of in the human family, as mother, except, perchance, about her own hearth stone? No, she is uniformly held up as a wife, yoked and fettered, considered an alien, and a fugitive in the human family-imbecile in mind, a taunt and a proverb- divested of all inherent rights except the right to life, and protection from personal abuse, if unmarried; but the husband, “in case of gross misbehaviour, (himself being the judge) may lock her up in a closet, he may bind her with cords," he can correct her as an inferior, instead of treating her as a companion and equal, as a rational, and moral being like himself, and she has professedly a right to pay adoration to God in his house of worship, and any other rights she may receive, are wholly from their grace. They would do well to remember the fifth precept of the decalogue, the first commandment with promise. What gratitude have they returned for a mother's sorrows, and a mother's ardent love, and unceasing care and vigilance, which follows them when all others fail, whether in the cradle, in a prison, or on a gallows. Well may woman exclaim in the language of holy writ, "I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me." "I will put enmity between thee and the woman." Hence the prophecy is fulfilled. We have been rather prolix on the creation, and fall of man, but we considered it an essential part in the discussion of this question. We know that it is generally conceded, that all have equal natural rights; yet notwithstanding this concession, there are natural causes assigned for all the deprivation of rights that women sustain, 1 Corinth. viii. 9, 1 Timothy ii. 13, 14, is quoted for this purpose. Adam being first formed, gave him no right to rule, for the beasts were formed before him; he had no right to rule one of God's most insignificant creatures, except a grant given him by the Creator. The psalmist enumerates man's (mankind's) subjects, to be the whole irrational creation, Ps. viii. 6, 8, but not one word of man's dominion over woman; now we flatter ourselves, that if we have been so happy as to make ourselves understood, that we have conclusively shown, that there is not the slightest evidence that there was any distinction in the human family at the creation, in respect of rights, nor is there any evidence, that there was any deprivation of rights after the fall, but that woman always retained her pristine dignity, equal with man. First, we have shown that the design of creating man and woman was simultaneous in the divine mind, and whatever design God had in creating man, woman was the same; man being the generic term. Both being created in the image of God, with dominion over the world, and its inhabitants. Second, we have shown that woman was created with individuality, capable of using that mode of expression, I myself, and not created a wife yoked and fettered, merged in the husband; individually, only responsible to God, the same as man, and made of the same substance of Adam; one blood, consequently created equal. Third, so far as man and wife are concerned, they were pronounced one, and where there is no divisibility, there can be no superiority, nor inferiority. The Jews were for stoning Christ for blasphemy, when he said, "I and my Father are one," considering that he had made himself equal with God— He tacitly acknowledged the justness of their inference. We have shown that Adam and Eve constituted one in the covenant of works, and represented their posterity. First, because a covenant made with Adam for posterity, when he was alone, and always to remain so, for any thing he knew, would be really an anomaly. Second, because by God's ordinance, the mother has as good a right to the children as the father. Third, because posterity suffers on her account, and, Fourth; positively because the Apostle says that "the woman was in the transgression." And where there is no law, there is no transgression." Next we showed that man was not invested with any dominion over woman, in consequence of the fall. First, because the declaration, "thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee," was not a command given to Adam, but a declaration given to Eve, and was a prophecy; and has been literally and universally fulfilled, and was specially fulfilled in heathen countries, and among carnally-minded men.-"The carnal mind is enmity against God, and is not subject to his law."-Hence this could not be a law of God; and as a general rule, the more heavenly-minded any man, or set of men became, the less they exercised this rule. This declaration being penal, showed that it could not be a command given to the husband, for his duty was "to love, nourish, and cherish her, as the Lord, the church." Christ inflicts none of the penalties of the broken covenant on the church. And on parity of reasoning, it would constitute Satan a commissioned officer, to chastise the woman for her sin, and to bruise the heel of the blessed Seed, and was identical with other expressions, which were prophecies. But we are not left to inferential reasoning on this subject, we will now produce positive testimony that woman stands equal with man, in authority in the human family. When |