FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   655   656   657   658   659   660   661   662   663   664   665   666   667   668   669   670   671   672   673   674   675   676   677   678   679  
680   681   682   683   684   685   686   687   688   689   690   691   692   693   694   695   696   697   698   699   700   701   702   703   704   >>   >|  
e is forbidden. There is not a word here against woman's teaching. The apostle says to the whole Church, woman included, "Ye may all prophesy, one by one." In 1 Tim. ii. 12, the writer forbids woman's teaching over man, or usurping authority over him; that is, he prohibits dogmatizing, tutoring, teaching in a dictatorial spirit. This is prohibited both in public and private; but a proper kind of teaching is not prohibited. Verse 14--a reference to Eve, who, though created last, sinned first, is merely such a suggestion as we would make to a daughter whose mother had been in fault. The daughters are not blamed for the mother's sin, merely warned by it; and cautioned against self-confidence, which could make them presume to teach over man. The Bible tells us of many prophetesses approved of God. The Bible is truly democratic. Do as you would be done by, is its golden commandment, recognizing neither male nor female in Christ Jesus. ERNESTINE L. ROSE: If the able theologian who has just spoken had been in Indiana when the Constitution was revised, she might have had a chance to give her definitions on the Bible argument to some effect. At that Convention Robert Dale Owen introduced a clause to give a married woman the right to her property. The clause had passed, but by the influence of a minister was recalled; and by his appealing to the superstition of the members, and bringing the whole force of Bible argument to bear against the right of woman to her property, it was lost. Had Miss Brown been there, she might have beaten him with his own weapons. For my part, I see no need to appeal to any written authority, particularly when it is so obscure and indefinite as to admit of different interpretations. When the inhabitants of Boston converted their harbor into a teapot rather than submit to unjust taxes, they did not go to the Bible for their authority; for if they had, they would have been told from the same authority to "give unto Caesar what belonged to Caesar." Had the people, when they rose in the might of their right to throw off the British yoke, appealed to the Bible for authority, it would have answered them, "Submit to the powers that be, for they are from God." No! on Human Rights and Freedom, on a subject that is as self-evid
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   655   656   657   658   659   660   661   662   663   664   665   666   667   668   669   670   671   672   673   674   675   676   677   678   679  
680   681   682   683   684   685   686   687   688   689   690   691   692   693   694   695   696   697   698   699   700   701   702   703   704   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

authority

 
teaching
 
property
 

clause

 

argument

 

mother

 

Caesar

 

prohibited

 
appealing
 

superstition


recalled

 

minister

 

members

 

influence

 

British

 

beaten

 

passed

 

bringing

 

appealed

 

powers


Rights
 

Freedom

 
definitions
 

subject

 

effect

 

Submit

 

married

 

answered

 

introduced

 

Convention


Robert

 

interpretations

 

inhabitants

 
obscure
 

indefinite

 

Boston

 

converted

 
unjust
 

teapot

 

harbor


people

 

belonged

 

weapons

 

submit

 

written

 

appeal

 

public

 

private

 

proper

 

spirit