faculty and a conscience equal to the detection and disapproval of Nature's vices but not strength enough to compel her to reform. As to Religion, Mr. Mill does not say what his father said of modern Christianity that it is the ne plus ultra of wickedness, but that it is of doubtful utility and that we are quite as well off without it. This is logical if God and Nature have been represented truthfully; if we are right in our Manichæanism we cannot be wrong in our irreligion. But it must be observed again that Mr. Mill confesses to having had no experience of religion, standing in this respect quite alone among his contemporaries. "I am," he says, "perhaps the one person of my time who has-not rejected a religion, but—who never had one." We do not say that this disqualified Mr. Mill from having an opinion on the Utility of Religion, but only that such an opinion must have been rationalistic and not empirical.

We have only one more question to put here. If the universe is of this sort; if there is the victorious incarnation of evil in the material world and an incapable apotheosis of good, a real creator however impotent and a real providence however baffled and thwarted over against the fatal dualism of nature; what becomes of sensationalism, idealism, and nihilism? Matter must be more than the bare permanent possibility or unknown condition of sensation if it wields all these tremendous forces: mind, divine or human, more than a bare aggregate of sensations if it sustains, even discomfitted, this conflict. It is the old dilemma of the Dualism of Force which has stared philosophers out of countenance from Spinoza to Spencer, and which as we hope to show makes short work with Mr. Mill's phenomenalism.

ARTICLE VI.-WOMAN'S VOICE IN THE CHURCH.

Exposition of 1 Cor. xiv, 34, 35. "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."

THIS passage is exciting very great attention in our day. The question of woman's place in the church, as well as in the world, is being widely discussed; and this teaching of Paul upon the subject cannot be ignored. We have lying before us seven or eight learned treatises, all issued within a short time, urging various different theories of this passage.* The foremost of these take the most extreme and emphatic ground against woman's speech. Thus, in the Bibliotheca Sacra, Oct., 1870, we are told, "that the injunction of silence is of perpetual obligation," "forbidding the women to speak at all in the assemblies;" "because in its very nature, whatever the manner of it may be, speaking in the assembly is inconsistent with the position of women in the churches." So also Professor Clapp. Others of these writers go to the very opposite extreme, and claim, that there is no limitation whatever put, either by Scripture or by reason, upon the speech of woman, any more than upon that of man. In the Congregational Quarterly, April, 1874, we are pointed in this direction.

Such is the interest excited upon this subject, and such the confusion and contradiction of views concerning it. An examination and determination of the passage before us is, therefore, extremely important for us all at this time; not only that we may save ourselves and others from the loose and dangerous

1. The Silence of Women Required in the Churches. By Rev. A. H. Ross. Bib. Sacra, 1870, April and Oct. 2. An Argument against Women's Voice in Church. By Prof. S. C. BARTLETT, in reply to Rev. Mr. Helmer. Advance, 1869. 3. Women not Forbidden to Speak, but to Babble. By Rev. HARMON LOOMIS; Cong. Quar., April, 1874. 4. Woman may not Speak in Meeting. By Miss AUGUSTA MOORE; Cong. Quar., April, 1874. 5. Speaking, not Babbling, forbidden. A reply to Mr. Loomis; Cong. Quar., Oct., 1874. 6. Several Essays in favor of Woman's Speech, as against Paul. 7. Professor Clapp's essay before the Illinois Association, May, 1876, on Woman not a Public Character, and sundry replies to it in the Advance.

views so prevalent; but also, that the minds of all, and especially of our women, may be settled and grounded as to personal duty, and they may go forward without misgivings to the fulfilment of it. We love our Bible; and we mean to do just what it enjoins. But while our view of its teachings on this point remains unsettled or disputed, under the mixed and dubious utterances of our times,-many are faltering in their activity, wondering who may, or who ought to take part in our meetings; and what little is done, is without the courage. and success that comes from well settled conviction.* A review of the ground is surely needed; and this we now attempt.

We have in this passage, seemingly, a plain divine prohibition of all female utterance in the assembled church. But such a complete prohibition is so singular, being found in no other passage,t-and so unlikely, for any reason that has been or could be assigned,—and so undesirable, for the good of Christianity itself, that all Christians have understood the language with some limitations. And the only question among them for ages, has been, how far the laws of language will allow those limitations to be carried, in harmony with the rest of Scripture.

Thus, it is almost universally conceded, that this injunction of "silence in the churches" was not intended to forbid singing, either in chorus or in solo. And many would go further, and say that, for the same reason, praying could not be included in the prohibition, or indeed any purely devotional exercise, such as responses or readings from Scripture or other such service. If the silence enjoined be not absolute, but allow of singing, then the command here was not directed against devotional utterance at all, but at somethiug else here described more definitely as "to speak."

Again, it is universally conceded, that this injunction of "silence" is not a bar to class-teaching in the church assembled

* Even so learned a man as Dr. Edward Beecher, publicly stated in Illinois five years ago, that "there are grave difficulties about this passage, and all that I can do is to wait for light."

Mr. Ross wrongly speaks (p. 751, 756) of the "passages enjoining silence upon women in the churches. This one passage before us, is the only church passage to be found.

as a bible-school, or to the repeating of Scripture, or even other exercise, before the whole, or to the giving of evidence or information when called for. And many would say, that, for the same reason, this passage cannot mean to prohibit any Christian testimony or statement of experience, or other modest womanly utterance not made in violation of any other Scripture. If the silence required be not absolute, but allow some use of the voice, then the speaking here forbidden is only that sort of speaking which is everywhere else prohibited, namely, that which is insubordinate and dictatorial to man, and therefore unwomanly (as taught in 1 Tim. ii, 11, 12, etc.).

Interpreting the passage in this common-sense way, as sanctioued by the Church in all ages, we shall have it in harmony with all other Scripture, as well as with reason and the expediency of things; while at the same time we shall do no violence to the language of the apostle, and put no contempt upon his inspired authority in the case. But of late, the idea of any limitation upon female speech has become so distasteful to many, that the present generation are attempting to ignore the apostle's teaching entirely. And, instead of debating how far his injunction admits of limitation, the sceptical are boldly declaring, that it is of no force to us. Even some good people have fallen into this sceptical snare. It takes two forms:

1. Some, more flippant than reverent, assert, that this passage is only the unadvised utterance of "an old bachelor," in which Paul without divine warrant gives his own ascetic notions, begotten of his celibate habits; whereas we are better situated than he to judge what is right in the case. But here let it be observed, in the first place, that we are far from knowing certainly that Paul was a bachelor, as an able writer has shown; nor would this teaching be any more likely to come from the "crusty bachelor," than from the "tyrant husband" of whom these objectors talk. Secondly, the general tenor of Paul's teaching is in the direction of elevating woman, far more than was the current sentiment of his day; so that the passage could not come from any such feeling as alleged. Thirdly, thus to charge, is not only to put unjust contempt on the character of Paul, but to deny his inspiration, and so to despoil the Word of God. When we treat one passage thus, we have nowhere to

stop till we reject the whole Bible. Of course, no true disciple of Christ can wittingly maintain this view.

2. Others assert, that the command was only a temporary and local one, growing out of the peculiar habits and circumstances of the Corinthian church; and that therefore it has become obsolete, and has no binding force on us. In reply we say: There may indeed be found here and there a few remarks of Paul, of a merely prudential and advisory character, without special authority to us,-where he expressly announces that he is not speaking by divine command. But to extend this view to any passage not so announced, will be to subvert the whole inspired authority of the apostle. And the passage before us is one, which, instead of being thus specifically released from general obligation, is most expressly enforced as of universal application. It begins with the language, "As in all the churches of Christ, let your women, etc.;-which the best critics now agree in punctuating thus as properly one continuous sentence: (so Lachman, Conybeare, and Howson, etc.) The passage ends with a severe rebuke (v. 36-38) of any one who should reject this teaching, concluding with this decisive language: "Let him acknowledge, that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord."

A passage thus announced, not only without hint of being. exceptional, but with solemu asseveration to the contrary, cannot be thrown aside as not intended for us. Any one who treats this portion of Scripture thus, must be quite unsettled as to anything and everything in the Bible. If we begin such a process of ignoring what does not answer our purpose, there is no barrier we can put up against any amount of caviling and rejection of truth. To accept such a view of Paul's teaching here, is not only to undermine our own basis of reliance upon Scripture as any sure guide for us, but is to give full license. to the universalist, the sceptic, the most heretical mutilator of the Bible, in all his daring denials of every unwelcome statement. We confidently say, therefore, that to the Bible Christian there is no possible escape from the difficulties of this passage, in any of these modern devices for ignoring it as of no force to us. As loyal to God's Word, we must look only in the other direction; and, seeing that Christ's Church has always found