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