Women's Ministry

My Dear Sister,—According to the principle which I have laid down, that man and woman were created equal, and endowed by their beneficent Creator with the same intellectual powers and the same moral responsibilities, and that consequently whatever is morally right for a man to do, is morally right for a woman to do, it follows as a necessary corollary, that if it is the duty of man to preach the unsearchable riches of Christ, it is the duty also of woman.

My Dear Sister, I have set out the principle that man and woman were created equal. Their generous Creator gave them the same intellectual powers and moral responsibilities. So whatever is morally right for a man to do is also morally right for a woman to do. It necessarily follows that if it is a man’s duty to preach the boundless riches of Christ, it is also a woman’s duty.

I am aware, that I have the prejudices of education and custom to combat, both in my own and the other sex, as well as ‘the traditions of men,’ which are taught for the commandments of God. I feel that I have no sectarian views to advance; for although among the Quakers, Methodists, and Christians, women are permitted to preach the glad tidings of peace and salvation, yet I know of no religious body, who entertain the Scripture doctrine of the perfect equality of man and woman, which is the fundamental principle of my argument in favor of the ministry of women. I wish simply to throw my views before thee. If they are based on the immutable foundation of truth, they cannot be overthrown by unkind insinuations, bitter sarcasms, unchristian imputations, or contemptuous ridicule. These are weapons which are unworthy of a good cause. If I am mistaken, as truth only can prevail, my supposed errors will soon vanish before her beams; but I am persuaded that woman is not filling the high and holy station which God allotted to her, and that in consequence of her having been driven from her ‘appropriate sphere,’ both herself and her brethren have suffered an infinity of evils.

I know I must contend with prejudices formed by education and custom, among both women and men. I must also contend with ‘the traditions of men,’ which are taught as the commandments of God. I have no sectarian views to promote. Quakers, Methodists, and Christians allow women to preach the good news of peace and salvation. Yet I know of no religious body that accepts the Scriptural doctrine of the complete equality of men and women. That doctrine is the foundation of my argument in favor of women’s ministry. I simply wish to present my views to you. If they rest on the unchanging foundation of truth, they cannot be overthrown by unkind insinuations, bitter sarcasm, unchristian accusations, or scornful ridicule. These are weapons unworthy of a good cause. If I am mistaken, my supposed errors will soon vanish in the light of truth, for truth alone can prevail. But I am convinced that woman does not occupy the high and holy position God assigned her. Because she has been driven from her ‘proper sphere,’ both she and her brothers have suffered countless evils.

Before I proceed to prove, that woman is bound to preach the gospel, I will examine the ministry under the Old Testament dispensation. Those who were called to this office were known under various names. Enoch, who prophesied, is designated as walking with God. Noah is called a preacher of righteousness. They were denominated men of God, seers, prophets, but they all had the same great work to perform, viz. to turn sinners from the error of their ways. This ministry existed previous to the institution of the Jewish priesthood, and continued after its abolition. It has nothing to do with the priesthood. It was rarely, as far as the Bible informs us, exercised by those of the tribe of Levi, and was common to all the people, women as well as men. It differed essentially from the priesthood, because there was no compensation received for calling the people to repentance. Such a thing as paying a prophet for preaching the truth of God is not even mentioned. They were called of Jehovah to go forth in his name, one from his plough, another from gathering of sycamore fruit, &c. &c. Let us for a moment imagine Jeremiah, when God says to him, ‘Gird up thy loins, and arise and speak unto the people all that I command thee,’ replying to Jehovah, ‘I will preach repentance to the people, if they will give me gold, but if they will not pay me for the truth, then let them perish in their sins.’ Now, this is virtually the language of the ministers of the present day; and I believe the secret of the exclusion of women from the ministerial office is, that that office has been converted into one of emolument, of honor, and of power. Any attentive observer cannot fail to perceive, that as far as possible, all such offices are reserved by men for themselves.

Before I go on to prove that women are bound to preach the gospel, I will examine ministry under the Old Testament. Those called to this work were known by various names. Enoch, who prophesied, is described as walking with God. Noah is called a preacher of righteousness. They were called men of God, seers, and prophets. But they all had the same great work: to turn sinners from the error of their ways. This ministry existed before the Jewish priesthood was established and continued after it was abolished. It has nothing to do with the priesthood. As far as the Bible tells us, members of the tribe of Levi rarely carried out this ministry. It was open to all the people, women as well as men. It was fundamentally different from the priesthood because those who called people to repentance received no payment. There is not even a mention of paying a prophet to preach God’s truth. Jehovah called them to go out in his name. One came from his plow, another from gathering sycamore fruit, and so on. Let us imagine Jeremiah when God says to him, ‘Prepare yourself, rise, and tell the people everything I command you.’ Imagine him replying to Jehovah, ‘I will preach repentance to the people if they give me gold. But if they will not pay me for the truth, then let them perish in their sins.’ This is, in effect, what present-day ministers say. I believe the reason women are excluded from the ministry is that it has become a position of wealth, honor, and power. Any attentive observer can see that men reserve all such positions for themselves as far as possible.

The common error that Christian ministers are the successors of the priests, is founded in mistake. In the particular directions given to Moses to consecrate Aaron and his sons to the office of the priesthood, their duties are clearly defined: see Ex. 28th, 29th and 30th chap. There is no commission to Aaron to preach to the people; his business was to offer sacrifice. Now why were sacrifices instituted? They were types of that one great sacrifice, which in the fulness of time was offered up through the eternal Spirit without spot to God. Christ assumed the office of priest; he ‘offered himself,’ and by so doing, abolished forever the order of the priesthood, as well as the sacrifices which the priests were ordained to offer.³

The common belief that Christian ministers are the successors of the priests is mistaken. Moses received specific instructions for consecrating Aaron and his sons to the priesthood. These instructions clearly define their duties (see Exodus, chapters 28, 29, and 30). Aaron was not charged with preaching to the people. His duty was to offer sacrifices. Why were sacrifices instituted? They were symbols of the one great sacrifice that, in due time, was offered without blemish to God through the eternal Spirit. Christ took on the role of priest. He ‘offered himself,’ and by doing so, abolished the priesthood forever, along with the sacrifices priests were appointed to offer.³

But it may be inquired, whether the priests were not to teach the people. As far as I can discover from the Bible, they were simply commanded to read the law to the people. There was no other copy that we know of, until the time of the kings, who were to write out a copy for their own use. As it was deposited in the ark, the priests were required, ‘When all Israel is come to appear before the Lord thy God in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing. Gather the people together, men, women, and children, that they may hear,’ Deut. 31: 9-33. See also Lev. 10: 11, Deut. 33: 10, 2d Chr. 17: 7-9, and numerous other passages. When God is enumerating the means he has used to call his people to repentance, he never, as far as I can discover, speaks of sending his priests to warn them; but in various passages we find language similar to this: ‘Since the day that your fathers came forth out of the land of Egypt unto this day, I have even sent unto you all my servants, the PROPHETS, daily rising up early and sending them. Yet they hearkened not unto me, nor inclined their ear, but hardened their neck; they did worse than their fathers.’ Jer. 7: 25, 26. See also, 25: 4. 2 Chr. 36: 15. and parallel passages. God says, Is. 9: 15, 16. ‘The prophet that teacheth lies, he is the tail; for the leaders of this people cause them to err.’ The distinction between priests and prophets is evident from their being mentioned as two classes. ‘The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means,’ Jer. 5: 31. See also, Ch. 2: 8. 8: 1-10. and many others.

But someone may ask whether the priests were supposed to teach the people. As far as I can discover from the Bible, they were simply commanded to read the law to the people. As far as we know, there was no other copy until the time of the kings. The kings were to write out a copy for their own use. The law was kept in the ark, so the priests were given this command: ‘When all Israel comes to appear before the Lord your God in the place he chooses, you shall read this law aloud before all Israel. Gather the people together, men, women, and children, so that they may hear,’ Deut. 31: 9-33. See also Lev. 10: 11, Deut. 33: 10, 2d Chr. 17: 7-9, and many other passages. God lists the ways he has tried to call his people to repentance. As far as I can discover, he never mentions sending his priests to warn them. But in various passages we find language like this: ‘From the day your fathers came out of the land of Egypt until today, I have sent you all my servants, the PROPHETS. Day after day, I rose early and sent them. Yet the people did not listen to me or pay attention. They were stubborn and did worse than their fathers.’ Jer. 7: 25, 26. See also 25: 4, 2 Chr. 36: 15, and similar passages. God says, Is. 9: 15, 16, ‘The prophet who teaches lies is the tail, for the leaders of this people lead them astray.’ The distinction between priests and prophets is clear from their being mentioned as two groups. ‘The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule by their means,’ Jer. 5: 31. See also Ch. 2: 8, 8: 1-10, and many other passages.

That women were called to the prophetic office, I believe is universally admitted. Miriam, Deborah and Huldah were prophetesses. The judgments of the Lord are denounced by Ezekiel on false prophetesses, as well as false prophets. And if Christian ministers are, as I apprehend, successors of the prophets, and not of the priests, then of course, women are now called to that office as well as men, because God has no where withdrawn from them the privilege of doing what is the great business of preachers, viz. to point the penitent sinner to the Redeemer. ‘Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world.’

I believe everyone agrees that women were called to be prophets. Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah were prophetesses. Ezekiel announces the Lord’s judgment on false prophetesses as well as false prophets. I believe Christian ministers are successors to the prophets, not the priests. If so, women are still called to that office as well as men. God has never taken away their right to do the great work of preachers: to point the repentant sinner to the Redeemer. ‘Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world.’

It is often triumphantly inquired, why, if men and women are on an equality, are not women as conspicuous in the Bible as men? I do not intend to assign a reason, but I think one may readily be found in the fact, that from the days of Eve to the present time, the aim of man has been to crush her. He has accomplished this work in various ways; sometimes by brute force, sometimes by making her subservient to his worst passions, sometimes by treating her as a doll, and while he excluded from her mind the light of knowledge, decked her person with gewgaws and frippery which he scorned for himself, thus endeavoring to render her like unto a painted sepulchre.

People often ask triumphantly: If men and women are equal, why aren’t women as prominent in the Bible as men? I do not intend to give a reason. But I think one can readily be found in the fact that men have sought to crush women from Eve’s day to the present. Men have done this in various ways. Sometimes they have used brute force. Sometimes they have made women serve their worst passions. Sometimes they have treated women as dolls. They have kept knowledge from women’s minds while dressing them in trinkets and finery they scorned for themselves. In this way, they have tried to make women like painted tombs.

It is truly marvellous that any woman can rise above the pressure of circumstances which combine to crush her. Nothing can strengthen her to do this in the character of a preacher of righteousness, but a call from Jehovah himself. And when the voice of God penetrates the deep recesses of her heart, and commands her to go and cry in the ears of the people, she is ready to exclaim, ‘Ah, Lord God, behold I cannot speak, for I am a woman.’ I have known women in different religious societies, who have felt like the prophet. ‘His word was in my heart as a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I was weary with forbearing.’ But they have not dared to open their lips, and have endured all the intensity of suffering, produced by disobedience to God, rather than encounter heartless ridicule and injurious suspicions. I rejoice that we have been the oppressed, rather than the oppressors. God thus prepared his people for deliverance from outward bondage; and I hope our sorrows have prepared us to fulfil our high and holy duties, whether public or private, with humility and meekness; and that suffering has imparted fortitude to endure trials, which assuredly await us in the attempt to sunder those chains with which man has bound us, galling to the spirit, though unseen by the eye.

It is truly remarkable that any woman can rise above the pressures that combine to crush her. Only a call from Jehovah himself can give her the strength to rise above them as a preacher of righteousness. When the voice of God reaches deep into her heart and commands her to go and speak to the people, she is ready to cry, ‘Ah, Lord God, I cannot speak, for I am a woman.’ I have known women in different religious societies who have felt like the prophet. ‘His word was in my heart like a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I grew weary of holding it in.’ But they have not dared to speak. They have endured all the intense suffering caused by disobeying God rather than face heartless ridicule and harmful suspicions. I rejoice that we have been the oppressed rather than the oppressors. God prepared his people for deliverance from outward bondage in this way. I hope our sorrows have prepared us to carry out our high and holy duties, whether public or private, with humility and gentleness. I also hope suffering has given us the strength to endure the trials that surely await us. We will face these trials as we try to break the chains with which man has bound us. Though unseen by the eye, these chains chafe the spirit.

Surely there is nothing either astonishing or novel in the gifts of the Spirit being bestowed on woman: nothing astonishing, because there is no respect of persons with God; the soul of the woman in his sight is as the soul of the man, and both are alike capable of the influence of the Holy Spirit. Nothing novel, because, as has been already shown, in the sacred records there are found examples of women, as well as of men, exercising the gift of prophecy.

Surely there is nothing surprising or new about women receiving the gifts of the Spirit. It is not surprising because God shows no favoritism. In his sight, a woman’s soul is no different from a man’s. Both are equally capable of being influenced by the Holy Spirit. Nor is it new, because, as already shown, the sacred records give examples of women as well as men exercising the gift of prophecy.

We attach to the word prophecy, the exclusive meaning of foretelling future events, but this is certainly a mistake; for the apostle Paul defines it to be ‘speaking to edification, exhortation and comfort.’ And there appears no possible reason, why women should not do this as well as men. At the time that the Bible was translated into English, the meaning of the word prophecy, was delivering a message from God, whether it was to predict future events, or to warn the people of the consequences of sin. Governor Winthrop, of Massachusetts, mentions in a letter, that the minister being absent, he went to, —— to prophecy to the people.

We give the word prophecy only one meaning: foretelling future events. But this is certainly a mistake. The apostle Paul defines it as ‘speaking to edification, exhortation and comfort.’ And there seems to be no possible reason why women should not do this as well as men. When the Bible was translated into English, prophecy meant delivering a message from God. That message might predict future events or warn people of the consequences of sin. Governor Winthrop of Massachusetts mentions in a letter that the minister was absent. So he went to an unnamed place to prophesy to the people.

Before I proceed to prove that women, under the Christian dispensation, were anointed of the Holy Ghost to preach, or prophecy, I will mention Anna, the (last) prophetess under the Jewish dispensation. ‘She departed not from the temple, but served God with fasting and prayers night and day.’ And coming into the temple, while Simeon was yet speaking to Mary, with the infant Savior in his arms, ‘spake of Christ to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.’ Blackwall, a learned English critic, in his work entitled, ‘Sacred Classics,’ says, in reference to this passage, Luke 2: 37—‘According to the original reading, the sense will be, that the devout Anna, who attended in the temple, both night and day, spoke of the Messiah to all the inhabitants of that city, who constantly worshipped there, and who prepared themselves for the worthy reception of that divine person, whom they expected at this time. And ’tis certain, that other devout Jews, not inhabitants of Jerusalem, frequently repaired to the temple-worship, and might, at this remarkable time, and several others, hear this admirable woman discourse upon the blessed advent of the Redeemer. A various reading has Israel instead of Jerusalem, which expresses that religious Jews, from distant places, came thither to divine offices, and would with high pleasure hear the discourses of this great prophetess, so famed for her extraordinary piety and valuable talents, upon the most important and desirable subject.’

Before I go on to prove that women under the Christian dispensation were anointed by the Holy Ghost to preach or prophesy, I will mention Anna, the last prophetess under the Jewish dispensation. ‘She never left the temple, but served God with fasting and prayers night and day.’ She came into the temple while Simeon was still speaking to Mary, with the infant Savior in his arms. She ‘spoke of Christ to all who looked for redemption in Jerusalem.’ Blackwall, a learned English critic, comments on this passage, Luke 2:37, in his work ‘Sacred Classics’: ‘According to the original reading, the meaning is as follows. The devout Anna attended the temple both night and day. She spoke of the Messiah to all the inhabitants of that city who regularly worshipped there. They were preparing themselves to receive worthily the divine person they expected at that time. And it is certain that other devout Jews, who did not live in Jerusalem, frequently came to worship at the temple. At this remarkable time and on several other occasions, they might have heard this admirable woman speak about the blessed coming of the Redeemer. A different reading has Israel instead of Jerusalem. This indicates that religious Jews came from distant places to attend worship there. They would have been delighted to hear this great prophetess speak on the most important and desirable subject. She was widely known for her extraordinary piety and valuable talents.’

I shall now examine the testimony of the Bible on this point, after the ascension of our Lord, beginning with the glorious effusion of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. I presume it will not be denied, that women, as well as men, were at that time filled with the Holy Ghost, because it is expressly stated, that women were among those who continued in prayer and supplication, waiting for the fulfilment of the promise, that they should be endued with power from on high. ‘When the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were ALL with one accord in one place. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.’ Peter says, in reference to this miracle, ‘This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel. And it shall come to pass in the last days, said God, I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy—and on my servants and on my hand-maidens, I will pour out in those days of my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.’ There is not the least intimation that this was a spasmodic influence which was soon to cease. The men and women are classed together; and if the power to preach the gospel was a supernatural and short-lived impulse in women, then it was equally so in men. But we are told, those were the days of miracles. I grant it; but the men, equally with the women, were the subjects of this marvellous fulfilment of prophecy, and of course, if women have lost the gift of prophesying, so have men. We are also gravely told, that if a woman pretends to inspiration, and thereupon grounds the right to plead the cause of a crucified Redeemer in public, she will be believed when she shows credentials from heaven, i. e. when she works a miracle. I reply, if this be necessary to prove her right to preach the gospel, then I demand of my brethren to show me their credentials; else I cannot receive their ministry, by their own showing. John Newton has justly said, that no power but that which created a world, can make a minister of the gospel; and man may task his ingenuity to the utmost, to prove that this power is not exercised on women as well as men. He cannot do it until he has first disclaimed that simple, but all comprehensive truth, ‘in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female.’

I will now examine what the Bible says on this point after the ascension of our Lord. I begin with the glorious outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. I assume no one will deny that women, as well as men, were filled with the Holy Spirit then. The Bible expressly says that women were among those who continued to pray and plead. They were waiting for the promised power from heaven. “When the day of Pentecost came, they were ALL together in one place. Tongues like flames of fire appeared and rested on each of them. They were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit enabled them.” Referring to this miracle, Peter says, “This is what the prophet Joel spoke of. God said, In the last days, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and your daughters will prophesy. In those days I will pour out my Spirit on my servants and my handmaids, and they will prophesy.” There is no hint that this was a sudden, temporary influence that would soon end. Men and women are grouped together. If the power to preach the gospel was a supernatural, short-lived impulse in women, it was equally so in men. But we are told that those were the days of miracles. I grant it. Yet men, just as much as women, experienced this marvelous fulfillment of prophecy. So if women have lost the gift of prophesying, men have lost it too. We are also solemnly told that a woman may claim inspiration and, on that basis, claim the right to plead publicly for a crucified Redeemer. But she will be believed only when she shows credentials from heaven, that is, when she performs a miracle. I reply that if this is necessary to prove her right to preach the gospel, I demand that my brethren show me their credentials. Otherwise, by their own argument, I cannot accept their ministry. John Newton rightly said that only the power that created a world can make a minister of the gospel. Man may use all his ingenuity to try to prove that this power acts on men but not women. He cannot do it until he first rejects that simple but all-encompassing truth: “in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female.”

Women then, according to the Bible, were, under the New Testament dispensation, as well as the Old, the recipients of the gift of prophecy. That this is no sectarian view may be proved by the following extracts. The first I shall offer is from Stratton’s ‘Book of the Priesthood.’

According to the Bible, women received the gift of prophecy under both the New Testament and the Old Testament. The following extracts show that this is not the view of just one religious group. The first is from Stratton’s ‘Book of the Priesthood.’

Scott, in his commentary on this passage, says—

In his commentary on this passage, Scott says:

Henry in his notes confirms this:

Henry confirms this in his notes:

I need hardly remark that man is a generic term, including both sexes.

I hardly need to point out that man is a general term that includes both sexes.

Let us now examine whether women actually exercised the office of minister, under the gospel dispensation. Philip had four daughters, who prophesied or preached. Paul calls Priscilla, as well as Aquila, his helpers; or, as in the Greek, his fellow laborers⁴ in Christ Jesus. Divers other passages might be adduced to prove that women continued to be preachers, and that many of them filled this dignified station.

Let us now examine whether women actually served as ministers under the gospel. Philip had four daughters who prophesied or preached. Paul calls both Priscilla and Aquila his helpers. In Greek, he calls them his fellow laborers⁴ in Christ Jesus. Many other passages could be cited to prove that women continued to preach and that many held this honored position.

We learn also from ecclesiastical history, that female ministers suffered martyrdom in the early ages of the Christian church. In ancient councils, mention is made of deaconesses; and in an edition of the New Testament, printed in 1574, a woman is spoken of as minister of a church. The same word, which, in our common translation, is now rendered a servant of the church, in speaking of Phebe, Rom. 16: 1, is rendered minister, Eph. 6: 21, when applied to Tychicus. A minister, with whom I had lately the pleasure of conversing, remarked, ‘My rule is to expound scripture by scripture, and I cannot deny the ministry of women, because the apostle says, ‘help those women who labored with me IN THE GOSPEL.’ He certainly meant something more than pouring out tea for him.’

Church history also tells us that female ministers were martyred in the early Christian church. Ancient church councils mention deaconesses. And a woman is described as a church minister in a New Testament edition printed in 1574. Our common translation now calls Phebe a “servant of the church” in Romans 16:1. But in Ephesians 6:21, the same word is translated as “minister” when it refers to Tychicus. A minister I recently had the pleasure of speaking with remarked, ‘My rule is to explain scripture by scripture. I cannot deny the ministry of women because the apostle says, ‘help those women who worked with me IN THE GOSPEL.’ He certainly meant something more than pouring out tea for him.’

In the 11th Ch. of 1 Cor., Paul gives directions to women and men how they should appear when they prophesy, or pray in public assemblies. It is evident that the design of the apostle, in this and the three succeeding chapters, is to rectify certain abuses which had crept into the Christian church. He therefore admonishes women to pray with their heads covered, because, according to the fashion of that day, it was considered immodest and immoral to do otherwise. He says, ‘that were all one as if she were shaven;’ and shaving the head was a disgraceful punishment that was inflicted on women of bad character.

In chapter 11 of 1 Corinthians, Paul tells women and men how they should appear when they prophesy or pray in public gatherings. Clearly, the apostle’s purpose in this chapter and the next three is to correct certain abuses that had entered the Christian church. He therefore tells women to pray with their heads covered. By the customs of that day, it was considered immodest and immoral to do otherwise. He says that an uncovered woman is ‘just as if her head were shaved.’ Shaving a woman’s head was a shameful punishment inflicted on women of bad character.

John Locke, whilst engaged in writing his notes on the Epistles of St. Paul, was at a meeting where two women preached. After hearing them, he became convinced of their commission to publish the gospel, and thereupon altered his notes on the 11th Ch. 1 Cor. in favor of women’s preaching. He says,—

While writing his notes on the Epistles of St. Paul, John Locke attended a meeting where two women preached. After hearing them, he became convinced that they were called to preach the gospel. He then changed his notes on 1 Corinthians, chapter 11, to support women’s preaching. He says:

In a letter to these two women, Rebecca Collier and Rachel Bracken, which accompanied a little testimony of his regard, he says,

He sent a small token of his regard to these two women, Rebecca Collier and Rachel Bracken. In the accompanying letter, he says,

See ‘The Friend,’ a periodical published in Philadelphia.

See ‘The Friend,’ a magazine published in Philadelphia.

Adam Clarke’s comment on 1 Cor. 11: 5, is similar to Locke’s:

Adam Clarke’s comment on 1 Corinthians 11:5 is similar to Locke’s:

In the autobiography of Adam Clarke, there is an interesting account of his hearing Mary Sewall and another female minister preach, and he acknowledges that such was the power accompanying their ministry, that though he had been prejudiced against women’s preaching, he could not but confess that these women were anointed for the office.

In his autobiography, Adam Clarke gives an interesting account of hearing Mary Sewall and another female minister preach. He admits that their ministry had such power that he could not deny they were anointed for the role, even though he had been prejudiced against women preaching.

But there are certain passages in the Epistles of St. Paul, which seem to be of doubtful interpretation; at which we cannot much marvel, seeing that his brother Peter says, there are some things in them hard to be understood. Most commentators, having their minds preoccupied with the prejudices of education, afford little aid; they rather tend to darken the text by the multitude of words. One of these passages occurs in 1 Cor. 14. I have already remarked, that this chapter, with several of the preceding, was evidently designed to correct abuses which had crept into the assemblies of Christians in Corinth. Hence we find that the men were commanded to be silent, as well as the women, when they were guilty of any thing which deserved reprehension. The apostle says, ‘If there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church.’ The men were doubtless in the practice of speaking in unknown tongues, when there was no interpreter present; and Paul reproves them, because this kind of preaching conveyed no instruction to the people. Again he says, ‘If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.’ We may infer from this, that two men sometimes attempted to speak at the same time, and the apostle rebukes them, and adds, ‘Ye may ALL prophesy one by one, for God is not the author of confusion, but of peace.’ He then proceeds to notice the disorderly conduct of the women, who were guilty of other improprieties. They were probably in the habit of asking questions, on any points of doctrine which they wished more thoroughly explained. This custom was common among the men in the Jewish synagogues, after the pattern of which, the meetings of the early Christians were in all probability conducted. And the Christian women, presuming on the liberty which they enjoyed under the new religion, interrupted the assembly, by asking questions. The apostle disapproved of this, because it disturbed the solemnity of the meeting: he therefore admonishes the women to keep silence in the churches. That the apostle did not allude to preaching is manifest, because he tells them, ‘If they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home.’ Now a person endowed with a gift in the ministry, does not ask questions in the public exercise of that gift, for the purpose of gaining information: she is instructing others. Moreover, the apostle, in closing his remarks on this subject, says, ‘Wherefore, brethren, (a generic term, applying equally to men and women,) covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. Let all things be done decently and in order.’

But certain passages in St. Paul's Epistles seem open to different interpretations. This is hardly surprising, since his brother Peter says that some things in them are hard to understand. Most commentators offer little help because their minds are occupied by the prejudices of their education. Their many words tend instead to make the text more obscure. One of these passages appears in 1 Cor. 14. As I have already noted, this chapter and several before it were evidently meant to correct abuses in Christian assemblies in Corinth. So we find that men, as well as women, were told to be silent when they did anything deserving correction. The apostle says, ‘If there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in the church.’ Men were doubtless in the habit of speaking in unknown tongues when no interpreter was present. Paul rebukes them because this kind of preaching gave the people no instruction. Again he says, ‘If something is revealed to another who is sitting by, let the first speaker be silent.’ We may infer that two men sometimes tried to speak at the same time. The apostle rebukes them and adds, ‘You may ALL prophesy one by one, for God is not the author of confusion, but of peace.’ He then turns to the disorderly conduct of the women, who were guilty of other improprieties. They probably had a habit of asking questions about points of doctrine they wanted explained more fully. This was common among men in Jewish synagogues. The meetings of the early Christians were, in all probability, conducted on the same pattern. Christian women, taking advantage of the freedom they enjoyed under the new religion, interrupted the assembly by asking questions. The apostle disapproved because this disturbed the solemnity of the meeting. He therefore advised women to keep silent in the churches. The apostle clearly was not referring to preaching, because he tells them, ‘If they want to learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home.’ A person with a gift for ministry does not ask questions to gain information while publicly exercising that gift. She is instructing others. Moreover, the apostle closes his remarks on this subject by saying, ‘Therefore, brethren, desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. Let all things be done decently and in order.’ Brethren is a general term that applies equally to men and women.

Clarke, on the passage, ‘Let women keep silence in the churches,’ says:

Clarke says this about the passage, ‘Let women keep silent in the churches’:

Are there not many of our Christian brethren, whose hostility to the ministry of women is as bitter as was that of Rabbi Eliezer, and who would rather let souls perish, than that the truths of the gospel should be delivered by women?

Aren’t many of our Christian brothers as bitterly opposed to women preaching as Rabbi Eliezer was? Wouldn’t they rather let souls perish than have women deliver the truths of the gospel?

The other passage on which the opinion, that women are not called to the ministry, is founded, is 1 Tim. 2d ch. The apostle speaks of the duty of prayer and supplication, mentions his own ordination as a preacher, and then adds, ‘I will, therefore, that men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel,’ &c. I shall here premise, that as the punctuation and division into chapters and verses is no part of the original arrangement, they cannot determine the sense of a passage. Indeed, every attentive reader of the Bible must observe, that the injudicious separation of sentences often destroys their meaning and their beauty. Joseph John Gurney, whose skill as a biblical critic is well known in England, commenting on this passage, says,

The other passage used to support the belief that women are not called to the ministry is 1 Timothy, chapter 2. The apostle speaks of the duty to pray and make supplications. He mentions his own ordination as a preacher and then adds, ‘I want men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands, without anger or doubt. Likewise, I want women to dress modestly,’ and so on. First, I should point out that punctuation and divisions into chapters and verses were not part of the original arrangement. They therefore cannot determine the meaning of a passage. Indeed, every attentive reader of the Bible must notice that poorly placed sentence breaks often destroy both meaning and beauty. Joseph John Gurney is well known in England for his skill as a biblical critic. Commenting on this passage, he says,

I have no doubt this is the true meaning of the text, and that the translators would never have thought of altering it had they not been under the influence of educational prejudice. The apostle proceeds to exhort the women, who thus publicly made intercession to God, not to adorn themselves with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array, but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.’ The word in this verse translated ‘professing,’ would be more properly rendered preaching godliness, or enjoining piety to the gods, or conducting public worship. After describing the duty of female ministers about their apparel, the apostle proceeds to correct some improprieties which probably prevailed in the Ephesian church, similar to those which he had reproved among the Corinthian converts. He says, ‘Let the women LEARN in silence with all subjection; but I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence,’ or quietness. Here again it is evident that the women, of whom he was speaking, were admonished to learn in silence, which could not refer to their public ministrations to others. The verb to teach, verse 12, is one of very general import, and may in this place more properly be rendered dictate. It is highly probable that women who had long been in bondage, when set free by Christianity from the restraints imposed upon them by Jewish traditions and heathen customs, run into an extreme in their public assemblies, and interrupted the religious services by frequent interrogations, which they could have had answered as satisfactorily at home.

I have no doubt that this is the true meaning of the text. The translators would never have thought of changing it if their education had not prejudiced them. The apostle goes on to urge the women who publicly prayed to God not to adorn themselves with braided hair, gold, pearls, or expensive clothing. Instead, they should adorn themselves with good works, as befits women who profess godliness.’ The word translated ‘professing’ in this verse would be better rendered as preaching godliness, enjoining piety to the gods, or conducting public worship. After describing how female ministers should dress, the apostle goes on to correct some improper behavior that probably occurred in the Ephesian church. It was similar to behavior he had criticized among the Corinthian converts. He says, ‘Let the women LEARN in silence with all submission. But I do not allow a woman to teach or to take authority over a man. She must be silent,’ or quiet. Here again, the women he was speaking about were clearly told to learn in silence. This could not refer to their public ministry to others. The verb translated as “teach” in verse 12 has a very broad meaning. Here it may be better rendered as “dictate.” Women had long been in bondage. Christianity freed them from the restrictions imposed on them by Jewish traditions and heathen customs. It is highly probable that they then went to an extreme in their public assemblies. They may have interrupted religious services with frequent questions that could have been answered just as satisfactorily at home.

On a candid examination and comparison of the passages which I have endeavored to explain, viz., 1 Cor. chaps. 11 and 14, and 1 Tim. 2, 8-12. I think we must be compelled to adopt one of two conclusions; either that the apostle grossly contradicts himself on a subject of great practical importance, and that the fulfilment of the prophecy of Joel was a shameful infringement of decency and order; or that the directions given to women, not to speak, or to teach in the congregations, had reference to some local and peculiar customs, which were then common in religious assemblies, and which the apostle thought inconsistent with the purpose for which they were met together. No one, I suppose, will hesitate which of these two conclusions to adopt. The subject is one of vital importance. That it may claim the calm and prayerful attention of Christians, is the desire of

If we examine and compare the passages I have tried to explain, I think we must reach one of two conclusions. The passages are 1 Corinthians, chapters 11 and 14, and 1 Timothy 2:8-12. Either the apostle seriously contradicts himself on a matter of great practical importance, and the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy was a shameful violation of decency and order. Or the instructions that women should not speak or teach in congregations referred to particular local customs. These customs were common in religious assemblies at the time, and the apostle thought they conflicted with the purpose of those gatherings. I suppose no one will hesitate over which conclusion to accept. The subject is vitally important. It is the desire of the writer that Christians give it calm and prayerful attention.