Clipped From The Liberator

mamacitalc Member Photo

Clipped by mamacitalc

 - THE IIB E R A T 0 R. ' ' -We . HeforotatOEg. A...
THE IIB E R A T 0 R. ' ' -We . HeforotatOEg. A SCRIPTURAL VIEW OF WOMAN'S RIGHTS AND DUTIES, IN ALL THE IMPORTANT RELATIONS OF LIFE. Ma. Garrison: . . ., We observe, in the Liberators of January 4 th and 18th, that Henry Grew has made some remarks on the main position, namely, the equality of the sexes, sexes, which we have endeavored to establish in our work of the above title. Or, as our republicans say, We hold these truths to bo self-evident, self-evident, self-evident, that all men (mankind) are created equal &c. &c., Mr. Grew attempts to show not only man's official preeminence preeminence over woman in some relations of life, but also to show a natural distinction in the sexes as it respects rights ; hence woman is not entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Before we proceed to consider Mr. Grew's remarks, remarks, we gladly avail ourrelves of the opportunity of tendering you, Mr. Garrison, our grateful acknowledgments acknowledgments for the encouraging and commendatory manner in which you have been pleased to notice our book. The kind and animating words of the editor editor of the Liberator, the gifted, far-sighted far-sighted far-sighted champion of human liberty, (whom we considered well qualified qualified to judge, and no flatterer,) when Woman's Rights and Duties ' first made its appearance, were opportune opportune and highly gratifying, and inspired us with hope that our humble efforts would not be fruitless. We were well aware that it was the most unpopular question question which could have been presented. to the public, and would have to encounter opposition of a more or less malignant type. As an earnest that our expectations expectations in this respect would not be disappointed, immediately after 4 Woman's Rights and Duties' made its appearance, it was noticed in a number of religious religious periodicals in the city of Philadelphia, and censured censured with virulence, mingled, in some, with no small portion of buffoonery. Extracts were given, torn from their contexts, and placed in connections they did not occupy in the book. The school of Garrison, Abby Kelly & Co. came in for their share of contumely, and ourselves classed with certain she infidels (as they, in their sublimity of style, were pleased to call them,) who were dangerous in the community, endeavoring endeavoring to overturn all governments, and thus striving striving to excite prejudice against the book. Pitiful subterfuge subterfuge ! we rejoice that our work has elicited investigation investigation on this question, which is second to none in importance and extent.' We will now proceed to make some brief observations observations on Mr. Grew's remarks, although every objection objection of any importance which he has offered ha3 been considered in the book ; it is before the public ; it can speak for itself. Mr. G. commences by saying that he is an advocate for woman's rights.' We think this intimation highly necessary, as it could not have been discovered from the principles he exhibits. Then he proceeds to eulogize woman, as is common, for the constancy of her affections through all the vicissitudes oflife &c. &e. She has been a good, faithful family drudge, watching over man with ' enduring enduring patience,' in seasons of helpless infancy, in his sickness and in his sorrows. Are men manifesting manifesting gratitude to their mothers, when they are torturing torturing their imagination te show how much lower than men women are in the scale of humanity ? Mr. G. acknowledges that man has exercised dominion over woman which God never gave him, that ho has grossly perverted the holy institution of marriage, to gratify the pride, carnality and selfishness of his depraved depraved heart ; has robbed woman of her rights, and himself of the benefits which a recognition of those rights imparts.' Thus acknowledging all that we charge man with, and also acknowledging the evil consequences resulting. Thus the prophecy is literally literally fulfilled, Thy desire shall ba to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee, striking hands with Satan, Satan, I will put enmity between thee and the woman woman We most emphatically ask brother Grew, if there ever was any portion of the human family who claimed such an amount of authority as the male sex claims over the female, who did not abuse it ? How is it known when woman is robbed of her rights ? If she has less than man, how much less ? If she has less rights in one respect, why not in another ? Mr. G. exhibits great zeal in order to prove that woman is inferior to man by nature; he must think there are two human natures, and that sex is the criterion. We will now attend to the texts which Mr. G. has cited to prove the inequality of the sexes. He says It is recorded that God said, it is not good that man should bo alone ; I will make an helpmeet for him. That neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man ; and the man is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man. He exclaims, Is there no difference difference here ? Is this the language of perfect equality ? ' Parther, he says, In respect to authority and submis sion, it is written not only thy husband shall rule over thee, but the head of the woman is the man.' That is the son is the mother's head as to subjection and authority, as he is a man and she is a woman, Mr. Grew's rights are all one-sided. one-sided. one-sided. As he is a great admirer of Paul, we will ask his opinion on this mat ter. What duty does the head owe the body, say you, Paul ? No man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourishcth and cherisheth it even as the Lord the Chutch. Does Paul say, in any place, any thing about the heart ruling the body ? What duty say you, Paul, do the honorable members of the body owe to those members they consider less honorable ? Do they rule them ? No ; upon these they bestow more abundant honor, that there may be no schism in the body. Mr. G. thinks that it was just for man's pleasure that woman was and is created. Now, Gird up thy loins like a man, for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me 4 Where was ' man when God entered into the council chamber, and laid the plan of man and woman's creation, at the same time, and for the same purpose? Gen. 1:26. Are we to suppose that the only purpose Uod had in creating man and woman was to take the oversight of the beasts, be cause He said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and let them have dominion ? As far as mm was concerned, woman was made for him. Was it for her to be added as another subject to his government ? No ; it was because ho was not capable capable of answering the end of his being without a help meet ; the plan of creation was not finished until wo man was created, and not till then, as far as man kind's creation was concerned, did God pronounce all very good, but the contrary ; it was not good for man to be alone. There is as much reason to believe that man is inferior to woman, as there is that woman is inferior to man, because he could not do without her. But Mr. Grew says. 4 Woman was made of the man and exclaims, 4 Is this perfect equality i ' Not of the dust of the ground, like Adam. Mr. Henry, in his Commentary, with reference to this, says, 4 The man was dust refined, but tho woman dust double-refined double-refined double-refined one remove farther from the earth.' Is this perfect equality? Christ was made of a woman. Does that make woman superior to Christ Now, if man has a right to glory, because woman was made of him, here woman more. And Christ was made for his people, and not his people for him, as far as his human nature was concerned. And it is fashionable, now a days, for all men to be by the woman. Is this perfect equality ? The woman woman is the glory of the man Is it inferior things that are our glory i All these things you have mentioned mentioned are mere adventitious circumstances, and have nothing to do with our rights. Our rights are L i I ' in the Intellectual and moral nature of man ; and our capacity to rule is from the same source the GodUk attributes of our nature. We receive facilities from our physical organization, but not oar right. - When we say man and woman are perfect equals, we mean they are equals as moral and intellectual beings, hence equal as to rights. We will now consider some criticisms that Mr. Grew has made on some of the sentiments we hare exhibited in our book. One proof we gave why man and woman were created equal was, they were made of one blood. See book, p. 17. He says, This proves too much, as it would destroy the authority of the master over the child, and that of the master over the servant.' There is no Scripture authority predicated on superiority; for the person in authority is the servant, according to Christ's precepts. The authority of father and mother over the child is entirely entirely for the child's benefit ; and the parents are emphatically emphatically the servants, if they perform their duty faithfully. When the child arrives at the age of ma jority, the parents' authority ceases. Nor is it on the principle of superiority that the master has authority over the servant. There is a mutual and reciprocal contract between them ; and the servant is as much obliged as the master, and has equal rights and privileges privileges (if not a slave). There may be a great differ ence in their condition, but not in their rights. The servant has perfect control over every thing that be long to himself, and all his time not given away by contract perhaps as much unoccupied time as his master ; but he has no right to go into his employ er's house and conduct his business as he pleases, ex cent the employer delegates that authority. And the servant, in his turn, can direct those he employs to do business for himself. For example, if a tailor makes him a garment, he has a right to direct the form and choose the material. We are all servants, and mem bers one of another. O ! that this was better understood understood and acted on as a principle, when none would arrogate to himself superiority, but all act as brethren, according to the directions of our Lord. Mr. G. says Pages 32, 33 (of our book,) 'individuality is claimed for the woman. She is not to be merged in the husband. Yet to prove that there can be no superiority, or inferiority, they are pronounced one. To prove that they are one in authority, the words of the Savior are quoted, I and my Father are one.' He says, If these words prove equality of authority, then the prayer of our blessed Lord, that his disciples may be one in liim and his Father, even as (they) are one, proves their equal authority with the Father and the Son. We said, as far as husband and wife are concern ed, they are pronounced one, and where there is no divisibility, there can be no superiority or inferiori ty ; but they both retain their individuality. There is no contradiction here. For example : these United States are one in their national character, yet each State retains its individuality and sovereignty, gov erning its own internal regulations. But whatever affects their interests as a nation is decided in the National Legislature, each State having a voice in the decision. In like manner, the husband has a right to do as he pleases with what relates to himself per sonally, as far as the wife is concerned, provided he does not violate her rights ; and the wife has just the same rights ; but when both their interests are involved, they have both a voice in the decision. Neither husband nor wife can resign their personal liberty, because God still holds them accountable as individuals. We did not quote the words of the Sa vior, I and my father are one, to prove the equality of authority of husband and wife ; we quoted them to show that it would be the common understanding ankof mind, that when too individuals constitute but one person, they must be equals ; and that the Jews understood Christ to say that he was equal with God, when he said, I and my father are ono ; and he ta citlv admits the iustness of the inference. But there is no comparison between the oneness of believers in Christ with the Father. What mere human being oan be one with God in his essential character ? We mizht be one with him in love and aim, &c. &c. It is said, man was made in the image of God. Du -i -i understand that man was a second God like unto the first? or a secondary God as our brethren please to style themselves r Certainly not. But when Seth is said to be in his father Adam's likeness, and after his image, Gen. 5 : 3, we understand Seth to be an exact image and likeness of his father, (as the Almighty Almighty is a perfect portrait painter,) in all the char acteristics of humanity, because Adam and Seth were of the same essence and erade of beinsr. So when husband and wife are said to be one, as they are crea tures of the same grade and essence, it implies they are perfect equals. Mr. G. says 4i5y what logical process it is inferred from the command to children to honor both parents, that wives are not to be obedient obedient to their husbands, we have yet to learn.' Well, we do not profess to be adepts in logical lore, but the common sense view we take of it is, it is the spe cial and particular duty of rulers of families, and the most important reason why families are organized, is to rule and discipline children ; and woman thus rules and disciplines, hence she is a governor of that family in the most important feature of family government, not a subordinate. Another example: it is only the right of an equal ruler in the family to give of the pecuniary means of that family, in extreme cases against the will of her associate. Then the wife is an equal governor of the family, for. Abigail gave of the pecuniary means of the family, against the expressed will of Nabal, and it was sanctioned by God. Had she not been an equal ruler in that family, she would have been an usurper. a thief and a robber. Could she have obeyed God and her husband both in that case ? We have shown m detail, in the second chapter of our work, that there is not a moral duty incumbent on the husband, in the family relation, but that is also incumbent on the wife. There is no room left for the husband's legislation legislation ; and when their duties are the same, their rights must also be the same. Mr. Grew says That their duties are entirely the same is not true. "Wives are to be obedient to their own husbands, but husbands husbands are not told to be obedient to their wives. It is one of the duties of the husband, to care for the tinners of the world, how he mav olcase his wife. It a is not in any place said to the wife, that she that lov eth her husband lovcth herself, or that she is to nour ish and cherish the husband, even as the Lord the Church. Are we to suppose that the wife is not to perform these duties, because she is not specially directed directed to do so, if the case demands, and she has ability ? Most certainly she should. And then it would become the husband's duty to submit and be obedient to her, nourishing and cherishing. But would it confer a favor on her to rule him? It would only add a tremendous responsibility. God forbid that he should havo to resign his liberty for a mess of pottage, or that she should assume superi ority over him, excepting superiority of ability o do him an act of kindness, even if he had reduced himself to that situation by debauchery, (which is frequently the case.) Mr. Grew attempts to prove the husband's authority authority and the wife's subordination from the wife's duty to the husband 4 Be obedient, submit, 8tc. ic. Certainly Certainly we have the same authority to judge of their reciprocal reciprocal duties by the directions given to the husband : a rule is not a good one, except it work both ways. We will now examine the kingly authority claimed for the husband, from the revealed will of God. When a man hath taken a new wife,' he shall not go out to war, neither shall he be charged with any business business ; but he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up the wife which he hath, taken.' Deut. 24: 5. 4 Her husband, also, and he praiseth her.' Prov. 31 : 38. No kingly authority yet. He, the husband, hath not power over his own body, but the wife.' 1st Cor. 7 : 4. 4 He that is married careth for the things of the world, how he may please his wife.' Verse 33. Is there any kingly authority here ? 4 He (the husband) is the savior of the body.' Eph. 5 1 23. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved loved the Church, and gare himself for it.' Verse 25. Is this kingly ? 4 So ought men to lore their wires as their own bodies ; he that loveth his wife, loveth himself. r. 28. 4 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it even as the Lord the Church.' r. 29. 4 For this cause shall a man leare his father and mother, and be joined unto his wife, and the two shall be one flesh. r. 31. 4 Let every every one of you, in particular, so lore his wife, even as himself r. 33. 4 Husbands, lore your wires, and be not bitter against them.' Colos. 3:19. No kingly authority yet. Likewise, ye husbands dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honor unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel.' 1st Peter, 3:7. What ! the husband honor the wife, as well as the wife to reverence the husband ! Is this not perfect equality ? 4 And God said unto Abraham, in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice. Gen. 21 : 12. Now, here is a command given to Abraham to be obedient unto the voice of his wife, in a most important matter. Is this a proof of his king ly authority over Sarah i If it had been from the hisband to the wife, how we would havo heard it heralded abroad, as a triumphant example of the husband's right to command ! Brother Grew attempts attempts to show that we contradicted ourselves when we asserted that there was not one instance, on di vine record, of a husband's commanding a wife. 'Af terwards he says, 4 we a.dmit Gen. 18:6 to be one.' We generally made the exception of Gen. 18 : 6. Why not confront us with the portion of Scripture which contains the command, namely, Abraham tell. ing his wife to bake cakes ? It has only excited the risibility of our hearers to call it a command ! We would respectfully advise our brother never to bring it up again. It discovers the weakness of his cause, to produce such testimony, compared with these in spired precepts. What must be our estimation of the assertion, that the husband is invested with the king. ly authority of Christ, (! !) when there is nothing like the semblance of kingly or lawgiving authority on the side of the husband, from Scripture authority. either by precept or example ? This kingly author! ty of the husband is like Paddy's flea, when we put our finger on it, it is not there ! Nor would ruling her have any tendency to nourish her, and it would be subversive of the end of cheering and gladdening her heart ; as every individual of mature age and judgment has an instinctive desire to rule themselves, The comparisons drawn between husband and wife. masters and servants, magistrates and subjects, parents parents and children, have no bearing on the question at issue; they are not parallel cases Ths wife is the husband's companion, and his associate in the gov ernment of his family. See 4 Woman's Rights, pp, 63 and 70. Mr. G. says 'The husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the Church. Eph. 5 : 23 If the phrase in the former case denotes no authority, neither does it in the latter.' He says Our zealous author refutes her own ingenious arguments for the claim of entire equality, by the concession, that the husband's character in -temporalities -temporalities corresponds to Christ's in spiritual matters. It is only as far as nourishing and cherishing are concerned, that we made those concessions, not ruling; nor is it because woman is unqualified by nature more than man to nourish and cherish herself, nor is it that she should be eased, and her companion burdened, but that there should be an equality. Woman's duty is as useful, as arduous, as iifrpertant and as honorable, as is man's, and far more sclf-sacrincine: sclf-sacrincine: sclf-sacrincine: : and administers as much to man's interest and happiness as man does to hers. He is both physically and morally benefitted by her society. Their dependance is mutual, and their obligations reciprocal. Mr. G. says' The declaration that Christ is the head of the Church implies his authority in spiritual matters. Where is the proof? Is Christ spoken of na ruling tho Church, in connection with his head' ship ? He dispenses spiritual blessings in his charac ter of head, but does not rule. , He says, 4 That He (Christ) is the patron; protector, and owner of his Church is true, but no more true than that he is her king and lawgiver' (Christ is her prophet and priest. also. Does the husband occupy these offices ?) 4 The difference, in respect to degrees of authority, in the case of Christ and his Church, and the husband and wife, are indeed widely different. How wide is the difference difference ? Paul makes no difference ; he says, they are of like extent 'in every thing and you say it is Christ's kingly authority to which he has reference, Define your position. How will you know when you are doing your duty, if you are unacquainted with its extent ? Do not back out, brother Grew, when you are about ascending the throne of Christ, not as an understrapper, like the Pope, but just like Christ himself, exalted above any earthly potentate. Don 't hide among the stuff, like Saul, 1st Sam. 10 : 22, when you are just about to be inaugurated. This is not boys playing king. Mr. G. says, 4 God is the Legislator of the family. He is now dethroned, and man is the occupant. 'Put on your magnificent robes, would-be would-be would-be sovereign head, bring all your dignity into requisition. requisition. 4 Deck thyself now with majesty and excellency excellency ; and array thyself with glory and beauty. Cast abroad the rage of thy wrath ; and behold every every one that is proud, and abase him. And if your subject proves contumacious, then visit her transgression transgression with a rod, and her iniquities with stripes. This is your indispensable duty in your kingly office As many as you love, rebuke and chasten ; you claim to have on your vesture and on your thigh a name written, King of Wife and Lord of Woman ! ! Blasphemy. Blasphemy. Now, let us take a view of this sovereign on the throne, who is so much inflated with pomposity, the head of the wife, a being all head ; a heartless monster monster ! How can the head act distinct from the body ? The body and head constitute but one individual ; consequently, consequently, one person cannot be both ruler and subject. It may be observed, in all the reasons Mr.' G. gives for man's authority, there is not one of a moral or intellectual intellectual character ; nor docs he adduce one argument to 6how the moral fitness of his arrangement. Just dominion for its own sake ! He disclaims the mental faculties having any thing to do with the question at issue. The legitimate inference from his premises is, that woman was made, and placed under the government government of man, to show the might of his power, and for the honor of his majesty ! The admirers of the kingly authority of the husband are hard pushed for testimony their testimony either proves too much or too little. When the husband is considered to represent Christ in his mvstical character, as head of influences dis-pensing dis-pensing dis-pensing spiritual blessings, nourishing and cherishing the Church, it is involved in no absurdities, and requires requires no superhuman faculties ; and it perfectly accords accords with the duties assigned the husband by Scripture Scripture authority, and also the liberties of the wife, and the loving, sweet companionship of husband and wife. And it comports with the functions that Christ represents himself to exercise, when He represents himself as the husband of the Church. He gives no laws in the character of husband or mystical head. See 4 Woman's Rights, p. 56. No person will doubt that the husband has a moral right to lore, nourish and cherish the wife, as the Lord the Church. If he has not physical ability, that is not his fault ; a man is accepted for what he hath, and not for what he hath not. No person believes that the husband has a moral right to rale tho wife, as Christ rules the Church, 4 in every thing. Mr. Grew repudiate the opinion himself. With Mr. Garrison's permission, we will consider Mr. Grew's remarks on the position of woman in the Christian Church in a subsequent number. ELIZABETH WILSON. 25 ii. pipe ent or the an tion vet life the universal it all he as to had or life the to an be dle me of to to by acted in he it of a an its no VI

Clipped from
  1. The Liberator,
  2. 22 Feb 1850, Fri,
  3. Page 4

mamacitalc Member Photo

Want to comment on this Clipping? Sign up for a free account, or sign in