XIII.A TALK IN THE SCHOOLHOUSE.
AFTER the women, by working at home and begging abroad, had obtained the requisite sum, the men came forward, and proposed meeting together to form a society, or parish, which should build the chapel, and regulate all things pertaining thereto. The women said, “Yes, a very proper thing to do: we’ll come.”—“Oh, no!” the men said: “we can manage it ourselves. You don’t understand house-building; besides, a woman would be out of place in a parish meeting.”
Nanny Joe affirmed that she and several members of the sewing-circle had consulted builders, and obtained their proposals. Mr. David answered, very well; that, when the parish should be regularly formed, she could send in a prepared statement, and the parish would act upon it. The matter created quite a stir in the neighborhood; and it soon became evident that Mr. David and others strongly objected to “women speaking in meeting.” Some, however,held views opposite to those of Mr. David, and were not backward in expressing those views. At last the direct question was raised, whether, in any future meetings to be held in the chapel, a woman should, or should not, be allowed to speak.
This question has been freely discussed, not upon set occasions, but as people met in their usual way of dropping in; whathesaid, and whatshesaid, being told from house to house. Two parties have been formed; and the excitement is very great. Everybody says there was never any thing like it in Tweenit before. There probably was never so much Bible-reading. Each side searches out texts whereby to sustain its position. At first, the women were united; but, latterly, some of them, influenced by husbands, brothers, or lovers, have come out against themselves. Mrs. Laura says she has said, “Amen!” or “Glory!” occasionally in a revival-meeting at Piper’s Mills, but that was before she looked into the subject; and she sees now, that, as the command forbids women to speak, one word is as wrong as twenty words. Mr. David and others say that the text is plain and direct, and therefore they cannot conscientiously worship in the building, if women speak in the meetings. The opposite party contend that the prohibition was a local affair,applying only to the women of those days, and of that Eastern country. Mr. David replies, that, if you are going to explain away the Bible, you may as well not have any Bible.
Fennel Payne and some others propose that the men meet in the schoolhouse, and there talk the matter over, and, if possible, come to some decision. Mr. David says he is ready to do this, if Fennel Payne’s party will take the Bible literally, and not add, nor take away, nor explain away.
Four days later. Last evening the men came together in the schoolhouse. Those who live near brought lamps, candles, and lanterns, which, being set in a row on the desk, did their best to bring out the low ceiling and dingy walls. Mr. David opened the discussion by saying that he saw no reason for any discussion at all, if we believed the Bible; for there was the text in plain words: “It is not permitted that a woman should speak in the church.”
Fennel Payne asked whether the word “church” meant a building, or the collection of people who partake of the sacrament, and are called “the church.” Mr. David said it probably meant either, or both. “Then,” said Fennel, “if a collection of people who do not belong to the church assemblein a building which is not a church, a woman may speak to them?”
Mr. David began to say that the prohibition was probably intended to cover—but Fennel reminded him that nothing was to be added, or subtracted, or explained away.
Then a man named Hale rose, and asked if it were right for women to teach in sabbath schools. “Certainly it is!” answered Mr. Zenas Melendy, “very right and very proper.”—“And if,” continued Mr. Hale, “inquirers anxious for the welfare of their souls should come to your wife, seeking light on religious subjects, it would be right for her to give them information?”—“Certainly!” answered Mr. Zenas. “She would be very blameworthy in not doing it.”—“On the contrary,” replied Mr. Hale, opening his Testament, “she is strictly forbidden to do it. Here Paul says, ‘I suffer not a woman to teach.’ This excludes women from teaching the truths of the gospel, from teaching in the sabbath school, in high schools, normal schools, any schools.”
“But Paul didn’t mean,” began Mr. Zenas—“Excuse me,” interrupted Mr. Hale. “The conditions are, not to add, nor subtract, nor explain away. And here in Ephesians is another text.”Mr. Hale then read, “Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands in every thing,” and asked if that command were to be obeyed without adding, subtracting, or explaining away.
“Why, yes,” answered Mr. Zenas, with a hesitancy which caused a general smile; it being pretty well understood in Tweenit that Mrs. Zenas does not fulfil that command to the very letter.
“This injunction, then,” remarked Mr. Hale, “takes from wives all personal responsibility. Submit yourselves to your husbands inevery thing. If a husband wishes his wife to do a wrong act, it is her duty to obey him.”
Mr. David said, that, of course, a woman should not do any thing against her own conscience. Mr. Hale replied, that the text left her no right of private judgment, inasmuch as Paul declared over and over again in his epistles, that the wife must submit to the husband, and that “the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church.” “And here,” Mr. Hale continued, “is a passage which commands us to ‘Owe no man any thing.’ Those who cannot worship in a building in which women speak cannot worship with any person who is in debt. And here again” (turning the leaves) “are other texts: ‘Let no man seek his own, but everyman another’s wealth.’ ‘Bear ye one another’s burdens.’ These are equally emphatic: if one binds, all bind.”
It was at this point that Cyrus Fennel (brother of Martha) made a hit at Mr. David. He arose, and, looking toward the old man, said he should like to inquire whether Christ’s commands were as binding as those of Paul? Mr. David said that certainly they were, and more so. Cyrus then read these words of Christ: “Give to every man that asketh of thee.” This brought to every face an amused, half-pleased expression; Mr. David’s stinginess being almost a by-word here. He replied, that every man has a duty to his family. Fennel Payne reminded him again that nothing was to be explained away, and then read other commands of Christ, each of a similar import to the one mentioned by Cyrus. He then repeated all the different texts which had been brought forward, beginning with that against women speaking in the church. “And now I want to ask,” he continued, “why the first of these injunctions should be taken literally, and the others not?”
As Fennel Payne sat down, a tall, gray-haired man arose,—the same who came through the place, not long ago, selling “Bitters” of his own making.He is a pleasant-faced, good-humored man, and travels, with his jugs, in an antique carryall, on the outside of which is written with chalk, “Archangel Bitters.” His name is Hensiford. This man arose, and, after asking permission to speak, said in a bland, mild tone, speaking slowly, “My friends, it comes to my mind to ask a question, which is this: Why are men met together to decide this matter? My friends, if the Almighty Creator meant that woman should be judged by the law, he gave to her an understanding mind to understand the law: otherwise, God is unjust. And, my friends, if women are to be saved, or lost, according to the deeds done in the body, it must be that they have consciences whereby they may tell right from wrong: otherwise, God is unjust. My friends, woman either is a responsible being, or she is not a responsible being: she can’t be sometimes one, and sometimes the other. It does not appear to me, my friends, that we are called upon to decide this matter. The brother on my right hand allowed, just now, that woman should be guided by her conscience. Paul asks, ‘Why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience?’ Women might ask the same question by putting in the word ‘any’ in place of ‘another.’ And now, my friends,” continuedthe old man, looking round with a persuasive smile, “what a plain and simple way it would be to let women understandScripterwith their own understandings, and regulate their behavior by the voice of their own consciences!”