GOVERNING.

“Mightier far

Than strength of nerve, or sinew, or the sway

Of magic potent over sun and star,

Is love, though oft to agony distrest,

And though his favorite seat be feeble woman’s breast.”

                                                            – Wordsworth.

     “IF women are ordained, it will open the way for them to take a prominent part in the Government of the Church.”

     And why should they not? “Because Paul says: “I suffer not a woman to usurp authority over the man.”– 1 Tim. 2:12.

     But to exercise authority with which one is lawfully invested, is not to usurp authority. Queen Victoria exercises authority over men; but she is not a usurper.

     Dean Alford translates this passage, nor to lord it over.

     In the original, the word is αύφεντειν, authentein, to be a despot. Neither must men be lords over God’s heritage. – 1 Pet. 5:3.

     Women took a prominent part in the government of the apostolic church.

The apostles, inspired as they were, did not assume to govern the Church. They recognized the authority to govern as belonging to the church itself – to the men and women of whom it was composed.

     The first Christian church met in Jerusalem, in an upper room. The women are specially mentioned as being present. – Acts 1:14. Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and addressed them: “Men and brethren.” These words, like the word “disciples,” are generic terms, and include both men and women. He told them that, out of the men who had companied with them from the beginning, “must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.” –Acts 1:22. And they appointed two. The word “they” here refers to the whole body of the disciples, of whom “there were together about one hundred and twenty.” Thus the members of the Church, and not the apostles, made the selection.

     Again, when the twelve needed assistants to minister to the necessities of dependent believers, they did not themselves make the selection. They called together the multitude of the disciples. That this multitude included women, there can be no question. To them the apostles said: “Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.” – Acts 6:3. “And this saying pleased the whole multitude.” They chose seven: “Whom they set before the apostles; and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.” – Acts 6:6. The whole does not mean a part – much less the smaller part. He who asserts that women had no place in this transaction must furnish proof for the assertion. But none can be had. The whole multitude of the disciples comprehends women.

     There is no Scripture which forbids the ordination of woman on the ground that, being ordained, she will have a part in the government of the church.

     The elders were rulers, in both the Jewish and the Christian church. “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine.” – 1 Tim. 5:17. The word “elder,” in the original, as in the English, is in the comparative degree. It is found sixty-seven times in the New Testament. In sixty-three passages it evidently means a church officer. It is used in the following passages only, in its primary signification of one older than another. “Now his elder son was in the field.” – Luke 15:22. “And your old men shall dream dreams.” – Acts 2:17. “Likewise ye younger submit yourselves unto the elder.” – 1 Pet. 5:5.

     Concerning one passage is there a doubt. “Rebuke not an elder but entreat him as a father.” – 1 Tim. 5:1.If, as the translators of both our common, and of the Revised, versions, appear to think, the word elder here denotes an officer of the church, then we contend the same meaning should be given it in the second verse, which is a part of the same sentence. Then it would read: “The women elders as mothers,” instead of “the elder women.”

     No writer who aims at clearness would use, in the same connection, and in the same sentence, the word King in one sense, and the word Queen in another.

     If the word elder is to be taken here, where it refers to men, as it is used generally in the New Testament, to denote an officer of the church, then must it have the same meaning in the same sentence where it refers to women.

     We must not change the meaning of words, as is done when πρεσβυτερος presbuteros, is translated “elder” in one clause of this verse, and the same word, in the feminine form, is translated “elder women” in another clause of the same sentence. This appears to be done in order to adjust this text to the theory, that women must not have the same part as men in the governing of the church.

     That woman possesses the administrative ability to exercise properly all the governing power usually vested in ordained preachers of the Gospel, is fully demonstrated by experience. That some women can govern well, we know, because some women have governed well. It is not a matter of theory. It is a demonstrated fact. Occasionally a woman has been placed at the head of the government of a country. In all such cases her administration will compare favorably with that of the men who preceded and followed her. Queen Elizabeth’s reign was not eclipsed by that of any monarch of her day. The historian Hume says of Elizabeth:

     “Few sovereigns of England succeeded to the throne in more difficult circumstances, and none ever conducted the government with such uniform success and felicity.

     “Her vigor, her constancy, her magnanimity, her penetration, vigilance, address, are allowed to merit the highest praises, and appear not to have been surpassed by any person that ever filled a throne.

     “Though unacquainted with the practice of toleration, the true secret for managing religious factions, she preserved her people by her superior prudence, from those confusions in which theological controversy had involved all the neighboring nations; and though her enemies were the most powerful princes of Europe, the most active, the most enterprising, the least scrupulous, she was able by her vigor to make deep impressions on their states; her own greatness, meanwhile, remained untouched and unimpaired.

     “The wise ministers and brave warriors who flourished under her reign, share the praise of her success; but instead of lessening the applause due to her, they make great addition to it. They owed, all of them, their advancement to her choice; they were supported by her constancy; and, with all their abilities, they were never able to acquire any undue ascendant over her. In her family, in her court, in her kingdom, she remained equally mistress.”²⁷

     Catharine II. of Russia was one of the ablest monarchs of her day. She was a German princess by birth. Elizabeth, Empress of Russia, chose her to become the wife of her nephew Peter, heir to her throne. On seeing her betrothed, the princess was so disappointed that she became sick, and was confined to her bed for weeks. However, she resigned herself to her fate; and was married at the age of seventeen. She applied herself to study, and mastered the Russian language, became familiar with the customs of the people, and won their affections.

     Elizabeth died January 5, 1762, and Peter III. ascended the throne of Russia. He banished his wife to a separate abode, and abandoned himself to drunkenness and debauchery. At the instigation of his mistress he formed the design of divorcing his wife, and raising his mistress to the throne. Encouraged by the nobles, the Archbishop proclaimed Catharine Empress of Russia, while Peter was lying drunk at his chateau twenty-four miles from St. Petersburg, This bold undertaking met with the hearty approval of the people and the army. Her reign was a long one and did much to raise Russia to its high position among the nations. She died Nov. 10, 1796.

     “Few sovereigns,” says Allison, “will occupy amore conspicuous place in the page of history, or have left in their conduct on the throne, a more exalted reputation. Prudent in council, and intrepid in conduct, cautious in forming resolutions, but vigorous in carrying them into execution; ambitious, but of great and splendid objects only; passionately fond of glory, without the alloy, at least in public affairs, of sordid or vulgar inclinations; discerning in the choice of her counsellors, and swayed in matters of state only by lofty intellects; munificent in public, liberal in private, firm in resolution, she dignified a despot’s throne by the magnanimity and patriotism of a more virtuous age.”²⁸

     “Victoria, Queen of England, and Empress of India, furnishes a still better illustration of the capacity of woman to govern. For, she has not only proved herself one of the first rulers of the age; but she has given the world an illustrious example of noble womanhood in the several relations of daughter, wife and mother.

     “When a modest, shrinking girl of eighteen, she was awakened early one morning, long before day, by a visit from the Archbishop of Canterbury and several nobles, who came to salute her as Queen of England. She dropped upon her knees and begged the archbishop to pray for her.

     On the 20th of June, 1837, as she stood in an assembly composed of the highest nobility, veteran officers and statesmen of the Kingdom, she heard it officially proclaimed that “The high and mighty Princess, Alexandrina Victoria is the only lawful and rightful liege lady, and, by the grace of God, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Defender of the Faith.” Overcome with emotion, she threw her arms around her mother’s neck and burst into tears. The august assemblage was deeply moved. The young Queen soon won the hearts of her people.

     No country of the world has been better governed than Great Britain has, during her long and peaceful reign. She has manifested the deepest interest in the highest welfare of her people, has selected wise and just, and patriotic men to administer the affairs of the government, and has pursued an equitable policy towards other nations. In the general upheaval among the thrones of Europe some years ago, hers remained secure, protected by the loving loyalty of her people. In her high position, her domestic example has been a great blessing to the world at large, while her beneficent reign has secured for her people unparalleled prosperity.

     “We know,” says Mill, “how small a number of reigning queens history presents, in comparison with that of Kings. Of this smaller number, a far larger proportion have shown talents for rule; though many of them have occupied the throne in difficult periods. It is remarkable, too, that they have, in a great number of instances, been distinguished by merits the most opposite to the imaginary and conventional character of women; they have been as much remarked for the firmness and vigor of their rule, as for its intelligence. When, to queens and empresses, we add regents, and viceroys of provinces, the list of women who have been eminent rulers of mankind swells to a great length.”

     “But,” it is retorted, “women reign so successfully by placing in important offices men of eminent ability.”

     The objection only proves the fitness of women to govern. The highest quality of a talent to rule, is the ability to select the most competent persons to fill the various subordinate offices. Napoleon not only knew how to plan a campaign, but he knew whom to select for officers to fight the battles. If woman possesses an instinctive insight into character, in a greater degree than man, then she is naturally, to that degree, in that respect, better fitted to fill positions of responsibility.

     If she can, as she has done, successfully fill the thrones of Russia and Austria and Great Britain, then may she, with safety, be left free to fill any position in the church to which she may be called.

     The church has no right to forbid the free exercise of abilities to do good which God has given. To do so is ursurpation and tyranny.

     Men had better busy themselves in building up the temple of God, instead of employing their time in pushing from the scaffold their sisters, who are both able and willing to work with them side by side.

     All restrictions to positions in the church based on race have been abolished; it is time then that those based on sex were also abolished.