whether he personally owns little or much, so he only lives and acts well; this is the message of Jesus; this is the Gospel for our time.

BROWN UNIVERSITY.

WOMAN'S INDEBTEDNESS TO CHRISTIANITY.

[Contributed to CHRISTIAN THOUGHT.]

BY THE REV. GEORGE FRANCIS GREENE, CRANFORD, N. J.

SAID

AID Aristotle, "Both a woman and a slave may be good, though, perhaps, of these the one is less good, and the other is wholly bad." Lowell wrote the line,

“Earth's noblest thing—a woman perfected.”

Have we suggested in these sentiments the distance between. the judgment concerning woman of the most exalted heathen. philosophy and that of modern Christian culture?

Our purpose is to offer an impartial discussion of the subject. of the factor of Christianity in the world-wide process of the emancipation of woman. As to the fact that woman possesses a larger freedom in her domestic, social and legal relations in states of society dominated by the spirit of Christianity than elsewhere, there must be universal agreement; nor can any doubt exist that her condition is in process of improvement throughout Christian lands. Says F. W. Newman, "The great question now rising on the horizon of politics in all Christendom is the political and social elevation of woman. The movement in different phases agitates despotic Russia and Republican America." The inquiry is, to what precisely are these facts due? It does not necessarily follow that because the equality of the sexes is better recognized in Christian than in un-Christian states that fact is strictly due to Christianity. And in fact we find those who teach that such result is primarily due-not to Christianity at all, but to influences that are coincident with, though not dependent upon, Christianity. Thus Buckle, in his " History of Civilization," seems to ascribe the emancipation of the sex to the growing respect for material wealth. He says: "In propor

tion as she secured material elevation and wealth through her property rights she began to be treated with a deference and respect that the Christian Church never accorded." Others ascribe the result to Teutonic influences. The common answer to our question, however, is that furnished by Dr. Storrs in his "Divine Origin of Christianity," or by Mr. Brace in "Gesta Christi." It is the view of the latter author that "the modern, social and legal position of woman, while it owes much to ancient German customs, has been far more influenced by the estimate set upon woman by the Christian doctrines." Which of these views is correct?

We need to approach the subject with caution. We should frame our definitions carefully. And we should guard against wrong influences. The post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy we need especially to beware of. Because men wear silk hats in Christian England and do not in Mohammedan Turkey it does not follow that the Bible is responsible for silk hats. Macaulay, in his critique of Mill's "Essay on Government," makes this statement which rightly indicates the difficulties attending such a study as ours: "There is no proposition so monstrously untrue in morals or politics that we will not undertake to prove it by something which shall sound like a logical demonstration, from admitted principles." When we leave the mathematical realm and enter the moral, truth is often exceedingly recondite.

There are several logical steps in the determination of precisely what woman owes to Christianity. The first is to secure the true definition of Christianity. Is Christianity the system of truth set forth in the Bible together with the manifestation of such truth in human lives? Or is it to be regarded rather as the visible Church in history, with its human traditions, its fallible interpretations of God's Word, and its often weak and false response to the needs of humanity? Our answer is, the former. The spirit of Christianity is the spirit of Christ. Christianity is what Christ was, and is, and teaches. Christianity is not responsible for the human perversions of the Master's teachings. It is one thing to show that a corrupt Church has at times borne heavily against woman. It is quite another thing to show that God's Word, the Constitution of Christianity, has not always extended to her a helping hand.

A second step is to determine the precise teaching of Christianity, as we have defined it, concerning woman. A third is to determine what the "ethnic religions," as James Freeman Clarke calls them, teach and require concerning woman. A fourth is to determine the actual condition of woman in un-Christian lands. A fifth is to determine the condition of woman in societies in which Christianity has most largely entered into the life of the people; as, for example in Western Europe and America.

The last step is to decide, as precisely as possible, upon the extent to which civil and social conditions in all lands are shaped by their religions. This determination is difficult, and depends chiefly on a knowledge of the extent and depth of the enthronement of the religious instinct in human nature. Without entering deeply into the subject, we are prepared to state the conviction that in every nation on earth the domestic, social and legal relations of the people are determined primarily and chiefly by their religion. Take Turkey for example. Obviously the entire structure of the Constitution of Turkey-its judiciary, its executive, its systems of education, its social and domestic laws and manners, including slavery and polygamy-rests squarely upon the teachings of the Koran. In the United States, likewise, who can fail to see that the laws of the New Testament show themselves in every important national institution-in the written Constitution, in the regulations of commerce, in the laws which govern social intercourse, in educational systems, in the foundations of the home? We believe the rule to be universal. And now we assert two principles which we regard as unassailable. The one is this: If it shall appear that the condition of woman in Christian countries is not determined by the religion of those countries, then the latter are an exception to an otherwise universal fact. The other is this: If it shall appear that in such countries other causes than the doctrines of the Bible have operated toward the liberation of woman, the Christian faith is still to be regarded as one of the causes of it, the importance of which is to be measured by the extent and sincerity of Christian belief in those countries.

We proceed to inquire concerning the position occupied by woman in the history and in the ethics of the Bible.

The Old Testament is the fountain of pure Judaism, the divine source of the most venerable Church and nation, and the John the Baptist of Christianity. In its account of creation it pronounces woman man's helper and companion. A Talmudic saying beautifully sets forth the divine intent with regard to woman at her creation, and clearly reveals the feeling of the Jews concerning her. "Woman was made out of a rib taken from the side of man: not out of his head, to rule him, nor out of his feet, to be trampled upon by him; but out of his side, to be his equal— under his arm, to be protected-near his heart to be beloved." The equality of man and woman in the home is demanded in the Decalogue, the soul of the Old Covenant, where equal honor is required for the father and the mother. Monogamy is required in woman's behalf by the seventh commandment. When polygamy was practised among the Jews it was ever in opposition to the spirit of their religion. The normal place of woman in Judaism was that of domestic and social freedom and honor. The prophets compare the love of God for Israel, the purest love conceivable, to that of the husband for the wife of his youth. The Psalmist refers to the wife of the good man as a "fruitful vine." And it is safe to claim that a nobler tribute to free and happy womanhood does not exist in the world's literatures than the "words of King Lemuel," beginning with the inquiry-" who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies," and ending with the sweet eulogy-"Favor is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised."

Nor is this interpretation of the Old Testament weakened by the actual condition of woman in Judaism-in the home, in society, in the church and in the nation. Consider, for example, Rebekah, Israel's mother, and her perfect freedom and large influence; Miriam, the prophetess, and her official station before the public; Ruth, the Moabitess, and her moral purity and the power of her affection; Hannah, and the full respect she received from her husband and from God; and Esther, and her empire through love and prayer over a kingdom and its king.

The New Testament gives us Christianity in its purest form. Judaism was Christianity in the bud. Christianity was the flower and fruit of Judaism; and the world can never improve upon the

New Testament because it cannot improve upon Christ. What, then, did Christ Himself teach about woman, and what actual place did she occupy among His disciples? Christ did two things for woman in His teachings. First, He emphasized the law of monogamy; and second, He gave her a title to equal rights and equal honors with man, on the ground of her humanity. He recognized no sex in discipleship. Woman belongs to the family of man; therefore the injunction to "love thy neighbor as thyself" views her as an object of Christian regard wherever Christ is named. Plainly Christ offers all the privileges of the kingdom of God to her, and offers her, with her brother, the fruits of the dispensation of love which He intended, the world over, to supplant the dispensation of physical strength. The principle of civil and individual liberty which has played so large a part in the development of civilization, especially since the Reformation, is logically deducible from the Sermon on the Mount and the Parable of the Good Samaritan. But the liberty of the New Testament, liberty through the truth, is for every member of the race, without distinction of sex or social circumstances.

Throughout New Testament history the women and men who were disciples discharged the same social and religious functions, apparently without a thought anywhere of an inequality, save that the women did not exercise authority. Among those who followed Christ on His preaching tours through Galilee were "certain women"; the two sisters in Bethany were honored by Him no less than their brother. And time would fail us to enlarge upon such illustrations as are afforded by the women who took part in the eventful gathering on the day of Pentecost; by the daughters of Philip who prophesied; by Phoebe the deaconess of Cenchrea, who journeyed independently to Rome, and who gave Paul distinguished aid; by Euodia and Syntyche, workers in the church of Philippi, or by Priscilla, the gifted expounder of Christian doctrine, whose name, significantly, always precedes

that of her husband.

So far as the Christian Church has ever dealt severely with woman it has been due to a misapprehension of the teachings of the Apostles Peter and Paul. Peter's words are, "Wives, be in subjection to your own husbands." (I. Peter iii. 1). Here is sim