Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1841-03-31

speak. than testJyiag in church meeting.-l
II is nothing to the purpose for him TO un-
dertake 10 show the difference in their re-
suits, between testifying and voting, in
cases of discipline. The passage, >obyious-
w. does not undertake to settle that point,
and has nothing to do with it, To UNDER
take TO force it into any such service, would
be to violate common sense and any appli-
cable rule for interpreting the language
! The passage reads,-"let your women
KEEP SILENCE in the churches; for it is not
permitted unto them TO SPEAK"
! But brother Wait has allowed himself in
greater absurdity, if possible, than the
one have been. exposing. He says of fe-
! males, 81 would have them vote in the
reception, but not in the exclusion of mem
bers." This is one step in absurdIty be-
yond what have anywhere else found On
the subject, or could have conceived an
enlightened mind capable of. What, in
fact. is done, in the act Of receiving church
members2 What more or less than TO ex-
tend fellowship and communion TO the indi-
viduals received? And in the exclusion Of
members, what more or less is done than to
withdraw this SAINT fellowship and coal-
munion? And what, ask. is there, in
reason or in revelation, in support of the
view that where there is power to extend
fellowship and communion, there is not
equal power to withhold them? Are they
not both, and equally, individual and Volun-
tary acts? In order to make out his case,
, brother Wait is under the necessity Of la
boring to show radical difference between
: The acts Of receiving members, and Of ex-
GLIDING them, by assuming that the latter
, pertains to government, while the former he
says does not. But ask if it is not as
much an act of government 10 prevent the
reception of a member, as to eTcEude the
a same member after reception? And 10 al
: low females to vote in the reception of mem
: bers, as he does, is to allow them this gov
=: erning power Of prevention. On this poin
T., brother Wait has, unawares, conceded toe
!, much, as he has on several others. He ha:
of his own accord narrowed and removed
his own ground, until he will be in seriou:
difficulty to fnt his own whereabouts. Or
leaving this point and passing 10 another
l would ask brother Wait what could b.
e done by way Of discipline in church com
n posed only Of females. According to hi
S view, such church would of course have
no power to exclude. A friend at my ell
bow says he knew one church Of about {
dozen members, all females but one. Now
according to brother Waits view, the whole
power of discipline would rest in this ont
member. Such view, is, in my opinion
" as anti-christian as it is anti-republican.
/ By what process Of reasoning, or by wha
:. rule of interpreting language, he arrives a
# the idea that the 34th and 35th verses @
,e the 14th chapter of Corinthians pertain
'e to roting for the exclusion Of church mem
bers, can not perceive. Omitting wha
y was added by the translators, the Language
% Of these passages runs thus :-"Let you
"a women keep silence in the churches: for
is not permitted unto them to speak but t
be under obedience, as also saith The law
And if they will learn anything, let then
IF ask their husbands at home: for it is
5 shame for women to speak in the church.
: Brother Wait says, if understand the lar
le guage of his former communication, tbs
"a these passages allow of females speakin
err and praying in conference meetings, and
re covenant meetings of the church; but, if
IN understand his present communication, .hes
re passages prohibit females roting, in charc
I'd meetings, for the exclusion Of member:
er bers TO be particularly the appropriate wol
Re, for coronanh meetings, and the exclusion
members to be particularly the appropFia
to work for church meetings. Now | have /
nv doubt that the things he has set forth
fe this shape are all in accordance with h
practices as a pastor. But protest again
IN such violence 10 language, as the torturir
of of these passages into such shape. II Z
,ep language of these passages has any bearii
nd on female department al the present TN
Yep it prohibits the very things brother w;
be, allows, viz: speaking" The Voting
M says not one word about; and there is I
ing a circumstance in The case thai will allt
: is of any such construction being put up
eep the language. II reads, "a let yoasr WON
and keep silence in the churches '-ffom viii
cry peculiarly of expression, as well as fri
and the connection, il is plain TO my own mi
ms, that the language is particularly adapted