, 1883-06-21
SIIe or Shei',

-h"g De allowed to speak of q mat
ter which properly belongs to a pro-
fessor of sacred rhetoric? There has
grown up of late Years q most absurd
and reprehensible habit among our
younger clergymen of protr11ding the
sex distinction in their sermons and
prayers. Nothing is more common than
to hear such petitions offered as that
we may be faithful men and women I"
The words manly" and "manhood" arc
seldom used without being coupled
with "womanly" and "womanhood -
ana most OF all, in general statements.
tie masculine prOnoun "he" is thought
10 DE as uncomfortable as minated
adam until 1t is supplemented with a
ahe e o., we hear such expressions
as this: Any of my hearers, whoever
he or she may he" Recently I heard
minister speak of what his hearers
used to do I'm their boyhood and girl
hood"
Now if there were anv rhetorical
necessity for such cIumsiness of Ian
guage, 1t would have to be tolerated:
but there Is none. 1t NAV be unfortu-
nate that the one word dmann has IN
serve double purpose of de:notinp botI,
human being and male adult; but it
does serve that double purpose. 1t is
sufficient, IN order to express the truth
OF human mortality, to say: "All men
are mortal" To say "All men and
women are mortal" would not helm
matters, and would even suggest that
the children are excepted. Equally true
IS 1t that IN general propositions the
masculine pronoun is properly used to
cover both sexes. When it is said "If
any man viii do His will he shall know
of the doctrine" everybody understands
the statement to cover manhood in gem
eral. But the ministers to whom I
refer, if they were to express the truth
IN their own style. would have thought
1t necessary to add woman" and q
she" to make the sense complete.
Now, what possible reason can there
he for this necessary and indelicate
protruslOn of the quality of sex? No
rhetorical advantage is gained. The
truths of the Gospel are the same TO
both sexes. In Christ there is neither
male nor female. Wherever there is
any need of referring to the distinction,
OF course, it should he done, Just as
when there is need of particulariz;nc
But 1t would not improve Paui's in
junction, "Glorifv God in your head,
neck, limbs and bowels" And so there
Is no rhetorical or other gain; but,
rather, q great loss in numbering Ian
guage with these aliuSions to the. dis
tinction of sex. when tue only thing ac-
complishrd is to draw Tue attention of
the hearers away fro subject of
the discourse, and to t. :, fact that the
preacher has & lively consciousness that
the distinction exists.
Let us see how this practice would
work when applied to some Biblical
passage, say Gal. vi. II; Brethren
and sisters, II Il man or woman he over
takeh in 4 fault, We which are spiritual
restore him or herin the spirit OF meek
ness, considering shyself lest thou also
be tempted Bear ya one iIiI5Ffitsr 5
b'isess4s. aud 30 fsslt;: 4 She Law OF Christ.
Fori if q man or Noman thinks himself
OF herself to iJe Something, when he or
she is nothing, he or she deceiveth him.
self or herself; hut let every man or
woman prove his or her own work, aud
then shall he or she have great rejoic-
ing in himself and herself alone, and
not in another. For every man or
woman shall bear his or her own bur
den. Let him or her that is taught in
the Word communicate unto him or her
that teache.h in all good things. Be
not deceived. God is not Knocked; for
whatsoever q man or woman soweth
that shall he or she also reap"
Does any one want the revised Bible
to read after this fashion? If not why
preach after this ftShion.-Pfot. G. ".
Mead, i.l independent