poles, upon passages quite as easily understood as the one now under
discussion. There is no more proof in this verse that a woman is bound
to serve and obey her husband, in the common acceptation of the term,
than that a man is obligated to serve and obey his wife, or worship her
with his body--whatever that may mean--as he solemnly vows to do in
certain marriage services. The endowment with worldly goods and the
worship promised, were perhaps put in as an offset to the pledge of
service and obedience. Certainly the man's vow to worship his wife is no
more inconsistent than is the woman's to obey implicitly; and her
obedience, if it is not implicit, is not obedience at all, but is merely
acceding to the wishes of her husband when they accord with her own
judgment.

Infidels, in seeking to disparage the Word of God, quote this passage
and kindred ones, and, accepting the commonly received idea of their
meaning, endeavor to subvert the faith of the masses. With those who do
not carefully examine the matter for themselves, they often succeed. It
has been asserted, too, by those who would wish the teachings of the
Koran to take precedence over those of the Bible, that the position
accorded to women by the Mosaic law was quite as degrading as that
accorded to them by Mohammed; but a careful reading of the Scripture
warrants no such conclusion. Many matters are spoken of, both in the law
and the prophets, as having been practised and tolerated, and even rules
given for their regulation, which were by no means of Divine
appointment. This distinction should always be carefully marked in
regard to the sacred text; and in addition to this it should be
remembered that the Word of God is not responsible for the erroneous
opinions of mankind. When the Almighty placed human beings upon the
earth, he created _one_ man and _one_ woman, destining them to be the
progenitors of the entire race, thereby indicating that monogamy was of