not believe that God inspired the Mosaic code, or told the historians
what they say he did about woman, for all the religions on the face of
the earth degrade her, and so long as woman accepts the position that
they assign her, her emancipation is impossible. Whatever the Bible may
be made to do in Hebrew or Greek, in plain English it does not exalt
and dignify woman. My standpoint for criticism is the revised edition
of 1888. 1 will so far honor the revising committee of wise men who
have given us the best exegesis they can according to their ability,
although Disraeli said the last one before he died, contained 150,000
blunders in the Hebrew, and 7,000 in the Greek.

But the verbal criticism in regard to woman's position amounts to
little. The spirit is the same in all periods and languages, hostile to
her as an equal.

There are some general principles in the holy books of all religions
that teach love, charity, liberty, justice and equality for all the
human family, there are many grand and beautiful passages, the golden
rule has been echoed and re-echoed around the world. There are lofty
examples of good and true men and women, all worthy our acceptance and
imitation whose lustre cannot be dimmed by the false sentiments and
vicious characters bound up in the same volume. The Bible cannot be
accepted or rejected as a whole, its teachings are varied and its
lessons differ widely from each other. In criticising the peccadilloes
of Sarah, Rebecca and Rachel, we would not shadow the virtues of
Deborah, Huldah and Vashti. In criticising the Mosaic code, we would
not question the wisdom of the golden rule and the fifth Commandment.
Again the church claims special consecration for its cathedrals and
priesthood, parts of these aristocratic churches are too holy for
women to enter, boys were early introduced into the choirs for this