Man and Woman Equally Guilty in the Fall

My Dear Sister,—It is said that ‘modern Jewish women light a lamp every Friday evening, half an hour before sunset, which is the beginning of their Sabbath, in remembrance of their original mother, who first extinguished the lamp of righteousness,—to remind them of their obligation to rekindle it.’ I am one of those who always admit, to its fullest extent, the popular charge, that woman brought sin into the world. I accept it as a powerful reason, why woman is bound to labor with double diligence, for the regeneration of that world she has been instrumental in ruining.

My Dear Sister, It is said that ‘modern Jewish women light a lamp every Friday evening, half an hour before sunset. This marks the beginning of their Sabbath. They light it in memory of their first mother, who first put out the lamp of righteousness. It reminds them of their duty to relight it.’ I am one of those who fully accept the common accusation that woman brought sin into the world. I take it as a powerful reason why woman must work twice as hard to restore the world she helped ruin.

But, although I do not repel the imputation, I shall notice some passages in the sacred Scriptures, where this transaction is mentioned, which prove, I think, the identity and equality of man and woman, and that there is no difference in their guilt in the view of that God who searcheth the heart and trieth the reins of the children of men. In Is. 43: 27, we find the following passage—‘Thy first father hath sinned, and thy teachers have transgressed against me’—which is synonymous with Rom. 5: 12. ‘Wherefore, as by ONE MAN sin entered into the world, and death by sin, &c.’ Here man and woman are included under one term, and no distinction is made in their criminality. The circumstances of the fall are again referred to in 2 Cor. 11: 3—‘But I fear lest, by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtility, so your mind should be beguiled from the simplicity that is in Christ.’ Again, 1st Tim. 2: 14—‘Adam was not deceived; but the woman being deceived, was in the transgression.’ Now, whether the fact, that Eve was beguiled and deceived, is a proof that her crime was of deeper dye than Adam’s, who was not deceived, but was fully aware of the consequences of sharing in her transgression, I shall leave the candid reader to determine.

Although I do not reject the accusation, I will examine some passages in the sacred Scriptures that mention this event. I think they prove that man and woman are the same and equal. They also show that there is no difference in their guilt before God, who searches the hearts and examines the innermost thoughts of his children. In Is. 43:27, we find this passage: ‘Your first father sinned, and your teachers have transgressed against me.’ This has the same meaning as Rom. 5:12: ‘Therefore, just as sin entered the world through ONE MAN, and death through sin, etc.’ Here man and woman are both included under one term, and no distinction is made in their guilt. The circumstances of the fall are mentioned again in 2 Cor. 11:3: ‘But I fear that, somehow, just as the serpent deceived Eve through his cunning, your mind may be led away from the simplicity that is in Christ.’ Again, 1st Tim. 2:14 says: ‘Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and fell into transgression.’ Eve was misled and deceived. Adam was not deceived, but was fully aware of the consequences of sharing in her transgression. I leave the fair-minded reader to decide whether this proves that her crime was more serious than his.

My present object is to show, that, as woman is charged with all the sin that exists in the world, it is her solemn duty to labor for its extinction; and that this she can never do effectually and extensively, until her mind is disenthralled of those shackles which have been riveted upon her by a ‘corrupt public opinion, and a perverted interpretation of the holy Scriptures.’ Woman must feel that she is the equal, and is designed to be the fellow laborer of her brother, or she will be studying to find out the imaginary line which separates the sexes, and divides the duties of men and women into two distinct classes, a separation not even hinted at in the Bible, where we are expressly told, ‘there is neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.’

My purpose here is to show that, since woman is blamed for all the sin in the world, she has a solemn duty to work to end it. But she can never do so effectively or on a broad scale until her mind is freed from the shackles imposed on it by a ‘corrupt public opinion, and a distorted interpretation of the holy Scriptures.’ Woman must feel that she is her brother’s equal and is meant to work alongside him. Otherwise, she will be trying to find the imaginary line that separates the sexes and divides their duties into two distinct classes. The Bible does not even hint at such a separation. Instead, it expressly tells us, ‘there is neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.’

My views on this subject are so much better embodied in the language of a living author than I can express them, that I quote the passage entire: ‘Woman’s rights and man’s rights are both contained in the same charter, and held by the same tenure. All rights spring out of the moral nature: they are both the root and the offspring of responsibilities. The physical constitution is the mere instrument of the moral nature; sex is a mere incident of this constitution, a provision necessary to this form of existence; its only design, not to give, nor to take away, nor in any respect to modify or even touch rights or responsibilities in any sense, except so far as the peculiar offices of each sex may afford less or more opportunity and ability for the exercise of rights, and the discharge of responsibilities; but merely to continue and enlarge the human department of God’s government. Consequently, I know nothing of man’s rights, or woman’s rights; human rights are all that I recognise. The doctrine, that the sex of the body presides over and administers upon the rights and responsibilities of the moral, immortal nature, is to my mind a doctrine kindred to blasphemy, when seen in its intrinsic nature. It breaks up utterly the relations of the two natures, and reverses their functions; exalting the animal nature into a monarch, and humbling the moral into a slave; making the former a proprietor, and the latter its property.’

A living author expresses my views on this subject far better than I can. So I quote the whole passage: ‘Woman’s rights and man’s rights are both contained in the same charter and held on the same terms. All rights arise from our moral nature. They are both the source and the result of responsibilities. The body is merely the instrument of our moral nature. Sex is merely a feature of the body, necessary to this form of existence. Its only purpose is to continue and expand the human part of God’s government. It does not give or take away rights or responsibilities. Nor does it change or even touch them in any way, except in one respect. The particular roles of each sex may give them more or less opportunity and ability to exercise rights and fulfill responsibilities. Consequently, I know nothing of man’s rights or woman’s rights. I recognize only human rights. Some claim that the sex of the body governs the rights and responsibilities of our moral, immortal nature. To my mind, that idea is akin to blasphemy when one sees what it truly is. It completely destroys the relationship between the two natures and reverses their roles. It raises the animal nature to the position of a monarch and reduces the moral nature to a slave. It makes the animal nature an owner and the moral nature its property.’

To perform our duties, we must comprehend our rights and responsibilities; and it is because we do not understand, that we now fall so far short in the discharge of our obligations. Unaccustomed to think for ourselves, and to search the sacred volume, to see how far we are living up to the design of Jehovah in our creation, we have rested satisfied with the sphere marked out for us by man, never detecting the fallacy of that reasoning which forbids woman to exercise some of her noblest faculties, and stamps with the reproach of indelicacy those actions by which women were formerly dignified and exalted in the church.

To fulfill our duties, we must understand our rights and responsibilities. Because we do not understand them, we now fall far short of fulfilling our obligations. We are not used to thinking for ourselves or searching the Bible. We do not look there to see how fully we are living up to Jehovah’s purpose in creating us. Instead, we have been content with the role men have assigned us. We have never recognized the faulty reasoning that forbids women to exercise some of their noblest abilities. That same reasoning condemns as improper the actions that once brought women dignity and honor in the church.

I should not mention this subject again, if it were not to point out to my sisters what seems to me an irresistible conclusion from the literal interpretation of St. Paul, without reference to the context, and the peculiar circumstances and abuses which drew forth the expressions, ‘I suffer not a woman to teach’—‘Let your women keep silence in the church,’ i. e. congregation. It is manifest, that if the apostle meant what his words imply, when taken in the strictest sense, then women have no right to teach Sabbath or day schools, or to open their lips to sing in the assemblies of the people; yet young and delicate women are engaged in all these offices; they are expressly trained to exhibit themselves, and raise their voices to a high pitch in the choirs of our places of worship. I do not intend to sit in judgment on my sisters for doing these things; I only want them to see, that they are as really infringing a supposed divine command, by instructing their pupils in the Sabbath or day schools, and by singing in the congregation, as if they were engaged in preaching the unsearchable riches of Christ to a lost and perishing world. Why, then, are we permitted to break this injunction in some points, and so sedulously warned not to overstep the bounds set for us by our brethren in another? Simply, as I believe, because in the one case we subserve their views and their interests, and act in subordination to them; whilst in the other, we come in contact with their interests, and claim to be on an equality with them in the highest and most important trust ever committed to man, namely, the ministry of the word. It is manifest, that if women were permitted to be ministers of the gospel, as they unquestionably were in the primitive ages of the Christian church, it would interfere materially with the present organized system of spiritual power and ecclesiastical authority, which is now vested solely in the hands of men. It would either show that all the paraphernalia of theological seminaries, &c. &c. to prepare men to become evangelists, is wholly unnecessary, or it would create a necessity for similar institutions in order to prepare women for the same office; and this would be an encroachment on that learning, which our hind brethren have so ungenerously monopolized. I do not ask any one to believe my statements, or adopt my conclusions, because they are mine; but I do earnestly entreat my sisters to lay aside their prejudices, and examine these subjects for themselves, regardless of the ‘traditions of men,’ because they are intimately connected with their duty and their usefulness in the present important crisis.

I would not mention this subject again except to show my sisters a conclusion that seems to me unavoidable. It follows if we interpret St. Paul literally, without considering the context or the particular circumstances and abuses that prompted his words: ‘I do not allow a woman to teach’, ‘Let your women keep silent in the church’, meaning the congregation. If the apostle meant exactly what his words imply, taken in their strictest sense, the conclusion is clear. Women have no right to teach Sunday schools or day schools, or even to sing in public assemblies. Yet young and delicate women do all these things. They are expressly trained to display themselves and raise their voices to a high pitch in our church choirs. I do not mean to judge my sisters for doing these things. I only want them to see that teaching pupils in Sunday or day schools and singing in church violate a supposed divine command. They violate it just as surely as preaching the unfathomable riches of Christ to a lost and perishing world would. Why, then, are we allowed to break this command in some ways? And why are we so carefully warned not to cross the boundaries our brethren have set for us in another? I believe the answer is simple. In the first case, we serve their views and their interests, and act in subordination to them. In the other, we come into conflict with their interests. We claim equality with them in the highest and most important trust ever given to man, namely, the ministry of the word. Women were unquestionably ministers of the gospel in the early ages of the Christian church. If they were allowed to serve as ministers now, the effect would be clear. It would seriously disrupt the present organized system of spiritual power and church authority, which rests solely in men’s hands. It would either show that all the machinery of theological seminaries, etc., used to prepare men as evangelists is wholly unnecessary. Or it would make similar institutions necessary to prepare women for the same office. And that would intrude on the learning our kind brethren have so ungenerously kept for themselves. I do not ask anyone to believe my statements or accept my conclusions simply because they are mine. But I earnestly ask my sisters to set aside their prejudices and examine these subjects for themselves. They should do so regardless of the ‘traditions of men’. For these subjects are closely connected to their duty and their usefulness in the present important crisis.

All who know any thing of the present system of benevolent and religious operations, know that women are performing an important part in them, in subserviency to men, who guide our labors, and are often the recipients of those benefits of education we toil to confer, and which we rejoice they can enjoy, although it is their mandate which deprives us of the same advantages. Now, whether our brethren have defrauded us intentionally, or unintentionally, the wrong we suffer is equally the same. For years, they have been spurring us up to the performance of our duties. The immense usefulness and the vast influence of woman have been eulogized and called into exercise, and many a blessing has been lavished upon us, and many a prayer put up for us, because we have labored by day and by night to clothe and feed and educate young men, whilst our own bodies sometimes suffer for want of comfortable garments, and our minds are left in almost utter destitution of that improvement which we are toiling to bestow upon the brethren.

All who know anything about current charitable and religious work know that women play an important part in it. We work under the authority of men, who direct our labor. Men often receive the educational benefits we work to provide, and we rejoice that they can enjoy them. Yet it is men who decree that we must be denied the same opportunities. Now, whether our brothers have deprived us intentionally or unintentionally, the wrong we suffer is the same. For years, they have urged us to do our duty. They have praised women’s great usefulness and vast influence and called on us to put them into practice. They have lavished many blessings on us and offered many prayers for us. They have done this because we have worked day and night to clothe, feed, and educate young men. Yet our own bodies sometimes suffer for lack of comfortable clothing. Our minds are left with almost none of the education we work so hard to give our brothers.

If the sewing societies, the avails of whose industry are now expended in supporting and educating young men for the ministry, were to withdraw their contributions to these objects, and give them where they are more needed, to the advancement of their own sex in useful learning, the next generation might furnish sufficient proof, that in intelligence and ability to master the whole circle of sciences, woman is not inferior to man; and instead of a sensible woman being regarded as she now is, is a lusus naturæ, they would be quite as common as sensible men. I confess, considering the high claim men in this country make to great politeness and deference to women, it does seem a little extraordinary that we should be urged to work for the brethren. I should suppose it would be more in character with ‘the generous promptings of chivalry, and the poetry of romantic gallantry,’ for which Catherine E. Beecher gives them credit, for them to form societies to educate their sisters, seeing our inferior capacities require more cultivation to bring them into use, and qualify us to be helps meet for them. However, though I think this would be but a just return for all our past kindnesses in this way, I should be willing to balance our accounts, and begin a new course. Henceforth, let the benefit be reciprocated, or else let each sex provide for the education of their own poor, whose talents ought to be rescued from the oblivion of ignorance. Sure I am, the young men who are now benefitted by the handy work of their sisters, will not be less honorable if they occupy half their time in earning enough to pay for their own education, instead of depending on the industry of women, who not unfrequently deprive themselves of the means of purchasing valuable books which might enlarge their stock of useful knowledge, and perhaps prove a blessing to the family by furnishing them with instructive reading. If the minds of women were enlightened and improved, the domestic circle would be more frequently refreshed by intelligent conversation, a means of edification now deplorably neglected, for want of that cultivation which these intellectual advantages would confer.

Sewing societies now spend the proceeds of their work supporting and educating young men for the ministry. Suppose they withdrew their contributions from these purposes and gave them where they are more needed, to advance their own sex in useful learning. The next generation might then provide ample proof that women are not inferior to men in intelligence or in their ability to master the full range of sciences. A sensible woman would no longer be regarded, as she is now, as a freak of nature. Sensible women would be just as common as sensible men. I confess that it seems a little strange that we are urged to work for the brethren. After all, men in this country claim to show great politeness and deference to women. Catherine E. Beecher credits them with ‘the generous promptings of chivalry, and the poetry of romantic gallantry.’ I would think it more in keeping with those qualities for men to form societies to educate their sisters. After all, our inferior abilities need more cultivation before they can be put to use and make us suitable helpers for men. Still, though I think this would be only a fair return for all our past kindnesses of this kind, I would be willing to settle our accounts and start anew. From now on, let each sex help the other, or let each provide for the education of its own poor. Their talents ought to be rescued from the obscurity of ignorance. I am sure that the young men who now benefit from their sisters’ handiwork will be no less honorable if they spend half their time earning enough to pay for their own education. They would no longer need to depend on women’s work. These women often deny themselves the means to buy valuable books that might increase their useful knowledge. Such books might also bless their families by giving them instructive reading. If women’s minds were enlightened and improved, intelligent conversation would more often refresh the family circle. Such conversation is a means of learning that is now sadly neglected, for lack of the cultivation these educational opportunities would provide.

One of the duties which devolve upon women in the present interesting crisis, is to prepare themselves for more extensive usefulness, by making use of those religious and literary privileges and advantages that are within their reach, if they will only stretch out their hands and possess them. By doing this, they will become better acquainted with their rights as moral beings, and with their responsibilities growing out of those rights: they will regard themselves, as they really are, FREE AGENTS, immortal beings, amenable to no tribunal but that of Jehovah, and bound not to submit to any restriction imposed for selfish purposes, or to gratify that love of power which has reigned in the heart of man from Adam down to the present time. In contemplating the great moral reformations of the day, and the part which they are bound to take in them, instead of puzzling themselves with the harassing, because unnecessary inquiry, how far they may go without overstepping the bounds of propriety, which separate male and female duties, they will only inquire, ‘Lord, what wilt thou have us to do?’ They will be enabled to see the simple truth, that God has made no distinction between men and women as moral beings; that the distinction now so much insisted upon between male and female virtues is as absurd as it is unscriptural, and has been the fruitful source of much mischief—granting to man a license for the exhibition of brute force and conflict on the battle field; for sternness, selfishness, and the exercise of irresponsible power in the circle of home—and to woman a permit to rest on an arm of flesh, and to regard modesty and delicacy, and all the kindred virtues, as peculiarly appropriate to her. Now to me it is perfectly clear, that WHATSOEVER IT IS MORALLY RIGHT FOR A MAN TO DO, IT IS MORALLY RIGHT FOR A WOMAN TO DO; and that confusion must exist in the moral world, until women takes her stand on the same platform with man, and feels that she is clothed by her Maker with the same rights, and, of course, that upon her devolve the same duties.

One of women’s duties in this important moment is to prepare themselves to be more useful. They can do this by using the religious and literary opportunities within their reach, if they will only reach out and take them. By doing so, they will better understand their rights as moral beings and the responsibilities that come with those rights. They will see themselves as they truly are: FREE AGENTS, immortal beings answerable to no court but Jehovah’s. They will understand that they must not submit to restrictions imposed for selfish purposes. Nor must they submit to restrictions imposed to satisfy the love of power that has ruled men’s hearts from Adam to the present day. As women consider the great moral reforms of the day and the part they must take in them, they will no longer trouble themselves with an unnecessary question. They will not ask how far they can go without crossing the bounds of propriety that separate men’s and women’s duties. Instead, they will ask only, ‘Lord, what would you have us do?’ They will be able to see a simple truth: God has made no distinction between men and women as moral beings. The distinction now so strongly asserted between male and female virtues is as absurd as it is contrary to Scripture. It has also caused much harm. It gives men permission to use brute force and fight on the battlefield. It permits them to be stern and selfish and to exercise power without accountability at home. It permits women to rely on human strength and regard modesty, delicacy, and all related virtues as especially suited to them. To me, it is perfectly clear that WHATEVER IS MORALLY RIGHT FOR A MAN TO DO IS MORALLY RIGHT FOR A WOMAN TO DO. Confusion must exist in the moral world until woman stands on the same ground as man. She must feel that her Maker has given her the same rights and that, of course, she has the same duties.

It is not my intention, nor indeed do I think it is in my power, to point out the precise duties of women. To him who still teacheth by his Holy Spirit as never man taught, I refer my beloved sisters. There is a vast field of usefulness before them. The signs of the times give portentous evidence, that a day of deep trial is approaching; and I urge them, by every consideration of a Savior’s dying love, by the millions of heathen in our midst, by the sufferings of woman in almost every portion of the world, by the fearful ravages which slavery, intemperance, licentiousness and other iniquities are making of the happiness of our fellow creatures, to come to the rescue of a ruined world, and to be found co-workers with Jesus Christ.

I do not intend to define women’s precise duties, nor do I think I can. I refer my beloved sisters to him who still teaches through his Holy Spirit as no man ever taught. There is a vast field of useful work before them. The signs of the times give ominous evidence that a day of deep trial is approaching. I urge my sisters to come to the rescue of a ruined world and work alongside Jesus Christ. I urge them by every consideration of a Savior’s dying love, by the millions of heathen in our midst, and by the suffering of women in almost every part of the world. I urge them, too, by the terrible damage that slavery, intemperance, sexual immorality, and other evils are doing to the happiness of our fellow human beings.

And here, with all due deference for the office of the ministry, which I believe was established by Jehovah himself, and designed by Him to be the means of spreading light and salvation through a crucified Savior to the ends of the earth, I would entreat my sisters not to compel the ministers of the present day to give their names to great moral reformations. The practice of making ministers life members, or officers of societies, when their hearts have not been touched with a live coal from the altar, and animated with love for the work we are engaged in, is highly injurious to them, as well as to the cause. They often satisfy their consciences in this way, without doing anything to promote the anti-slavery, or temperance, or other reformations; and we please ourselves with the idea, that we have done something to forward the cause of Christ, when, in effect, we have been sewing pillows like the false prophetesses of old under the arm-holes of our clerical brethren. Let us treat the ministers with all tenderness and respect, but let us be careful how we cherish in their hearts the idea that they are of more importance to a cause than other men. I rejoice when they take hold heartily. I love and honor some ministers with whom I have been associated in the anti-slavery ranks, but I do deeply deplore, for the sake of the cause, the prevalent notion, that the clergy must be had, either by persuasion or by bribery. They will not need persuasion or bribery, if their hearts are with us; if they are not, we are better without them. It is idle to suppose that the kingdom of heaven cannot come on earth, without their co-operation. It is the Lord’s work, and it must go forward with or without their aid. As well might the converted Jews have despaired of the spread of Christianity, without the co-operation of Scribes and Pharisees.

I have all due respect for the ministry. I believe Jehovah himself established it to spread light and salvation through a crucified Savior to the ends of the earth. Even so, I beg my sisters not to compel present-day ministers to lend their names to great moral reforms. Some ministers are made life members or officers of societies, though their hearts have not been touched by a live coal from the altar. Nor have their hearts been stirred by love for the work we are engaged in. This practice greatly harms both the ministers and the cause. It often satisfies their consciences, although they do nothing to advance anti-slavery, temperance, or other reforms. Meanwhile, we congratulate ourselves on advancing the cause of Christ. In fact, we have been sewing pillows under the arms of our brothers in the ministry, like the false prophetesses of old. Let us treat ministers with all tenderness and respect. But let us take care not to encourage them to believe they matter more to a cause than other men. I rejoice when they throw themselves wholeheartedly into the work. I love and honor some ministers with whom I have worked in the anti-slavery ranks. But for the sake of the cause, I deeply deplore the widespread belief that we must secure the clergy’s support, whether through persuasion or bribery. If their hearts are with us, they will need neither. If their hearts are not with us, we are better off without them. It is pointless to suppose that the kingdom of heaven cannot come on earth without their cooperation. This is the Lord’s work, and it must go forward with or without their help. The converted Jews might just as well have despaired of Christianity spreading without the cooperation of the Scribes and Pharisees.

Let us keep in mind, that no abolitionism is of any value, which is not accompanied with deep, heartfelt repentance; and that, whenever a minister sincerely repents of having, either by his apathy or his efforts, countenanced the fearful sin of slavery, he will need no inducement to come into our ranks; so far from it, he will abhor himself in dust and ashes, for his past blindness and indifference to the cause of God’s poor and oppressed: and he will regard it as a privilege to be enabled to do something in the cause of human rights. I know the ministry exercise vast power; but I rejoice in the belief, that the spell is broken which encircled them, and rendered it all but blasphemy to expose their errors and their sins. We are beginning to understand that they are but men, and that their station should not shield them from merited reproof.

Let us remember that abolitionism has no value without deep, heartfelt repentance. A minister may have supported the terrible sin of slavery through apathy or through his efforts. Whenever he sincerely repents of this, he will need no encouragement to join our ranks. Far from it, he will loathe himself in dust and ashes for his past blindness and indifference to the cause of God’s poor and oppressed. He will consider it a privilege to be able to do something for human rights. I know that ministers have great power. But I rejoice in the belief that the spell surrounding them has been broken. That spell made it nearly blasphemous to expose their errors and sins. We are beginning to understand that they are only men. Their position should not shield them from deserved criticism.

I have blushed for my sex when I have heard of their entreating ministers to attend their associations, and open them with prayer. The idea is inconceivable to me, that Christian women can be engaged in doing God’s work, and yet cannot ask his blessing on their efforts, except through the lips of a man. I have known a whole town scoured to obtain a minister to open a female meeting, and their refusal to do so spoken of as quite a misfortune. Now, I am not glad that the ministers do wrong; but I am glad that my sisters have been sometimes compelled to act for themselves: it is exactly what they need to strengthen them, and prepare them to act independently. And to say the truth, there is something really ludicrous in seeing a minister enter the meeting, open it with prayer, and then take his departure. However, I only throw out these hints for the consideration of women. I believe there are solemn responsibilities resting upon us, and that in this day of light and knowledge, we cannot plead ignorance of duty. The great moral reformations now on the wheel are only practical Christianity; and if the ministry is not prepared to labor with us in these righteous causes, let us press forward, and they will follow on to know the Lord.

I have been ashamed of my sex when I heard women begging ministers to attend their meetings and open them with prayer. I cannot imagine how Christian women can do God’s work but cannot ask for his blessing on their efforts except through a man. I have known women to search an entire town for a minister to open a women’s meeting. When the ministers refused, the women spoke of it as a great misfortune. Now, I am not glad that the ministers do wrong. But I am glad that my sisters have sometimes been forced to act for themselves. That is exactly what they need to become stronger and prepare to act independently. And, to tell the truth, it is rather ridiculous to see a minister enter a meeting, open it with prayer, and then leave. However, I offer these suggestions only for women to consider. I believe we bear serious responsibilities. In this age of light and knowledge, we cannot claim ignorance of our duty. The great moral reforms now underway are simply Christianity put into practice. If ministers are not ready to work with us in these righteous causes, let us press forward. They will follow and come to know the Lord.

I have now, my dear sister, completed my series of letters. I am aware, they contain some new views; but I believe they are based on the immutable truths of the Bible. All I ask for them is, the candid and prayerful consideration of Christians. If they strike at some of our bosom sins, our deep-rooted prejudices, our long cherished opinions, let us not condemn them on that account, but investigate them fearlessly and prayerfully, and not shrink from the examination; because, if they are true, they place heavy responsibilities upon women. In throwing them before the public, I have been actuated solely by the belief, that if they are acted upon, they will exalt the character and enlarge the usefulness of my own sex, and contribute greatly to the happiness and virtue of the other. That there is a root of bitterness continually springing up in families and troubling the repose of both men and women, must be manifest to even a superficial observer; and I believe it is the mistaken notion of the inequality of the sexes. As there is an assumption of superiority on the one part, which is not sanctioned by Jehovah, there is an incessant struggle on the other to rise to that degree of dignity, which God designed women to possess in common with men, and to maintain those rights and exercise those privileges which every woman’s common sense, apart from the prejudices of education, tells her are inalienable; they are a part of her moral nature, and can only cease when her immortal mind is extinguished.

My dear sister, I have now completed my series of letters. I know they contain some new ideas, but I believe these ideas rest on the unchanging truths of the Bible. All I ask is that Christians consider them openly and prayerfully. Some of these ideas may challenge our cherished sins, deep-rooted prejudices, and long-held opinions. But let us not condemn them for that reason. Let us examine them fearlessly and prayerfully, without shrinking from the task. If they are true, they place heavy responsibilities on women. I have shared these ideas with the public for one reason alone. I believe that acting on them will improve the character of women and expand their opportunities to be useful. I also believe it will greatly contribute to the happiness and virtue of men. Even a casual observer must see a root of bitterness constantly growing in families and disturbing the peace of both men and women. I believe this bitterness comes from the mistaken belief that the sexes are unequal. Men assume they are superior, though Jehovah does not sanction this. Women, in turn, constantly struggle to rise to the dignity God intended them to share with men. They also struggle to maintain their rights and exercise their privileges. Every woman’s common sense, apart from the prejudices taught by education, tells her that these rights and privileges cannot be taken away. They are part of her moral nature and can end only when her immortal mind is extinguished.

One word more. I feel that I am calling upon my sex to sacrifice what has been, what is still dear to their hearts, the adulation, the flattery, the attentions of trifling men. I am asking them to repel these insidious enemies whenever they approach them; to manifest by their conduct, that, although they value highly the society of pious and intelligent men, they have no taste for idle conversation, and for that silly preference which is manifested for their personal accommodation, often at the expense of great inconvenience to their male companions. As an illustration of what I mean, I will state a fact.

One more word. I know I am asking women to give up something that has been, and still is, dear to their hearts: the praise, flattery, and attention of frivolous men. I am asking women to turn away these subtle enemies whenever they approach. Women should show through their conduct that they value the company of religious and intelligent men. But they should also show that they have no taste for idle conversation or foolish special treatment. Such treatment often puts their male companions to great inconvenience for the sake of the women’s comfort. To illustrate what I mean, I will share an incident.

I was traveling lately in a stage coach. A gentleman, who was also a passenger, was made sick by riding with his back to the horses. I offered to exchange seats, assuring him it did not affect me at all unpleasantly; but he was too polite to permit a lady to run the risk of being discommoded. I am sure he meant to be very civil, but I really thought it was a foolish piece of civility. This kind of attention encourages selfishness in woman, and is only accorded as a sort of quietus, in exchange for those rights of which we are deprived. Men and women are equally bound to cultivate a spirit of accommodation; but I exceedingly deprecate her being treated like a spoiled child, and sacrifices made to her selfishness and vanity. In lieu of these flattering but injurious attentions, yielded to her as an inferior, as a mark of benevolence and courtesy, I want my sex to claim nothing from their brethren but what their brethren may justly claim from them, in their intercourse as Christians. I am persuaded woman can do much in this way to elevate her own character. And that we may become duly sensible of the dignity of our nature, only a little lower than the angels, and bring forth fruit to the glory and honor of Emanuel’s name, is the fervent prayer of

I was recently traveling in a stagecoach. A gentleman who was also a passenger felt sick because he was riding with his back to the horses. I offered to exchange seats with him and assured him that riding backward did not bother me at all. But he was too polite to let a lady risk being uncomfortable. I am sure he meant to be very polite, but I thought it was a foolish kind of politeness. This kind of attention encourages selfishness in women. It is offered only as a kind of compensation for the rights we are denied. Men and women are equally obliged to be considerate of others. But I strongly object to women being treated like spoiled children and to sacrifices being made for their selfishness and vanity. These attentions are flattering but harmful. They are given to women as inferiors, as a mark of kindness and courtesy. Instead, I want women to claim nothing from men that men could not justly claim from women in their dealings as Christians. I am convinced that women can do much in this way to improve their own character. It is the fervent prayer of the writer that we may come to appreciate the dignity of our nature, only a little lower than the angels, and bear fruit for the glory and honor of Emanuel’s name.