se who declined--a most varied and amusing bundle of manuscripts in
themselves. Some said the Bible had no special authority with them;
that, like the American Constitution, it could be interpreted to mean
anything--slavery, when we protected that "Institution," and freedom,
when it existed no longer. Others said that woman's sphere was clearly
marked out in the Scriptures, and all attempt at emancipation was flying
in the face of Providence. Others said they considered all the revisions
made by men thus far, had been so many acts of sacrilege, and they did
hope women would not add their influence, to weaken the faith of the
people in the divine origin of the Holy Book, for, if men and women
could change it in one particular, they could in all. On the whole the
correspondence was discouraging.

Later Miss Lord became deeply interested in psychical researches, and I
could get no more work out of her. And as soon as we had finished the
Pentateuch, Mrs. Blatch declared she would go no farther; that it was
the driest history she had ever read, and most derogatory to women. My
beloved coadjutor, Susan B. Anthony, said that she thought it a work of
supererogation; that when our political equality was recognized and we
became full-fledged American citizens, the Church would make haste to
bring her Bibles and prayer books, creeds and discipline up to the same
high-water mark of liberty.

Helen Gardener said: "I consider this a most important proposal, and if
you and I can ever stay on the same side of the Atlantic long enough, we
will join hands and do the work. In fact, I have begun already with
Paul's Epistles, and am fascinated with the work. The untenable and
unscientific positions he takes in regard to women are very amusing.
Although the first chapter of Genesis teaches the simultaneous creation
of man and woman, Paul bases woman's subjection on the priority of man,
and because woman was of the man. As the historical fact is that, as far
back as history dates, the man has been of the woman, should he
therefore be forever in bondage to her? Logically, according to Paul, he
should."

I consulted several friends, such as Dr. William F. Channing, Mr. and
Mrs. Moncure D. Conway, Gertrude Garrison, Frederick Cabot, and Edward
M. Davis, as to the advisability of the work, and they all agreed that
such a volume, showing woman's position under the Jewish and Christian
religions, would be valuable, but none of them had time to as