from emancipation than the light from the heat of the sun; the rights of the slave and of woman blend like the colors of the rainbow.  However, I rarely introduce this topic into my addresses, except to urge my sisters up to duty.  Our brethren are dreadfully afraid of this kind of amalgamation.  I am very glad to hear that Lucretia Mott addressed the Moral Reform Society, and am earnest in the hope that we are only pioneers, going before a host of worthy women who will come up to the help of the Lord against the mighty.”

The letters of Whittier and Weld, alluded to by Angelina, are so good and so important that I feel no reluctance in giving them here almost entire.  The first is Whittier’s, and is dated:  “Office of Am.  A.S.  Soc., 14th of 8th Mo., 1837,”—­and is as follows: 

“MY DEAR SISTERS,—­I have been waiting for an opportunity to answer the letter which has been so kindly sent me.  I am anxious, too, to hold a long conversation with you on the subject of war, human government, and church and family government.  The more I reflect on this subject, the more difficulty I find, and the more decidedly am I of opinion that we ought to hold all these matters far aloof from the cause of abolition.  Our good friend, H.C.  Wright, with the best intentions in the world, is doing great injury by a different course.  He is making the anti-slavery party responsible in a great degree, for his, to say the least, startling opinions.  I do not censure him for them, although I cannot subscribe to them in all their length and breadth.  But let him keep them distinct from the cause of emancipation.  This is his duty.  Those who subscribe money to the Anti-Slavery Society do it in the belief that it will be spent in the propagation, not of Quakerism or Presbyterianism, but of the doctrines of Immediate Emancipation.  To employ an agent who devotes half his time and talents to the propagation of ’no human or no family government’ doctrines in connection—­intimate connection—­with the doctrines of abolition, is a fraud upon the patrons of the cause.  Just so with papers.  Brother Garrison errs, I think, in this respect.  He takes the ‘no church, and no human government’ ground, as, for instance, in his Providence speech.  Now, in his prospectus, he engaged to give his subscribers an anti-slavery paper, and his subscribers made their contract with him on that ground.  If he fills his paper with Grahamism and no governmentism, he defrauds his subscribers.  However, I know that brother Garrison does not look at it in this light.

“In regard to another subject, ‘the rights of woman,’ you are now doing much and nobly to vindicate and assert the rights of woman.  Your lectures to crowded and promiscuous audiences on a subject manifestly, in many of its aspects, political, interwoven with the framework of the government, are practical and powerful assertions of the right and the duty of woman to labor side by side with her brother