“2d.  That you should so magnify the power of the New England clergy;

“3d.  That you should so misconceive the actual convictions of ministers and Christians, and almost all, as to the public speaking of women;

“4th.  That you should take the ground that the clergy, and the whole church government, must come down before slavery can be abolished (a proposition which to my mind is absurd).

“5th.  That you should so utterly overlook the very threshold principle upon which alone any moral reformation can be effectually promoted.  Oh, dear!  There are a dozen other things—­marvellables—­in your letters; but I must stop short, or I can say nothing on other points.

“...  Now, before we commence action, let us clear the decks; for if they are clogged we shall have foul play. Overboard with everything that don’t belong on board.  Now, first, what is the precise point at issue between us? I answer first negatively, that we may understand each other on all points kindred to the main one. 1st.  It is not whether woman’s rights are inferior to man’s rights.”

He then proceeded to state the doctrine of Woman’s Rights very forcibly.  Of sex, he says:—­

“Its only design is 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.”

For an entire page he continues in this manner of “negatives” to “clear the decks,” until he has shown through seven negative specifications what do not constitute the point at issue, and then goes on:—­

“Well, waving further negatives, the question at issue between us is, whether you, S.M.G. and A.E.G., should engage in the public discussion of the rights of women as a distinct topic.  Here you affirm, and I deny.  Your reasons for doing it, as contained in your two letters, are the following:—­

“1st.  The New England Spectator was opened; you were invited to write on the subject, and some of the Boston abolitionists urged you to do so, and you say, ’We viewed this unexpected opportunity of throwing our views before the public, as providential.’

“Answer.  When the devil is hard pushed, and likely to be run down in the chase, it is an old trick of his to start some smaller game, and thus cause his pursuers to strike off from his own track on to that of one of his imps.  It was certainly a very providential opportunity for Nehemiah to ‘throw his views before the public,’ when Geshem, Sanballat, and Tobiah invited and urged him to stop building the wall and hold a public discussion