sentence pronounced on her by changing one count in the indictment
served on her in Paradise.

The large number of letters received, highly appreciative of the
undertaking, is very encouraging to those who have inaugurated the
movement, and indicate a growing self-respect and self-assertion in the
women of this generation. But we have the usual array of objectors to
meet and answer. One correspondent conjures us to suspend the work, as
it is "ridiculous" for "women to attempt the revision of the
Scriptures." I wonder if any man wrote to the late revising committee
of Divines to stop their work on the ground that it was ridiculous for
men to revise the Bible. Why is it more ridiculous for women to protest
against her present status in the Old and New Testament, in the
ordinances and discipline of the church, than in the statutes and
constitution of the state? Why is it more ridiculous to arraign
ecclesiastics for their false teaching and acts of injustice to women,
than members of Congress and the House of Commons? Why is it more
audacious to review Moses than Blackstone, the Jewish code of laws,
than the English system of jurisprudence? Women have compelled their
legislators in every state in this Union to so modify their statutes
for women that the old common law is now almost a dead letter. Why not
compel Bishops and Revising Committees to modify their creeds and
dogmas? Forty years ago it seemed as ridiculous to timid, time-serving
and retrograde folk for women to demand an expurgated edition of the
laws, as it now does to demand an expurgated edition of the Liturgies
and the Scriptures. Come, come, my conservative friend, wipe the dew
off your spectacles, and see that the world is moving. Whatever your
views may be as to the importance of the proposed work, your political
and social degradation are but an outgrowth of your status in the
Bible. When you express your aversion, based on a blind feeling of