LETTER XI. THE SPHERE OF WOMAN AND MAN AS MORAL BEINGS THE SAME. BROOKLINE, Mass., _8th month, 28th, 1837_. DEAR FRIEND: I come now to that part of thy book, which is, of all others, the most important to the women of this country; thy ‘general views in relation to the place woman is appointed to fill by the dispensations of heaven.’ I shall quote paragraphs from thy book, offer my objections to them, and then throw before thee my own views. Thou sayest, ‘Heaven has appointed to one sex the _superior_, and to the other the _subordinate_ station, and this without any reference to the character or conduct of either.’ This is an assertion without proof. Thou further sayest, that ‘it was designed that the mode of gaining influence and exercising power should be _altogether different and peculiar_.’ Does the Bible teach this? ‘Peace on earth, and good will to men, is the character of all the rights and privileges, the influence and the power of _woman_.’ Indeed! Did our Holy Redeemer preach the doctrines of _peace to our sex_ only? ‘A _man_ may act on Society by the collision of intellect, in public debate; _he_ may urge his measures by a sense of shame, by fear and by personal interest; _he_ may coerce by the combination of public sentiment; _he_ may drive by physical force, and _he_ does _not_ overstep the boundaries of his sphere.’ Did Jesus, then, give a different rule of action to men and women? Did he tell his disciples, when he sent them out to preach the gospel, that man might appeal to the fear, and shame, and interest of those he addressed, and coerce by public sentiment, and drive by physical force? ‘But (that) all the power and all the conquests that are lawful to _woman_ are those only which appeal to the kindly, generous, peaceful and benevolent principles?’ If so, I should come to a very different conclusion from the one at which thou hast arrived: I should suppose that _woman was the superior_, and _man the subordinate being_, inasmuch as moral power is immeasurably superior to ‘physical force.’