Lapas attēli

tice to all. Will you, therefore, please insert the following appendix to my remarks, in the printed Annual Report? A. L. B.

The word infidel, as applied to Mr. Barker, was used simply in the sense of a disbeliver in the Bible as the Word of God as the word of infallible truth, when rightly understood. This was no injustice to Mr. B., and was synonymous with his own explicit statement to the Convention. When applied to Mr. Garrison and others, it was rather in a more general and popular sense, as opposed to the current Christianity. Could it be an invidious usage, when it was said that I would endorse such infidelity, rather than such Christianity? Honestly, I endorse neither, and frankly I said so, as bound to do under the circumstances.

There is an infidelity to the letter of true Christianity, and an infidelity to its spirit. In the latter class I placed no one. My motto is "judge not." If any are there, they are born there spiritually, and can neither be voted in nor out, any more than they can be voted in or out of true Christianity. Whenever the spirit of Christ manifests itself to me, I meet it and fellowship it freely, in any body and every body; I have often found it glowing warmly in the heart, and gushing out spontaneously in the life, of many whom the world does not recognize as Christians-of many whom it even condemns as infidel. Those who are associated with me in public or private, can read my heart towards them in this respect; for I am no hyyocrite, and wear no disguises. So far from intending any remarks upon the character of any body, or any fling at either Christian or Infidel, I meant to prove myself above this, by a candid criticism of theories and positions; and no condemnation of any one. The talk about having to mingle with such men as those on the platform in order to obtain a hearing for acknowledged Christian doctrines, was really designed as a just censure of the Christian 'world, and a cordial commendation of the generous toleration and magnanimity of my coworkers. A few more sentences would have made this apparent to the audience. Not till afterwards did I dream that it was not already clear to all on the platform; and, supposing there was time enough, was dwelling upon the point, in order to heighten the contrast between the course pursued by the two classes.

This did not, and does not, seem to me foreign to the subjects of the Convention. It was a reply to the greatest, I had almost said, the only plausible objection in the minds of the multitude against our whole cause, viz: "It is an Infidel movement." Hundreds have told me, personally, they were willing to join us, if it were not for this one feature of the reform. If they are not earnest and honest enough to be ready to come upon a free platform, they are welcome to stay away; but it was surely in order to show the nature and effects of their exclusiveness and proscription, contrasted with the breadth of our movement, and the liberality of its advocates. To affirm that I love, honor, and admire, deeply and sincerely, many of those who have been associated with me in our one cause, would seem more than superfluous—that I am not incapable of common gratitude where it is so clearly due, I would have equally apparent. To be warped by either from integrity to my own convictions, would prove me recreant to the sublime right of individuality, conceded by us all.

We differ in many things: we harmonize in more : above all, in the grand recognition of human equality.


MRS. E. L. ROSE.-I want to make a suggestion to the meeting. This is the afternoon of the last day of our Convention. We have now heard here the Bible arguments on both sides, and I may say to them that I agree with both, that is, I agree with neither. A gentleman, Dr. Nevins, I believe, said this morning that he also would reply to Mr. Barker, this afternoon. We have already had Mr. Barker answered. If any one else speaks farther on Miss Brown's side, somebody will have to reply upon the other. "There is a time and a season for everything," and this is no time to discuss the Bible. I appeal to the universal experience of men, to sustain me, in asking whether the introduction of Theological quibbles, has not been a firebrand wherever they have been thrown? We have a political questtion under discussion; let us take that question and argue it with reference to right and wrong, and let us argue it in the same way that your fathers and mothers did, when they wanted to throw off the British yoke.

DR. NEVIN.-It will be unjust, not to permit me to speak.

MRS. MOTT, moved that he be allowed, since he had already got the floor, without attempting to limit him at all; but that immediately after, the convention should take up the resolutions.

MRS. ROSE objected because, if a third person should speak, then a fourth must speak, or plead injustice, if not permitted to do so. Considerable confusion ensued, Dr. Nevin, however, persisting in speaking, whereupon the President invited him to the platform. He took the stand, assuring the President and officers, as he passed them, that he wished only to reply to some misinterpretations of Mr. Barker's, and would take but little of the time which they so much needed for business.

After commencing however, with Bible in hand, he launched out into an irrelevant eulogium upon "his Christ" &c.; .; from that to personalities against Mr. Barker and his associates upon the platform, calling him a “renegade Priest," "an Infidel from foreign shores, who had come to teach Americans christianity!"


MR. GARRISON rose to a point of order, with regard to the speaker's personalities as to the nativity of anybody.

DR. NEVIN retorted-The gentleman has been making personalities against the whole priesthood.

MR. BARKER.-I expressly and explicitly made exceptions. I only wish that Mr. Nevin may not base his remarks upon a phantom.

DR. NEVIN Continued wandering on for some time, when Stephen S. Foster rose, to a point of order, as follows: "The simple question before us, is, whether woman is entitled to all the rights to which the other sex is entitled. I want to say, that the friend is neither speaking to the general question, nor replying to Mr. Barker. Mr. Foster continued his remarks somewhat, when Mr. Nevin demanded that the Chair protect him in his right to the floor. The Chair decided that Mr. Foster was out of order, in continuing to speak so long upon his point of order.

MR. FOSTER said he would not appeal to the house from the decision of the Chair, because he wished to save time. He continued a moment longer, and sat down.

DR. NEVIN, proceeded, and in the course of his remarks drew various unauthorized inferences, as the belief of Mr. Barker, in the

doctrines of Christ. Mr. Barker repeatedly corrected him, but Dr. Nevin very ingeniously continued to re-affirm them in another shape. Finally, Mr. Garrison, in his seat, addressing the President, said: "It is utterly useless, to attempt to correct the individual. He is manifestly here in the spirit of a blackguard and rowdy." (A storm

of hisses and cries of "down !" "down !")

DR. NEVIN.—I am sorry friend Garrison has thought fit to use those words. He has been in scenes and situations like these, and has himself stood up and spoken in opposition to the opinions of audiences, too often not to have by this time been taught patience.

MRS. CLARK.-Mr. Garrison is accustomed to call things by their right names.

DR. NEVIN.-Very well, then I should call him-turning upon Mr. G., worse names than those.

Only one word has fallen from woman in this convention, to which I can take exceptions, and that fell from the lips of a lady whom I have venerated from my childhood—it was, that the pulpit was the castle of cowards.

MRS. MOTT.-I said it was John Chambers' coward's castle; and I do say, that such ministers make it a castle of cowards; but I did not wish to make the remark general, or apply it to all pulpits.

DR. NEVIN Continued some time longer.

MRS. FOSTER, asked, at the close of his remarks, if he believed it was right for woman to speak what she believed to be truth, from the pulpit; to which he replied affirmatively, "there and everywhere."

MRS. ROSE. I might claim my right to reply to the gentleman who has just taken his seat. I might be able to prove, from the arguments he brought forward, that he was incorrect in the statements he made, but I waive that right, the time has been so unjustly consumed, already. To one thing only, I will reply. He charged France with being licentious, and spoke of the degraded position of French women, as the results of the infidelity of that nation. I throw back the slander he uttered, in regard to French women. I am not a French woman, but if there is no other here to vindicate them, I will do it. The French women are as moral as any other people in any country; and when they have not been as moral, it has been

because they have been priest-ridden. I love to vindicate the rights of those who are not present to defend themselves.

STEPHEN S. FOSTER.-Our "Reverend" friend spoke of "dragging" infidelity into this convention; as though infidelity had to be "dragged" here. I want to know if Christianity has been "dragged" here, when the speakers made it the basis of their arguments. Who ever dreamed of “dragging" Christianity here, when they came to advocate the rights of woman, in the name of Christ? Why, then, should any one stand up here and charge a speaker with "dragging" infidelity, when he advocates the rights of woman, under the name of an infidel? I supposed that Greek and Jew, Barbarian and Scythian, Christian and Infidel, had been invited to this platform. One thing I know, we have had barbarians here whether we invited them or not; and I like to have barbarians here; I know of no place where they are so likely to be civilized as here. I have never yet been in a meeting managed by men, where there was such conflict of feeling, where there was not also ten times as much confusion; and I think this meeting a powerful proof of the superiority of our principles over those who oppose us.

Tell me if Christianity has not ever held the reins in this country; and, what has it done for woman? I am talking now of the popular idea of Christianity. What has Christianity done for woman for two hundred years past? Why to-day, in this christian nation, there are a million and a half of women bought and sold like cattle ; a million and a half of women who cannot say who are the fathers of their children! I ask, are we to depend on a Christianity like that, to restore woman her rights? I am speaking of your idea of Christianity-of Dr. Nevin's idea of Christianity, I shall come to the true Christianity by and by.

One or two things are certain. The Church and Government, deny to woman her rights. There is not a denomination in the country, which places woman on an equality with man. Not one. Can you deny it?

MRS. MOTT.-Except the Progressive Friends.

MR. FOSTER. They are not a denomination, they have broken from all bands and taken the name of the Friends of Progress. I say there is not a religious body, having an organized body of ministers,

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »