« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
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. Mort.-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
I 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” bere, 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. 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,
which so admits woman's equality in the gospel. Now, tell me, in God's name, what we are to hope from the Church, when she leaves a million and a half of women liable to be brought upon the auction block to-day? If the Bible is against woman's, equality, what are you to do with it? One of two things :-either you must sit down and fold up your hands, or you must discard the divine authority of the Bible. Must you not ? You must acknowledge the correctness of your position, or deny the authority of the Bible. If you admit the construction put upon the Bible by friend Barker, to be a false one, or Miss Brown's construction to be the true one, what then ? Why then, the priesthood of the country are blind leaders of the blind. We have got forty thousand of them, Dr. Nevin included with the rest. He stands as an accredited Presbyterian, giving the hand of fellowship to the members of his fraternity, and withholding it from Garrison and others ; he could not even pray a few years ago in an Anti-Slavery meeting. Now, either the Bible is against the Church and clergy, or else they have misinterpreted it for two hundred years, yės for six thousand years. You must then either discard the Bible, or, the priesthood ; or, give up Woman's Rights.
A friend says, he does not regret the discussion. Why, it is the only thing we have done effectively, since we have been here. When we played with jack straws, we were hail-fellow with those who now oppose us. When you come to take up the great questions of the movement, when you propose to man to divide with woman the right to rule, then a great opposition is aroused. The ballot box is not worth a straw, until woman is ready to use it. Suppose a law were passed to-morrow, declaring woman's rights equal with those of men, why the facts would remain the same. The moment that woman is ready to go to the ballot-box, there is not a constitution that will stand in the country. In this very city, in spite of the law, I am told that negroes go to the ballot-box and vote, without let or hindrance ; and woman will go when she resolves upon it. What we want for woman is the right of speech ; and in Dr. Nevin's reply to Mrs. Foster, does he mean that he would be willing to accord the right of speech to woman,
and admit her into the pulpit ? I don't believe he would admit Antoinette Brown to his pulpit. I was sorry Mrs. Foster did not ask him if he would. I don't believe he dares to do it. I would give him a chance to affirm, or deny it. I hope some other friend will give him that opportunity, and that Antoinette Brown may be able to say that she was invited by the pastor of one of the largest churches in this beautiful city, to speak to his people in his pulpit ; but if he does it, he is not merely one among a thousand, but one among ten thousand.
I wish to have it understood that an infidel is as much at home here, as a christian ; and that his principles are no more "dragged” here than those of a christian. For myself, I claim to be a christian. No man ever heard me speak of Christ or of his doctrines, but with the profoundest reverence; but with the declaration on my lips that they contain the true rule of duty, that there was no hope of the world's redemption here, or hereafter, but in the practical principles that Jesus taught and exhibited in his life. But still, I welcome upon this platform those who differ as far as possible from me. And the Atheist no more “drags” in his Atheism, provided he only shows that Atheism itself demands woman's equality, and is no more out of order, than I when I undertake to show that Christianity preaches one law, one faith, and one line of duty for all.
Mrs. Mott.—We ought to thank Dr. Nevin for his kindly fears, lest we women should be brought out into the rough conflicts of life, and overwhelmed by infidelity. I thank him, but at the same time must say, that if we have been able this afternoon to sit uninjured by · the hard conflict in which he has been engaged, if we can maintain our patience at seeing him so laboriously build a man of straw, and then throw it down and destroy it, I think we may be suffered to go into the world and bear many others unharmed.
Again, I would ask in all seriousness, by what right does Orthodoxy give the invidious name of Infidel, affix the stigma of infidelity, to those who dissent from its cherished opinions ? What right have the advocates of moral reform, the Woman's Rights movement, the Abolitionists, the Temperance advocates, or others, to call in question any man's religious opinions? It is the assumption of bigots. I do not want now to speak invidiously, and say sectarian bigots, but I mean the same kind of bigotry which Jesus rebuked so sharply, when he called certain men "blind leaders of the blind."
Now we hold Jesus up as an ensample, when we perceive the assumption of clergymen, that all who venture to dissent from a given interpretation, must necessarily be infidels, and thus denounce them as infidel ; for it was only by inference, that one clergyman this afternoon, made Joseph Barker deny the Son of God. By inference in the same way, he might be made to deny everything that is good, and praiseworthy, and true.
I want that we should consider these things upon this platform. I am not troubled with difficulties about the Bible. My education has been such, that I look to that Source whence all the inspiration of the Bible comes. I love the truths of the Bible. I love the Bible because it contains so many truths; but I never was educated to love the errors of the Bible ; therefore it does not startle me to hear Joseph Barker point to some of those errors. And I can listen to the ingenious interpretation of the Bible, given by Antoinette Brown, and am glad to hear those who are so skilled in the outward, when I perceive that they are beginning to turn the Bible to so good an account. It gives evidence that the cause is making very good progress. Why, my friend Nevin has had to hear the Temperance cause denounced as infidel, and proved so by Solomon ; and he has, no doubt, seen the minister in the pulpit, turning over the pages of the Bible to find examples for the wrong. But the Bible will never sustain him in making this use of its pages, instead of using it rationally, ' and selecting such portions of it as would tend to corroborate the right; and these are plentiful ; for notwithstanding the teaching of Theology, and men's arts in the religious world, men have ever responded to righteousness and truth, when it has been advocated by the servants of God, so that we need not fear to bring truth to an intelligent examination of the Bible. It is a far less dangerous assertion to say, that God is unchangeable, than that man is infallible.