must lay our own wills aside, and come and be molded and fashioned by the priest. It is "holy time," and that time we are to give ourselves to be wholly and entirely fashioned and formed by another. That place is a holy place, and when we enter, our eye rests on the "holy of holies;" he within it, is a "divine." The "divines" of the thirteenth century, the "divines" of the fifteenth century, and the "divines" of the nineteenth century, are no less "divines." What I speak to-day is taken for what it is worth, or perhaps for less than it is worth, because of the prejudice against me; but when he who educates the people "speaks, he speaks as one having authority;" he speaks, and is not to be questioned. He claims, and has his claim allowed, to be specially ordained and specially annointed from God. He stands mid-way between Deity and man, and therefore his word has power.

Aye! not only in middle age, does the man come, leaving every thing behind him; but, in old age, "leaning on the top of his staff," he finds himself gathered in the place of worship, and though his ear may be dull and heavy, he leans far forward to catch the last words of duty-of duty to God and duty to man. Duty is the professed object of the pulpit, and if it does not teach that, what in Heavens' name does it teach? This annointed man of God, speaks of moral duty to God and man. He teaches man from the cradle to the coffin; and when that aged form is gathered within its winding sheet, it is the pulpit that says "dust to dust, and ashes to ashes."

It is the pulpit then, which has the entire ear of the community, one seventh part of the time. If you say there are exceptions, very well, that proves the rule. If there is one family who do not go to church, it is often no matter, its teachings are engendered by those who do go; hence I would say, not only does the pulpit have the ear of the community one seventh part of the time of childhood, but it has it under circumstances for forming and molding and fashioning the young mind, as no other educating influence can have it. The pulpit has it, not only under these circumstances; it has it on occasions of marriage, when two hearts are welded into one; on occasions of sickness and death, when all the world beside is shut out, when the mind is more susceptible of impressions from the pulpit, or any such source.

Then he can make an impression which can never be wiped out this

side the grave.

I say then, that woman is not the author of this sentiment against her fallen sister, and I roll back the assertion on its source. Having the public ear one seventh part of all the time, if the men of the pulpit do not educate the public mind, who does educate it? Millions of dollars are paid for this education, and if they do not educate the public mind in its morals, what I ask, are we paying our money for? If woman is cast out of society, and man is placed in a position where he is respected, then I charge upon the pulpit, that it has been recreant to its duty, or woman would not treat man, as men will not treat their sisters.

If the pulpit should speak out fully and everywhere, upon this subject, would not woman obey it? Are not women under the special leading and direction of their clergymen ?

You may tell me, that it

It

is woman who forms the mind of the child; but I charge it back again, that it is the minister who forms the mind of the woman. is he who makes the mother what she is ; therefore her teaching of the child, is only conveying the instructions of the pulpit at second hand. If public sentiment is wrong on this behalf, (and I have the testimony of those who have spoken this morning, that it is) the pulpit is responsible for it, and has the power of changing it. The clergy claim the credit of establishing public schools. Granted. Listen to the pulpit in any matter of humanity, and they will claim the originating of it, because they are the teachers of the people. Now if we give credit to the pulpit for establishing public schools, then I charge them with having a bad influence over those schools; and if the charge can be rolled off, I want it to be rolled off; but until it can be done, I hope it will remain there.

MR. MAHAN : No class of persons had better be drawn into our discussions to be denounced, unless there is pretty serious occasion for it. I name the pulpit with solemn awe, and unless there is necessity for it, charges had better not be made against it. Now I say that no practice and no usage in the church can be found, by which a criminal man, in reference to the crimes referred to, may be kept in the church and a criminal woman cast out. There is no such custom in

any

of the churches of God.

After twenty years of acquaintance with

the church, I affirm that the practice does not exist.

Now in regard to the origin of public sentiment, can a pulpit be found, will the lady who has just sat down, name a pulpit in the wide world, where the principle is advocated, that a criminal woman should be excluded, and the man upheld? Whatever faults may be in it, that fault is not there.

MRS. ROSE -Not in theory, but in practice.

MR. MAHAN :-Neither in theory nor in practice. Where a wrong state of society exists, the pulpit may be in fault for not reprobating it.

ABBY K. FOSTER :-I do not wish to mention names, or I could do so. I could give scores of cases, where ministers have been charged with such crimes, and where the evidence of guilt was almost insurmountable, and yet they were not disciplined. They were afraid that it would injure the church. I remember one minister who was brought up for trial, and meantime they suspended him from office and paid him only half his salary, but retained him as a church member; when if it had been the case of a woman, and but the slightest shade of suspicion had been cast upon her, they would not have waited even for trial and judgment, they would have cast her out of the church at

once.

On motion, Convention adjourned to 2 o'clock, P. M.

SECOND DAY-AFTERNOON SESSION.

Convention came to order, and after considerable discussion, on motion, the original Declaration, and the letter from WM. H. CHANNING, were referred to the following Committee, to draft a suitable Declaration :

MRS. ERNESTINE L. ROSE, MISS ANTOINETTE L. BROWN, LUCRETIA MOTT, WM. LLOYD GARRISON and LUCY STONE.

MRS. GAGE-The different sentiments put forth this morning, reminded me of a circumstance which occurred once in my family. My little children were playing and making too much noise in another

Now there is a great

room. I went to them, to request them to be more quiet, when one of them replied: "We ain't making a noise." "But there is a great noise there," I said; "Well, it makes itself!" deal of immorality in society, and a great deal which needs correcting, but it does not exactly make itself, we all aid to make it. Each one of us feels, individually, "I have not done it."--Man has not done all the wrong, the pulpit has not' done all the not, the law-giver has not done all the wrong. gether in all doing wrong. Now, let us all unite together in trying to bring the world back to the right; and if any party perseveres in the wrong, let us earnestly solicit that party to change its course.

wrong, the press has We have united to

WM. LLOYD GARRISON :- -I have but a few words to submit to the meeting at the present time. In regard to the position of the church and clergy, or the subject of purity, I think it is sufficient to remind the people here, that whatever may be the external form observed by the church toward its members, pertaining to licentiousness, one thing is noticeable, and that is, that the marriage relation is abolished among three and a half millions of people; and the abolition of marriage on that frightful scale, is in the main sanctioned and sustained by the American church and clergy. And if this does not involve them in all that is impure, and licentious, and demoralizing, I know not what can do so.

As it respects the objection to our adopting the Declaration of Independence as put forth at Seneca Falls, on the ground that it is a parody, and that being a parody, it will only excite the mirthfulness of those who hear or read it in that form; I would simply remark, that I very much doubt, whether, among candid and serious men, there would be any such mirthfulness excited. At the time that document was published, I read it, but I had forgotton it till this morning, and on listening to it, my mind was deeply impressed with its pertinency and its power. It seemed to me, the argumentum ad hominum, to this nation. It was measuring the people of this country by their own standard. It was taking their own words and applying their own principles to women, as they have been applied to men. At the same time, I liked the suggestion, that we had better present an original paper to the country; and on conferring with the business Committee

after the adjournment, they agreed that it would be better to have such a paper; and that paper will undoubtedly be prepared, although we are not now ready to lay it before the Convention.

It was this morning objected to the Declaration of sentiments that it implied that man only was the transgressor, that he had been guilty of injustice and usurpation, and the suggestion was also made, that woman should not be criminated, in this only, but regarded rather as one who had erred, through ignorance; and our eloquent friend, Mrs. Rose, who stood on this platform and pleaded with such marked ability, as she always does plead, in any cause she undertakes to speak upon, told us her creed. She told us she did not blame any body, re. ally, and did not hold any man to be criminal, or any individual to be responsible for public sentiment, as regards the difference of criminality of man and woman.

For my own part, I am not prepared to respect that philosophyI believe in sin, therefore in a sinner; in theft, therefore in a thief; in slavery, therefore in a slave-holder; in wrong, therefore in a wrong doer; and unless the men of this nation are made by woman to see that they have been guilty of usurpation, and cruel usurpation. I believe very little progress will be made. To say all this has been done without thinking, without calculation, without design, by mere accident, by a want of light; can any body believe this, who is familiar with all the facts in the case? Certainly, for one, I hope ever to lean to the charitable side, and will try to do so. I too, believe things are done through misconception and misapprehension, which are injurious, yes, which are immoral and unchristian; but only to a limited extent. There is such a thing as intelligent wickedness, a design on the part of those who have the light to quench it, and to do the wrong to gratify their own propensities, and to further their own interests

So then I believe, that as man has monopolized for generations, all the rights which belong to woman, it has not been accidental, not through ignorance on his part; but I believe that man has done this through calculation, actuated by a spirit of pride, a desire for domination which has made him degrade woman in his own eyes, and thereby tend to make her a mere vassal. It seems to me, therefore, that we are to deal with the consciences of men.