MISS BROWN, having obtained the floor to reply to Mr. Barker's interpretation, and Mr. Nevin having volunteered to do the same, the convention adjourned to 2 o'clock, P. M.

THIRD DAY-AFTERNOON SESSION.

Convention came to order at the appointed hour.

MISS ANTOINETTE L. BROWN, having the floor, addressed the convention as follows:

MY FRIENDS, I am both glad and sorry, to stand here this afternoon; sorry, only because I am too weary to talk, and because I am obliged to leave the convention soon, and ride most of the night in order to reach home at a time when it is necessary to be there. It was well said, that this Bible question is one which must be met. It is one I have been obliged to meet everywhere, as often too from the professed christian, as from the avowed and acknowledged infidel. For one, I believe that truth is mighty and will prevail,—that truth is omnipotent over error; that truth and error are the two great antagonisms of the universe, and that they must eternally and forever be in conflict, until truth shall triumph. Let us believe in God; and believe in Him as the Father and Protector of his own eternal truth. Do not let us believe that any mortal can destroy that which is right, that which is in itself from God, the author of our natures, and the author of our Universe.

It is not my province this afternoon, to decide whether or not, the Bible be an inspired volume; whether or not, it comes from God, as a revelation of his will to man. Personally, I believe it is such a book. I believe it to be in accordance with the laws of God, as revelated everywhere throughout the Universe. Friend Barker, personally, does not believe it to be the special word of God, does not believe it to be a supernaturally inspired volume. Take his opinion for what it is worth, and mine for what it is worth, each one for himself and herself. The convention is committed to neither.

Let me say briefly however, one word in regard to the Scriptures, and other so claimed sacred books. One thing is certain, there are

no counterfeits of that which is not a reality. If there were no true gold, there would be no counterfeit coin. If there were no genuine bank-bills, there would be no counterfeit bank-bills. So, if there were no Bible, there would be no counterfeit professing to be the revealed will of God. One other idea. If we believe the Bible to endorse the institutions of patriarchal times, must we therefore suppose those institutions to be obligatory, or even right, for the present age? Not if we believe Christ, for he told us that things such as polygamy, were permitted on account of the hardness of their hearts. It is not necessary to take all that question into consideration. We leave the matter where we found it, only saying that there seem to have been some reasons to justify such a man as Abraham, in being the husband of more than one wife, which would not justify men now, in the nineteenth century; for God's will comes to us progressively, and light increases as we are ready to receive it. So that what Abraham could do, and perhaps not be at all condemned for doing, or be comparatively guiltless in doing; we might not do at all, without rolling upon our souls a mountain of guilt.

Let me say also, in all frankness, that friend Barker in his statement this morning of what he believed to be a true interpretation of the Bible, without regard to the idea whether it was the revealed will of God or not, taking it as it stands, aside from its origin or Authorship, his interpretation of what he supposed was the true meaning of that Book, is an interpretation almost entirely like that which has been given me again and again, by those who receive the Bible as their only rule of faith and practice. Again and again they have said to me, "The Bible does teach so and so," in regard to woman's subjection; and that is the only subject that need come up this afternoon, as there is not time for any other. Those whom I love, and believe to be honest men, have told me that substantially they held just Mr. Barker's idea of what the Bible teaches in regard to the position of woman. Well, if I believed the Bible taught thus, much as I love and reverence that Book, I could not believe in such a Bible. I should believe the light and the testimony in my own soul, rather. God knows he has given me reason and intellect, and soul, and heart; and I believe his law written upon these, is eternally one with the law written everywhere.

And again, there have been no more different and diverse interpretations of the meaning of the Bible, than we find different and diverse interpretations of the law of God, as written in nature, as written in the mind of man, as written by the hand of God in the fleshly tablets of the heart. You will find people differing just as widely when they talk of natural Theology, outside of the Bible. One great aim of my life has been, to show that the God of the Bible, is the God everywhere; and that the revelations of his will do not conflict. We may believe that green and blue certainly are something very different from the pure, clear light, which we see falling from the heavens. So all the different colors of the rainbow, look very unlike the light above us; but we know very well, that these combined give us perfect light. We can divide that light and get seven original colors; so we may take the Bible, and find in it the moral rainbow one flood of mellow radiance-the pure moral light of God. take the specific commands of that Bible, separate rays and not the combined whole, or we may take them as they all blend together in one eternal whole. And so far as I have studied the Scriptures, they do all blend together in harmony in the one great Golden Rule. "God is no respecter of persons." "There is neither male nor female, for both are one in Christ Jesus ;" and I have no hesitation in planting my feet upon the Bible, and feeling that I can harmonize it all with these sublime truths.

; or the We may

While our Biblical expositors make the Bible contradict itself, they need not wonder that infidels arise; for they are the handiwork of such interpretation as theirs; of such as would have us believe, that at one time God is not a respecter of persons, and at another, that he is a respecter of persons; that he does not place man above woman in the Gospel dispensation, and then that he does place man above woman, and make her subject to him. The two things cannot harmonize. Either there is no male and female in Christ Jesus, and sex is no barrier to any or all the rights which belong to the christian in the Church, or anywhere in the world; or God is a respecter of persons, and there is an inferior and a superior sex in Christ Jesus. Let us look facts in the face. Either the Bible contradicts itself, or it does not contradict itself. If it is a tissue of contradictions, then it is not the Bible which has come from my God, or your God.

Let me now allude to many passages brought up before us, and try to show you that they are in harmony with the great heart of Christianity itself; for I claim that this movement is pre-eminently a great christian movement. It is founded in the christian doctrine "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God supremely, and thy neighbor as thyself;" and the Golden Rule of the new gospel.

Go back with me then to the fall, when our first parents had sinned. God said to Eve, "Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee;" there was a twin-born announcement made with that, to Satan, "It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel" Christ should bruise the head of the serpent, and the serpent should injure Christ; take notice, this is the same form of speech, 'Thou shalt do it." Did God command the serpent to injure the Anointed of the Lord or any other of the seed of the woman? If so, I tell you Satan should be thanked for having injured mankind. He ought to have credit given him for having obeyed the command of God. But it is blasphemy to think that God commanded the devil to do an intrinsically wrong act. It might as well have been translated, "Thou wilt bruise his heel," "Thy desire will be to thy husband," &c. The Hebrew scholar will tell you, that the same form of words may be translated, shall or will. Well, our good brothers have been educated into the idea, that man ought to rule over woman, and so they prefer to translate it, that God said, "He shall rule over thee." So God has said, but he also said that Satan should bruise the heel of Christ, or the seed of the woman; but we know from the nature of things, that this cannot be a command. Then there is not a particle of evidence for believing the other to have been a command. God said, these things will be so; they will be the result of wrong doing. When they had sinned, he did not tell them to go on sinning. But he said, "I will tell you the result." It was an announcement. There was a curse, or evil, to fall upon woman. It must have been a curse too that would fall upon man, for the interests of men and women are forever identical. If men ought to rule, then they must be blest in ruling, and woman blest in the rule. But neither of them are blest in it. It is an evil, therefore it cannot be from God. He /merely told them of it as a result of sin.

The very same form of the verb is used to Cain. "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door," and, "unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him," or as it should be rendered, "unto thee will be his desire." And Cain did rule. He domineered and tyranized over his brother until he took his life. If thou doest not well, this shall be (will be) the result. Just so it was to be between Adam and Eve. When thou doest not well and sin, then this announcement shall be verified. And it has been verified until now. The most heathenish countries in the world, are those where man tyrannizes most entirely over woman; and the most enlightened and advanced countries, are where woman is elevated nearest to the level of man.

But we are told that parallel passages will best interpret each other, and that St. Paul said to woman that she was to be subject to her husband in all things. Well, I am ready to grant a christian subjection, which St. Paul deems every woman to owe her husband. He says she is to be subject in all things; and this is, I think, in his sense, right, and fit, and proper. But what kind of subjection is it? Let me give you some parallel passages. "Yea, all of you be subject one to another," and, "submitting yourselves one to another." Again, "I beseech you brethren, that you submit yourselves to every one that helpeth us and laboreth ;" and the same St. Paul, calls Phebe "a servant of the Church," and mentions a whole category of pious women who were co-workers with him; and adds, "I earnestly beseech you to submit unto all those who help with us, and labor." Now putting the two together, he says just as plainly, "I beseech you, submit yourselves to those women who work with us in the gospel," as he says, "submit yourselves to your husbands." You cannot get rid of the interpretation. Look at it, and you will find the word translated, "to submit," means simply, "listen to with reverence or respect." It has reference to the spirit, and not to an act. The Bible is not a book that specifies action, so much as principles. This word then enjoins woman to pay the respect to her husband which she owes to him, and which each man owes to all his fellows. No woman need refuse to submit to her husband, or regret having to obey her husband in this christian, Bible sense. Every woman ought to be bound to