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,

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, yes 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 I 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."