« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
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.
Suppose a law were
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. 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."
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.
THIRD DAY-EVENING SESSION.
MRS. GAGE, because of indisposition, resigned the chair in favor of Mrs. Severance.
MISS E. WRIGHT.-In connection with the propositions of Mrs. P. W. Davis' letter, I wish to say, that Mrs. Martha Pillsbury of this city, has been in the practice of calculating Almanacs, although her work has passed under other persons names. She would be glad to calculate the one proposed, if it is to be done.
The entire series of resolutions was now presented for final action. MRS. SEVERANCE.-(Mrs. Mott in the chair) I must beg leave to enter my protest against one phrase of the resolutions, which had, in some way, strangely escaped my notice until now. We wish our platform broad as the world,-as indeed it is,-so that men and women, of every shade of faith, may stand upon it, as indeed they now do. And while we accord liberty, during all our deliberations, for a free individual expression from all such, we should not suffer ourselves in our official acts, to brand, invidiously, any one sect. I move, therefore, that some less invidious phrase be substituted for that which now reads, "The cant of Papal Rome." I would add, also, that a woman; who advocated our cause ably and effectually upon this platform yesterday, is still a conscientious adherent of the Romish Church, a church indeed, which, whatever its other errors, has honored woman, and recognized her humanity as none other has done.
The resolution was therefore amended to read, "The cant of Theological Bigotry ;" and the series being submitted to the convention, with this amendment, was adopted unanimously.
A proposition was made to consider as next in order of business, the time and place of holding the next National Convention. James Mott, proposed Philadelphia, Mrs. Rose, proposed to hold the next convention at the very Seat of Government. Women have to do with government questions, and she thought it most proper to have the next convention in the city of Washington.
MRS. MOTT.-I do not think it of so much importance to go where we could produce the greatest political effect, as to produce the
greatest moral effect. You may rest assured, the political men of the country, the partizans of politics, will be ready enough to take up our movement, when, by making these moral appeals we have been instrumental in calling forth such a sentiment, that there shall be a demand for our rights before the people. Then, without our appealing "to the powers that be," directly, the powers that be will come to us, and be ready to yield what has been so long denied us.
MISS STONE. I prefer Philadelphia. We have talked about Washington, and we shall go there, sometime; but now, when in the District of Columbia they sell women-I think we had better wait till they are more civilized, before we go there. Let the next convention be at Philadelphia, and as that is so near on to Washington, perhaps the moral effect of it, may reach there, so that the next year we may go there. We have had conventions in New York, Massachusetts and Ohio, and it seems to me, the next state should be Pennsylvania.
The vote was taken upon the motion to adjourn to Philadelphia, and decided in the affirmative.
MRS. EMMA R. COE.-I have very little to say this evening beyond reading a letter, received by me to-day. (Here follows the letter.)
I beg leave to inform the gentleman, if he is present, that I believe. I understand these laws, and this point particularly, very nearly as well as himself; and that I am as well acquainted with the laws passed since 1840, as with those enacted previous to that time. I would also inform him, that the committee, some of whom are much better read in law than myself, were perfectly aware of the existence of the statutes he mentions, but did not see fit to incorporate them into the petition, not only on account of their great length, but because they do not at all invalidate the position which the petition affects to establish, viz., the inequality of the sexes before the law. Their insertion, therefore, would have been utterly superfluous. This letter refers, evidently, to that portion of the petition which treats of the equalization of property, which I will now read. (Then follows the reading of one paragraph of the petition.) Again I refer you to the letter, the first paragraph of which, is as follows:
"MRS. EMMA R. Coɛ, will you look at Vol. 44, General Law of