CHAPTER NINE

[1] Generally these conventicles produced very many bastards, and the excuse they (the ministers) made for that, was, “where sin abounds the Grace of God super abounds; there is no condemnation in those that are in Christ.” Sometimes this: “The lambs of God may sport together; to the pure all things are pure.” Nay, generally they are of opinion that a man is never a true saint till he have a fall like that of David with Bathsheba, _The true character of the Presbyterian Pastors and People of Scotland_. Reign of King Charles II—and since the Revolution, p. 12.

[2] Mr. Mott a member of the Salvation army in Syracuse, having led astray another member, a young girl of seventeen and being requested to do her the justice of marrying her, replies that he has a great mission converting the world and has no time for marrying. He took an active part in the salvation meeting the other night. He says he was doing as Jesus did, and was free from sin. He carried the flag in the streets and prayed three times. There was great disorder and indignation at Mott’s impudence in praying and speaking.—_Syracuse Daily Standard._ 1883.

[3] _The Book of Pitris._

[4] _Light on the Path._

[5] Mrs. Gage, _Chairman of the Resolution Committee_.

[6] Both Marie Weston Chapman, and Whittier, immortalized this letter in verse, Mrs. Chapman by a spirited poem entitled: “The Times that try Men’s souls,” and Whittier in one called “A Pastoral Letter.” This “Clerical Bull” was fulminated with special reference to those two noble South Carolina women, Sarah M. and Angelina E. Grimke, who were at that time publicly pleading for those in bonds as bound with them, while on a visit to Massachusetts. It was written by the Rev. Dr. Nehemiah Adams, of Boston, author of “A South-side View of Slavery.”

[7] No man who remembers 1837 and its lowering clouds will deny that there was hardly any contribution to the anti-slavery movement greater or more impressive than the crusade of these Grimke sisters from South Carolina through the New England States.—_Wendell Phillips._

[8] Who afterwards married Stephen Foster, one of the apostles of the anti-slavery cause.

[9] Decomposed eggs, the contents of stables, and even of outhouses, were hurled at the speaker and those assembled to listen.

[10] Rev. Samuel J. May first had his attention called to the wrongs of women under Church and State by a striking comparison of the two from the lips of a woman. Priestly opposition to new ideas, and to woman’s taking part in reform work, still continues to be manifest, as shown by the tour of General Weaver and Mrs. Lease, through the Southern States in the fall of 1892. “The notorious Mrs. Lease,” as she was termed, was met by hooting, howling, egg-throwing mobs, and in Atlanta “an eminent minister of the strongest religious denomination (Baptist) in the South” preached against the third party, September 18th, five days before that on which General Weaver and Mrs. Lease were to speak in that city. This sermon, reported by the Constitution, as a “red-hot roasting” declared against the political party that would employ women as speakers, “unsex American women,” as an evidence of the skepticism of the age. Nor is this the only recent instance of pulpit opposition to woman. After the formation of the woman’s National Liberal League, Washington, February 1890, clergymen in different portions of the country—Washington, Iowa, Massachusetts, etc., hurled their anathemas against this association, as inimical to Bible morality, and especially against the women leading in this step. In addition to these sermons, a Catholic Orphanage of seven hundred children, was instructed to pray against such demoralizing ideas; and beyond this, letters passing between influential women fell under United States supervision, and were opened in transit.

[11] Lucretia Mott foremost among these delegates, after this rejection decided upon holding a Woman’s Rights Convention, upon her return to America, which should present the wrongs under which women suffered. This was done, 1848, at Seneca Falls, N.Y.

[12] Through _Senator Joseph E. Brown_.

[13] Several ladies well known for their work in the enfranchisement of their sex, attended this trial, the _New York Sun_ facetiously referring to the presence of “those eminent Presbyterians, Lillie Devereux Blake, Matilda Joslyn Gage and Susan A. King.”

[14] Report of the Washington D.C. “_Republican_.”

[15] Ably reviewed each week as they appeared, by Mrs. Lillie Devereux Blake.

[16] _Lenten Lectures_, p. 56-7-114.

[17] WOMEN AND THEIR SPHERE! Rev. Dr. Dix, some weeks since, came to the front with a series of sermons in which, by unsupported assertion, he managed to demonstrate that women in the United States are no longer ornamental. The trouble in the mind of the reverend D.D. seems to be that women, having grown in the knowledge of the truth and of that liberty wherewith Christ maketh free, have concluded that their sphere is not to be man’s slave—his plaything, a human gewgaw, to be fondled, caressed, or kicked as the masculine mind may elect. If it is important for man to “know himself,” brave women have concluded that it is quite as essential for a woman to know herself, and with a heroism born of rights conferred by God Himself, women have in these latter days resolved to map out their own sphere independent of man’s dictation. They have made commendable headway. They have succeeded in shaking down a number of antiquated citadels where ignorance, superstition, prejudice, despotism and cruelty found refuge, and, as they tumbled, the breath of popular indignation has blown the fragments away like chaff in the grasp of a tornado. These brave women, finding out that—

“Life is real, life is earnest,”

set themselves about solving its problems for themselves and for their sex. Some of them asked for the ballot. Why? Because they wanted to obliterate from the statute books such laws as restricted their liberties and circumscribed their sphere. As wives they wanted to be the equals of their husbands before the law. Why not? As mothers they wanted to be the equal of their sons before the law. Why not? A thousand reasons have been assigned why not, but they do not answer the demand. What is wanted as prudent guarantees that the ballot will be wisely wielded by those upon whom the great right has been conferred? The answer is ready—intellect, education, a fair comprehension of the obligations of citizenship, loyalty to the Government, to republican institutions and the welfare of society. It is not contended that women do not possess these qualifications, but the right is withheld from them nevertheless, and by withholding this right a hundred others are included, every one of which when justice bears sway will be granted. This done woman’s sphere will regulate itself as does man’s sphere. _The Boston Herald_ in a recent issue takes Dr. Dix to task for narrowness of vision and weakness of grasp in discussing “the calling of a Christian woman,” and then proceeds to outline its own views on the “sphere of capable women,” in which it is less robust than the reverend D.D. To intimate that the Infinite Disposer of Events favors the narrow, vulgar prejudices of Rev. Dr. Dix and his organ, the _Boston Herald_, is to dwarf the Almighty to human proportions and bring discredit upon His attributes in the midst of which justice shines with resplendent glory, but the demand is that women themselves shall determine for themselves the boundaries of their sphere. It is not a question of mere sentiment, it is not a matter of fancy or caprice. It is rugged question. It involves food, clothing, shelter. It means self-reliance. Women are not appealing to man’s gallantry, not to any quality of less importance than his sense of justice for their rights. Man is not likely to regard his mother with less affection and reverence because she is his father’s equal, and in the past, when women were more degraded than at present, the best men have found in women inspiration for their best work, good men will not find less inspiration for good work when women are emancipated from the thraldom of vicious laws, and crowned man’s equal in all matters relating to “sphere,” shall, by laws relating to physical and mental organism, take their chances in the world’s broad field of battle, demanding and receiving for work done in any of the departments of human activities men’s pay when they perform men’s work.—_Indianapolis Sentinel_, May 13, 1883.

[18] It is not a physiological cause which produced our present family with the father as ruler and owner of all property.—_Kemptsky._

[19] By a singular lack of oversight in making up the title-page and lettering the cover, the words “Husband and Wife” have been printed as though they referred to objects of equal importance. Even the carefully trained eye of a former editor of the “Christian Register,” the Rt. Rev. F. D. Huntington, D.D., Bishop of Central New York, who furnishes a brief and cautious introduction to the volume, did not detect this error. It has been left to us to call attention to the incongruity of the title-page, and to give the sentiment of the book proper typographical expression. The conventional sobriety and ecclesiasticism of the title-page do not prepare one for the novelty of the contents. It is only by reading the book that we become aware of them. The sensation of the reader is somewhat the same as one would have on going into a building which from the facade appeared to be a plain, dignified Episcopal church, but which on entering he found to be a mediaeval circus. Not that there is any anything intentionally hilarious in the arena of this book or that it displays any athletic vigor of thought but that it is essentially novel and revolutionary. Dr. Gray is not unconscious of the novelty of his doctrine. “It is believed,” he says, “that the position of this essay is new to the discussion. It has not been urged or stated in print in England or America;” and, later on, he expresses a well-grounded belief that “some will smile” at his views as “antiquated and fanciful.” All of these claims may be readily granted. First, the doctrine is new. It is new at least in its present dress—as new as Adam would seem to be, if he put on a modern costume, dyed his gray hairs, and appeared in Boston as a social lecturer.—_The Christian Register_, Boston.

[20] Who has forgotten the sublime magnanimity of Artemus Ward, when he proposed on a certain occasion to sacrifice all his wife’s relatives? This is exactly what Dean Gray theoretically achieves. He not only abolishes his own wife’s relatives, but those of other men who have entered into the marriage relationship. He makes thorough work of it. Not only does he extinguish the wife’s sister as a relative, but also her cousins and her aunts. In fact, he even abolishes the mother-in-law. The luxury of a mother-in-law is granted to the wife, who by virtue of marriage becomes related to her husband’s mother, but is not granted to the husband, who has no relation whatever to the mother of his wife. As to the sisters, the cousins and the aunts, there may be a reason why Sir Joseph Porter, K.C.B., would view with dismay an equal addition to their number through the offices of matrimony; but the majority of men not blessed with a similar superfluity would hardly wish to forego this delightful form of conjugal perquisite.—_Ibid._

[21] “One of the most learned colored men in the country is Alexander Crummell, Rector of St. Luke’s Protestant Episcopal Church, Washington, D.C. When he desired to study for holy orders he applied at Kenyon College, Gambier, O., but was refused admission. He made applications elsewhere, which were equally unsuccessful. He finally went to Oxford, England, and there took a full course. He is an eloquent preacher, and his congregation embraces a large number of prominent colored citizens.”

[22] I. Corinthians, v: 1.

[23] And one of the most bitter opponents to the admission of the women lay delegates to the Methodist General Conference.

[24] As reported in Syracuse, New York “_Sunday Morning Courier_”, March 4th, 1877.

[25] Rev. F. B. Neely, of Philadelphia, said that he was in favor of submitting the question to the annual conferences. He offered the following amendment to the report of the committee: But since there is great interest in this question, and since the church generally should be consulted in regard to such an important matter, therefore _Resolved_: That we submit to the annual conferences the proposition to amend the second restrictive rule by amending the words “and said delegates may be men or women” after the words “two lay delegates” for an annual conference so that it would read, “Nor of more than two lay delegates for an annual conference, and the said delegates may be men or women.” The amendment was seconded by Dr. Paxton.—_Telegram._ New York, May 12.—The debate on the admission of women delegates was one of the most lengthy in the history of the church. It occupied the time of the conference during the larger part of six sessions. It is the common remark, too, that never before was a subject contested in this body with such obstinacy, not to say bitterness. The struggle to obtain recognition from the chair was a revelation to those who did not know previously how fond Methodists are of speaking in meeting. The instant the chairman’s gavel fell, announcing the termination of one speech, fifty delegates or more were on their feet, and from fifty stentorian voices rang out the pitiful appeal, “Mr. Chairman!” This was the order of affairs from the beginning of the debate to the close. One delegate who was finally recognized proved to be so hoarse from his protracted efforts to get the floor that it was with difficulty he could be heard when he did get it.—Correspondence, Syracuse, N.Y. _Sunday Herald_, May 13.

[26] The final vote, excluding women from this conference and submitting the question of their eligibility to the annual conferences, stood: To exclude and submit, 237; against, 198—making a majority of 39 only of the total vote, while the laymen were so evenly divided that the change of one vote would have tied them. If now the annual conference shall decree by a three-fourths vote of all the ministers present and voting, that women are eligible, and if four years hence the general conference by a two-thirds vote shall ratify that decree, the fair sisters will thereafter have free course in that body. Otherwise they will be tolerated only as mere lookers-on. From the fact, that many who voted to submit the matter to the annual conference did so, not because they wish the women to come in, but merely as the best method of getting rid of a troublesome question for the time being, it looks as though their chances of gaining admittance as delegates four years hence were little better, if any, than in the present instance.—_Sunday Herald_ Syracuse, N.Y. May 13.

[27] THE PRIESTHOOD. Now, too oft the priesthood wait At the threshold of the state— Waiting for the beck and nod Of its power as law and God.—

From Whittier’s _Curse of the Charter Breakers_.

[28] From “_The Woman’s Journal_.” Boston.

[29] Headed by _Mme. Astié de Valsayre_.

[30] When the temporal kingdom took possession of Italy, the rate of ignorance was 90 per cent. It has now been reduced to 45 per cent.

[31] The “_Boston Herald_,” Aug. 17, 1886, heading an article upon these statutes, “_Copper Colored Blue Laws_.”

[32] A husband is entitled to punish his wife when he sees fit. At first he is to use remonstrances; if these do not avail, he is to have recourse to more severe punishment. The confessor is at first bound not to pay much heed to women complaining of their husbands, because women are habitually inclined to lie.

[33] The scene in the convocation was animated, the public at large favoring the women. The senior Proctor being slow in his figuring, one of the “Gods in the Gallery” becoming impatient for the announcement of the numbers, shouted “Call in one of the ladies to help you, sir.”

[34] In Egypt, where women received the same education as men, very few children died—a fact noted in the absence of child mummies.

[35] “Eve lived 940 years, giving birth to a boy and a girl every year. Eve lived ten years longer than Adam. They must give this first woman the best constitution in the world for while her husband lived 930 years and communicated to his sons for several generations the principle of so long a life (which is no less applicable to Eve than to him), he must have been of very vigorous constitution; turn the thing as you will it will always be an argument from the greater to the less to show that Eve’s body was better constituted than that of her husband.”