them from the slaves at his own door. Why, his very Bibles, which he sends to the Hindoo, are bought with the blood and souls of his slaves. It is dividing the gains of hell with God. * * * If this is Christianity, well might the heathen say, God defend us from Christianity.” A graphic picture, distinct as just, and yet there sat a few in this very convention “ready to go as far as any Anti-Slavery man they ever saw,” who deprecated division on _Anti-Slavery_ ground, though their _general_ principle was, to hold no fellowship with immorality. The resolution of Mr. Woodbury passed, with but one dissenting voice. Mr. Sewall, who voted in the negative, and Mr. May, who declined voting on the question, explained their conduct by stating that they “entertained doubts whether any body of Christians had a right to exclude a man from the communion table at all.” At the same time they heartily agreed with the Abolition spirit of the resolution, and thought it the duty of Christians who believe in the propriety of this discipline in the church to vote for it. In the course of the Convention, a resolution was presented, involving a personal pledge from each member, of life and fortune and honor to the cause; and well-remembered words of fervent solemnity yet sound in the ears of those who were then adjured to stand firm, “come what might.” Women were earnestly entreated to assist the passage of this resolution, and almost all present united in it. The ecclesiastical opposition to the cause could not fail to be brought out in bold relief by the proceedings of this Convention. During the whole year, its workings were manifest, and at the annual meeting of the Massachusetts Society in 1837, its efforts were successfully exerted in reducing the Abolitionists to the necessity of meeting in a stable. Though the church cast its whole weight in their way, the State was less obstinate in its opposition, and the use of the State House was permitted for one session of the Society. Mr. Stanton wished that this yielding on the part of the State might be considered as a keen rebuke to those churches which had refused their houses of worship, that we might plead in them the cause of 2,000,000 of American heathen. Mr. Fitch deprecated this “turning aside” to remark upon the obstacles cast in our way. He feared there was danger of losing sight of the end of our organization as an Anti-Slavery Society. “We should not let these efforts for free discussion so absorb our minds. Let us think of the infinitely more oppressive wrongs of the poor slave.” There was an indefinable something in these remarks, which revealed an entire want of comprehension of the hearts of abolitionists in general. Was it for themselves, then, that they made these efforts, and administered these rebukes? Were not their thoughts riveted on the Slave? and was not this fixedness of determination the very cause of their rebukes, and of their efforts for free discussion?