Francis Jackson Garrison, William Lloyd Garrison, 1805-1879; the story of his life told by his children: volume 2

[157] responsibility laid upon him. The paper could no longer be circulated by those who loved the institutions of the gospel. The Society must have ‘at least a new public organ’ (videlicet, the Spectator). From Mr. Garrison's reply they picked the passage on the sanctimonious ¹ pretensions of the clergy, which they called unparalleled railing. ‘We confess,’ they said, ‘that from the moment of Mr. Garrison's attack upon the Sabbath, we have entertained suspicions of the Liberator.’ They now regarded it as more dangerous than open infidelity. Add the sifting in of doctrine looking to the abolition of civil government, the visible church, the Christian ordinances and ministry. ‘In a piece of poetry from his pen, in the last number, he speaks of keeping “Not one in seven, but all days holy.” The whole effusion breathes the genuine spirit of Perfectionism, and is throughout a singular production.’ The wise and good cannot much longer countenance these evils.

The aim to create a sectarian division, by personally discrediting the editor of the Liberator both with his own subscribers and with the great body of the abolitionists, was now manifest. It became incumbent on the Board of Managers to meet the accusation of the schismatics, which they promptly did. More than ² twothirds of the Board were members of ‘evangelical’ denominations; but their Statement brought little comfort to Messrs. Fitch and Towne. They asserted that the cause was not identified with any sect or party, and was not responsible for the views of any individuals. They rehearsed the steps which led to their being instructed³ at the annual meeting, notwithstanding the Sabbath article, to take such measures as they judged necessary to maintain the Liberator, leaving the editorial control with Mr. Garrison. They had made a contract for the current year accordingly, and had heard no complaint from their colleague, Mr. Fitch. ‘We deem the Appeal,’ they said, ‘peculiarly unseasonable and unkind,—unjust in its allegations, and inconsiderate if not ungenerous and ’