Francis Jackson Garrison, William Lloyd Garrison, 1805-1879; the story of his life told by his children: volume 3

W. L. Garrison to Elizabeth Pease, Darlington, England.

Boston, June 1, 1841.

¹ I am an ‘infidel,’ forsooth, because I do not believe in the inherent holiness of the first day of the week; in a regular priesthood; in a mere flesh-and-blood corporation as constituting the true church of Christ; in temple worship as a part of the new dispensation; in being baptized with water, and observing the ‘ordinance’ of the supper, etc., etc., etc. I am an ‘infidel’ because I do believe in consecrating all time, and body and soul, unto God; in ‘a royal priesthood, a chosen generation’; in a spiritual church, built up of lively stones, the head of which is Christ; in worshipping God in spirit and in truth, without regard to time or place; in being baptized with the Holy Spirit, and enjoying spiritual communion with the Father, etc., etc. If this be infidelity, then is Quakerism infidelity.

With regard to the ‘Church, Sabbath, and Ministry’ Convention, it should be understood that it was called not to determine what is or is not inspiration, or whether the Bible is or is not the only rule of faith and practice, but simply to hear the opinions of ‘all sorts of folks’ in relation to the Church, the Sabbath, and Ministry—leaving every one free to appeal to that standard which, in his judgment, might seem to be infallible. Hence, the Convention could not have properly entertained or decided upon any ‘extraneous’ question. It was a trick of priestcraft, to induce the Convention to cut off free discussion, that led to the introduction of the Bible test by Colver, Phelps, Torrey, St. Clair, etc. These disorganizers and defamers resorted to this device merely to make capital for New Organization, and to bring a false accusation against the leading friends of the old organization, some of whom happened to be in the Convention. All who were present saw at once the spirit that animated this band of priestly conspirators; so that they took the cunning in their own craftiness, and carried the counsels of the froward headlong. . . .

Have you attentively read the little work I left with you, by J. H. Noyes? If you have done with the file of the Perfectionist which I left in your care, I will thank you to send it to me by a private conveyance whenever perfectly convenient.

The difference between Noyes's Perfectionism and Mr.² Garrison's was soon to be illustrated in a very signal