CHAP. I. 1841. 12:3, 51. We may perhaps detect in this sonnet a squint at a movement made, during a pause in the last session at Chardon Street, to hold a convention "to consider the Lib.11:178; authority of the Scriptures, and the extent of their obli gation on men," in which the Transcendentalists Emerson and Alcott were united as a committee with Edmund Quincy and Mrs. Chapman. That Mr. Garrison was not in sympathy with it seems likely from his disclaimer of Lib. 11: 183. responsibility for Quincy's justification of it, which was allowed to be copied from the Non-Resistant into the Lib- Lib. 11:183. erator, and in which one remarks not only Mr. Quincy's emancipation from the supernatural sanction of the Bible, but his exposition of the way in which the question of its authority was forced on thoughtful minds by clerical opposition to reform. Cf.ante, 1: 463, note 2. The sonnet on "Holy Time" is a reflection of the poem, Ante, 2 : 153. "True Rest." We cite the close of it: Dear is the Christian Sabbath to my heart, The whole of life absorbing, not a part; Who keeps not this, steers by a Jewish chart, From "Worship" let us take the first half : They who, as worshippers, some mountain climb, The freeman of the Lord no chain can bear In lieu of Mr. Garrison's metrical apostrophe to "The True Church," we shall do better to seek a prose definition of that entity in the following profession of faith, which was calculated for private circulation by the friend to whom it was addressed: Lib. 11:183; Lib. 11:187; Lib.11: 191; Writings of w. Z. G., p. 115. MS. Cf. ante, 2:206. W. L. Garrison to Elizabeth Pease, Darlington, England. 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. Garrison's was soon to be illustrated in a very signal manner. President Mahan and the Rev. Charles G. Ante 2: 285, Finney, of Oberlin, who belonged to the same school 286. 176. with Noyes and (nominally) the editor of the Liberator, assumed an attitude of hostility to non-resistance very afflicting to the last-named. Finney held, in a Fast ser- Lib. 11: 151, mon, "that circumstances may arise, not only to render fighting in defence of liberty a Christian duty, but also to justify Christians in actively supporting despotism." Noyes's society at Putney, Vt., some months afterwards, Lib. 11:183. discussed the question: "Is it according to Scripture and reason that women should act as public teachers in the Church, in large assemblies, except in cases of special inspiration?" and unanimously sided with Paul in the negative.1 Their organ, the Witness, for the same reason, pronounced the doings of Boyle, the Grimkés, and Ante, 2: 286. Garrison against the same Apostle "acts of flagrant sedition against God," and spoke of "the whole phalanx of Massachusetts Ultraists, with Garrison at its head." This outburst served a useful purpose in ridiculing the attempts to connect Mr. Garrison with the marriage views of the Perfectionists because he was in agreement with some other part of their doctrine. It was a poor rule that would not work both ways, and the identification of Noyes with Phelps, Torrey, and Colver on the woman question was sufficient to prove that these clergymen, therefore, thought lightly of the marriage institution. Lib. 11:183, 195, and see 191. All this did not prevent Mr. Garrison from coming to the rescue of the Perfectionists against attacks from eccle- Lib. 11:167. siastical bodies all over the country on "the doctrine of sinless perfection, or entire sanctification in the present life." 1 The assumption of the headship of the male is curiously involved in the Putneyite affirmation "that there is no intrinsic difference between property in persons and property in things; and that the same spirit which abolished exclusiveness in regard to money, would abolish, if circumstances allowed full scope to it, exclusiveness in regard to women and children. Paul expressly places property in women and property in goods in the same category, and speaks of them together, as ready to be abolished by the advent of the Kingdom of Heaven" (Noyes's 'American Socialisms,' p. 625; and cf. ante, 2:289). See, on the other hand, Adin Ballou's scriptural defence of the equality of the sexes as maintained by his community (Lib. 12:16). Lib. 11:167. "Now, what," he asked, "is the point in controversy Not, who is a Christian, or whether this or that individual has attained to a state of 'sinless perfection'; but whether human beings, in this life, may and ought to serve God with all their mind and strength, and to love their neighbor as themselves! Whether 'total abstinence' from all sin is not as obligatory as it is from any one sin! "We feel authorized to refer to this subject, not only as a public journalist, but also because it has a very important connection with the righteous reforms of the day. Holiness is incompatible with robbery, oppression, love of dominion, murder, pride, vainglory, worldly pomp, selfishness, and sinful lusts. But these ecclesiastical bodies are determined to make a Christian life compatible with a military profession, with killing enemies, with enslaving a portion of mankind,1 with the robbing of the poor, with worldliness and ambition, with a participation in all popular iniquities. Hence, when abolitionism declares that no man can love God who enslaves another, they deny it, and assert that man-stealing and Christianity may co-exist in the same character.2 When it is asserted that the 1 "Twenty years have passed since the abolition of serfdom [in Russia], and no one has taken the trouble to strike out the phrase which, in connection with the commandment of God to honor parents, was introduced into the catechism to sustain and justify slavery. With regard to the sixth commandment, ' Thou shalt not kill,' the instructions of the catechism are from the first in favor of murder. The Christian Church has recognized and sanctioned divorce, slavery, tribunals, all earthly powers, 'Can 2 On Aug. 30, 1841, Henry C. Wright wrote to Edmund Quincy: "I once met Rev. Francis Wayland, D. D., President of Brown University, in the presence of several friends, to converse on the subject of slavery. The conversation turned on the question- Can a slaveholder be a Christian? To bring it to a point, addressing myself to the Doctor, I asked him a man be a Christian and claim a right to sunder husbands and wives, parents and children-to compel men to work without wages to forbid them to read the Bible, and buy and sell them and who habitually does these things?' 'YES,' answered the Rev. Dr. and President, provided he has the spirit of Christ.' 'Is it possible for [a man] to be governed by the spirit of Christ and claim a right to commit these atrocious deeds, and habitually commit them?' After some turning, he answered, 'Yes, I believe he can.' 'Is there, then, one crime in all the catalogue of crimes which, of itself, forgiveness instead of the slaughter of enemies is necessary to constitute one a Christian, they affirm that to hang, stab, or shoot enemies, under certain circumstances, is perfectly consonant with the spirit of Christ. Thus they make no distinction between the precious and the vile, sanctify what is evil, perpetuate crime, and honor what is devilish. They are cages of unclean birds, Augean stables of pollution, which need thorough purification. CHAP. I. 1841. "We affirm that this is not a question of sectarian theology, but of sound morality and vital godliness. As men who are conscious of guilt should not attempt to excuse themselves, so should they not countenance sin in others. If they are forced to exclaim, 'Who shall deliver us from the body of this death?' let them not revile those who feel prepared to say from joyful experience, 'There is now no condemnation to them which are Rom. 8:1, 2. in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made us free from the law of sin and death.' If a man has passed from death unto life, how much of death is attached to him? If he has crucified the old man with his lusts, how corrupt is the new? If he has the spirit of Christ, how can he have, at the same time, the spirit of Satan? If he has put on Christ, what of iniquity has he not cast off? "Instead, therefore, of assailing the doctrine, 'Be ye perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect,' let us all aim to establish it, not merely as theoretically right, but as practically attainable; 1 and if we are conscious that we are not yet wholly clean, not yet entirely reconciled to God, not yet filled with perfect love, let us, instead of resisting the would be evidence to you that a man had not the spirit of Christ?' I asked. 'Yes, thousands,' said the Dr. 'What?' I asked. 'Stealing,' said he. 'Stealing what, a sheep or a MAN?' I asked. The Doctor took his hat and left the room, and appeared no more" (Lib. 11:143). 1 "Then as I read these maxims [of the Sermon on the Mount] I was permeated with the joyous assurance that I might that very hour, that very moment, begin to practise them. The burning desire I felt led me to the attempt, but the doctrine of the Church rang in my ears: Man is weak, and to this he cannot attain. My strength soon failed. On every side I heard, 'You must believe and pray'; but my wavering faith impeded prayer. Again I heard, 'You must pray, and God will give you faith; this faith will inspire prayer, which in turn will invoke faith that will inspire more prayer, and so on, indefinitely.' Reason and experience alike convinced me that such methods were useless. It seemed to me that the only true way was for me to try to follow the doctrine of Jesus" (Tolstoi's 'My Religion,' p. 6). |