Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1845-12-26
COMMUNICATIONS.
FRIENDS EDlToRs:-

In the Bugle of the
10Th inst, is an article written by my friend
d. B. Davis, which seems to demand some
reply from me; and which l hasten to notice,
believing that a candid interchange of views
relative to the subject of his communication
cannot but be beneficial to all parties con-
cerned.
In the communication to Salem Monthly
Meeting, published in your paper of the 18th
inst, and to which my friend b. B. Davis
seems to have some objections, it is stated
that "the Society of Friends processes to be-
Christian body-that it processes to keep it.
self such, by dealing with those of its men,
bers who are guilty of immoral or unchris-
tian conduct."-In regard to this matter |
suppose there can be no difference Of opinion
among those who know anything directly of
the professions of the Society, whatever con-
illusions may be drawn by those who Judge
of these professions by its practices merely.
In the Discipline of the Society of Friends
Of Ohio, as revised and printed by direction
Of the Yearly Meeting in 1912, it is declared
via blO HlCdh Jdh vi tlC SiNiSh mao pCCh
pleased to gather Friends as a people to him
self, and to inspire them with a degree IF the
same universal love and good will by which
was ushered in the dispensation Of the Cos
pei. Declarations of the same nature abound
throughout the discipline, and SO far as that
instrument is to be received as an exposition
Of the principles protested by the Society,
(and | know not where else we are to look
for such exposition) the Society makes the
very highest pretensions to Christianity
Furthermore, if any member acts in a manner
unworthy of this profession, it is declared to
be ''the indispensable duty of the Society
to treat with him without delay, and if he
fails to give evidence of repentance, to dis
own him. Blu! it is useless to multiply words
here. No one who has read the discipline of
the Society or other writings approved by
Friends, or listened to the testimony of their
recommended ministers, can be in doubt for a
moment relative to this matter.
My friend B. B. d. calls himself a MEN,
Der Of Society. He stands committed in ia
vor of these principles and regulations before
Friends, and the world. In his own heart he
either does, or does not adopt them. He ell
ther does or does not believe it right for the
Society to make these high professions and
its indispensable duty" to carry them out,
by disowning delinquent members and in 9TH
er particulars. If he believes it the duty OF
the church to act upon these principles and il
the church refuses to act thus, it must ac-
cording to his own argument be his ''indis'
pensable duty" to disown the church; as ev-
cry argument used in the discipline, or which
can be used to justify the Society for the dis.
ownment Of delinquent members will 90 as
far, aud believe farther to justify individu-
ais who are true to principle, in disowning a
delinquent church,
If on the other hand he rejects these prin-
ciples of the Society, as being incorrect, he
appears TO the world what he is not-deceives
the Society, and stands condemned by the
discipline; which declares that there is impo-
sition son the part of those who Gas is some.
times the case) insist on being retained as
members while at variance with Friends
aither in principle or practice -" There
SCENE, then, no course for my friend
o pursue, but to join himself to what he
pleasantly terms the ''new Comeouter Soci-
ety." unless he is prepared to take the posi-
ton and maintain it, that the Society of
Friends does act in a manner worthy of its
high Christian professions. This position he
will not attempt to establish, for two reasons.
The one is that he is well acquainted with
the position occupied by the Society for sew
eTal years past, towards questions Of reform.
The other is that he is an honest man.