Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1846-05-08


the body. The Address in the main, takes
the same positions which | have endeayored
10 establish. 1t makes, and s%ustains, among
others, nearly every charge against the Soci-
ETY. which was contained in the communica-
ton to Salem Monthly Meeting, which gave
rise TO this discussion, and to which my
friend has made SO many objections; and it
places those who adopted it in precisely the
same position relative 10 the Society, which
that communication places me. Like my
communication, it charges the Society with
immortality and corruption-with endeavoring
to keep back the car of reform-with occu-
plying a position at war with Christianity -
and il prOres these charges. l disclaimed in
my address to the Monthly Meeting, all con-
nection with the Society of Friends as a chris
tian body. Those who issued the Address
referred to, do the same. They tchohy deny
lis character as a Christian church and repudi-
ate its authority as such. After having done
this, the Address informs us that many of
NnOSo WIZ duOl'Cu IL lCGl CIbdI Ol uIuue IT,
sponsibility, and think that they can, with
this understanding, act to som extent in the
Society. Has D. B. Davis fulfilled the con-
ditions which the Marlborough Address holds
to be indispensably necessary on the part Of
those who would remain in the Society of
Friends without mourning guilt! Will he
come out publicly and disclaim all Christian
fellowship and connection with the Society q!
When he does so it will be fair for him to re-
fer to the Marlborough Address, as SO far
agreeing with him; and not till then. lie
will also find if he does this that his position
in the Society, if not iotcards it, will be es-
s~entially changed /; as he will hold fewer of
fees than at present. ] do not believe that
those who issued the Address referred to, are
yet altogether clear of responsibility. But
think their position a less c%ulpable one than
that occupied by B. B. d.
My friend while in his present position
may labor to clear himself of responsibility;
but it is in vain. lie has, as yet, attempted
no reply to my argument on this subject ex-
cept to say that my illustration was not a fair
one. In my last | so changed the ~illustra-
ton that no one can deny its applicability
but he makes no reply. This case 10 too
clear to need argument. We are net to ask
whether an individual knows an act to be
wrong, when he asks us to join him in it
but whether in our judgment it is wrong
Is. Is. D.. would no soon9r countenance slave
ry among honest shareholders than among
dishonest ones. The Society of Friends pro-
fesses to deal with such of its m ombers as do
tcr0ng, and if IL cannot make them sensible Of
their error TO disown them The very reason
which my friend gives for not disowning the
Society of Friends. is the one urged in most
cases by the Society for disowning erring
members. b. B. Davis the man, is therefore
a very djlferent person from b. B. Davis the
O~rerseer. Asaman he fellowships the wrong
doer, because he cannot make him sensible
that no is doing wrong; as an oversee. he
holds it to be san indispensable duty to
diJeHowship him-for the same reason-and
acts accordingly!
b. B. d. misrepresents me when he says
assert that the anti-abolition Friends KnOw
that they are opposing real reforms. No such
assertion was made. l clearly stated that
they denied this, and admitted that they
are, many of them, as sincere in their course
as Paul was in his prosecutions of the chris
tians. Will my friend dare to say that they
are more sincere or more oxcusable than Paul !
B. B. d. will find an answer to what he
says of " progress" in the Society of Friends,
in the Marlborough Address, published in
No. l6 of tho Bugle, to which | beg leave
to refer him, and our readers generally.
There are other points in B. b. DIS COM
munication which | would gladly notice, but
our articles have heretofore been too long,
and feel like reforming in this particular as
well as others.
J.. BARNABY, ia.