Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1847-03-19
A FRIEND.
Is Stephen S. Foster a HypOCritc ?

FRIENDS EDIToRs:
notice in your s0th No. urder the head Of
"A Religions Row. an extract from a letter
written by Stephen S. Foster and published
in the Liberator. 1t appears that said row
grew out Of a meeting of Liberty party min
listers and church members of different sects.
assembled for the purpose Of holding an anti
slavery meeting, at which meeting Stephen
S. Foster, the occasion Of the row, claimed
the right and privilege of being heard, but
the right being denied him by the Chairman
of the meeting and others, upon the ground
that he was not a church member and of
tend said meeting (for it seems to have been
a select company, he arose and declared, IL
am not only a minister, but a member of a
Congregational Church, and ] have always
claimed the rights Of membership in that
church, and have never failed, when in the
place, TO attend and participate in its meet
ings as a member. 1t is true, | do not fell
lowship the church as IA Christian body, on
account of its pro.slavery character; but you
all profess The same thing in regard to your
own church connections, so far as they are
pro-slavery."
Wonder if this was the case, when he was
urging the doctrine Of Comeouleristn from the
church and state among US herel urging it
as a sacred duty, too, upon all church mem
bers who love the cause of God and Human
ity, TO come out of their respective bodies,
and cease to strike hands enthusiastically with
oppTessors and men-thieves, or their abettors.
How he will escape the crash Of the Great
Babyion's descent, or the woes his own
mouth has pronounced against her 1.-THE church,
cannot guess. Will the Editors of the Bu-
gle crafty the curiosity Of their subscribers
by informing them of the true relation which
friend Foster s~ustains TO the church! wheth-
er he is merely a member in form, and excu-
sable, or in heart and sympathy ? for | pre-
sumo you know.
JAMES BALL.
New Garden, o., March s, 1877.
I'VE are unable TO imagine why the above
wac written. 1t can hardly be because the
author is in doubt as to S. S. Fosters posi-
ton, for in the article referred To-, and in the
language above quoted, he defines it 81 clear
ly that he who runs may read. Stephen S.
Foster became a member of Congregational
church, believing it TO be a christian body.
When he discovered his mistake, lie came
out of the fellowship into which he had en-
tered, and refused TO commune with the mem
bers Of the body, or recognize them as chris
tians. But although he refuses 10 fellowship
them, the members of the church with which
he was connected have not yet cut him of
according to their prescribed rule of dealing
with such troublers in Israel, and he there
fore remains a nominal member according 10
the laws Of the church. And if. while de-
nouncing them as Il brotherhood Of thieves,
they extend to him the legal right of entering
their meetings and tesliIying against them,
he will probably continue 10 use that rirLt
for the overthrow Of slavery. We have IRE.
quently heard him, both publicly and private.
~ urge others to pursue the same course
to retain their nominal right of Membership
SO long as the church would permit, hut ur.
der all circumstances refuse TO commune
with its members or recognize it as a chris
,ian body.-EDRs.]