Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1848-05-12
Is il true ?

A person in Illinois 10 whom the Bugle
was forwarded by request of one Of his friends
writes us that he is unwilling TO take it lon
ger from the office; and in conclusion says:
1.-The paper seems to me to be strongly
tinctured with infdelity, and | am not in Ia
vor OF using antl-slavery principles asa hob
ny whereby TO disseminate infdei sentiments.
J had supposed that | was a strong %anti-sla-
very man, but if to be anti-slavery, | must he
antl-governneni, anti-sabbath, anti-bi5le aud
anti-christlan, then | ain no anti-slavery man.
+. S. AUSTIN.
The lnsinuations contained in the lorego-
ing extract are without any foundation; and
as the writer will probably re-assert them
among his friends and neighbors, we chal-
lenge him to the proof. The question is not
what may be the private opinion of one, or
both OF the editors-wheiher they are inidel
TO his hetrodoxy, or infidel to his orthodoxy,
but 1t rests with f.. s.. Austin TO show where
in the Bugle has advocated iniidel sentiments:
and perhaps it would be as well for him in
the first place to define what he understands
by inhdeIity, seeing that the phrase has a
thousand and one different meanings. We
positively assert, that to the best of our recol-
lection we have never advocated anti-govern-
rRent, anti-sabbath, anti-bible or anti-chris-
tian doctrines; and if We are mistaken, f.
,. A. can readily correct us by pointing to
the passages he had in his mind when he
penned the extract we have quoted.
1t Is true we have opposed the United
States government, because it is pro-slavery.
Is opposition to a single government for "a
certain, specified cause, anti-governmentism!
Then is the writer in the same condemnation,
aye, doubty condemned, for he is opposed to
the government of Russia because it is des-
potic, and to the government of Turkey be-
cause it is Mdhommedan.
1t is true we have cried out against the n.y.
pocrisy of those who pretend TO regard the
observance of the sabbath, but care not for
the observance Of the rights of man-who
halIow days, but degrade humanity. Is this
anti-sabbath doctrine! Then, if the writer
has a just claim to the name of abolitionist,
he is also anti-sabbath in principle.
1t is true we have asserted that if the Bible
sanctions slavery, the Bible should be dis
carded by all WHO love the slave-by all
who believe in a God of Freedom. None
can construe this into anti-bible doctrine I'M
less they believe the Bible ~iusliies slavery.
Will the writer join issue with us here4
1t is true we nave declared that the miser.
able pro-slavery sects of this country have
no claim to the name of christian; but W.
have ever insisted upon the duty of all to o
hey the two great commandments upon whicl
hang all the law and all the prophets-lov
to God and love to man. If this is to be an
ti-christian, then must the writer regard Jesu
as anti-christian when he insisted upon thei
observance, and condemned the popular, pha
r%isaical, hypocritical religion of his day.
These vague charges that are often repea
ted and never proved, have done, and will dc
injury to the cause of the slave if they are
untrue. If true, the public should know it
and we freely offer our columns to L. S,
Austin to publish the proof upon which they
are made.