Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1849-09-01
From lie Nelo Concord Free Press.
The Bible and Slavery,

scdIceiy III type OeloIe we received the ANTI
Slavery Bugle of the llth inst, in which the
Editor in his own happy and courteous
style, dissents from the demand which we
made in a late number Of the Free Press upon
aboiiionists TO defend the Bible against the
attack Of Shareholders and their iusn6ers.-
Notwithstanding the arguments Of our wor-
thy contemporary, whose remarks we receive
In the spirit of kindness which prompted
them, we still retain our integrity.
The article in the Free Press, which cal
led out the Bugle, referred 10 the unwilling
ness Of the National Anti-Slavety Standard
TO express its views in defence Of the Bible.
Our readers will find it by reference to the
Press Of August LIST, under the caption, ODE
lend IT, After quoting from that article,
the Bugle replies:
1.-THE Anti-Slavery Movement, II we I'M
derstand the matter, was organized for the
purpose Of abolishing Slavery, and not to de-
fend the Bible against the attacks of a pro-
slavery priesthood and church, Individual
abolltionists, Of course, will exercise their
right TO discuss the character and claims Of
the Bible on their ora reSpOnSiJiHiy-,o af-
firm or deny that it is in favor of Slavery,
according 10 their respective views; but we
insist that it is unfair TO impose upon our
Anti-Slavery Societies and their Organs the
responsibility of settling an incidental and
complicated Theological question, on which
the Church herself has never been able 10
agree"
The point at which we were aiming is
here lost sight OF. We found fault with the
Anti-Slavery STANDARD for not defending the
Bible when a reply was made to all parts Of
the Southern writer except that which iustif-
ed Slavery from the Scriptures. Granting that
the discussion Of the Bible question does
not strictly belong 10 the organs of the Anti
Slavery Societies, 1t does not follow that
they are 10 have no voice in it. Abolitionis,s
claim, and always exercise the right of dis
cussing the constitulionalliy Of Slavery. All
the old organization papers are free to de-
clare thelr views on that question. And sure
ly it is no more intimately connected with
Anti-Slavery reform than is the Bible ques-
ton. The nine-tenihs Of the intelligent clas-
ses In the United States believe in the inspi-
ration Of the Scriptures, and whenever Sla-
very is tested by that standard, its ~iustifers
are silenced. Show the Stakeholder, if he
profess Christianity, that the Bible condemns
his practice entirely. and he will be compel
led TO abandon his Slaveholdlng or reject the
Scriptures. Show 10 the world the true An
ii-Slavery doctrines of the Bible, and those
u. DIS. who have labored to prove that Sla-
very is sanctioned by that book, are put TO ST.
lence, the truth promoted, and one of the
strongest holds Of tyranny broken up. No
influence is so powerfully operating against
the emancipation of the slave as that which
is exerIed by the pro-slavery churches, espe-
cially their opening The doors of communion
and fellowship TO Shareholders; thereby say
ing that Slaveholding is not sin. Hence we
argue that much. very much, depends upon
the disposition of this question and if Edi-
tors have any views on it, it is their duty 10
express them. But the great difficulty is,
they have not the moral courage TO sneak ont
boldly what they believe. This is that for
which we find fsult. Some know that to
promulgate their opinions respecting the BIZ
BILE would be taxing their popularity rather
much. How much more candid and envia-
Bile is the position Of II. G.. Wright, who
boldly declares his en'ire remuneration OF the
doctrine that the Scriptures are the word of
God, fearing not his reputation among Chris
tans?
We do not ask Anti. Slavery journals to
settle the question of the inspiration of the
Scriptures. That has long been established,
and needs no further confirmation. But we
do demand that Editors either condemn
Shareholders and all their apoIogizers out Of
their own mouths, or say openly, we reject
the Bible. The common sense of an intelli-
gent public carries US out in this demand.
Another objection Of the BugIe TO our de-
mand is:
Besides, il would be an utter waste of
time for Aholiiionisis, in their associated re-
%latioDs, to discuss these questions, unless they
are prepared, in good faith, to abandon their
principles if they are proved TO be contrary
10 the Book. There is not one among them,
Who, unless his moral sense is grossly per-
ver,ed, or his brains sadly deficient both in
quantity and quality, who is prepared to saw
that he would admit Slavery 10 be right up
on the authority of any book in the World
Our neighbor of The Concord Free Press
would not say it himself; if he would, he is
not the man we take him 10 be-"
This is the common mode Of setting aside
the question, and we have heard some of the
best of men speak in the same manner. We,
however, object entirely to ii. The inspira-
lion of the Bible is and has long been a set
tied question, except with a few. To reason
backwards in this manner, therefore, is not
wise. No one would say, make me believe
that God sanctions Slavery, and will re-
nounce the Deity or, convince me that God
sanctions murder, and | will turn Atheist
No less incorrectly does he reason who
says, "show ne tina. the Bible sanctions Sla-
very, and I'll turn infdsl." 1t is utterly i'm
possible fer the Bible 10 sanction the SUN Of
all v~illanies, as Tor the author OF Eternal Jus.
tlce to authorize The murder Of our fellow
men. The one is no less or more absurd
than the other among those who regard the
Scriptures as the word of God. OF course
among those who deny that, we have no need
to discuss the question relative 10 the sane
lion or condemnation of Slavery by that Book.
There are certain starting points in all con
ifeversies. Among Christians the first is,
that the Bible is the osly tnfallihle rule Of
belief and practice. The revelation which
the Editor Of The Bugle calls the ''Elder rev.