Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1849-10-13
From the Kew Concord Free Press.
The AnLi.SlaY0rY Bugle...The Bible.

IN unOtncr arucle as long. 10 do this, when
the subjects which the Bugle introduces are =
foreign to the objects OF our paper,
~ we do not esteem ourselves called. The
points raised by the Bugle, are the inspira-
ton of the Bible, (3) and the infallibility of
the light of nature in every soul. (4) The
Editor of the Bugle will remember that the
occasion of his passing ensur upon US,
was our censure upon the Standard for not
denying the charge of shareholders against
the Bible, who say that it sanctions slavery.
10y We expressed our fear that some editors
had not moral courage to declare plainly and
unequivocally their belief of the Bible. Not
withstanding the Bugle's very respectful and
and able reply, we are compelled to say that
he has evaded a full expression of his belief.
(6) We understand that he holds opinions in
common with Henry G. Wright respecting
the Scriptures. ~ Why does he not declare
his belief? 10y For the same reason that the
Anti-Slavery Standard does not. 10y Did we
believe the Bible to be what the Editor of the
Bugle does, we would consider it our duty
than, against slavery. (10.)
On some of the positions of the Bugle, we
may have some remarks again.
Remarks.
/. 1t would have been no more than fair if
The Free Press had told its readers that Tn
Bugle did not reply to its former article without
copying it in full. 1t is true our reply was
pretty long-it could not well be otherwise
but we don't think that a justifable reason on
the part of The Free Press for backing out of a
discussion which originated in its own columns.
However, we are willing our contemporary
should jud ge for himself.
2. Why then did you blame another anti-sla-
very paper for simply passing over one of those
subjects in ~silencef Was it wrong in the STAN
dard to decline the discussion of a topic as for
eign to its columns as to yourss
8. Begging pardon of our n~eighbor, we must
tell him that zoe rave raised no such question:
Our whole effort has been to show hat that
question ought not to be raised BY. any body. OF
the anti-slavery platform. We had supposed
that The Free Press was our antagonist on this
point, but here it comes smack round to our
side.
4. Not exactly so, neighbor. We expressly
disclsimed any desire to discuss this question in
all its length and breadth. The point of our
argument comprehends no more than this =
Lax Nhos you Sdh HS ASub 4 4NutuEcp Dub
what we call the revelation of the Divine Will
in the soul of man, teaches every body that Sla-
very is wrong; and therefore that there is no
necessity for ~resorting to the Bible to settle that
question, whatever may be said of such necessi-
ty in other cases. We should like to know
whether our contemporary admits or denies this
position.
s. In other words, you censured it for not de-
Tending your notions Of the Bible on the anti-sla-
very platform, and accused it of a want of moral
courage for not avowing what you assumed
(~perhaps falsely, certainly without evidence,)
were its own opinions of that Book and when
we present justifiable reasons for its silence
reasons at least consistent with integrity and
honor on the part Of that journal-you turn
square round and tell us that the subject is for
eign to the objects of your paper! If there is
either coherency or consistency in this, then are
we utterly incapable of distinguishing our right
hand from our left.
6. 'Euaded'f That, Mr.. Free Press, is not
a truthful word. We have simply declined,
from honorable motives, to make The Bugle
(Which is the organ of the Western Anti Slave
ry Society,) a vehicle for expressing our opin-
ions on a subject which you now virtually ad-
NIT to be foreign to its objects.
7. This is untrue, if Mr.. Wright holds the
opinions attributed to him by the Free Press,
This judging one man by the opinions of anoth-
e, and that upon hearsay evidence. does not
accord with our notions of honorable eontrover-
sy.
8. We have already answered this question.
8. How does The Free Press know that
10. The Free Press could tell better what it
would do in the case supposed, if it had any in.
telligent idea as to what our opinions are
There is an old adage which runs thus when
you kno'O nothing, say nothing We tell our
friend that if he knows any thing of our opin-
ions in relation to the Bible, he deserves the Sc
verest censure for disappearing them. We
We hold no opinions of that book which involve
us in the necessity of making war upon it. On
the contrary, we prize it more highly than we
do any other book in the world. A book which
has lived in the affections of the good and pure
for so many centuries, in spite of the load of vii
lany and wickedness which its self-constituted
defenders have heaped upon it, must be good.
And yet there are certain popular theories res
pecting that book which we reject as contrary
to reason as well as to the teachings of the book
itself. But we do not deem it right to go into q
discussion of those theories in a journal belong
ing to an Anti-Slavery Society. The Free
Press may taunt us as lacking in moral courage.
if it pleases-or it may, in the absence of au-
thentic information, undertake to report our
opinions from hearsay, if such a course seems to
it fair and honorable-but it cannot thereby pro-
woke us to use these columns for any other pur-
pose than that to which they are ostensibly de.
voted.