Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1853-04-02
T Fl f B U G L E .
For the Anli.Slavery Bugle.
HoPEDALE, o., Feb. %, '53.

IIopEDALE, o., Feb. %, '53.
Mn. RoBiNsoN, Respected Sir: Joseph
Bnrkers note to you, Feb. 9th, is now before
me, in which he says: " | have not yet seen
the Bugle, containing Mr.. llartzell's propo-
sitions." lie does not say, he has not seen
my letter to him, jan. ls, but, that he has
been informed of the questions proposed by
myself for discussion. The questions are
all ihnt is important in my letter TO him.
Why did he not address inc, ms | did him ?
Did lie intend 10 put stop TO direct cor
respondeuce2 preferred the press, as the
medium of communication between us. j
knew MIR. Barker's address, aud he obtained
mine, before we took the parting hand at
your house.
Ny proposition for discussion with MIR.
Barker on the Bible question, grew out of n
challenge uttered 10y himself, before the
Bible Convention Of last Nov and a pers-
onnl interview at your house and in your
presence. From these circumstances u re-
port went abroad, that Mr.. Barker had res.
pectfuly invited me to a discussion, aud
that had declined. This, could not deny
Having acquired little celebrity as dis
putaut, my decline has been prejndicial
creating u suspicion that these were doubts
In my own breast, with reference To- IA rn
tionul defence of the claims Of the Bible
This suspicion was soon confirmed by m
article in the Plain Dealer" by Que who
saws he was in the convention us spectator
and reporter; speaking of me he says " he
offered no argument which led me TO think
that he believed the Bible, work of divine
inspiration." These things were not done
in a corner, and my negotiation with MIR
Barker, should therefore be conducted thro
the medium of the public press.
will now come to Mr.. Bnrker's objections
TO tho proposed issue, and LIST, The questions
fthe first of which he will not debate,) wer'
legitimate deductions from the seven reso
lutions, read before aud accepted by th'
Convention, but not debated. These reso
l,tions were in the order OF climax: III
last two being the concentration OF the pre-
ceding ones. They declare, that man ha
nm infhlible rule of life, aud in what, tia
uncrring rule consists. will here insel
them:
9Th. Resolved, That man las an lntnll
ble rule of life, Oh the knowledge of whicl
depend the progress, perfection ana hhpP
ness of his nature, in all states OF his exls
ence.
7th. Resolved, That the rule is foun
not in the Bible, the Koran, The Shas're
nor in any supposed arbitrary revelation, d
10 engraven OH the nature OF each humd
being, by the hand of his Creator.
Where then will man find an iniallib
rule of life? Not in the Bible, &C., b
"engraven on the nature of each huln'
being, by the hand of his creator"
MIR. Barker has here given us, an I'm
auiyoca confession of his faith, or what
was t,co months ago he has stated affirm
lively where mans nlallibe rule is, II
negatively, where it is not But what Is
present position; let us see. AntrSlav'
Bugle, Feb. 10: " As TO MIR. llarizelPs pre-
ositious, l do not believe that God has
.dowed every man with the requisite men
capacity, to acquire from amy source, "
feet knowledge of his relations, duties
destiny question whether he llas so
dowed any man. 1t will cer'nln'y u
Eternity, to gain perfect knowledge OF
our relations &C., cannot therefore t
the affirmative OF that proposition"
is progressive, indeed it is. In Nov 1852,
ery man had an iniallibIe rule OF life,
is, a rule incapable of mistake, and this
received from the hand OF his Creator,
on the 5ih Feb, 1853, he says: 81 do
believe that God has endowed every or
man, with the requisite mental cnpaci',
acquire from any source, perfect KIN
edge of his relations, duty and destiny"
think it will require I" Eternity, &C."
Sir, mans relations and duties in Etc
are not tho subjects of discussion.
then? Why this? Mr.. Barker said in