Such are the religious principles, and such is the religious advice of these religious ministers!

I am sorry to see this. I never read more wicked and abominable principles! They deserve not only the reprehension of every Christian, but the entire indignation of all civilized mankind!  They advise private arming with bloody weapons—­they advise violent resistance and murder—­the murder of officers of civil Law engaged in the discharge of the duty which they have sworn to perform!  I have no words to express my abhorrence of these wicked and outrageous sentiments, so directly contrary to the whole nature of all civilized society, to the precepts of the Bible, and the whole spirit of Christianity!  I speak not of the men.  Good men may err.  But these principles, which these ministers have published as religious ones, are horribly and outrageously wicked!

There are other things in this religious paper, which we think are calculated to do immense mischief.  This editorial article “would utter its remonstrance against all violent resistance to the execution of the Law.”  Indeed!  Very quiet and peaceful, after having talked about being “fully prepared for defense”—­about death “on the wayside, at the threshold and on the gallows”—­about “murder,” and about “martyrdom.”  Away with such morality! aiming at one thing and professing another!—­“If one sees a fellow man struggling with his captors,... he may lawfully interpose his own person between the parties and separate them.”  Away with such morality! encouraging people to “act a lie,” by opposing Law while professing to obey it!  And this species of morality is virtually commended to the jury-box; and its inmates are furnished in advance with a verdict here prepared for their use—­“justifiable homicide in self-defense”!  Away with such morality! encouraging a juror to violate his oath, by disregarding the Law, which he has just sworn to his country and to his God, shall govern his verdict! and encouraging a fugitive to expect him to do so!—­We may yet see whether the jurymen of our country will regard their oath, or will follow the religious counsel of this religious paper.

I am not justifying slavery.  I am pleading obedience to the texts before me.  Slavery may be wrong.  Be it so; there is still a righteous method to get rid of it.  But if slavery is wrong, that does not make violence and murder right.

I am not justifying the fugitive-slave Law.  It may be wrong:  it may be unwise and unconstitutional.  I think that any wise and modest man would hesitate much to pronounce it unconstitutional, after its enactment by a body of men who aimed to abide by the constitution, and who studied the matter most intensely, with every opportunity for information and with minds trained for years in the depths of legal science.  But, be it wrong—­be it unwise and unconstitutional; there are civil courts to decide upon its constitutionality,