QUERIES TOUCHING THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW, &c.

Brother Campbell: I am living in a region of country where the people are proverbially inquisitive. And although we may have so far lost our reputation for good sense, by our warm sympathies with the panting fugitive, as to be obnoxious to the charge of "high-wrought sentimentalism," at Bethany, still we may, I trust, have the privilege of asking a few questions, hoping that our beloved brethren S. Church and A. Campbell, who seem to occupy a position midway between the "demented" ones of the north, and the "hotspurs" of the south, and sustain a relation to both extremes, which may be styled, in Bro. Church's language, "neither sinful nor otherwise," will kindly afford us needful illumination.

1st. When Bro. Campbell says, in the January number of the Harbinger, page 30, "In religion, in faith, in piety, God alone is Lord of the conscience," does he include humanity in these terms? I conclude so, from a following sentence, "In matters purely moral and religious, God alone is the supreme legislator." If so, then how can the Harbinger adopt Gov. Wright's views of "the absolute supremacy of the law"?-the laws of the land? If the editor means no more than that we should obey the laws of the land, excepting where they require us to act contrary to the laws of God, I assure him the brotherhood in this region, "demented" as they may be supposed to be, have no controversy with him. Their opposition to the Fugitive Slave Law, arises from the conviction that it is contrary, in some of its features and requirements, to the law of God. But if Bro. C. takes the broadest ground for "the absolute supremacy of the law," and looks towards such a revival of despotic power, that the citizen is no longer to decide for himself, on a question of right and wrong, then we have a controversy with him, and shall ask to be heard in the Harbinger.

66

2d. When "the powers that be" in Egypt, ordained the destruction of all the male Hebrew children, and the midwives "feared God, and did not as the King of Egypt commanded," did they not need to have a lecture read to them, on the necessity of preserving a law-abiding" character? If the Governor of Indiana had been there to instruct them as to "the absolute supremacy of the law," would Bro. Campbell have " "adopted, with much pleasure," his views, and told said midwives that they should "dismiss their romantic and imaginative philosophy," and that they were not responsible for the murder of the children, when obeying the King's command?

3d. When Obadiah hid a hundred of the Lord's prophets in a cave, (1 Kings, xviii. 13,) did he do right? If so, what becomes of all this talk about the "absolute supremacy of the law"? If it be said that Ahab and Jezebel's demands were unconstitutional, I ask, Who is to judge? Are we not bound, in the adopted language of Gov. Wright, to "allay that spirit which instals each man's opinion the arbiter of constitutional rights?"

"Honor the King." Was not Obadiah guilty of "high-wrought sentimentalism," and "romantic and imaginative philanthropy"?

4th. What kind of a relation is that which is "neither sinful nor otherwise, in itself considered"?

5th. Were our good brethren ever alarmed as to the safety of the Union, till it became necessary to use that plea in favor of southern measures? When Abolitionists were robbed, again and again; when presses were destroyed and life taken; when buildings devoted to public, and, in some cases, to religious uses, were burnt down; when Catholics and Native Americans made Philadelphia a scene of riot and bloodshed; when citizens of Massachusetts were imprisoned in South Carolina, and the commissioner of the former State was treated with gross indignity in Charleston; when the Methodist Episcopal Church divided into north and south; when disunion meetings were held all over the south, and the Nashville Convention assembled, (before which body, I believe, one of our public teachers offered prayer)—the Harbinger was not alarmed about the Union, nor do I remember that any call was made upon us to pray for our rulers. If I recollect aright, it was subsequent to most of these occurrences that Bro. Campbell said to some of his inquiring friends in the old country, that a love of the Union was one of the deepest and strongest feelings in the hearts of the American people. Why all this alarm now, when there is a simple refusal, on the part of many conscientious persons in the north, to obey what they regard as unrighteous requirements?

6th. Would it not be quite as fair to argue that runaway concubines, or secondary wives, should be sent back to their masters, as to contend that runaway slaves should be sent back; so far, at least, as the case of Hagar bears on the present controversy?

7th. If Paul were now living in any of the States of the Union, and were to "harbor" Onesimus, and treat him kindly, and feed him with the bread of life, would he not, under the fugitive law, be liable to a fine of $1,000, and six months' imprisonment?

8th. Did not the "immortal Washington" lead armies to the fight? Is that any argument for war?

9th. If the heritage of freedom we enjoy was, as Gov. Wright says, "purchased with the life-blood of the good and the brave," what kind of an argument does that furnish for the "absolute supremacy of the law"? And how can we, in turn, bequeath inviolate to our descendants, that heritage, by tamely approving of, and submitting to, unrighteous and oppressive laws, which throw down every safe-guard of personal liberty? Does it not smack a little of "high-wrought sentimentalism," to talk about a heritage "purchased with the life's-blood of the good and the brave," when seeking to enforce the lesson that "the first public act of disobedience to the law, is the first fatal step in the downward road to anarchy"? Is it not still true, Bro. Campbell, that "the legs of the lame are not equal"?

Pardon my inquisitiveness. I would dearly love to sit down and talk with you an hour. I have many questions to ask, and some objections to

file against your article on the Fugitive Slave Law. But enough for the present. With pity for the hunted fugitive, Yours,

ISAAC ERRETT.

Of many communications upon our table, on this subject, I have selected the preceding as the best we have received. It is, indeed, not only ingenious, but excellent, "after its kind." Our motto long has been, “Hear both sides, and then judge." We do not, of course, say hear all on one side, and all on the other side, but the most able and intelligent on both sides. We select the preceding communication as, in our opinion, possessing more merit than any one we have, as yet, received.

But, however appropos the preceding questions and remarks may be to the positions assumed or defended by others, they are not relevant to my views or position, on either the subject of slavery or the Fugitive Slave Law. From what as yet appears, we may differ as to the import and bearing of the Fugitive Slave Law, and perhaps on the abstract question of the morality of slavery, in any of the forms it may assume, so far as the Bible question of one man holding property in another, by a divine right, may be involved in the pending controversy.

We do not, indeed, intend to fill our pages with a protracted discussion of the subjects involved in the present excitement, of which we have received so many specimens. We have commenced a short series of essays on the whole premises. When that is closed, and our views properly developed, should any position we may have assumed be thought vulnerable, by any respectable correspondent, we will hear him with candor, and answer him with proper respect. We are already sufficiently misrepresented and abused by a portion of the politico-Abolition presses of the Western Reserve. Its partizans weaken my influence, as they suppose, while, in my opinion, they are but weakening their own. Some seem to think it prudent, on their part, to discontinue the reading or hearing of what they do not like; and while, in severe terms, condemning the south for not reading, but reprobating their productions, they, in fact, approbate its policy, by refusing to read any thing that wars against their own opinions. But in this they but weaken their own power of doing what they call good, while they strengthen the hands of those who, in their opinion, do evil.

But Christians, as such, know nothing of north or south. In the Kingdom of Grace there are no degrees of latitude or longitude.

We know no man in Christ's church as a northern or a southern man. We have rich and poor, learned and unlearned, parents and children, masters and servants, bond and free, in the Kingdom of Christ; and while in this world, and in the flesh, we should treat each other with a respect due to our station in life, and with an affection due to our moral standing as citizens of the Kingdom of God.

Indiscriminate slaughter is universally reprobated by all good men. And he that condemns first, and asks for the proof afterwards, is, by common consent, better qualified to be a tyrant than a judge.

Of the preceding questions, and of the principles contained in them, proper notice will be taken in a proper place. I am very far from imputing to our excellent brother Errett, any design of playing upon the imagination, or of exciting the passions of our readers, by any deliberate form of the ad captandum logic-by instituting comparisons with things equivocal-alike in sound, in color, or in form; but not in truth and in fact. Yet, in my opinion, he virtually, if not formally, does it in the preceding communication. In what point does the slaughter of Hebrew boys resemble the Fugitive Slave Law or American slavery? Is the comparison just? or, does Hebrew servitude in Egypt, resemble negro servitude in America?

Shall we, therefore, apply to both of these whatever can be affirmed of either of them? This is not true in logic, in reason, or in fact. And it is what I am sure our correspondent did not intend. Yet he alludes to Hebrew servitude in Egypt, and negro servitude in America, as though they were one and the same. He does not do it formally; for then it would have been as apparent to himself as to any one of his readers. But he alike conceals it, involuntarily I doubt not, from both himself and them, by asking the question, Would it have been obligatory on Moses and Aaron to have obeyed, rather than disobeyed, Pharaoh's bloody decree?

He designed no sophism. It is a mere inadvertency. Or, to change the terms, it is, in logic and in truth, "begging the question." It is assuming that which neither is, nor can be, proved. But of this more particularly when, in the course of my essays, I arrive at that chapter. I will only add that, as it appears to me, this is as applicable to some other of his interrogatories as to the case we have selected.

There is much danger to truth and virtue, even though undesignedly, on the part of him who suggests or insinuates into the mind of an inquirer an illogical comparison.

It is a fact, that when Queen Jezebel enacted the immolation of

cave.

the Lord's prophets, Obadiah hid them by fifty, and fed them in a But does this fact authorize a citizen of Ohio to hide in a cave and feed fifty fugitive slaves, who happened, with or without cause, to take it into their heads to runaway from their masters?

I presume not to think, much less to say, that our correspondent so understands the subject. But may not even an allusion to the case, by one so enlightened and distinguished for acumen and good sense, suggest to minds less gifted, less educated, and more excitable, a false precedent, and, perhaps, to acts alike at variance with both the law and the gospel?

There is the sophism of suggestion, as well as the sophism of comparison, which equally perverts the judgment, excites the conscience, and induces to unwarrantable action, the impulsive and inconsiderate. But if my readers will hear me with candor, I trust they will understand me, as I wish to be understood, on this very interesting, and, to many, all-absorbing question.

A. C.

AN APOLOGY.

THE following reasons contain my apology, to all whom it may concern, for refusing to adopt a human creed:

1st. I am not expert in detecting errors of doctrine, especially when made by good and great men, who often, without intending it, give to error the semblance of truth.

2d. By taking the scriptures alone for my creed, I have no errors to look for, except in myself.

3d. I feel that it is safe for me to spend the time which others spend in examining church creeds, in examining my own heart and conduct, in the light of what the scriptures plainly teach.

4th. As the scriptures teach me my frailties and failings, I feel that I have in them a sovereign remedy for all my spiritual diseases. 5th. As I am frail and weak, I feel daily need of strength; and as the Lord has promised to be the strength of my life, I know that He can only be so, by my taking good heed to my ways, according to His word.

6th. These being my reasons, and feeling, as I do, the sufficiency of the scriptures for all necessary correction and instruction, I could not betray my confidence in the word of my Lord, and thus sin against God, in doing that which would be to exalt the authority and wisdom of man, above the authority and wisdom of God. A. W. C.