The Fremont weekly journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County, Ohio) 1867-1877, 1873-04-11

Jno XIX, lS. "Pilate therefore when he
heard that saying. IF thou let this man go thou
art not Caesars friend he brought Jesus
forth and sat dolon on the judgment seat - :"
And Plate gaUe sentence that He should be as
they required" Luke XIII, 81. a. e. cruel
fed. What think you now, sir, of Pilate and
tho law2 If this was not legal sentence
with all the formality of law, pray
what was it2 And bear in mind If
Pilate acted through fear it was the
fear Of Caesar, not of the "mob." Hero is
your Immaculate laig condemniug even Christ
himself Aud entering into the spirit of your
"retort" we might here enquire: What think
you of the ministers elders seribes and phari-
sees who by their "clamors" and threats ofgiy-
ing offense to "Ca esar" would urge the oficerl
Of the lao and even the legislators themselves
to commit injustice in its name and by its au-
thorityP It-was the old puritanic spirit of in
tolerance, alien to every just and generous i'm
pulse, which would outlaw others because they
could not agree with them in opinion. Right
here let us stick two pins-a little one for the
JOURNAL and very big one for my venerable
opponent.
It seems the fate of Paul worries you, for it
is certain beyond eavil, if history is not liar,
that the law condemned. him TO be beheaded.
You maintain "the law did him justice" yet it
caa off has head. Ergo he was villain. l
hold sir, to the conclusion.
"We are aware that under the Roman Emperors
before the close of
the third century, but they were more the result OF
the despoc sway of the rulers than the result of any
law directing the same. II was not a continuous
persecution as might have been looked for under
general law, hut depended much on the caprice OF
Il the emperors."
You err again sir. When you distribute
ten prosecutions within the space OF 24O years,
and consider the length of time that each per-
secution lasted you will find how much respite
the Christians had under your Just Roman
law. Besides in some one province or other
Of the Roman Empire the Christians were al
WAYS prosecuted for those 300 years, and even
when for any short time the fury of the perse-
cution abated even then the Christians were
continuously persecuted before the
courts. Even if history were silent on this
point (Which it is not it would be rational
and legitimate inference Behold then the
Justice of your Roman law. But this was not
law, you say, but "the despotic sway" of the
Emperors Indeedl Was not the ediet of the
Emperor IawP If not, be good enough to give
us your definition of Roman law. 1 think 1
can furnish some good Protestant authority on
this subject also, but perhaps it is not neces-
sary.
You tell me have submitted no proof ex-
cept one text Let us see The question is,
we ought to obey the Law of God first; the
law of the State next 4. G. disObey the law of
the State if it does violence to our con-
science. gave you the authority Of "PeteT
and the apostles" 1--WE ought to obey God
rather than men" gave you the two sepa-
rate acts of Daniels disobedience gave you
the example of the disobediencs of the three
youths in Babylon. 1 gave you the example
/ of the diso6eaience of the mother of the Mach
abees and her sons, aud Of the disobsdienec Of
Eleszar, which last two texts however, your
mutilated "Bible" does not contain. Then,
tbere as the diso5edieace Of Paul and Silas. Pll
give you yet another Acts. ", 10. But Peter
and John answering said to them: If it be
just in the sight of God to hear you rather than
God, judge ye. And yet another acts ", 26.
"And the kings of the earth stood up and the
rulers were gathered together against the
Lord and against his Christ" Yet according
to my opponent we must obey every laaO and
tUeTy ordinance OF these kings and rulers
against the Lord and against his Christ!
Here are at least eight texts and forty-one
witnesses including the twelve apostles and
st. Paul, many OF whom have been brought
on the witness-stand even three times and
testify TO the very same thing. What is that?
"O5sy your conscience even though in doing
SO you disoJey the law" These texts are ex-
plicit and precise and directly to the point and
therefore decide the question beyond dispute.
But it seems you do not understand the
rules of augmentation. You attacked the
Pastoral; therefore it is your duty to arraign,
mine, to defend by refnting your charges.
Now, sir, what texts or other arguments have
you given to prove your charger Not single
one that applies. Your texts from Peter and
Paul have been so destorted by you from their
true meaning (Which it is not my place to
give) that they have made you appear the ad-
vocate of the most shocking and abhorrent
doctrines.
And now to sum up. March Il you would
disobey the lao in the case 1 presented.
March 81 you argue the observance of all lao.
April 4th you first admit you would, in the
case given, diSobey ihs lao but suJnlt TO the
penalty. Further on in reply to quotation
from me in which allude to immoral and an
Just laws You answer, "su5nliSSiOn is the
rule laid down by the apostles" obedience of
immoral LAVISH Still further on you uphold
the clear doctrine of submission to the laws.
Still further on you reluctantly admit that st.
Paul himself disObeyed the law but submitted
to the penalty. at is scarcely probable that
be did other than submit to the laws penalty
when he could not obey" "a big jump back
ward). And in the very next sentence follow
ing, you make another back-summersault and
soy: "We have taught submission to
the laws as a duty enjoined on Christians by
the Scriptures" Did you not admit mo-
ment ago that st. Paul diso6eyed the laW2 1
defy you sir, to extricate yourself from this
tumble of contradictions; your confusion evil
IDENTIFY betrays the difficulty of your position.
We have now discussed the question in the
light of reason, history, and the Scriptures.
We have seen that both by the old and the
new Testament we ought to disobey the civil
l. r.
Law of God and the Apostles both by their
words and their actions have given us the ex-
ample. You have endeavored to support
your tyrannic and unnatural theory by pre-
senting few texts from the Epistles but you
have seen to what abs urd and impious conelu-
sions they have led you. We may therefore,
think, consider the question closed.
Seeing your untenable ground you would
adroitly smugg!e in new subjects behind
which to shield yourself But have detect
ed you and will hold you to the question.
We are discussing the right to disobey the law
in certain cases. This is the question with
which we started and we shall stick to it till
ended. You try to foist in the question Of
resistance of the law. Tell me is it the same
to diso5sy the law and to resist the law? As
you appear skilled in logic you are well aware
that this is the sophism, tTGnsitus dicto sim
pliciter Gd dicttinl Secln,dana q1tid. Again you
have to prove the obligation of submission to
the lao in all cases. Why then speak of sub
mission TO the penalty Is there no difference
between the law and the penalty2 Why, sir,
they are as different as cause and effect or as
IN act and It's cnnsanusnce Mona of Ennr