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

submitted as TO the duty OF the chuTcuJ YOU
offer not word of rsbutting evidence, but
vainly "bcat the air." or reply by treating the
scriptural proofs submitted ''as homily from
st. Paul." unworthy of respect. But you can !
not, in this way, evade the force of st. Paul's
injunctions.
You struggle hard to sustain your theory that in
all cases the law is right and must overruie con-
science and you therefore inform us that ''the law
adjudged the Savior innocent" This may deny
but let i pass But should grant IT. what tlnS Iall5
There was Christ before the High Priest, Her0d
and PLATE, the highest functionaries in the land,
scourged, tortured and crucifed by them. Cah II
"a mob"-a mob to intimidate Roman Governor
with his legions at his backl But, suppose so, II
the mob stands behind the law committing out
RACES and crimes under the moekery OF Legal tfla
much the worse for the law and for your theory.
We might refOrt by replying and what think
you of church which would constitute such
mobP "Tbe chief priests and the elders per-
suaded the multitude" Acts q, 20. "But /
the chief priests moved the people" Mark ID,
IL. "And the chief priests and the scribes |
stood and vehementIy accused Him." Luke |
%, 10. Three times Pilate sought to release /
Him. Three times the law interposed, but |
the church "resisted," and finally prevailed. |
Our opponent has here case Of conscience"
on which to ezpend his powers of defence
The high priests regarded the teachings of
Christ as subversive of their religion, and in
that spirit not only opposed his teachings but
melted the opposition of the people by means
emissaries It was the old church asserting |
its supremacy Right here let us stick pin.
Christ is the head Of the Church. We pre-
sumo our opponent will scarcely dispute that |
If, therefore, he sought to teach that there
was point at which His people should resist
the law, or the mob, or the world, as you will, |
this would have been q fitting opportunity |
Does he resist or submit2 1t would be in vain !
to say he had not the power, for only little
while previous, when Peter, flushed with the |
spirit of the church, as represented by Bishop |
Gilmour, drew his sword and resisted to the |
cutting of of the ear Of the servant Of the |
high priest, He had said, "Thinkest thou not
that cannot pray to my Father, and lie shall
presently give to me more than twelve legions |
of angels" 1t was not then for lack of the |
power that he did not resist. What thenP |
To teach submission. Or, as be asserts, John |
Is, &c. "If my Kingdom were of this soorld
then would my servants fight But now |
is my Kingdom not from hence" Nay; had
he resisted the power, the glory of the resuree-
ton would not have followed, nor his ezalta- |
tion to the right hand OF God. Not a word Of |
his teaching but conveys the same idea, and |
resistance is no where taught. You quote "the
i, -. lie
or to draw parallel between Bishop Gilmour |
and Christ What contrastI
That same Paul who "appeated tc his rights as a
Roman" experienced the justice Of Roman law in |
Rome itself, when the law c1t OF his head. Now, |
sir, since the law did Paul justice, it follows he vas
yillianl Do you grant it?
Hold, sir; not SO fast Do not place your
language in one mouth, or interpret for US.
Do not traduce Paul because he taught truths
which you repudiate. The Roman law pro-
tected him from the animosity of the Jews,
and under it he preached to the Gentiles, un-
til Nero fred Rome and charged it upon the
Christians, who were then subjected to perse-
cution by Nero's direction, and Paul suffered.
Did he obey his own teachings or repudiate
themi Did he sa5mit, or did he resistf Let
Paul Speak: "For 1 am now ready to be Of
fered and the time of my departure is at hand.
l have fought a good fight, l have finished my
course, 1 have kept the faith" IL Tim. 4, 6, Z.
We are aware that under the Roman Emper-
ora history records ten pagans prosecutions
before the close of the Third century, but they
were more the result of the despotic sway of
the rulers, than the result of any law direct
ing the same. It was not continuous prose-
cntion as might have been looked for under
general law, but depended much upon the
caprice of the Emperors. But during all that
time we find the church, excepting recusants
who denied the faith, "SubmiRing to every
ordinance Of man for the Lords sake" and |
taking 'joyfully the spelling of your goods, |
knowing in yourselves that ye have in Heaven |
(My Kingdom is not of the WORLDLY better
and more enduring substance" And the
glory OF the early church consisted in the fact
that they who believed were persuaded that
neither death, nor life, nor principalities, nor
powers, nor things present, nor things to
come, nor nights, nor depths, nor any other
creature, shall be able to separate US from the
love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our
Lord" Rom, VIII, SS, SO. And still no cry
Of resistance. No, and it was not until after
Christianity became the law of the Empire
that the Church began 10 assert that it had
right to resist the law, or a right to perseeute
those who refused to receive its doctrines.
Again you quote st. Paul teaching ''us to obey
magistrates" remember st. Paul did not obey the
magistrates that scourged himl; to submit to EVERY
ordinance Of man" (Which st. Paul did not do) and
they that resist shall receive to themselves greater
damnation." Il believe St. Paul is in heaven) |
Permit me, sir, to ask few questions here: If
these texts convey the sense you give them, if they
establish the absolute supremacy of fthe civil law"
overiconsience, pray why did not st. Paul himself
save his head by obeying 1t? Why did not the |
myrads of martyrs of the first three centuries obey
it? According to you st. Paul sinned against his |
own teachings, so did millions of martyrs in the
early ages; SO did the Prophet Daniel the three |
youths in Babylon, the mother of the Maehabees |
with her seven SONS and the aged and pous Eleazer
sin by not obeyng the law of the land against their
conscience. But TO Gene nearer to our own door |
and to our Owl time what think you of our RevO-
lutions Fathers7 Why did they not obey the law?
Did they by disobeyhg it receive greater damna- 1
ten? Do you not see sir that your position (which
make tyrants sit at on their thrones and would
cmopletely enslave the world?
Paul assigns as a reason that they were
acting by the law could not look for obedience |
This is illustrated Acts XIII, 3,4,5. On
claim of being a Roman, the chief captain |
had feared to scourge Paul, and summoned |
the council of the Jews to make good their |
charges. Paul had commenced his address, |
when the high Priest commanded to smite i
him PAUL on the mouth. Mark what fol-
lows
Then said Paul unto him "God shall smite |
thee, thou whited wall; for sittest though to |
judge zoe ACCORDING TO THE LAW, and COM
mandest me to be smitte1s CONTRARY TO THE
LAW" We have no record Of case in which
he resisted the law; and from his well known |
character it is scarcely probable that he did
other than submit to the laws penalty when
he could not obey, and SO submitting became
a martyr to the cause of his master. We have
not taught the "absolute supremacy of the
civil law over conscience" but, OIL the
contrary, have taught submission to the
laws as duty enjoined on Christians by the
Scriptures, and submitted the proofs, which
have not been gainsayed. You submit Daniel
and the three Jewish children, Sc, as proof of
the right of the Church to resist the powers
that be. As you have USED this twice, it may
be regarded as your strong point Let us
see. Does Daniel resist the decree of Darius?
Do we behold him raising his standard aIoft
and crying: "This is a politieo religious
question"
ave must be up and doing, and shoulder to
shoulder meet the enemy. Never was there time