The Fremont weekly journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County, Ohio) 1867-1877, 1873-04-11
Letter from Rev. o'callaghan.

|.
graciously mako against me, because when
quoting you. inserted in 5raekefs what l
thought 10 be your meaning. Now the use Of
brackets is al owed 70 every writer, and no
reader will eonfound the enclosed words with
those OF the quotation Hereds the passage:
The law of God is above all creeds The
word of God is the arbiter by which in of diff
ference [between the civil law and conscencel a
conclusion is arrived at.
The whole argument preceding this passage
referred TO the question of obedience in case
of 4 difference between conscience and the
civil law; and the passage is introduced by the
words 81 do not so understand It." Now 1
I maintain that the natural and literal infer
enee is that ''the word of God is the arbiter in
case Of such a difference, and because 1 un-
dersood 1t so, an accused of guilt, If 1
have been misled, then it is due more to the
want of perspicuity in your writing than my
apprehension of what you wrote.
But admitting that you meant the Bible
ought to be nthe arbiter" between denomina-
tons adhering conscienliously to their rcspec-
tive creeds; for a stronger reason, ought it TO
he the arbiter between the civil law and con-
science for you hold the Bible to be the light
and the guide Of conscience. Then what have
YOU gsiDed by your distinction except to
strengthen my conclusion deduced from your
argument to wit: that the conscientious and
unanimous convictions of any, or of every
denomination, must be disregarded by the
law, and that the not Church man is the only
one whose conscience the law is bound TO re-
spect trust your readers will refer to my
argument on this point in the JOURNAL of the
2Oth ult.
The language of the gentleman was: Ifthe State
| copt trary 70 the Constitution should make law
prohibiting the free exercise OF his religion or do
| iustil9d in disObeying it2 We replied in such a
case we shoud agree with the gentleman, q e., dis
obev the law. There, however, as Christian, OUI
agreament would cease, for we should as a Christi
an 1Tiit TO the penalty Of the law, and not resist
is enforcement but we asserted the mpossibility
of the enactment of such law under our COnstitu-
tion.
You say there is an impossibility because
the Constitution of the United States provides
that ~no religions test shall be required as a
qualification to any Office or public trust under
the United States" How comes it, never
the less, that at least one State of the Union
does require ''rehgious test to the exclu-
sion of Catholics. If State makes this dis
elimination in its Constitution, fortiori can
it discriminate in its laws. The night TO hold
Office may not indeed be absolutely essential
to freedom Of conscience, but the .animus
plainly shows that ordinarily conscience has
no guaranty under such legislation. Again,
there may be laws (and there are some in this
country which according to the notions Of
those in authority may not be against con-
science but which nevertheless are virtually
as opposed to the conscience of 8 large minority
as if the Constitution had been long since
dead and buried.
1 instanced the frequency of laws for years
executed and afterward declared null upon
appeal to the Supreme Court, and asked: in
case such law we're aimed against conscience,
what could be done in the mean time. You
reply: have recourse to Gan Injunction easily
obtainabie for cause." Query. what cause
would iudge ind in the case 1 have given.
The language and the letter of the law are
clear, there IS no doubt whether this case
comes within the meaning of the law, the law
says SO, and the duty of the judge is to exc
cute the laws made for him Your injunction
then is a fimsy subterfuge:
The political character of the Lenten
Pastoral was proven by copious extracts.
Your reply is simply 'you are mistaken very
| easy way Of di5posng OF an argument, Yet you
subsequently admit my point when you say the
lauestion is neither the one nor the other simply
| but mixtnre of both. II is a politico-religous
question.
My reply was:
In this you are mistaken the question is neither
the one nor the other simply but mixture of both,
| il s politico-religious question
Could any of your readers imagine that this
little sentence could be SO tortured as to make
it appear as it does in the foregoing quotation.
The latter clauses used TO limit and explain
the first member Of the sentence ara torn
away from their eonDexion, even making it
appear that several sentences or even para
graphs interviewed between them-and all
this done to make it appear that contradicted
myself. l will not initiate you and call this
an unwarrantable distortion of my words:
l 4OuA ACAACAS pronounce ppm IL W
l said ''the Objectionable sentence" had a
political, as well as q religious aspect, 1 gave
good reasons which of course you forgot to
nDtice. Listen now to one more: the words
have a political aspect even as the words of st.
Peter and ST. Paul Quoted by you), in which
they speak of the duties of subjects to their
ruIers-even as the words of Christ himself,
when he says "Render to Caesar the things
that are Caesars, and to God the things that
are Gods" In this sense is ''the objections
able sentence is politico-religiOus, and if the
admission comforts you I shall be glad 10
know it.
Look at the logic of your charge H.yOu write as if
American citizens ought TO be Atheists. Our argu-
ments were based on Scriptural text quoted. Ego
Scrptural texts show that American citizens should
be Atheists. Now you cannot get away from this
conclusion, reverend sir"
Exactly. Though your syllogism is awk-
wardly constructed, the conclusion logically
follows; but it is you good sir that are caught
in the trap, not l. could very easily escape
by showing as have freqentIy stated, that
you wrest the texts from their meaning. But
as long as your texts, your Interpretation, and
your arguments are your own, 1 defy you to
escape from the conclusion of your syllogism,
at least until you interpret your texts correctly
1 see you know logic and admire the syllog-
ism. Let me initiate you and try my hand at
it: Titus IN, l, "Put them IN mind TO be sub
iect to principalities and powers, &C." The
principahties and powers of China make laws,
foTbid1ing missionaries to preach there. Ergo
your missionaries ought not TO go to China to
convert the Heather. Paul forbids it'll Again
EVERY ordinance of man for the Lords sake,
&C." The ordinance Of the Roman Emperors
commanded the Christians to worship idols.
Ergo Christians ought to become idolators
for the Lords sake. st. Peter commands it,!
Again, in Turkey where the ia,0 recognizes
polygamy and compels each of any mans
wives to obey him if, any of these unfortunate
women should besome Christian what would
be her duty? st. Paul settles it, Rom. XIII, /,
2, 81, "Let every soul be subject to the higher
powers, Sc" But the higher powers COM
mand her to live with and obey her so called
husband Ergo tLis Christian woman must
live in adulterous intercourse with a man
whom the law calls her husband. She sins if
she does not. st. Paul has commanded it'll
"Look at the logic" of yonr argument sir.
BY your Interpretation of your "texts," athe-
ism, idolatry, adultery, nay every sin against
the Decalogue is not only praiseworthy but
obligatory. 1 defy you sir to escape from
these conclusions, and in your own senten-
tious language: Right here stick pin.