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

the State contrary to the constitution should
make law prohibiting the free exercise of
his religion or doing violence to his con-
science, would he not be justified in disobey-
ing III We replied IN such case We should
agree with the gentleman l. e. disobey the
law. There, however, as Christian, our
aqreenraf would cease, for We should as a
Christian sstbnit to the penalty of the law,
and not resist it's enforcement. But we as
serted the impossibility OF the enactment OF
such law under our constitution. Here he
differs with u.s. What is the faeti
The Consultation of the United States orig
inaIly provided, that ''nO religious tost shall
ever be required as qualification to any Of
fce or public trust under the United States"
It is stilI the fundamental law. and we know
Of no instance in which it has ever been vio-
lated
The first amendment to the Constitution en-
larged that provision Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment Of relig-
ion, or prohibiting the fEee exercise thereof;
or abrideinR the freedom of speech or Of the
press.D We are not aware that any State Of
the Union prohibits any of its citizens from
holding Office because Of their religious views.
We may be wrong. Ii SO, and we were cit
izsu of that State, we should advocate equal
rights to all cilizsns. We were not aware
that the right to hold Office was essential to
liberty OF conscience, or prevented the worship
Of God in such manner as the citizen desired.
In fact even citizenship is not necessary to
athe free exercise thereof" in this country
Again. il is matter of frequent occurrence that
laws are made and for years executed, which after
ward upon appeslto the Supreme Court are declared
/ null If law Of this kind were enacted and exc
cuted against the conscience of any denomination,
what Would your fundamental law do in the mean
1 time to prevent its aggressions7
Another hypothetical case You have the
faculty Of dealing in improbable if not impOs-
sibie cases. "Congress shall make no law pro.
hibitinQ the free exercise thereof (religion y
But allowing such case possible, an injunc-
ton, easily obtainable for cause, would sus-
pend the opention of the law until the decis-
ion Of the highest tribunal could be reached
Bishop Gilmour, in his Pastoral, afirns
sthen the church resist" and says to the
State Hmind your own business" In his sec
ond Ietter he puts it even stronger, and says
the Catholic citizen "if able, would be justified
in resisting"
'In your issue of the 21st inst, you take
/ tirely different position and advocate obedience to
/ every law without any qualification whatever, or
any reference to the morality or justice OF the law;
and you support your position by homily from st.
Paul on unqualified obedience ''to EVERY ordnance
Of man even under penalty of ''damnation."
Submission is the rule laid down by the
apostles. We gave their argument as showing
the line Of Christian duty, By them prescribed,
and to their argument you have not respond
! ed BY showing that different line Of duty is
required. ITO the law and to the testimony"
II the church has right to resist the State
(see Gilmour) it should be able to produce its
commission to that effect from him who said
off man smite thee on one cheek, turn to
him the other also" And who, when Simon
Peter smote off the ear of the high priests
servant, commanded him to put up his sword,
saying: "For all they that take sword shall
perish by the sword" He taught subm,s-
sion.
Your statement of the Catholic profession of faith
also c0ffeCly hde Win THIS Que6-
zion, unless that on the subject of obedience you
cOnfound the spiritual with the temporal or poit
/ CALI
Much every way. Bishop Gilmour asserts
the right of the church TO resist the State in
certain cases. The church determines those
cases, and holding the dreaded 'excommnni-
cation" over the heads of its votaries, demands
that obedience, which the membership has al
ready promised in subscribing to its confession
of faith. The political or ''politico-religio
character of the Lenten Pastoral, as you pre-
fer to term it, was proven by copious extracts.
Your reply is simply "you are MISTAKEN" q
very easy way Of dispOsing Of an argument.
Yet you subsequently admit nay point when
you say "the question is neither the one nor
the other simply, but mixture of both. It
is a politieo-religious question" We may
then regard it as admitted that the church
represented by Bishop GilmOur has pOliticO-
religious character, and it was in the exercise
of that character the Lsnten Pastoral had its
birth.
You write as if American citizens ought to be
atheists and render obedience to no authority but
that OF that of the State, but remember, sir, you
/ destroy, as you seem TO do, the monitor of con-
science, the penalty attached to your laws will be
. trivial guaranty of their observance.
How easily man may be Misunderstood We
quoted from scripture to show what the Apos-
tles had enjoined upon Christians; yet you
charge US with writing as if American citizens
ought to be atheistsl Look at the logic of
your charge. ''You write as if American cit
cone ~, ,otE O, hs ofbaisfaI o,,r arounoaDFs -ras
based on Scriptural texts quoted. Ergo:
Scriptural text show that american citizens
should be atheists" Now you cannot get
away from this conclusion, reverend sir. You
cannot deny the text we have quoted, nor the
clear doctrine Of submission to the laws which
they teach, therefore the logical conclusion we
have given to your argument must follow, if
your premise is correct. But it is not. We
have taught no such doctrine.
Now, dear sir, do not desire to be hypercrttical
but it seems to me the tenor of your article leads to
conclusions completely subyersiVe of religious lib
erty. l have pointed out this tendency already, l
must do in this place again, yet If misinterpret
You, 1t viii please me to acknowledge it. You say
dn paragraph q 'Tbe law of God is above all creeds
the Word of God is the arbiter by which
in Of difference lbetween the civil law and con-
sciencel conclusion is arrived at"
A most unwarrcntable Interpolation, and an
unworthy attempt to mangle the argument of
an opponent. We give the language we used:
The law of God is above creeds, and though they
1.-THE various denominationsl adhere to their denom-
national dostrines, the "Word of God" is the ar
bitter by which, in case of difference, a conclusion
is arrived at
Of what does the above speak7 The Law of
God and creeds. In case of difference between
them the "Word Of God" is the arbiter. This
was fully sustained by what followed, and no.
where was there shadow of justification for
such Wrestling of words from their legitimate
connection, as the reverend gentleman has in
dulged in. We would not presume to limit
the number of creeds, all of which claim to be
based upon the Law of God, yet all of which
are different from each other. Which is true3
All. Nay, verify, Truth doth not present
itself in so many phases, though the elements |
of truth are contained in them. Hence the |
greater necessity for religious liberty, that the
rights of none may be invaded. And the
Constitution wisely prohibits any laws which
shall prevent the free exercise of religious be-
lief.
Again, sir, must differ from your reading of the
ON ensP Acts. think you consult your Protest
ant Bible History or your Protestant Commentators
they viii TED you that the tribunal before which i
me Apostles were brought took cognizance of civil
ofenees and legally punished them.
Until you do permit, me 70 stand by my text 1--WE
must obey God rather than man"
Peter and John were taken and shut up in
prison During the night an angel brought
them forth aud commanded them to "Go
stand and speak in the temple to the people,
all the words of this life" Acts 5, 20. It was