It is by no means certain that Mr. Cleveland would receive a papal representativ
Page 1
American Sentinel
February 2, 1893
Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · February 2, 1893
It is by no means certain that Mr. Cleveland would receive a papal representative; but on the other hand it is by no means certain that he would not. Indeed it is asserted that there is at least a tacit understanding that Satolli is to receive some sort of recognition as a political representative. The Sun, of this city, in its issue of the 22d inst., has this to say upon this subject:—
While the fact that the Pope is no longer a temporal sovereign deprives the papal delegate of any recognized diplomatic rank, there appears to be a tacit purpose to accord to Mgr. Satolli in Washington an unofficial recognition as an added member of the diplomatic body. This has been already made manifest by the interchange of visits with the Secretary of State, and the marked courtesies extended to the distinguished Italian by the French Minister and other members of the diplomatic corps.
But it is not impossible that the papal delegate will be received on an equal footing with other members of the diplomatic corps. It is almost certain that the incoming President will find on his own party; and he might think it “wise statesmanship” to secure at the outset the hearty support of the great body of the Catholic Church in the United States; and in no way could he do this more effectively than by receiving at Washington a papal nuncio, thus acknowledging the Pope as a temporal as well as a spiritual sovereign.
. NOR is this the only reason why church influence will cut a large figure in our politics in the future. The Protestant churches, so-called, have, in the contest concerning the World's Fair, learned their power, and having learned it they will not be slow to use it. True, the Protestant churches have not that perfect organization for political purposes that the Catholics have, but they have shown wonderful skill in mobilizing their forces, and with the experience they have had in the matter of the Sunday closing of the Fair they can readily wield an immense political power in the future.
We may not at once have, as is the case in some other countries, a Church party, but we shall have parties very largely dominated by churches, which amounts to about the same thing.
DECEMBER 11, 1884, the Christian Statesman said editorially:—
Whenever they [Roman Catholics] are willing to co-operate in resisting the progress of political atheism, we will gladly join with them.
In the Christian at Work, of April 19,341888, Prof. Charles A. Briggs, D.D., of Union Theological Seminary, said:—
In all matters of worship we are in essential concord with Roman Catholics, and we ought not to hesitate to make an alliance with them so far as possible to maintain the sanctity of the Sabbath [Sunday] as a day of worship.
The response to these utterances was made by the Congress of Catholic Laymen, held in Baltimore, Md., November 12, 1889, as follows:—
There are many Christian issues in which Catholics could come together with non-Catholics and shape legislation for the public weal. In spite of rebuff and injustice, and overlooking zealotry, we should seek an alliance with non-Catholics for proper Sunday observance.
This was adopted, declares Rev. W. F. Crafts, in his “Addresses on the Civil Sabbath” (page 7), “after correspondence and conference with the American Sabbath Union.”
Do we not well say that freedom of conscience has nothing to hope for in this country from the differences between Roman Catholics and so-called Protestants? And may there not be a deeper significance in the attitude of this Government toward Rome than appears on the surface? C. P. B.
At present that portion of the Catholic Church which supports Tammany is presumably hostile to Mr. Cleveland. Archbishop Corrigan is a creature of Tammany. He owes his elevation to Tammany influence; and in turn Tammany owes much of its power to Corrigan's influence. Tammany is hostile to Mr. Cleveland, and will doubtless try to ruin, if it can not rule, his administration. In this work it can without doubt command the support of Archbishop Corrigan, unless strong church influences can be brought to bear upon him. How much “the church” will do for Mr. Cleveland and his administration may depend in very large measure upon how much Mr. Cleveland will do for “the church.” The greatest service he could render “the church,” probably, just now, would be to establish diplomatic relations with the Pope, thus recognizing his pretentions to temporal power.
NOR does it necessarily follow that Protestants and Catholics will, in future political contests, be opposing forces, and thus neutralize one another's influence. On what are very generally regarded as the most vital religio-political questions of the day, Roman Catholics and Protestants are a unit. On the general principle of religious legislation there is no difference of opinion between apostate Protestantism and Romanism; both believe in it. In the past both have endeavored to so shape legislation as to benefit only themselves. In the future they will compromise and so shape legislation as to bolster up the dogmas which they hold in common. Freedom of conscience in the United States has nothing to hope for from the differences between Romanism and Protestantism.
As long ago as August 31, 1884, in an article in the Christian Statesman, Rev. Sylvester Scovel, writing of the common interests of Protestants and Catholics, said:—
This common interest ought both to strengthen our determinations to work and our readiness to co-operate with our Roman Catholic fellow-citizens. We may be subjected to some rebuffs in our first proffers, for the time is not yet come when the Roman Church will consent to strike hands with other churches—as such; but the time has come to make repeated advances and gladly to accept co-operation in any form in which they may be willing to exhibit it.
This sort of talk may sound strange to American ears, but they will soon become accustomed to taking into account church influence in all political matters. This has long been the case in the Church and State countries of the Old World, and it will very soon be the case here. Nobody doubts that Mr. Burchard’s “Rum, Romanism and Rebellion” defeated Mr. Blaine eight years ago; nor is it a matter of much doubt that Indian Commissioner Morgan’s hostility to Romanism had a marked influence upon the result of the late presidential campaign. This makes it inevitable that in all future, national, political contests in this country the Roman Catholics must be reckoned with by any party that would win.
The advent of Archbishop Satolli to the United States, clothed as he is with extraordinary powers, is an event not lacking in probable political significance. Neither is the fact that he has established his court at Washington, without meaning. Thus far there is no positive authority for saying that the Monsignor is to be the political as well as the spiritual representative of the Pope in this country; but inasmuch as it has long been understood that the Vatican desires to establish diplomatic relation with the Government at Washington, it would not be at all strange if, with the soon-coming change of administration, the Pope would renew the proffers of “friendly relations,” and ask that either Satolli or some one else be accepted by Mr. Cleveland as the political representative of the Vatican.
Facts vs. Ridicule.
By C. P. B.
A GOOD deal of ridicule has by the religious press been heaped upon the constitutional argument made at the recent hearing in Washington in favor of the repeal of the Sunday-closing proviso in the World's Fair bill; but why not answer the argument rather than ridicule it, if it can be answered?
It has been said that the Supreme Court decision of last February is a sufficient answer. But is it? Of course that decision gives color to the claim that the Supreme Court would sustain Sunday legislation; but it by no means proves that such legislation is constitutional in the sense of being in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Federal Constitution.
To understand the real purpose and intent of the Constitution, we must, as Chief Justice Waite remarked in 1878, go, not to recent decisions, but to the history of the times in which the Constitution was adopted, and give to the language of the Constitution the meaning that it had at that time. By this rule we shall find that the First Amendment was designed not only to make impossible the setting up of a State Church, but to forbid religious legislation, i. e., legislation upon religious questions.
The term “religion” is not defined in the Constitution, but the Virginia Declaration of Rights, adopted in 1776, furnishes us a definition as follows: “Religion, or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction,” etc. This, then, is what the men who were instrumental in securing the adoption of the First Amendment to the Constitution meant by “religion,” and in the light of this definition that amendment would mean just what it was intended to mean, if it read, “Congress shall make no law regarding the duty which we owe to our Creator, or the manner of discharging it.”
That this is the meaning of the First Amendment is evident also from the fact that the exact language of the Virginia Bill of Rights was used in the form of the amendment, proposed by three of the six States which proposed an amendment on this subject, namely, Virginia, North Carolina, and Rhode Island; while New Hampshire used equally unmistakable language, namely, “Congress shall make no law touching religion, or to infringe the rights of conscience.” It was evidently the purpose of the several States to utterly prohibit to Congress all legislation upon religious questions, and no number of decisions, even by the Supreme Court can make it otherwise. This is not so much a question of law as of fact.
That the First Amendment to the Constitution was designed not only to keep Church and State separate in the sense of preventing an ecclesiastical establishment, but in the sense also of separating religion and the State—making the Government absolutely secular, is evident not only from the facts cited, but also from other considerations. In fact this seems to have been the universal opinion until in recent years degenerate sons of noble fathers have sought to subvert the grand charter which they gave to their posterity. In 1797 Washington and his cabinet and the United States Senate declared in the treaty with Tripoli, “The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion.” It is, perhaps, not saying too much to assert that President Washington and his advisers were in a position, at least as to point of time, to understand the intent of the Constitution better than the Supreme Court of to-day. They knew what it meant for they helped to make it and were familiar with the reasons for its adoption and for the adoption of the First Amendment. C. P. B.
“The End is Not Yet.”
By W. H. M.
NOTWITHSTANDING the persistence with which the advocates of Sunday closing of the World's Fair by congressional legislation have kept this matter, and their views upon it, before both Congress and the people,—and in spite of the fact that the legislation which they asked they have secured,—it would seem that the real contest over the matter is, after all, yet to come.
The interest which the public press is taking in the question is greater than at any previous time. Every organization is expected to array itself either on one side or the other, and the mass of resolutions and individual petitions presented to Congress on the subject is increasing daily.
At the Woman's Suffrage convention, which lately convened at Washington, D. C., these resolutions were offered:—
WHEREAS, the Constitution of the United States promises no interference with the religious liberty of the people, and
WHEREAS, Congress is now threatening to abridge the liberty of all in response to ecclesiastical dictation from a portion of the people,
Resolved, That this association enters a protest against any national attempt to control the innocent inclinations of the people, either on the Jewish Sabbath or the Christian Sunday, and this we do quite irrespective of our individual opinions as to the sanctity of Sunday.
Resolved, That we especially protest against this present attempt to force all the people to follow the religious dictates of a part of the people as establishing a precedent for the entrance of a most dangerous complicity between Church and State, thereby subtly undermining the foundation of liberty so carefully laid by the wisdom of our fathers.
These resolutions received both hearty support and vigorous opposition. It seemed likely that they would be adopted by a small majority, but they were finally tabled indefinitely, on the plea that it was an individual question and outside the province of the convention as representing the Woman Suffrage Association.
It will be seen that these resolutions, while referring to the present threatened abridgment of popular liberty, do not in so many words designate the Sunday closing of the World's Fair, unless the movement for legislation to close the Fair on Sunday is at ecclesiastical dictation, and does interfere with the constitutional provision protecting religious liberty, and is an attack upon the liberties of the people, and does force all the people to follow the religious dictates of a portion, thereby establishing a complicity between Church and State; unless all this is true the resolutions do not apply to the congressional Sunday closing of the World's Fair. No more striking confirmation of the fact that this Sunday-closing proviso of Congress does do all this need be asked for than the fact that no one in the convention even thought for an instant of any other application of the resolutions than to the Sunday closing of the World's Fair.
The petition clerks of the congressional document rooms are swamped among the thousands of petitions from all parts of the country on the opening or closing of the World's Fair. The Congressional Record, of the dates January 20, 21, 22, 24, and 25, contain thirty-five columns of petitions on this subject. The Record, of January 22, 24, and 25, has twenty-seven solid columns of petitions either for Sunday opening or an unconditional repeal of existing legislation on the subject.
More than a month ago a gentleman, resident in New York City, addressed a letter to the President, personally, protesting “against the delivery of any of the souvenir half-dollars to the representatives of the Columbian Exposition until the provisions of the law making the gift are complied with, namely, that the Exposition shall be closed on Sunday,” and contending that “in the eyes of the law the Exposition was formally opened in October, and, therefore, that the law requiring its closing on Sunday is now in full force, and is being violated by Sunday opening.” This letter was referred to the Solicitor of the Treasury, and upon it he rendered his opinion “that the Exposition has not been formally opened and the statute has not been violated by the delivery of said souvenir coins. The statute presupposes that the souvenir coins will be used for the purposes intended before the Exposition is formally opened.”
The next step was the presentation and adoption in the Senate of a resolution requesting the Secretary of the Treasury to transmit to the Senate a copy of this legal opinion in consonance with which the delivery of the souvenir coins was going on, and also a copy of the regulations for the delivery of the coins which he had made in accordance with that opinion.
Upon this, there soon followed the introduction in the Senate, by Mr. Pettigrew, of South Dakota, Chairman of the Senate Committee on the World's Fair, of a bill instructing the Secretary of the Treasury not to deliver any of the souvenir coins until the World's Columbian Exposition presents a good and sufficient bond that if the World's Fair is opened on Sunday the corporation shall repay to the United States the sum of money it shall have received from the sale of souvenir coins, not less than $2,500,000. Notice was also35given by Mr. Pettigrew that this would be offered as an amendment to the sundry civil bill. On the same day, in the House, Mr. Ketcham, of New York, introduced (by request) a joint resolution which recites in its preamble that an appropriation of five million half dollars had been made in aid of the Exposition on condition that it should be closed on Sunday, and the World's Fair corporation is now seeking to avoid this condition. The resolution then directs the Attorney-General to ascertain the facts in this relation, and if the corporation is not at any time in good faith carrying out the condition and closing the Fair on Sundays then he shall in the name of the United States sue the World's Fair corporation and recover the nominal value of the coins paid to the corporation.
All these things, together with the fact that measures have been taken in Chicago to enjoin the World's Fair Board from closing on Sunday,—and counter-action has been taken by those who desire to compel Sunday closing,—go to show that the public excitement over this question will not subside until the World's Fair is in actual progress, and perhaps not even then.
W. H. M.
Sunday Laws in the United States.
By Jas. T. Ringgold
(Concluded.)
The advocates of these laws appreciate their danger, and hence we see in some later cases an invention known as “the holiday theory” of Sunday laws brought to the rescue of a failing cause. Said an Arkansas judge: “The power of the legislature to select a day as a holiday, is everywhere conceded. The State, from the beginning, has appointed Sunday as such.” And he added that the same principle which upholds the right of the State to close its offices on certain days authorizes it “to prescribe a penalty for the violation of the Sunday law.” The extract ante from Mr. Tiedeman sufficiently refutes this parallel so far as it affects the question of the origin and purpose of Sunday laws. Its fallacy is equally apparent from their contents. Whoever heard of such a thing as a compulsory holiday? Whoever heard of a statute which established a public holiday and closed all places of public amusement, and provided a penalty for those who should undertake to amuse themselves in private upon the day in question? Desperately as some are clinging to this last spar, it must share the fate of the other wrecked arguments by which it is sought to support Sunday laws on constitutional grounds.
There are cases, however, which take “a secular view” of such legislation without going so far as to claim that it makes a holiday of Sunday. According to these “the evident object of the statute was to prevent the day from being employed in servile work, which is exhausting to the body, or in merely idle pastime, subversive of that order, thrift and economy, which is necessary to the preservation of society.”
Let us consider these clauses separately. Has it ever been claimed that it is in the power of an American legislature to compel a man to abstain from earning his living by “servile labor,” because the legislature, in its wisdom, considers such labor as “exhausting to the body”—ever claimed, that is, except in connection with Sunday laws? Who made of the legislature a physician to order off a man from any labor, “servile” or otherwise, because of its effect upon his body? Is not the liberty of labor at will, part of the inheritance of every citizen of a free country, which he “comes into” when he attains his majority? The interference with labor on account of its “exhausting the body” is parental, and can never be justified under any other than a parental government. So that if this interference were necessary or even desirable, it would not be practicable in any State whose constitution contains a guaranty of personal liberty. As a matter of fact, however, it is neither necessary nor desirable, though many of the cases assume that it is both, and Sunday-law advocates of every kind are prone to start with the statement, as if it were an axiom of thought, that “we are so constituted physically that the precise portion of time indicated by the Decalogue must be observed as a day of rest and relaxation, and nature, in the punishment inflicted for a violation of our physical laws, adds her sanction to the positive law promulgated at Sinai.” Yet this statement, so often made in substance on the bench and elsewhere in order to justify Sunday laws, is absolutely without any foundation whatever, and is absurd on its face and is contradicted by the most familiar facts. It is absurd on its face. The amount of rest required and the advisable periodicity of it is the result of three factors—the man, his work, and his environment; and, as the first of these is never the same in any two instances the result is never the same. To attempt to lay down a uniform rule on this subject is as preposterous as it would be to require everybody to eat the same amount and the same kind of food every day. What is said above about the punishments of “nature” applies here as it was not intended to apply. The whole matter belongs to her domain and is subject to her laws alone. The time for rest is proclaimed by her when she makes a man tired, and his punishment may safely be left in her hands, if he disobeys her mandate to rest.
NO FACTS TO SUSTAIN THEIR PROPOSITION.
Of course there are no facts adducible which even appear to sustain so monstrous a proposition as that everybody always needs the same amount of rest at the same interval. The facts are all the other way. Preachers who work hard all the time, and do double work on Sundays; doctors who can never rest at any stated interval; lawyers, journalists and others, who frequently work day in and day out for months without a holiday—all these compare favorably for robustness and longevity with that conscientious Sunday-rester, the farmer. Races of men, as the Greeks and Romans of old, the Chinese, Japanese, etc., to whom the idea of resting at stated intervals never occurred, yet have survived and flourished. Not long ago the Methodist bishop, Andrews, gave it out as “something he could not understand” that they had no Sabbath in China, and yet the laboring men lived to old age! Of course the good bishop shut his eyes at home, and opened them in China. He was under that delusion so common with men of his calling that the existence of a law is proof of its enforcement. He did not know, or chose to ignore the fact, that thousands of his fellow-Americans who know no Sabbath are as healthy, long-lived and, at least, as active in the world’s work as the strictest Sabbatarian in his communion.
The second clause of our last citation refers to “merely idle pastimes subversive of that order, thrift and economy, which is necessary to the preservation of society.” This is one of the rare occasions on which any allusion is made to that portion of the contents of every Sunday law which is absolutely fatal to the “holiday theory” of such statutes. It is self-evident that no pastime can be subversive of order on one day, which is not so on every other day; and as to thrift or economy, it is equally evident that these are things with which, in the individual citizen, an American legislature has no authority whatever to meddle. Nevertheless if a law does not contain this combined prohibition of work and play, it is no Sunday law. And there is good ground for the assertion that those who are specially interested in Sunday laws, if they had to part with either, would prefer to have the prohibition of work repealed rather than the prohibition of play—both because they are naturally morose and play tends more than work to make other people unlike them; and also because play would be even more likely than work to keep open the gap between the masses and the collection box.
Besides negativing the arguments by which Sunday laws have been defended, and calling attention to the positive objection to them as the embodiment of a union of Church and State, it may be well to point out another undesirable characteristic of such legislation. Although Sunday laws do not make the day a holiday, yet they have this in common with laws establishing holidays—that they tend to encourage among the people the conception that idleness is a good thing in itself, to be sought for its own sake and that the State is conferring a great boon upon them by allowing them the opportunity of indulging in it. No more immoral or dangerous doctrine could be preached by any legislation than this. Rest is necessary; but its value lies not in itself; it is valuable only in so far as it fits us better for our work. Public holidays may have a historical value; that their general effect on the manners of the mass is demoralizing, few will deny. Leisure is a dangerous possession in the hands of the wisest and best. Let the managers of factories, the heads of schools and the like, be heard to testify to the slipshod character of “Blue Monday’s” work, and we shall appreciate the profundity of that unknown philosopher, who gave it as his decided conviction that the crying need of this country is not more holidays, but more days to get over them.
Industry is a virtue; idleness is a vice. But our Sunday laws make a complete topsy-turvification of this fundamental principle of morals for fifty-two days in the year. On these days, industry is branded as a crime, and idleness is required as a condition of good citizenship. The immoral lesson thus taught bears its fruit in the constant demand for more public holidays, and for limiting the hours of work by the State and other laws36which are strangely misnamed as “labor legislation,” being, in reality, like the Sunday laws, legislation for the promotion of idleness. And thus we have another illustration of the great principle, and the evil tree of Sunday law brings forth after its kind.
BETRAYED BY THEIR OWN TERMS.
The survey of the subject would not be complete without some reference to the savings of “necessity,” and “charity,” which are made in all Sunday laws.
The very presence of the word “charity” is sufficient to betray the true nature of these laws as religious dogmas enacted into statutes. The interpretation of the word has, of course, to be made accordingly. And hence it is correctly said that “the means which long established and common usage of religious congregations show to be reasonably necessary to advance the cause of religion may be deemed works of charity.” But, apart from its fatal disclosure of the religious character of the statute, the presence of this word, like that of “necessity,” introduces a degree of uncertainty as to the application of the law, which it is safe to say would cause the courts to hold it void altogether if it were anything else but a Sunday law. Well has a learned judge of Vermont observed, “The statute excepts all acts of necessity and charity. These are lawful, and who is to judge what are such? If the jury, it will depend on the religious opinions of each jury, and of course be pregnant with the utmost uncertainty. If the court, as matter of law, then it will nearly convert a bench of laymen into an ecclesiastical council, for ‘necessity’ and charity in connection with the Sabbath must very much depend upon the creed or religious belief of the individual to whom the question is submitted. . . . How ungracious for a court to mark the law upon this duty for all denominations to be governed by and with judges usually belonging to different religious societies. It would be like a synod composed of the dignitaries of several sects.” The uncertainty involved in the use of the word “charity,” apart from the religious aspect of the question, may be illustrated by the preceding case. This held that a contract of subscription towards the erection of a church was valid as an act of charity. If so, on what ground is the actual building of the church on Sunday unlawful? Or the quarrying of the stone for its walls, or the dressing of timber for its interior? In a word, where are we to stop in the degree of closeness of connection between the act in question and “the advancement of the cause of religion”? It does not seem possible that the subtlest judicial ingenuity will succeed any better in the future than it has in the past, in affording a satisfactory answer to this question.
But if an impenetrable cloud is cast over the force and application of the Sunday law by the presence of this word “charity,” on what a bottomless, trackless sea are we launched by the use of that other word “necessity”! The tossings and flounderings, the hopeless “seeking after a sign,” the vain beating toward a harbor which does not exist which we find in the cases on this subject are really painful to a sensitive mind. Among others, the eminent judge and senator, Thurman, of Ohio, once wrestled with this subject in a long opinion. But the outcome of it all is that there is no way of defining “necessity,” though the learned judge does not say this in so many words. In the first place, we do not know whether necessity is a question of law or of fact, or of both combined. And secondly, it is unsettled whether the necessity must be that of the doer of the act or whether it is sufficient if his doing of it was a necessity to somebody else.
It is, however, when we leave these preliminary questions and come to consider the nature of this necessity of which we are to determine the existence or non-existence in any given case—when we study the thing in itself, as some philosophers say, that we most fully appreciate the hopelessness of interpreting or applying a Sunday law with any degree of uniformity or fairness. Only a few points need be mentioned to vindicate this position. We are told that the necessity need not be “absolute,” yet it must be “imperious,” and mere “convenience” is not enough; that it varies with the individual, so that a rich man might be punishable for working on Sunday to save his property from destruction, while a poor man would not be, and also with “the exigencies of trade;” and so on and so forth. Here, as under all of our preceding heads, the illustrations might be multiplied indefinitely without materially strengthening the moral, which is that a “chaos of thought and passion all confused” has inspired the enactment of Sunday laws, stimulates their enforcement, and manifests itself in every judicial attempt to either justify, explain or apply them.
Offers of a Kingdom Rejected.
By A. SMITH
THE devil once offered the kingdoms of this world to Christ, but his offer was spurned with a severe rebuke. At another time our Lord's disciples and the people were determined to make him king of Israel, but neither would he accept it at their hands, but taught, rather, that they should render tribute to Cæsar who was their king. The Papacy next undertook to make Christ rule as king of the nations by proxy; they placed their chief bishop on a throne as Christ's vicegerent, and the history of the Dark Ages written in the blood of about fifty millions of God's people, illustrates the wickedness of such a scheme. Last of all, National Reformers, so called, and their host of allies are trying to make Christ king of this Nation, and to place the laws, and usages of Christ's church "upon an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the land." But Jesus will in no wise accept it of them; and it will certainly result, as did the papal usurpation, in great affliction to Christ's own people—in fines, in boycotts, in imprisonment, in torture, in banishment, in chain-gang labor, in sentence of death, until the limit of God's forbearance is reached, and he arises in anger to vindicate his down-trodden cause.
But will Christ ever receive the kingdoms of this world? Yes, but not as the gift of the devil, of the people, of Pope, or of National Reformers. Will it be difficult for him to obtain the kingdoms of the world when he wants them? No, he has only to ask his Father for them, and they will be speedily given. No change of Constitution, no Supreme Court decisions, no legislative enactments, nor executive approval, will be requisite. Says God the Father, to his Son Jesus: "Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession." Ps. 2:8.
But when they are thus given to Christ what will he do with them? The Father says: "Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel." Ps. 2:9.
In Dan. 2:44, referring to earthly kingdoms, the prophet says: "And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever."
God has commissioned his servants to persuade and entreat men to accept the gospel and obey its precepts, but he never instructed them to fine, and imprison, and torture their fellow-servants who should fail to believe or do as they themselves might believe or do; he warned them rather that the devil would do that kind of work, and taught them to patiently endure, even to a martyr's death. It is unsafe to entrust a fallen church and ministry with civil power.