The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1852-06-08 00:00:00

" Q. You have stated that the reduction of rent has
reduced crime, and that when a redaction of rent was
ined, they looked for a still further reduction, and,

finally, to get the land ?—A. Yes.
" Q. But what do they do with the proprietors of the
land ?—A. They do not care much about that part of the

business

" Q. How are they to dispose of the proprietors ?—A.
Starve them out, I take it.
" Q. An 7 other process ?—A. Yes ; if necessary, they
murder them, of course." (Sensation.)
And now I ask what is the meaning of the phrase,
" Justice for them as well as others 7" Is there to be
no difference in a wise and yroper treatment of a system

thus practically, thus murderously intolerant ; and a sys-
tem of opinions only, however erroneous those opinions
may be? (Hear, hear.)
Our great national writer on toleration was of a different
opinion. It is well known how nobly, how unanswerably
John Locke argued in defence of absolute liberty, :just
and true lerty, equal and impartial liberty, in all religi-
ous opinions. But he was not so shallow as our modern
philosophers who make no difference between religious
opinions and practical intolerance. Ilis exception to the
great rule of toleration is the more forcible, because it
was not his preferen,ce, but extorted from him by the
necessities of the case. He says :
" Another more secret evil, but more dangerous to the
commonwealth, is- when men arrogate to themselves, and
to those of their own sect, some peculiar prerogative co-
vered over with a specious shew of deceitful words, but,
in effectropposite to the civil right of the community.
For example. We cannot find any sect that teaches ex-
pressly and openly that men aie not obliged to keep their
promises ; that princes may be dethroned by those that
differ from them in religion ; or that the dominion of
many things belongs only to themselves. For these
things, proposed thus nakedly and plainly, would soon
draw on them the eye and hand of the magistrate, and
awaken all the care of the commonwealth to a watchful-
ness against the spreading of so dangerous an evil. But,
nevertheless, we find those that say the same things, in
other words. What else do they mean, who teach that
faith is not to be kept with heretics' ? Their meaning,
forsooth, is, that the privilege of breaking faith belongs
to themselves ; for they declare all that are not of their
communion to be heretics, or, at least, may declare them
so whensoever they think fit. What can be the meaning
of their asserting that 'kings excommunicated forfeit
their crowns and kingdoms ?' It is evident that they
thereby arrogate unto themselves the power of deposing
kings ; because they challenge the power of excommuni-
cation as the peculiar right of their own hierarchy. ' That
dominion is founded in grace,' is also an assertion by
which those that maintain it do plainly lay claim to the

. _
possession of all things. For they are not so wanting to
themselves as not to believe,. or at least as not to profess,
themselves to be the truly pious and faithful. These,
therefore, and the like, who attribute unto the faithful,
religious, and orthodox, that is, in plain terms, unto
themselves, any peculiar privilege or power above other
mortals, in civil concernments ; or who, upon pretence
of religion, do challenge any manner of authority over
such, as are not associated with them in their ecclesiasti-
cal communion ; I say these have no right to be tolerated
by the magistrate; as neither those that will not own and
teach the duty of tolerating all men in matters of mere
religion. For what do all these and the like doctrines
signify, but that they may, and are ready upon any occa-
sion to seize the government, and possess themselv s of
the estates and fortunes of their fellow-subjects; and that
they only ask leave to beloierated by the magistrate so
long, until they
find themselves strong enough to effect
it. Again, that church can have no right to be tolerated
by the magistrate, which is constituted upon such a bot-
tom, that all those that enter into it, do thereby ipso
facto deliver themselves up to the protection and service
of another prince. For by this means the magistrate
would give way to the settling of a foreign jurisdiction in
his own country, and suffer his own people to be listed,
as it were, for soldiers against his own government. Nor
does the frivolous and fallacious distinction between the
court and the church afford' any remedy to this inconve-
nience ; especially when both the one and the other are
equally subject to the absolute authority of the same per-
son (that is, the Pope);-. who has not only power to per-
suade the members of his church to whatsoever he lists,
either as purely religious,.or as in order thereunto ; but
can also enjoin it on them on pain of eternal fire."
(Hear, hear.)
Hear another authority scarcely less weighty in this
argument, the immortal Milton. He, too, was an ardent
champion of liberty ; but for this very reason, he advo-
cated restraints on Rome. Concerning the Romanists,
he says :—" Their religion the more considered, the less
can be acknowledged a religion ; but a Roman principality
rather, endeavouring to keep up her old universal domi-
nion under a new name and mere shadow of a Catholic
religion ; being indeed more rightly named a Catholic
heresy against the Scripture, supported mainly by a civil
and, except in Rome,. by a foreign power ; justly, there-
fore, to be suspected, not tolerated, by the magistrate of
another country." (Hear, and cheers.)
I have now shown you what intolerance is, and that it
is inseparable from the system of the Church of Rome.
The remainder of my thesis follows as an inevitable con-
clusion. The man who pleads a regard for religious
liberty, in defence or support of Romanism, is either
sincere in so doing,. or he is not. If he be sincere, he
must be ignorant of what Romanisrn is ; if he be not
sincere, he is practising hypocrisy to deceive others.
I wish now to show you how utterly repugnant to
genuine Christianity, intolerance is ; by whomsoever,. or
on whatsoever plea, it may be practised.
Two of Christ's disciples, James and John, made a
great mistake upon this subject, and thereby gave occasion
to instruction of the highest order. They were irritated
against the heretical inhabitants of a Samaritan village,
who refused to receive Jesus on His journey, because he
was proceeding to Jerusalem, and thereby giving a. prac-
tical preference,in his worship, to a place which the Sama-
ritans considered wrong, or at least secondary.
In their angry seal the disciples referred to the example
of Elias, in calling down judgment on the messengers of
the idolatrous King of Israel, and said, " Lord,. wilt thou
that we command fire to come down from heaven and
consume them ?" their Master turned upon, them, and
rebuked them, and said, " You know not what manner of
spirit you are of." You have made a mistake. That
example of Elias is not to be followed now.. " For the
Son of Man is not come to destroy men's lives." Now is
not, the time. The example, indeed, of Elias was not
written in vain. It was no fancy of Elias „it was no whim
of his it was a work of God ; and therefore it is not writ-
ten in vain. But it is not written for present imitation.
" You know not what manner of spirit you are of."
Your spirit must be altered, before you will be capable of
entering into the execution of judgment with God.'
Elsewhere He pointed out what was to be done in the ex-
treme case of a man who rejected Christian truth, and
refused to submit to legitimate Christian authority. He
told them that such a man, so rebellious and so heretical,
was to be accounted by them in the position of " a hea-
then man and a publican." ' What does this mean ?
This is the climax of our Lord's reprobation of a heretic,
of an offender against Christian truth and Christian au-
thority. He is to be " as a heathen man and a publican."
Now, I ask again, what does this mean ? It has been
rashly and frequently asserted, that this is synonymous
with exposing a man to persecution—to excommunication,
with all its fearful consequences. But is it so ? How
were the disciples of Jesus to treat the man that would not
hear the church ? They were to count him " as a heathen
man and a publican," an unconverted sinner. Well, and
how were they to treat heathen men and publicans ? They
were to avoid them as asscciates ; but they were to preach
the Gospel to them, that they might be converted. Was
it their duty, because a man was a heathen man or a pub-
lican, to cut him off from the face of the earth, or impri-
son him, or fine him, or in any way injure him ? Not at
all. If he was " a heathen man and a publican," he was
not a fit associate, indeed fur them ; but lie was the exact
person for them to preach to. They were commanded to
preach to such, that they might lee converted and saved.
And with this agrees the direction of the apostle. What
does St. Paul say should be done to them who cause divi-
sions contrary to the doctrine which he taught What is
his exhortation to the brethren ? He says—" Avoid
them ;" that is, " avoid them a&associates. '' Mark
them which c- fences contrary to the
doctrine I avoid them." Does

cause divisions and c
which ye have leained ; ar
,ay persecute thern ? Not at
period : this is not the antitype for
lie period, or the antitype for the
" Avoid them.'" L

clad there-

fore he say

hem to God ; do
alonian

not touch th
Christians—

to the Th
r word by

him, that

Leon t