Rustic Heard from – Moses Harman, 9/1/1880

Republished from the prior iteration our predecessor publication Lucifer the Light Bearer

Personal Paine—Profanity—Christianity & Civilization—Bondage to Fear—Inconsistency—Charges against Jehovah

Whether or not the churches of Valley Falls consider their cause honored by the latest effusion of their champion, we
have no means of knowing. We trust, however, for the sake of their good name, that they do not so consider. Surely
a man who can descend to the use of language so beastly (we ask pardon of the beasts for the comparison) must
be a sort of guerilla or bushwhacker, whom no one has commissioned, and who cares absolutely nothing for the
laws of civilized warfare. It must be apparent to all that he has quite mistaken his vocation. Instead of championing
the “meek and lowly Nazarene,” who taught, “Do unto others as ye would that they should do unto you,” “Love your
enemies,” “Overcome evil with good,” etc., his congenial sphere of action would seem to be that of the street bully,
of whom he spoke in his last, since his highest ambition appears to be to provoke his opponent to a personal encounter.
He evidently believes in “muscular Christianity” quite as much as he does in the experimental sort, of which he spoke
some time since. If “smitten on his right cheek,” he could hardly be trusted to “turn the other also”; and if he had no
sword, he would be likely to take the advice given in Luke 22:36, i.e., “sell his garment and buy one,” and thus, being
stripped of unnecessary clothing, be ready to do battle for the “Lord of Hosts,” whose chief merit, by the way, according
to the record made by his chosen people, seems to have been that of a great fighter—or rather, a great butcher of
innocent and defenseless women and children (Num. 31:19; Deut. 20:16, etc.). If, however, we should be mistaken in
our assumption at the outset, and if those for whom this champion has taken up the cudgels should approve of his
methods of defense, then surely the inference is legitimate that their cause must be in the last stages of hopeless
decay, since it needs to be bolstered by any such means as these. And if the language and methods of this champion
be fair specimens of the result of orthodox training, then we most devoutly pray: “From all such training, good Lord,
deliver us.” One chief burden of his present effort, as well as of his former ones, seems to be to charge us with outrageous
abuse of Christians and, by this means, to distract attention from the fact that he is himself the real aggressor and
transgressor in this personal-abuse business. It is simply the old “stop thief” story over again. He says that he assails
no private character and mentions no names, and yet his charge against the teacher was so framed that it could mean
but one person, since only one member of the league took employment under a “Christian board.”

He says that what he said was merely in reply to our wholesale abuse of Christians for being hypocrites, etc. Our
readers will bear witness that throughout this discussion we have abused no one on account of his opinions. What
we said about hypocrisy was simply in self-defense against the attacks of our opponents. In doing this, we offered
to show that some of the churches openly advocated deception and that even Paul justified it (Rom. 3:7). But we
were careful to state that we made no charge against individual church members, claiming many of them as our
best friends. So much are we opposed to assailing private reputation that, in the language of a distinguished orator,
we would say: “I despise, I execrate with every drop of my blood, the man or woman who willfully attempts to destroy
the reputation of another.” Perhaps, however, such acts should excite our pity more than our execration, since they
are almost always used in defense of a hopeless cause. In our last, the teacher claimed that his “religious opinions
were his private property.” S. replies, “Granted; Christianity asks no more.” He seems quite incapable of distinguishing
between the opinions of a private individual and the doctrines publicly taught from the pulpit, platform, or press. If a
teacher, in his school, were to teach his peculiar religious views, certainly the directors and patrons would have a
right to object. Or when a man sets himself up as a public teacher of morals or religion, then his opinions and acts
become public property and are therefore legitimate subjects of criticism. But until he does this, surely no one has
the right, for partisan purposes, to drag him and his opinions into public notoriety. We have promised our readers that
we should ignore personal issues hereafter; and as S. seems ambitious of the proud distinction of getting the last
word to “crow over,” and as, according to his own showing, he has richly earned it, we are quite willing he should
have it—in these personal matters at least. And if his witnesses wish to share this high honor with him, they are
welcome to do so, although we much regret to see their names in any such association. The teacher alluded to
adheres to his statement already published. S. accuses us of dodges and assertions “which you knew were false
at the time you penned them, and which your readers may likewise know if they will take the time to think.”

To these same readers we appeal and ask them to say who it is that is guilty of dodges and unsupported assertions.
We charge that he has misrepresented us in nearly every instance in which he speaks of our positions or arguments;
and as space will only allow us to show a few of them, we ask our readers to go over again our former arguments
and compare them with his misrepresentations. Instance: Instead of howling because the churches do not call off
their “volunteer champion,” as he states, we expressly said that we did not object to Sylvester as such (although
we had good reason to do so because of his unfairness), but we certainly do object to him now. So much so that
we utterly refuse to follow him to his favorite haunts in order to continue the contest with him. Our readers have
seen boys who, when they could not face their opponents in fair combat, would try to cover their retreat by throwing
mud and stones; and when the latter would not descend to this mode of warfare, call them cowards. We shall therefore
hereafter be compelled to ignore this “volunteer champion,” alluding to him and to his assertions only in a general
way, and address ourselves to our readers. We are charged with not sticking to the question. We ask our readers
if our opponent has done so. Is it not as evident as anything can well be that he tries as much as possible to divert
attention from the Bible by introducing “side issues”? He challenged us to show where the Bible sanctions polygamy,
massacre, etc., and when we captured and spiked his gun, he takes no notice of the fact. He charged us with
absurdity in our statement with regard to the “Pocasset tragedy”; we showed him to whom the absurdity belonged.
He called our statement with regard to the churches’ sending men to prison “bordering on the infamous”—We showed
where the “infamy comes in”; we turned his doctrine of vicarious atonement against himself. Also, regarding his
“Sign for the Liberal Den,” his reply to these is simply a volley of mud.

We charged that his Bible was a bundle of contradictions; he makes a mighty effort, by unfair statements of our
positions, to show that we are guilty of self-contradiction. We charged that Liberals have not “equal rights before
the law,” and gave some proofs and instances, and promised more. In reply, he reiterates that we all stand on
an equal platform before the law, etc., and says that “the worst spoiled baby in the universe don’t howl for what
it already possesses.” Why did he not reply to our proofs and ask what else we had to offer? Can there be any
other reason than that he did not want to hear them? Like the prisoner at the bar who, when the evidence against
him was called, began to whimper and cry, and the judge told him to stop his crying—that he should have justice.
“Faith, your honor, and that’s just what I’m afraid of,” was the tremulous reply. So much by way of explanation.
As briefly as possible, we proceed to take up such points as we think worthy of notice. 1st. As to Paine, we never
claimed him as a perfect man, any more than we would claim that Washington or Jesus was perfect. The latter
did not claim perfection, and we presume the former did not. Paine was human and therefore had his faults. All we
claim is just what John Adams claimed for him—and he certainly ought to have known whereof he spoke. We freely
admit that the colonies were in a state of revolt before Paine’s Common Sense was published, but they were not
prepared for separation. They dared not fly in the face of Bible doctrine—“Honor the King” and “He that resists shall
receive damnation”—until after said publication. And in those dark days, when the army had dwindled away to almost
nothing and the remnant was on the verge of mutiny, it is quite probable that the Tory clergy would have frightened the
soldiers back to their allegiance had not Common Sense, instead of the Bible, been read at the head of the regiments
and companies. There is strong evidence that Paine was the real author of the Declaration of Independence.

As to the stories of his immoral habits, they come from his enemies and lack confirmation, except perhaps that relating
to his intemperance. It is perhaps true that, in his old age, when deserted by those who, from sentiments of gratitude,
should have been his best friends, like Burns and many other brilliant geniuses, he took the advice of Solomon when
he says (Prov. 31:7), “Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more”; or that of Paul: “Drink
no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities.” Perhaps he took a little too
much on sacramental occasions, or at wedding revelries, as authorized by the turning of water into wine at Cana
of Galilee. Did he use “abusive” language as charged? Did he curse and swear? Then he must have contracted this
bad habit from too much reading of the Bible (he was a great Bible student), for Noah said, “Cursed be Canaan,” and
Jehovah swore in His wrath, just like any other man, that they should not enter into His rest, and “swore with an oath”
to David (Acts 2:30). Or he caught it from association with Christians; he could not have got it from Mohammedans or
Pagans, for they are not addicted to it. Nothing astonished the American Indians, for instance, so much in their first
association with white men as this habit of profane swearing. The stories of Paine’s profanity are no better authenticated
than similar ones with regard to Washington. Did Paine live with a concubine as asserted? If so (though this is the first we
ever heard of it), yet he certainly was not so great a sinner in this line as those “shining lights,” who are constantly held
up for our admiration and imitation—the ancient Patriarchs—who, with God’s approval, lived with concubines. Take, for
instance, David, who enjoyed the proud distinction of being “the man after God’s own heart,” “who kept my commandments,
and who followed me with all his heart, to do that only which was right in mine eyes” (I Kings 14:8); and yet who, not
satisfied with his numerous concubines and all the wives of his master Saul that God had given him (II Sam. 12:8),
must yet rob Uriah of his wife and cause him to be killed besides. By the way, our readers have no doubt observed,
in the history of this little “episode” in David’s life, that although he was reproved for it, he was never punished.

’Tis true God killed his firstborn by Uriah’s wife, but He soon rewarded him by giving him, of the same woman, another
son (read II Sam. 12:24), who became the wisest of men, the greatest of kings, and through whose lineage the Christian
world claims their Savior was given. We ask our readers to read the account of Paine as given in Appleton’s Cyclopedia
and see for themselves what is there said about him. The world is just beginning to do justice to the memory of that truly
great and good man, whose name will go down to history not only as the great apostle of civil liberty, but also as having
done more than any other man of his time to break the chains that bound men in religious thralldom. We did not say
“infidels do not swear.” Unfortunately, many of them do; but it is simply because “evil communications corrupt good
manners”—and morals too. Most of them had Christian training, and from daily association with Christians they have
learned their habits—especially from Christian ministers. For instance, a man goes to church and hears the preacher
hurl the anathemas of his creed against the infidels. Then he goes home and something occurs to irritate him—his
neighbor’s pigs are in his cornfield, his horse steps on his toes, etc. Then, with the lesson of the morning fresh in his
mind, he very naturally curses the pigs and their careless owner—and his patient servant, the horse. S. thinks Rustic’s
parents were not to blame because he was such a bad boy as to “fear hell.” We ask our readers whether it is the bad
boys, or those of tender conscience, that cannot sleep at night for fear the devil will get them before morning? And at
the great revivals, when the minister, in his zeal for the Lord, tries to “uncap hell and pour damnation on sinners” (a phrase
actually used by a young minister in the pulpit), who is it that, from sheer fright, goes off into a dead faint or cataleptic
fit? Is it the hardened sinner, or is it not rather the innocent girl or woman who would not cause a worm to suffer needless
pain? A case in point was lately given in the newspapers. A sensitive girl went to hear Talmage preach on hell, and so
fearfully were her feelings shocked by the discourse that she went into convulsions and died before morning.

In the language of another, we would say: “The fear of hell never made a saint; for though you may scare a man so that
he will not commit a crime, you cannot scare him so bad that he will not want to do it.” With regard to H. W. B., whatever
may have been his faults, he belongs to the church; he is a Christian minister in good standing and receives higher pay
and draws larger crowds than any other minister in the U.S. It is still claimed that we owe our civilization to Christianity.
We quote again from Mirror of Progress: Christianity claimed to be in possession of perfection and truth, and hence
considered progress impossible. All that disagreed with the early Christians’ ideas of right and truth was pronounced
by them false and pernicious, and consequently all species of improvement met their opposition. So it has been in all
ages, and I think I can say without contradiction that from the dawn of history until now no improvement—moral, mental,
political, or physical—has ever been offered to the world without being at first rejected by the orthodox religions of the
time. Not a single change has ever been made to better men’s condition on earth except over the veto of the church.
Every step in advance has been taken over the ruins of some creed. Search the pages of history where you will, and
you will find that whenever a new and better order of things has been instituted, it received its first impulse from those
who were heretics or infidels to the religion of their time. We do not have our civilization because of the church, but in
spite of it. It has been, and is today, the great enemy of progress. With the rise of Christianity into power was ushered
in the Dark Ages, and for a period of a thousand years the church spared no effort to obliterate the learning and civilization
of antiquity. Books and teachers who taught doctrines not found in the narrow creeds of the church were burned. The
darkest night of superstition and ignorance gradually overspread the countries of Cicero, Plato, Archimedes, and the
Ptolemies, and its blackness only began to fade away when learning was again forced into Europe at the point of
Moorish swords. From that time until the present, civilization has advanced because in each century there have
been a few brave men whose love for truth bid defiance to the ridicule, scorn, and persecution of the church. The
men who have given us the civilization of the nineteenth century were hated by the church.

They have been imprisoned, tortured, burned at the stake, their ashes scattered to the winds, and their names buried
beneath calumny and lies. Heretics are the world’s greatest benefactors, but orthodoxy always curses them. In countries
most liberal, civilization advances most rapidly. The church has not aided civilization but retarded it. If the church has
been on the side of civilization and progress, why did it not adopt the Greek and Roman civilization it found in the world?
Why not preserve the lost arts? Why destroy the Serapion Library, murder Hypatia, and burn nearly all the “profane”
writings of antiquity? Why did the Christian nations allow the Arabs to surpass them in civilization for many centuries?
Why did the church deny that the earth is round and oppose the Copernican system of astronomy? Why oppose the
voyage of Columbus and the teachings of Bruno, Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton? Why oppose the doctrines
of Morse, Jenner, Harvey, and Priestley? Why deny the nebular hypothesis and the doctrine of evolution, or ignore
the fact that the universe is governed in accordance with law? Why denounce as atheists our prominent geologists
and biologists? Why did the church array itself on the side of kings against the people? Why so long uphold slavery,
and why now oppose the doctrine of equal rights? Why has the church always opposed religious liberty? Why the long
religious wars and fierce persecutions of Europe? Why the persecution of Quakers and witches in New England, and
the banishment of Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson? Why the banishment of the Moors and Jews from Spain and
Russia, and the persecution of the latter in Russia at the present time? Why did the church formerly have an aversion
to lightning rods, sewers in cities, and all public health measures? Why oppose the study of phrenology and physiology
and the practice of surgery and medicine? Why denounce as impious Tyndall’s famous prayer test? Why persistently
oppose every new theory and deny every new discovery which tends to show the falsity of some old opinion? Why
think all our ancestors mistaken in some respects, and everybody else at the present time, but our own sect mistaken
in nothing? Ah, my Christian brethren, all that the church has ever done for civilization has been through its heretics
and infidels, and I defy you to show the contrary.

Again it is charged that infidelity fosters crime. The proverb says, “Figures do not lie.” Read this: The unprejudiced
Christian reader will do well to ponder the following statistics, which bear directly upon the issue. Official Parliamentary
report, at the instance of Sir John Trelawney, in 1873: Criminals in England and Wales in 1873: 146,146 Sectarian
and Infidel Population in England and Wales: Church of England – 6,933,936 Dissenters – 7,235,158 Catholics –
1,500,000 Jews – 57,850 Infidels – 7,000,000 Religious Persuasions of Criminals in England and Wales: Church
of England – 96,097 Catholics – 38,581 Dissenters – 10,648 Jews – 256 Infidels – 297 Criminals per 100,000 of
Population: Church of England – 2,500 Catholics – 1,400 Dissenters – 150 Jews – 5 It would thus appear that belief
in the supernatural is not only nonessential, but that it is absolutely responsible for the great body of criminals—that
the more faith, the less virtue. The celebrated Laing, in his Notes of a Traveler, says that of all the states of Europe,
the people of Switzerland are the most moral, most law-abiding, and most punctual in fulfilling contracts; and yet in
the religious scale they rank the lowest. And this is corroborated by travelers generally; i.e., where Christianity holds the
most undisputed sway, and where infidelity is most completely crushed out—as in Italy and Spain—there mendicancy,
ignorance, and crime are most prevalent. And, per contra, where infidelity most abounds, as in Switzerland, Germany,
and England, there material prosperity, learning, and virtue predominate. There is, in fact, no case in which the doctrine
of vicarious atonement has not wrought an injury to those who have accepted it as the true principle. The belief that
an innocent person can suffer in the stead of one who is guilty is one of the most pernicious things in Christianity.
Exception is taken to our statement that we “sympathize with those who groan under a bondage more fearful than
that which oppressed the poor African.” Do we need proof that all our orthodox friends are under bondage? Are
they not all under “bondage to fear,” as Paul has it?

Fear of an angry, vindictive Jehovah, who is himself a “consuming fire”—fear of death—fear of the devil—fear of hell?
Are they not all so much under bondage to this manifold fear that they dare not candidly investigate whether their creed,
taught them from infancy, is true or not? Suppose a judge were to say to the jury impaneled to try a case: “Gentlemen,
you are now about to hear the evidence in this case. You are sworn to bring in your verdict in accordance with the truth,
as shown by the evidence; but mind this—that if your verdict should be contrary to what you know I think it ought to be,
then your heads shall be struck off within five minutes!” What chance would there be for an impartial verdict? Just so,
the Christian minister says to his congregation: “My brethren, we are in favor of the utmost freedom of conscience and
of judgment, in religious matters as well as in all others. We tell you, we exhort you, by all means, to investigate freely
and candidly the evidences upon which rest the cardinal doctrines of our most holy faith; such as the ‘Fall of Man,’ ‘Total
Depravity,’ ‘Divinity of Jesus,’ ‘Vicarious Atonement,’ &c. And be very sure that your minds are unbiased by prejudice
in this matter, let the result be just what it may. Truth has nothing to fear from investigation. But, at the same time, my
beloved friends, duty requires that I inform you that if, from the perversity of your sinful natures, your verdict in the matter
should not be in accordance with the teachings of the church, then a ‘RED HOT HELL’ (we quote from the pulpit) will
be your righteous doom to all eternity. And if any man hereafter shall say that we are not in favor of liberty of conscience,
right of individual opinion, or freedom of judgment, you may set him down at once as a willfully blind and ‘scurrilous’
infidel, ‘whose damnation is just.’ (Paul.) Of course, it is not necessary to remind these infidel doubters that the only
way to escape this fearful doom is by a timely repentance and humble acceptance of the aforesaid cardinal doctrines,
whereby this damnable sin of unbelief may all be washed out, and their robes be made white as snow in the blood
of the Lamb.” Query.—Why do not our laundry women make a note of this; i.e., that the proper fluid in which to
cleanse soiled clothes is not clear water, but RED BLOOD?

Again, the Bible is regarded as superior to science. Infidel science has done something for the laundress in the way
of chemical soaps, washers, and wringers, &c.; now let her try this Bible recipe of BLOOD, and see which is best.
Pardon the digression. We are charged with inconsistency in first claiming that “Liberals or infidels (as a class) are
not hypocrites,” and then boasting that there are more infidels in the church than out of it, who, for social, political,
and pecuniary reasons, have had their names recorded on church rolls, &c. Surely none but a believer in “vicarious
atonement” could be guilty of such misrepresentation. We did NOT “boast that there were more infidels in the church
than out”; we said that “many assert that there are more,” &c. We were speaking of those who had joined the church
in good faith and then had outgrown their creeds; but we never claimed them as good Liberals. They are simply
infidels of the church sort, or half-grown liberals—those who cannot quite cast the shell. (misrep. 3.) With regard to
the Treaty—we ask if a President of the U.S., when he signs a treaty, does not endorse all that is contained therein,
whether he is the author of it or not? In our last we asked the question, “When have we abused Christians?” S. says,
“This is smart of you when you call the God of the Bible partial, jealous, fickle, &c.” We did not know before that
Jehovah claimed to be a “Christian,” neither had we heard that he objected or pleaded “not guilty” to the charges
we preferred against him. If our volunteer champion thinks Jehovah is not able to take care of his own reputation
against the attacks of a few infidels, and considers it his duty to defend his “Lord and Master,” why does he not
call upon us to prove our charges? Evidently he knew that they could be very easily sustained, and so the less
said about it the better. Let us see. We called him “partial.” How could he have a “peculiar people”? How could he
destroy the Canaanites to make room for Israel? How could he love Jacob and hate Esau before either had an
existence, and not be partial? 2nd. Jealous.—He says himself, “I the Lord thy God am a jealous God,” &c.; and
certes, his whole history affirms this self-impeachment.

3rd. Fickle.—Was he not fickle when he so frequently repented of what he had done? As in the days of Noah, when he
repented that he had made man at all, and drowned them all like so many blind puppies, except Noah and his family;
and as he had to repent so often afterward (for instance, when he repented that he had put himself to so much trouble
with the Israelites and wanted to “consume them in his wrath”—so furious was he that it required all the eloquence of
Moses to turn him from his purpose), it would seem that it would have been better for him to have drowned the whole
batch. Then, having learned something from experience, he might have made a race not quite so “prone to iniquity.”
Query: After being a preacher of righteousness for 120 years, was not Noah’s a rather bad case of “backsliding” when
he so soon became conspicuous as a drunkard—a profane man—cursing his own grandson; also the first advocate
and chief pillar of pro-slaveryism, consigning his grandson and all his posterity to perpetual slavery? Surely Jehovah
made a bad selection in saving this old sinner from whom to stock a drowned world with a new and better race! Was
he not fickle and cruel also when he repented that he had made Saul king, simply because the latter had shown himself
more humane than his master in the matter of Amalek—when, for this reason alone, he was deposed from the kingship
and the more cruel and bloodthirsty David—“the man after God’s own heart”—was elevated to the position? In fact, so
very fickle did Jehovah become that he declared to Jeremiah, “I am weary with repenting.” (Jer. XV. 6.) 4th. Deceitful.
The instances of his deceitfulness are really so numerous that it would fill a volume to give them all. One must suffice.
Paul says, “For this cause shall God send them strong delusions, that they should believe a lie, and that they all might
be damned,” etc. Could anything more atrocious than this be imagined as coming from the Father of mercies? 5th.
Revengeful. “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” In the laws of Moses Jehovah says, “He that sheddeth
blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” (And yet Jehovah is reckoned a
good Christian!) In their practice, which do Christians generally follow—Jehovah or Jesus—in this matter of revenge?

6th, 7th, 8th. Tyrannical, murderous, robber God. Is it necessary to specify instances to show that these counts in
the indictment are true? Let anyone read the books of Numbers, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, etc., and then say, if he
can, that these charges are not fully sustained by the history as given by his own peculiar people. Is it not about time
that Jehovah reform his record, or that his advocates and apologists cease to hold him up as a being worthy to be
addressed as “Our Father who art in Heaven”? It is charged against us that we “manifest such a deadly enmity against
Christianity, and prejudice seems so to blind your mind to every argument in its favor that you are incapable of treating
this subject fairly.” To this we once more reply that a man’s prejudices sway him in the direction of the teachings of his
youth and early manhood. We—that is, the writer of this, together with a large majority of Liberals—were brought up
in the fold of so-called orthodox Christianity—were taught by good fathers and mothers to revere the Bible as the
infallible “word” of the Creator and Preserver of all things. Hence our prejudices were all in favor of Christianity, and
not against it. And we solemnly aver and believe that today we have no malignant feelings toward true Christianity.
On the other hand, we cherish, teach, and try to practice it—not because it was taught by him of Nazareth, but because
we believe that it embodies the true system of ethics or morals. “Do unto others as ye would that they should do unto
you” is the very essence of true Christianity—it is the “Christ Principle”—taught not only by the Nazarene, but by
Confucius, the Chinese Christ, hundreds of years before Jesus was born, and by many others to whom the surname
“Christ” as rightfully belongs as it does to him of Bethlehem and Nazareth. Bible readers do not need to be told that
the word “Christ” does not signify an individual—that it means “anointed” or “endowed.” If Jesus ever had a personal
existence—if he is not simply a personification or embodiment of a principle or a set of principles—he was endowed
with certain gifts beyond the lot of ordinary mortals.

He had the gift of healing to an extraordinary degree; also that of clairvoyance and psychometry, or mind-reading.
But these gifts and powers were by no means peculiar to him. They were not his exclusive inheritance. They are
the common heritage of the race—of all men and women; but in most persons they are undeveloped or possessed
in so slight a degree as to attract no attention. In all ages of the world, however, there have, no doubt, lived those to
whom the cognomen “Christ” rightfully belonged. Today, scores of men and women in Europe and America possess
these powers and exercise them in the same way that the Nazarene did. Like him, too, they teach, “Whatsoever ye
would that others should do to you, do ye even so to them.” In other words, love to all men, good will—toleration to
all men; i.e., Liberalism is what they teach. Hence we claim that Liberalism and true Christianity are synonymous
terms. Hence, also, we say that so far as modern Christians deny to others the rights and privileges that they claim
for themselves—so far as they persecute others for opinion’s sake—just so far have they apostatized from true
Christianity. And as we claim, and are prepared to show, that all churches calling themselves orthodox Christian
are intolerant—that they are not willing to allow to others the privileges they claim for themselves—therefore they
have forfeited the right, as organizations, to the name of Christianity, and that their more appropriate appellation.