CORRESPONDENCE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 958, 9 July 1881, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

MISTAKE. *- 1 frM j r> . TO THEtftTTOfc’ Sik,-—Perniit me to correct a few trifling errors—imyour notice of my - lecture. You 1 say s—“ our Saviour even did not -escape the lecturer’s attention, and he compared it with Dr. Tanner’s 40 days’ fast.” As a mere matter of fact, I may state that I did nothing of the sort. In speakifegf of the alleged 49 days’fast of Buddha, I remarked that he had beaten Dr. Tanner by 9 days ; and in referring to the supposed miracles of Moses, I suggested that his fast of 40 days need not be attributed to supernatural power, as Dr. Tanner had proved that the same feat could be performed without supernatural aid. You express an opinion that study has caused my brain to be “ exercised beyond its normal limits." lam not quite clear as to what meaning you wish to convey by that curiously worded sentence ; but it has been suggested to me that you wish, in an euphuism to convey an idea.that lam mad. If that is ypuy idqa, »ybfl mA udder illusion. Insinuating that a man is mad is no answer to his arguments. Let those who think me mad endeavor to prove their opinion right. Apparently the only foundation for the idea is the fact that on the subject of religion my ideas differ from those commonly entertained. Put it to the proof ; let any supporter of • Christianity (either from the clergy, or the laity) meet me in public debate, and try whether my opinions are traceable to insanity, or whether I exhibit any symptons of madness in my conduct*of the Freeth ought sideref the cape. I here publicly announce that I am willing to. meet anyone of tire resident in public debate, oh any Sunday afternoon, or evening, which may be appointed ; and I may remark, in this connection, that I sent free passes for my lecture, to all the local clergy, inviting them to speak in opposition to me, but the contest was tacitly declined. Perhaps this public invitation will receive more attention. Some of these Reverend gentlemen have been forward enough in attacking Freethought, while speaking from their pulpits, where, they well know, they are safe from any answer or argument ; but, apparently, they are not so ready to submit their professed opinions to the test of a public debate, where rfAe other side would also have a chanceof being heard. “ Free discussion can never injure truth ; ” that is the belief of the Freethinker, and therefore I am hot afraid to face “ free discussion.”

In reference to your concluding sentence, I may say that I had no expectation of making a crowd of converts on my very first appear* ance ; it is sufficient for", me t' at the more respectable and intelligent portion, did appear interested, and I am sorry that the noise and confusion caused by the conduct of some few “ larrikins ” compelled me to abridge my lecture. By inserting this explanation, you will oblige.—l am &c., Frank W. Sidney. [The objectionable paragraph was constructed from notes taken down during the lecture, and which, are believed to be correct. —Ed. P.B.S.]