Correspondence.

Thames Star, Volume XI, Issue 3470, 7 February 1880, Page 2

Correspondence.

These columns are open to all correspondence of pubMc interest, but we do not hold ourselves repnonaiblc lor the opinions of writers.. Correspondence must in all sascs be authenticated by the real name and address of the writer—not necessarily for publication, but as a. ;ruarantee of good faith.

(To the Editor of tho Evening Stab.)

Sib, —Would you permit me to make a few remarks upon Mr Vidal's lecture last Friday night week. He said tho object of Fathers Kenneberry and Chiniquy was money. This I suppose neither of them will deny, nor yet ou«ht they to be condemned for this if they only apply that money to a good purpose, I think it is possible and probable that both those men are siucere, but sometimes those sincere men do a great deal of harm. There was a lime when sincere men thought they were doing God a good service by killing those that did not think on religious matters as they did, and many people are of the opinion that those two men did more barm than good. The most prominent feature in the Christian religion is that we should be 'good and kind one to another. The visit of those tiro men have produced the opposite of this. We know many of the dogm >s of the Catholic religion would not bear the light of the Scripture and reason to shine upon them ; neither would the priests allow it to be I tried by those * two tests; but is. Mr Chiniquy and his party quite sure tha£ j they havo absolute truth on their side?

This is.the rub. Thousands think they have not. If they would but admit that their conclusions are not infallibly correct, this idea would have a tendency to drown the bitterness and bounce out of them. This terrible notion of infallibility does a fearful amount of harm ; it is. this which is at the foundation of all persecution, when the Catholics have the notion deeply rooted that their church is infallibly correct, and no one can get to heaven but those that die within her pale. Once take this for granted,'then all the mischief follows. Burning the bodies is of little moment, if by doing so they could save their souls. When two opposite parties are sure that they are both correct they think it quite right to do anything to get the other over to them: all persecution commences here. In Mr Vidal's lecture he lays a charge against Christianity of a dogma that it does not teach: I mean, what is called the vicarious sacrifice, when he referred to the appeasing of God's wrath by offering to him human sacrifice as being a part of Christianity. But, strange to say, Christ never taught this, although it is taught by most of the Christians as being the main point in the Gospel; so much so, that some call this one doctrine the Gospel. The idea is that God's wrath could not be appeased, nor his justice satisfied without a great sacrifice. The old heathens had this notion at first that God was a revengeful being, and must have someoueto rack his revenge upon, and the Jews retained the foolish notion. Bat. it was the professors of Christianity that got the right idea of a right sacrifice—neither lambs, bullocks nor human sacrifice would do for them. They must have God the Son to offer as a great sacrifice to turn away the. wrath of God the Father from the human race. Many Christians are truly thankful that Christ never taught ..this most absurd doctrine. There are a few passages in the Epistles of the Apostles that might ba made use of in trying to prove it, but I never knew any one try to prove it from Christ's own sayings. We hare a just cause of complaint against the two parties—the Christians for teaching a doctrine that Christ never taught, and the Free-thinkers for grounding a false charge against Ghriatianitj^upon; it;—-I am,'&C, J. HOBN. February 4th, 1880.