MR VIDAL IN REPLY.

Thames Star, Volume XI, Issue 3472, 10 February 1880, Page 2

MR VIDAL IN REPLY.

(To the Editor of tbe Srening Star.)

Sic, —Mr Home says that in my lecture, I charged Christianity with teaching a dogma which it does not teach, and then says he meant the vicarious sacrifice. Mr Home then goes on to say that Christ never taught it, although it it taught by most of the Christians as being the main point of the Gospel, so much so that some call this one doctrine tbe Gos* pel. Mr Home further admits that there are passages in the Epistles of the Apostles that might be made use of in trying to prove it. Mr Home winds up by saying, we hare a just cause of com* plaint against the two parties, the Christians for teaching a doctrine that Christ never taught, and the freethinkers for. grounding a false charge against Christianity upon it. Now, Mr Home.if this doctrine of vicarious sacrifice is taught by some of the Christians as being the main point of the Gospel, so much so, that some call this one doctrine the Gospel, and if it is taught in the Epistles of the Apostles how can you say that I have laid a false charge against Christianity. You must be well aware that the doctrine is constantly taught from the Pal pit. You say Christ never taught it. Had you been present at my lecture you must have observed that I separated what I believed Christ-taught; from the teaching of the Churches. I never accused Christ of ' teaching this dogma. I pointedly said that it was of pagan origin. Your idea of Christianity may be more correct than' that taught in the Churches, but as a lecturer I whs bound to treat of Christianity as taught in the Churches, and not according to the ideas ot individuals. Judging from some remarks in your letter your views in some respects are so similar to my own that I believe you only want a little more knowledge or a little more courage to become a Freethinker. Wiih regard to Fathers Henneberry and Chiuiquy, you say that I said that their object was money, but why did you not complete the sentence P I said thafcjtheir object was money, and their m&sion, disguise it as they may, the propagation of tbeir own religious opinions. I accused neither of the rev. gentlemen of a want of sincerity. I only showed how excessive zeal and the illogical nature of their minds rendered them unsafe guides. One of the rev. gentlemen, according to his own account, was blind for twenty five years. Might he not be a little nearsighted still P—l am, &c, .

Gbob&e- Vidal.