Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-09-15

thief and receiver of stolen goods This
sort of talk is, of course, wild, but there is
nothing like trying to fasten bad name.
II one can make so much smoke, il may be
inferred that there is more fire than there
Is. Even the new Christian Socialist or
gan in Boston, edited by man who does
not disown but adheres to the Rev has
filings at the Church in much the same in
discriminating way. And we were gravely
told in our club that the workingmen re-
gard the Church as opposed to them or
out of sympathy with them. And Chris
tan young men were reported as wont to
affirm that, as between a Christian en-
ployer and an unbelieving, they would
prefer the latter. What does Christian
mean in such an atfirmation-one who is
one, or one who only processes to be? So
what is the Church YOU are scolding
about, friend? For there are many mix
lures, said George Eliot, and they all 90
by the name love- So there are many
churches, but there are vast differences in
them. Is it the Church of the New
Testament of which you speak,"
The Caristiaa Union says: "The follow
ing letter was, as is evident from It's address
and tenor, not intended for publication. But
We venture to give it to our readers not
because of the kind words it utters respect.
ing the article in the North American Re.
| rielc, but because, coming from one of the
leaders of the bar in central New York
and approaching the question at issue be.
| tween Mr.. Hurley and the defenders OF
historical Christianity from the legal not
the theological point of view, its criticism
of philosophy which allows of only one
kind of evidence upon all questions, and
the emphasis which it puts on the necessity
of looking to moral evidence for demonstra.
ton of moral truths, have significance
which would not belong to like utterance
from preacher or theological teacher
The letter isvaluable as well as significant
because it indicates that the Christians
faith in historical Christianity rests on evi.
dence which is recognized in law as legiti
mate foundation for a legal Judgment:
Dear Brother Abbott: Glad to read your word
to Huxley IN the Rerteic: it meets need just a
| this time. Lack of mental discipline seems tc
| peryade the popular mind The principles O.
| the law of evidence furnish an answer to the
rgnostic, which do not see referred to in any
| of the articles upon the subject
These are, substantially:
~ The best evidence which the nature of the
proposed fact will allow is always to be re
quired: and.
(2.) No other or different evidence should bt
demanded.
Now, Mr.. Huxley does not kno1o that any sucf
man as Benjamin Franklin ever lived; and hC
will and must doubt the fact until credible liv
ing witnesses depose their personal acouaint
ance with him But because he died one hun
dred years ago, no living witness exists. There.
fore Mr.. Huxley continues to doubt. Now, evi
dence may be regarded as in two classes:
a. The class of which our FIVE senses take
cogniZance
q The larger class, appreciate by higher
faculty moral evidence
The evidence that God forgives sin is entirely
unappreciable by our five senses; the moral evi
dence-tirst that He teaches and requires us tC
forgive; second, the wondrous parable of tht
prodigal son, from the lips of our Lords quite
sufficient to establish the fact. Mr. Huxley ap
pears to dglosticize moral evidence, and contin
ues TO doubt.
wish you would follow up that article will
another. pointing out specifically to the com
mon mind the necessity of recurring to mora
evidence in order to establish moral truth
Affectionately your friend,
JAMES R. Cox
Auburn, n. Y, August 10, 1850