| Show I l An Ar um nt i nt Kit Is l i it the t he to an tUl editorial In the tho Halt tAlc tnie In It t m ot an tin article In tho hO DOB io crot News on tint the of ot the tho of ot nt revelation rita Tha pail poil Ion lon taken token by the NeWa News on n question In Ii I entirely by Ilia th Trl tun and nud are to toft ft point vt Ho lii own creation This Is Ii fM hd ch basis of ot lt It I r The New ji on 01 tho n a e who object to tho t of t nuch testimony by the to urn In Itt tho prin elf ji Of t front from rom UotI Is Ii i I all at unwarranted rhe ie met last Sentence In tho foregoing foro going tho tim rent reet ot of tho quotation io News New ew dill did not lot say cay or 01 o inter Infer or Jj nt t at it any nn oh o at assumption On file tuo contrary tho the News Newe stated em ern emphatically that auch testimony could itt IKI ho and nd wa vati not received ite It evl ovi by br b a court Is Ii I our exact all on that Question Qu j one that wo vo Q have havo heard of or pre pra pret t nUs lot n a moment that It was voe given Iven received an Ri I evidence against It wan Vall simply iIRI an nn Incident that linn IlIn have no real cai bearing upon ullon tho the cn f o which lute hull ct ot to be e tried before n jury f fr explaining the tho way WRY In which tho the je wae drawn from the tho ber tho the News said Tho decision that the tho defendant be bo held hold tn to tho the court fur for trial OM pot not affected In any way 1 by tia t r ply of the to that loot ilAU jj All Mi the tho comments ot of tho the Tribune are l utterly wasted waited They form lorm cm h argument that floes does not tit lit Wo We avo not ot et a II thought md cat OK itc that t lt real r or pretend pretended cJ ed be made e applicable to court procedure t Yet tin Ihl thc Tribune edi editorial t i that we have II Vo taken that rr td that o who wile object are aro j disbelievers i b In the principle ot of rovola ilon i ii from God Well we believe In inho iho ho ty principle of ot revelation from God and id yet wo we 0 object and hove have plainly i t our out objection ol to 10 the th reception of testimony an no evidence In h a 1 court courtiL iL Y more Ilore completely the tho Tribune could uld misrepresent our views and our QUI utterances H on OH this subject tall tail to top perceive p For tho the Information of at that paper wo we 0 wiil tty say that no ouch testimony would io lie received ns nR a evidence In the Iho ho courts cf ot this thu Church against an nn accused per vor mien fion No ono one cut can bo be condemned therein fn anything but real evidence Such n a as ci that elicited by b cose In the tho Justices court not flOt bo be admitted In a 1 trial for tor Church fellowship t The Tho Tribune tine has ono oft off on a 1 tangent nt and strayed far farnay ar aray nay ay from tho the subject t of tho the News Newa which It attacks The Tribune i aya y further The Tha question of or revelation U Ii not Is an In assertion that either F nt lly ot of mind or Dr a t disposition o pervert I rh The Monday mornings pa j b fl published a synopsis of a discourse iy r k a n preacher on Sunday In I he lIe denounced the tho Idea of present I I II Ir revelation r as ai a Ho Ito ridiculed hi claim of ot any one ono nowadays to lu 1 ig divine communication Uon as ne profess prore mif to have havo a n private wire with God And Aid that this title wa not Intended merely fis Ii Jl applicable to the race cane of ot the tho n court cO tt Is Ii I evident by the tho ministers that JNo No good win can come from a I man pr pre preen Sending en to receive revelations from God Ou 1 IBS N 8 a ad demonstration ln n of ot the tho truth of ot tho the Our argument on the tho subject of pits pree p l nt revelation t WAS we to that pulpit assertion nl and not In support of oC revolution OH evidence In III a CL court Here Her Heris is I what w nt wo we OId on that point The Preacher on Sunday repudiated Immediate revelation entirely unit und de to declared c cl t ed It could not stand before the aW nOr as nS te tho the Oo 1 It n will be bo read red readily ily JI fl admitted thet that testimony concerning a revelation ar from God will not Bland bore before the UN law lw as nil evidence mi no r i accused norton rt n nut flut con can It b be ex us ev 11 dence relating to the Gas Gos Gospel pel pell We th tha n showed from th tb the the UIO prea professes to receive as the only KUM rott 1111 in religion that revelation from O C Cud id t U is lInn nn ILO c feature of ot the Gospel and that tact without It man cannot I t oW fird kd rd or nr that thet Jesus la Is tho the Christ That Is the t subject of the N Nes edl edt torand ind It hill has been blen completely com avoid c Cl i 1 I In th tl 1118 which Is Isn I ld n argument that does doe not fit nt 1111 mn who are re In ill 1 I m Int or modern modem revolution CT i on the tl tHI n n a wanted to 10 know why wh If It Od Oo d tot ak i 1 to 10 Abraham he be could coul not talk tatk wit wIL n II men man nowadays And fur tur tb thi e t th tI y v rols raised e l 1 the th pertinent P query quer h vii ri n could rationally Irot lp tp be s of q God G to preach If there was WAI no such as a communication from God In tho the present acre o The are pertinent and ap tip and they the form tonn an argument that really do s fit If JC C God ha Irne UfO ti preachers who into claim to U UI lie wilt lent Iet ot Him and nod who not act ct on a n P claim of ot authority performing or o In the name of Deity Dolt there must have havo been some eom communication trout front Him to thorn or ot o to poisons who ordained ol them thom It If there that II U no such luah In III modern tiptoe then nil all th thI lt claims of ot divine Ate r re a pr t nies unworthy of ot the attention ot of human Now let It H be understood that tho the thoD D DS ret New Neis Ne haM not nOl at nt any Iny time taken th the position lly od ad to It by the Ite Tribune Wo We have not uttered 1 a i supporting the tho Idea I that ft ti court secular I or should admit as n evidence against mi an d p leilon testimony like that ex cx from ft II In the cne which line been s sent ut to tho the district court for Cor or trial And If It our rooming contemporary ary nr will have bave the this to lo read rend our remarks remark with oare care we WI think It ii will have the simile fairness to acknowledge thai hut It II has madl a bl bIg unit and hint i the lh headline on U its HII attempted criticism I Is III strictly le to IU lIe It own hasty remarks |
