New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1847-01-16
Prof. Busb's Reioinder 10 Prof. Lewis.


To he Editor Of The TrtbuHe
The admission Of Prof Lewiss Reply into the
columns OF The Tribune affords. at any rate, some
what Of a sample Of the justice Of such heathen
print in striking contrast with that OF the Christian
New.York Observer To the charges and insinuaiions
brought against in that paper BY Prof l. was not
permitted reply and il solely for that reason that
the columns Of The Tribune were opened TO me- Ny
opponent had not the shadow Of claim 70 be heard
through any organ but his Ny Reply never
reach even moety Of those who will be prejudiced BY
the misrepres enstOns Of that article with the utmost
prOpriety might the Editors Of The Tribune say" You
have chosen your field Of debate. From that teld Prof
has been excluded. What claim have you upon
columns Nevertheless, II the Observer will admit
his article we too may, from courtesy admit yours. -
But the privilege has been granted without condition..
This regret mainly for the reason that II compes
70 uesPass again on the good nature which ought TO
have been spared another draft however puDgent the
rebuke It's nobleness administers to the narrow policy
Of the Observer.
cannot Of course but be exceedingly psined to find
myself brought ntoa position OF direct sntagonism with
q former friend and official associate and that mainly
questions Of verscy But the history Of the case Is
very simple. published certain statements respecting
the Lectures Of young Davis and gave opinion to
their general scientific merits not iota OF which do
retract spoke Of them as wonderful from the isct,
that the young was uneducated and had never &C
quired his information from books. This said could
be proved from the circumstances OF mis- history and
equations during the time in which, II ever he must
have made the ACQUISITIONS being utterly al variance with
the idea Of the requisite researches Inc inference
therefore 10 which came was. nht sOfnetng Of ne a.
pnaturql was necessarily 20 be supposed in accounting
Tor the facts AZ the time was express IN the In
tmatOn thst this assumed origin Of the disclosures did
not require the supposiuon That everything advanced
must OF course be because We have no reason 10
believe that all the influences from the Spiritual world are
absolutely iufslibc inssmuch all the spirits Of that
world which act upon men whetherin a normal or alb
ol aFtf,fp
affirmed yet affirm that in view OF all the facts in
the case the revelations so 20 term them were out oil
measure astonishing
Now what 10 obviously requisite IN ue atfHPt 10
Offset the force OF this statement and the consequent in
ference, II the opponent denies the sounoness OF my
opnun as 10 the intrinsic worth of what given forth
ne bound 10 show that he has had good better
opportunities for Judging Of H. or that with the same
opportunities he better qualified to judge than am
Prof L. very clearly assumes the latter IN winch shall
not dispute with him but 10 the actual opportuui-
ties enoyed the fact H. have now read or heard nut
dred Ot the Lectures he has read or heard four OF re
And yet upon this ground he ventures TO come
before the public and denounce the whole mass OF
bombastf nonsense" ngmsrole &c. with the very
courteous intmaton that my scenthc attachments are
not such qualify me Tor forming reliable opinion
on the subject ain not aware OF ever having profess
ed profound acquaintance with the sciences but still
hope may venture to deem myself capable OF dstin
gushing between and nonsense In scientific mat
and of forming just opinion oil the prtncpes
involved discussions OF this nature. My opponent
saws II Prof is sti willing 20 endorse this cOnernp
tibe humbug II he is It'll willing 10 connect his repu
tson as man and scholar with the science displayed
in these Lectures oil can Is would have been glad
to save him from suicidal act My answer to this
ls very brief do not hesitate one moment 70 endorse
all have endorsed of them, and Prof l.. knows very
well that this s not an absolute endorsement on the
score OF the intrinsic verify OF everything contained IN
them and that the great fact which weighs with is
the fact that they the product OF book learning
the point which he necessarily and studiously avoids
He deter mined not TO perceive that the grand
mn NJ q
terate young has discoused sensbly and ably on
vast variety Of topics Of which IN bis ordinary state
he s entirely ignorant This lie the true point at issue
and all the homes that can be preached about either
his heresss mine IL mere beating the air
As TO the ability evinced in the discussion II this Is
disputed can only say that have vastly more ground
for affirming II than Prof l.. has for denying It, man
is not apt however to much ability In anything that
goes counter his cherished dogmas IN religion
have idea therefore that Prof. L. would agree with
the verdict OF the public even II they should concene
the merit of undenabe truth TO the contents OF these
Lectures because there doubt that they do many
points conravene established ideas and interpretations
Taking for granted the correctness Of these ideas how
be any merit in what is opposed to themi How
can one who sticks the lsn Of Genesis any truth
| In the conclusions OF Geology
Prof. L. says, have repeatedly been urged by Prot
| b. to investigate this matter, and challenged to
show the nvadity OF the grounds ON which his mar
vellous assumptions rested Certainly he has and my
complaint s that the challenge has not been accepted
distinct proposition investigate the whole affair was
made At the outset by the gentlemen associated with
Davis which was distinctly declined by Prof l. and al
understand for the reason that the alleged revelations
contrary to Scripture, and therefore not entitled
TO investigation
But Prof l. is now brought by the charge OF false
hood, to which he replies 81 reaffrm then that he
tened a long lecture OF Davis when, SC This be Il
observed IL a reafhrmation. Let now see the affirm
| alton. We must confess that after hedriRS hin for
hours" &c Here is something OF modhesnon' 70 ssy
the least ButwhAtwss the simple fact Prof L. called with
me at Mr. d s rooms who when We entered was IN the
midst OF lecture which usually occupy about two hours
each. lie sat listener perhaps ~ minges-pefhaps
half an hourcertanly not more lie lei al any rate De-
fore the lecture was concluded This all he heard
OF the dcrdN of the Lectures Now am willing 10 sup
pose lapse OF memory anything that VIII larry re-
concile the large affirmation with the fact The TACT
however, is precisely AS have stated And should De
perfectly willing have my judgment OF the seienunc
merit OF this Lecture and OF many others tested by the
very portion of which Prof L. himself heard but ~
was evident then as has been since that the real
marvel OF the case viz that an unlettered youth who
knew nothing about Geology should discourse III style
which he is willing 10 compare with the estges OF
Creation. made the least impression upon him. Win
me this the great thing which makes the impression
for the simple that after the most thorough eA
animation am perfectly satisfied OF his prior ignorance
| Prof l.. will say OF course that | have no sufficient
ground for being satisfied But this he does not know,
can he know II ill he has examined and this am
persuaded be will not do, SO long as he thinks res1mp-
ton entitled TO nuiy testimony 1t Is easy 10 see tnst
the shoe pinches the pit OF the stomach II Daviss
is true Ia the character claimed Tor IT, then Swe
denborg true and it Swedenborg true then several
other things are not true ana hence the uouoie-hHc
/ lie ldcrya0
In respect to the biblical points my position is easily
defined. have, at no time implied in what have said
that the Lectures do not in various particulars conflict
with the literal an 'he popular construction of
the Scriptures whether regard 10 the creation OF man
the deuge the passage of the Red sea- &c In denying
accuracy OF Prof LIS sverments on this score have
not assumed to maintain that what David did say was
throughout in accordance with what generally held In
regard to the meaning of the Mosaic narrative lie does
say for instance that the creation OF the animal races
progressive from the lower 70 the hghorihai the
marsupials next in order 10 man-ihat Adam and
Eve were indviduals-snd that the human race had
vastly higher antiquity than would be inferred from
the letter of Geness All this the reader viii accept or
reject as he sees it'll have made denial respecting H.
But denied that the Lectures warranted the impress
sion naturally conveyed by Prof LIS language, that
man was originally monkey, and this ] snll deny
The point affirmed the Lectures Is the progressive dc
rsopcmeRf Of races of which the human the last
and In this matter he is far from standing alone In
deed, Moses himself informs that the animals were
created prior to man.
SO also the deluge the Lectures do undoubtedly
give view Of this event different in many respects,
irom that which would be taken from literal reading
o. tne history They represent il as real and iremen
aoes catastrophe but absolutely universal in
de- a,tth a htr.a with