Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1852-1859, 1852-12-23

citizens. ..s.I...,-
We must do our Reverend Friend, the author Of
the following the justice say that his article
not the result of an examination of the Professor
book ON Phreno- Geology. His communication Is
mainly series ofnterrogatoriest to which the boob
itself will furnish the only dsbatable answers, and
that we cannot, Of course, republish. We thought
we had distinctly answered his frst queries as ~
what the book says upon certain points
Gu: Reverend Friend seems determined to make
US tell what we meant when we said of the Pro
fessors theory that, Phrenologically, it was no
heard to believe; but theologically, twas ques-
ton with US how much harder twas to believe
'-t6aa tle Fence 81 GEOLOGY 1tselE. Any vague
nessAn thimere iutiu ationat an opnioniCand it is
the only thing in the shape IAN opinion that We
: advanced,J win be entirely removed when we say
that the theory appeared to not with
the assumptions of Phrenology, but rather a new
featnre in the science of Geology-a step in ad-
vance of the researches of other Biologists. We
infer, however, that our Reverend Friend rejects
Geology, and therefore rejects all theories based
upon it. ..g.,. 7r.s sa.. ur
, We will dismiss the subject with reference to
aFhe1e Improperly belongs Professor Grimes and
his book. A theological discussion with Us IS in
appropriate in our columns, and we do not think
the public care any thing about what zoe believe
respecting any system of theology. Wetrust that
our friend in future will base his remarks on the
,Professors owa admissions of his theory, and that
he will give the subject thorough sitting, and that
the Professor Will not shrink from such investi-
cation. ..r -a" t.
4, MEsaAs. EnmoRs:-In your paragraph on MI
-GimeS work, headed, PHRENo- GEoLOoT, in Sat
urdayspaper, you say, ave do not wonder that
some OF the old theorists got into the Professor
hair, when he announced this new and startling
system Phrenolsgcally, it is notTery hard to be-
!lieye. Eheologically, it is question with us,
,consideriRgthe opinions long entertained by some
very respectable people in regard to the creation
of map ,how much harder it is to believe than the
Science of Geology itself.'' You also speak of
,i''the cratic notions of the work. and "the expo
sition, of the new and wonderful theory"
Now. all thatI know about thus new, and won
,,derfnl theory or these cratic notions, was what
.Yo9 had stated, and what have gathered from
hearing. with deep attention, one of the Profess
or's Lectures, AudI suppose my knowledge was
at least equal to ninety huRdredths of your read
ers. Notbeing able tocsmprehend things so new
and startling. nor being of that mental calibre, by
which all enatie notions me comprehended in a
moment, / felt to tresPas upon your good nature,
by asking you a few questions. I;perceived and
admired the caution manifested in your statements;
and in fact, they appeared to me to be made with
a kind Of Qasi faith, aRd that the opinions enter
1nined by many very respectable people had made
too deep an impress, to allow you to swallow the
nosttum al atOnce. agl.H /.
But did hope that the good Professor would
have helped sou out of the slough of dispond, to
use Bnnyan phrase. as he seems to understand
that.dialeci, and that ieWould have condescended
10 enlighten the darkness Of ensuiring minds
Conceive thea. ID my, great surprise and. disap-
pointment vhenI read the remarks appended to
my communication in Mondays paper, and found
that they made darkness only more visible. / was
deeply anxious to understaHd the theory, whether
the successive Developments If the organs, and
functions ofthe brain, had reference TO tbs human
bvGiu, AID whether the ages that elapsed between
the organisation of the lowest and highest phreno
organs, referred to man, or to other works of the
4Gteat Creator. In reply to these important en-
quiries, am told, that the organs and functions
of the brain, have been gradual and progressive
J again ask WHAT, THE HUMAN BRAINl ssa ..saI
Youinfom your readers Hthat Mr.. Grimes recog-
nzes the truth of the book of Genesis" But then
not as commonly interpreted. "Thatits literal in
depreciation cannot be sustained by the facts of
geology" And your quotation from Mswork says,
THAT the book of Genesisis not to be construed
literally, when il SEEMS inconsistant with natural
science" H S
THE Professor does not seem to be aware, that
there might possibly be deficiency in our natural
science, and this seeming inconsistency might lie
in our ignorance and not in divine revelation We
may not as yet have penetrated the whole arena of
nature, nor fully comprehended, as the oREAT FOR
MEH has, the heights and depths of his mighty
works. Scholars shouldtry to understand the abb
Struse, by the plain, and the unknown. by the re-
vealed But we often Try to reverse their natural
order. "''i 'h ..'''. '''''
s.'The physical doctrines and illustrations tof
Genesis)he tells us 'belong to barberous age, and
may be rejected with propnety." This is amazing
ly Aippant, and modest in a man that processes TO
6eliege in the truth Of the Bible. Was Moses
Gods 6manuensis? and if 50, was the l'iUiTe Be-
ing under the influence Of barbarism7 Has the fact
81 our being able s.to look through the telescope
tube of scieaee," either enlightened or civilized
The 4bnighty astrltetOr of Mosesa Is it doing any
honor to Code YO!k OF our souls, to admit its in
spiraoD, and then to lay claim to interpret it to
suit our crude theoties2 1t is not captious dispo
siton. that induces the writer thus to present the
subject. butt is a real desire to understand the
subject IT, indeed he has at all comprehended this
darkness profound. he viii be obliged to take is
sue. both With the supposed geological fact, and
OfconSequsnoe, with the conclusions. '
iaal il2foS' ~ JOHN WINTER.
.----------.l 49, --G--- rl, lflrt
acoAtNo.-A new musical arrival is shortly .ex-
peeted in the perDon of Louis Moreau GottschaIk,
a nn,nn Arnnrinnn nnrnr,,,-ar. and ninniai Ynnnri