The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1867-03-21
THURSDAY; IL MARCH 81 267.
GCoMSlUNIcATED.1 !
JACKSON c. H., Ohio,
L. March 9. 1867. [

~ uASkLEf--oT: In the StdIddrt
OF March 7th, you make some comment
on a lecture, delivered by me before th,
Jackson Debating Society, 'hich induces
me to ask you to publish a brief synop
sis of that lecture. 'E'I -
II your remarks, concerning what
said, were not so peculiarly MackEar
and conflicting as to cause some, who
were not present, to be in doubt as tc
what really did say, would not. ask
you to publish any communication Of
mine; because | believe that little hon.
Or ever attaches to parties engaged in q
newspaper controversy, and am aware
OF the, great disadvantages one labors
under, when engaged in such contro,
versy with the proprietor Of a count,
paper-especially if he be somewhat
unserupulous. - =
You say you take the liberty to refer
to my lecture because-in your cbaste
and forcible language--I "made q fling
at" you. a "a s,.., rnse :
| - VI" you ulSCOVer Ine hing
Mr, 'Mackley? VAST where / said, that.
a lecture, more than mere speech OF
extelnporaneOus harangue, should be
composed of the well digested ideas
and fully matured thoughts of the lee
turer! Il assure you, had no thought
OF you at the time wrote that SEN
tence, neither had |, when I uttered
it, las astonishing as it may seem to
you.l - lzTs1-rg' -oi51s-.irE
no Y You do not pretend to deny that as
sertion, do youl 10 baa a.aUf
Perhaps you thought / referred to YOU
when l said, ,-"OnIy in the dark COR
ners, where ignorance prevails,-where
even the marvellous light Of the Gospel
has not yet taken the scales from blind
eyes, do we find the opposers to the
deductions made BY scientific research 4
l really wish to know in what part Of
my lecture gave you cause to think
that dared to @.J1iag" at YOU.
d. Will it be sufficient for me to assert,
on the honor of man, that, in all nv
remarks, which you SO eulogized as
to declare very similar ito Sir Charles
Lyel's style and lapguage,-I had no
thought Of you nor desire to "tlingn at
you. o vN~eA 'A,r = 1'l
Now, Mr.. Mackley, respecting what
you mag have read in Lyell, allow me to
say, without any desire to be personal,
that the individual, who says that used
any language but my o,pn, except when
| gave credit, is an unqualifed-Eur,
and he, who, by hints or the use Of
ambiguous words, seeks to intimate
such q charge, is infinitely more mean
than a bold liar. r.uar7. a'.a ,ei agl-
There is not an idea, in Lyelrs writ,
ings" resembling any idea in my lecture,
on Scienceahd Revelations, except, per-
haps, his belief that the Noachian flood
was notpniyersal; and you are, perhaps,
not so ignorant as not to know that
very many scientific men, as also many
theolOgians, entertain this same opinion
respecting the food. Perhaps even
that assertion was as original as your,
certainly, very practical remarks upon
the subject of dressing babies.
AS to Lalnarck, l suspect you never
saw any Of his writings. i certainly
never have; but l have read of the
Lamarckian theory that, ''new organs
could be produced in, animals by the
simple assertion of the will, called into
action by the creation of new wants."
and l discover that he was author Of
some writings on animals and plants
How these writings have to do with
Noah's flood, no one, but Mr.. Mackley,
or some one, who never heard more
than the name Of Lamarck, could pos
sibly discover.
Do you not think it would be we'll,
when you wish to make a criticism
the proper form of part of
speech, to refer, for authority, to some
work on English grammar? Brown,
PinneO, Green or Fowler, for instance.
If you would take the trouble to exam
inc either of those authors little more
closely than you have read Lyell or
Lamdrck ", you might, perhaps, learn
that the past tense Of the irregular verb,
"to spring" may be written Sprung" or
"'prang," and is 'uTtten either ,udy 6y the
best tcriters You will also learn that
neither shave sprang" nor shave
is apresent participle, as you
seem to think. aI
You say you do not know what / was
aiming at in my lecture, but it seemed |
to you that was trying to prove that
the flood, mentioned in the Bible, was
not universal &c.
= | cannot say what you understood,
but it seems to me singular that man,
80 professedly intelligent, should make
such a conflicting comment as YOU have
made. y sFli1 NU( so-'I4J
My effort was to show the bearings
Of Science upon Revelations. / claim |
ed, that Gods word and Gods work
mustharmonizein their teachings; that
there are two classes of men, who con-
tend that these sources Of information
do not thus harmonize-=-the infdel and
The anti-geologist; that could not
agree with either of these classes, and l
in my style, (Which Mr.. M,
kinks very similar to Sir Charles
Lyell's,1to show, that nature and reva-
alton, both, must teach of God and
each truly; that the one authority, when
eroDerlv understood .corroboratea 4hof