Prescott journal. [volume] (Prescott, Wis.) 1861-1871, 1870-09-14


P.S.-To the Recording Secretary: |
know two or three goo6 places.
Rev. MIR. Gill and ssPrivate" Letters.
EDITORS Observation-Disclosures
To day, Sept LIST, | received from a
friend copy of Mr.. ellis letter. publish
ed in your paper of Aug. 18th. In his
first letter his charge against ma was that
betrayed his confidence by publishing
private letter. Through your columns |
denied, emphatically, that we held any
private correspondence whatever. He
labors through LOG lines of print, and
utterly fails to give a line Of proof in sup
port of his charge; or that | even treated
hum uncourteousIy. lie now reduces his
complaint to the fact that his letter was
"unfit to publish" That is his own fault.
rot mine. If he said all of his letters
were unfit TO publish would be disposed
to believe Kim. According to his deb
milton all correspondence between gentle.
men, is "strictIy confidential" Our cor
respondeuce was concerning Genesis and
Geology, a continuation, in fact, of our
public talk. Exceedingly private that
correspondence must have been!
There is one feature that does not ex-
hibit Mr.. Gill in favorable light. He
reiers to but one letter written by me 10
himself. Does he mean to say that he
received but one from from me! This
is the impression he seeks to make. de
is sIen, as the grave about my last letter.
written at the .sidence of Mr. Barb. in
Prescott. aud mailed to his address at
River Falls; aud which would have been
returned to me if he had not received it.
I wrote tn him before leaving River Falls,
and wrote again while was in Prescott.
Mr.. Morse and myself held correspon-
dence, personal in character, and he Free
ly granted permission TO publish. have
,, always considered it point Of honor to
hold confidence reposed in me as sacred
as my life. Mr.. Gill's attempt to create
prejudice against me, and my religion, is
transparent. Instead of discussing prin
ciples in public debate which he says is
not to his s.taste," he seeks controversy
about personalities. To me, a good,
rousing discussion of principles would be
far more pleasant, and, believe, more
beneficial to the community. than this
personal matter between Mr.. Gill and
myself. Yet, as am the party accused.
for me to have remained silent would
have been virtual acknowledgment that
his charges were true.
The psdantry manifested by him IN
parading e list of books, most OF them
dealing more with theology than geology,
beirays tho fact that geological science is
to him novelty. After ga few evenings
reading" Of the works Of theological &c
ologists he will be prepared to enter up.
on the study of "simon pure" science.
This is reversing the natural order of
things, for science should be studied with.
out reference to theological bias. But
to expect clergymen to study science with
out endeavoring to rpit into sup
port of their theology is contrary TO their
nature. There are few honorable ex
cepliops, very few. The most sagacious
cIergymen declare that the Bible does not
teach science, anil was not intended to
teach IL; but rather to instruct men con-
corning their souls.
Hugh Miller, one Of the authors in
Mr.. GiI's list, tried to reconcile irrecon-
, cilable Genesis and Geology, aud went
crazy in the attempt. Another of MIR.
ellis authors, John Pyc Smith. had a
''litlls preserve Of chaos, ten miles
square, which. he represents, that Deity
carefully fenced in, and did not put on
exhibition until six thousand years ago.
Moses when small boy, ATTAINED dead
head ticket to the Show, anil that is how
we came to bear about it. Hon. Horace
Mann. commenting upon some of Smiths
silly statements, says. "What a disgrace
ful instance is this Of the tenacity with
which theological preconceptions are held
10 defiance. of philosophical truth" ri
If we need any further proof that
Horace Mann was right, take another Of
Mfr. ellis fayorite authors. DR.. Thomp-
son, who says. mo fact declared by
Science can be accepted as true. il 10 con
| fiicts with spy statement made in the