STEPHEN B.WEEIHS 
 
 CUSS OF 1886; PtiD. THE JOHNS HOPKINS IMVERStTY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 TIE WEEKS GOUSCFMN 
 
 BBBB ^feggsS SMBEB 
 
 C378 
 
 UK3 
 
 1878C 
 
UNIVERSITY OF N.C. AT CHAPEL HILL 
 
 00039136522 
 
 This book must not 
 be taken from the 
 Library building. 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2010 with funding from 
 
 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/folliesofpositivOOclin 
 
FL 
 
 M 
 
 rr 
 
 
 DAQITn^ BniTAQAB 
 
 1?L llllL 
 
 F! 
 
 1L 
 
 ADDRE 
 
 TO THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY NORMAL SCHOOL 
 
 OF 
 
 NORTH CAROLINA 
 
 DELIVERED AT 
 
 CHA.I>EIj HILL, JUNL £6, 1878, 
 
 BY 
 
 HON. T. L CLINGMAN. 
 
 R A L E I G II : 
 JOHN NICHOLS, BOOK AND JOB PRINTER. 
 
 1878. 
 
ADDRESS. 
 
 It is not my purpose to-day to discuss elaborately a particular sub* 
 ject, much less to attempt to make a rhetorical display. The line of 
 thought intended to be offered can be better presented in a lively con- 
 versational style, than by earnest declamation. Intellectual instruc- 
 tion can be more successfully conveyed in such a mode than by that 
 species of turgid declamation which, like the mock thunder of the 
 stage, attempts to impose itself on the ignorant for eloquence. 
 
 Even real eloquence which arouses the passions of men and drives 
 them forward under the enthusiasm of the moment, often fails to leave 
 distinct and permanent intellectual images on the mind. Jefferson 
 said that after Patrick Henry had concluded a speech, one could 
 scarcely remember what he had said. I have myself listened to 
 speeches, which wrought most strongly on my feelings, as well as those 
 of the audience present, and yet in several instances, after they were 
 finished, it was not possible to recall much of that which had produced 
 the impression. 
 
 A fine band of music greatly enlivens the imagination and excites 
 the feelings, but leaves no distinct intellectual images which can be 
 recalled. As so large a part of the audience I am now about to address, 
 consists of those engaged in conveying instruction to others, these sug- 
 gestions appear to be appropriate. 
 
 Since the beginning of the earliest historic ages, two branches of 
 science have been recognized and distinguished under the general 
 terms of natural and moral philosophy. The first confines itself to 
 the examination and investigation of material phenomena, while the 
 second deals almost exclusively with human thoughts and feelings. 
 In our day those who represent most distinctly the extremes of these two 
 classes of thinkers, may be designated as Positive philosophers on the 
 one hand and as Theologians on the other. 
 
 Instead of acting as allies, in the effort to advance human knowl- 
 edge, they are often found in antagonism to each other. And yet in 
 our day they often seem to carry on their warfare at so great a distance 
 from each other, that they remind us of the method in which the 
 Mexicans, in their civil revolutionary wars, do their fighting, viz: 
 by standing on opposite ridges so far apart, that they are able to dis- 
 charge all their ammunition without injuring any one on either side. 
 In fact they accomplish the Hudibrastic feat of "living to fight another 
 day," without taking the trouble to "run away." Perhaps a better 
 illustration might present itself, in a remark attributed to Prince 
 Bismarck, that war between Russia and England would be a fight 
 between an elephant and a whale. 
 
 From necessity the theologians devote much of their time to the 
 
(4) 
 
 examination and study of writers on moral and religious subjects. 
 But many of them do this so exclusively that they attempt to decide 
 the argument against the positive philosophers, by the authority of 
 the Bible alone. 
 
 As an illustration of their method, I mention this anecdote. On a 
 certain occasion I had a conversation with three Infidels, as to the 
 truth of the Scriptural views, &c. After they had, in the course of the 
 argument, been successively driven from other positions, one"of them 
 said, "if then it be true that there is one Supreme God, you cannot tell 
 whether He is a man or a woman." To close the discussion, I an- 
 swered, "That question is not material, for the authority and power 
 of queen Victoria in England is just as great as was that of her pre- 
 decessor, king William." An acquaintance of mine who had silently 
 listened to the argument, afterwards, when we were alone together, 
 said to me, "if you were as well posted on this subject as you are in 
 law and politics, you would have put those men down at once. Why 
 did you not tell him the Bible sa} 7 s 'He will do such things'?" It did 
 not occur to my friend, that if my antagonist had recognized the au- 
 thority of the Bible, there would have been no controversy between 
 us. By acquainting themselves better than they sometimes do with 
 the arguments of the Scientists, the Theologians would often meet 
 their objections more successfully, as a harpoon may be so skillfully 
 directed as to reach the monarch of the briny deep. 
 
 To-day I intend chiefly to occupy your time with considering the 
 views of their antagonists, the so-called positive philosophers. Many 
 of them are prone to ignore the great truths of moral science, though 
 they are just as evidently real as are the material existences which 
 our senses observe. 
 
 They, because they cannot ascertain the geometrical form of honesty, 
 or measure the specific gravity of anger or love, as compared with 
 hydrogen gas, do not appear to recognize the existence of such qualities. 
 
 As the views of this class of thinkers are exercising a dangerous and 
 mischievous influence on the minds of men, I propose to call your 
 attention more especially to them. When a man exhibits high intel- 
 lectual power, in connection with certain subjects, there is a tendency 
 in the human mind to adopt his views generally. There are few 
 greater fallacies than this. 
 
 If on entering a village as a stranger I should enquire for some one 
 to make a suit of clothes, a person might say to me, "Just across the 
 street you will find the best blacksmith in the country; he began the 
 trade at sixteen, and has closely pursued it for thirty years, and has 
 no superior." Ludicrous as would be the assumption, that because a 
 man was a good blacksmith he ought, for that reason, to be able to 
 make a suit of clothes or build a house, yet a similar mistake is often 
 made with respect to the opinions of men of great eminence in some 
 branch of science. In fact, their opinions are usually worth less, out- 
 side of the line of their immediate studies, than are those of well 
 informed persons, who have taken a general view of human knowledge. 
 
 I propose to make this evident by references to the opinions of cer- 
 tain gentlemen eminent in philosophic science. 
 
(M 
 
 Prof. John Tyndall is justly entitled to occupy the highest rank 
 among the great scientists of the day. His book on heat is a wonder- 
 ful production. You have all doubtless heard of his prayer test, as it 
 is called. Some years since he, with a view to determining the value 
 of prayer, commended a proposition to test the matter in this mode. 
 It was proposed that Christians generally should offer prayers for the 
 sick living in a certain ward or district of London. This system of 
 praying was to be kept up for the term of five years, and then a com- 
 parison should be made of the general health of the district during 
 this term with that which had existed for a like previous number of 
 years. In this manner it was asserted that the question would be 
 decided whether prayer was beneficial to mankind or not. 
 
 The moral elements which would seem to constitute a part of this 
 proposition may be better presented by a case like this; A and B 
 have each bet the sum of one thousand dollars on a horse race to come 
 off next Sunday. The terms are what the sportsmen call, "play or 
 pay;" that is, that each of the parties having put up his thousand 
 dollars, it is agreed that if either of them fails to make his appear- 
 ance his adversary is to take the stakes. A, being very anxious to win, 
 and feeling doubt as to the result, determines to enlist if possible 
 Providence on his side through an earnest prayer. While reflecting 
 on the subject this train of thought occurs to him and he soliloquises 
 thus : " I am not sure that it will be politic for me to pray that my 
 horse may be enabled to win the race, for I do not know that God 
 Almighty takes much interest in horse racing, and especially in racing 
 on Sunday. I will therefore use some strategy on this occasion. I 
 will pray to Him to convert my adversary B and make a Christian of 
 him. This will be e good thing in itself, and God Almighty will 
 probably be willing to do this. And if B should be converted and 
 become a pious Christian, then he will see the great wickedness of 
 horse racing on Sunday, and he will not think of thus breaking the 
 Sabbath. As he will not come up to the scratch with his horse, I will 
 get his thousand dollars." 
 
 Does not this case present the same moral elements as that proposed 
 by Prof. Tyndall? In effect Tyndall says, if we pray to God directly 
 for a sign that will convince us. he will probably refuse to comply 
 with our prayer, as he did the request of the unbelieving Jews, when 
 they asked for a sign to convince them, but if we pray that he will per- 
 form a charitable work, then as he will not be able to see through our 
 cunning strategy, he may, without being aware of it, furnish us the 
 sign we seek. So palpable a fraud does this seem to be, that had such 
 a suggestion been made in the time of Virgil, he would probably 
 among his poetical pictures, have given us one of the man who had 
 been hurled down into Tartarus by one of Jupiter's thunderbolts for 
 attempting to deceive the gods by such a fraud. 
 
 This subject brings to mind the views of Prof. Tyndall, and some 
 other scientists of his school, in relation to the subject of miracles. 
 Not only is their truthfulness denied, but it is asserted that the Creator 
 could not perform a miracle without deranging the system of the Uni- 
 verse. Though such a statement is a striking one, and calculated to 
 
(6) 
 
 arrest attention, what consideration is it really entitled to ? Would 
 the occurrence of what is usually termed a miracle justify such a 
 statement ? 
 
 A stream is seen to be running along a ravine between two hills, 
 and this stream, in accordance with the natural law of gravity, should 
 forever continue its course along that ravine. But it in fact may be 
 diverted from its former channel and carried along the side of the 
 hill and finally discharged into a different valley. What has produced 
 this seeming violation of the natural law of gravity ? The will of 
 man, acting, however, in accordance with other natural laws. 
 
 Again, a man stands by a spring or basin of water near his feet. 
 The law of nature seems to prevent this water from rising out of the 
 basin, and yet a portion of it is lifted to the lips of the man. What 
 caused such a violation of the laws of nature? The will of man, 
 acting through his muscles, caused a portion of this water, held in a 
 cup, to be thus elevated. 
 
 Now let us apply the principles obviously illustrated by these cases 
 to one class of miracles, which the scientist affirms will interfere with 
 the natural laws established by the creative power. The country is 
 suffering from drought and a congregation of Christians pray for 
 rain. Let it be assumed that a heavy cloud, one hundred miles dis- 
 tant in the west, is being moved in such a direction, that it would pass 
 to the northward of the place where the congregation are praying, 
 should the creative power change the direction of this cloud, would 
 such an act necessarily derange the system of the universe any more 
 than did the act of the miller who directed the rivulet from its cours? 
 
 But, again, suppose that at the time the church congregation is at 
 prayer, there were in fact no cloud existing within a thousand miles 
 of the spot. We know that if the warm air near the surface of the 
 earth, which is saturated with moisture, be elevated to a considerable 
 height, the diminished pressure will allow it to be expanded, rarified 
 and cooled, and thus its vapor of water will be condensed into a cloud. 
 This is so obvious a fact, that it has been suggested that great artificial 
 fires should be made to effect such a result. If the creative power 
 should cause an upward movement in the lower strata of the air, 
 that resulted in the production of a rainfall, would such an act tend to 
 derange the system of the universe any more than did the lifting of 
 a cup of water to the lips of the thirsty traveller ? Will it be pre- 
 tended that the power which created the sj^stem of nature and gave to 
 it the laws which govern it, would not be able to perform such acts as 
 may be done by the inhabitants of the earth ? 
 
 Let us next consider a different class of miracles, such as the giving 
 life to the dead, or creating a new being out of nothing. Is it to be 
 considered extraordinary that a power which, for example, had for- 
 merly created millions of men, should to-day be able to create a single 
 man ? Would it not excite surprise if the statement were made that 
 though the citizens of New York had erected one hundred thousand 
 houses, yet they were not able to construct a single additional house, 
 or that a man who had made one thousand shoes could not make 
 another one ? Upon what ground can it be assumed that the power 
 
(7) 
 
 which created the material universe has become so exhausted that it 
 could add nothing to that creation? 
 
 Even if we assume that only two human beings were created, with 
 the capacity for indefinite multiplication, that act implies all the sub- 
 sequent multiplication. The creation of a single complete oak tree, 
 in fact does not seem to be as great a miracle as the creation of an 
 acorn which is capable of being developed into an oak tree, bearing 
 other acorns, capable of producing in succession an infinite number 
 of other trees. If then the origin of the world, and its innumerable 
 animal and vegetable inhabitants, be the result of an act of creative 
 power, why might not that power be again manifested on a small 
 scale? Why should it not be as easy for such a power to create an 
 insect as to bring into existence a sun with its planetary system and 
 countless organised beings? 
 
 With respect to the origin of the world around us, as it is manifested 
 to our senses, two conflicting theories have been maintained. The 
 first, and that most general^ adopted by mankind, attributes the ex- 
 istence of the universe to the act of an intelligent, all-powerful creator. 
 The second regards matter as capable in itself of producing all the 
 facts observed by our senses, and denies the existence of any forces 
 or powers outside of the material elements themselves. God repre- 
 sents the views of the first class and Nature those of the second. 
 
 In one of Prof. T\mdall's addresses, he says that he is not prepared 
 to deny that ever}' fact, movement, and even thought is the result 
 and consequence of some condition of the sun in the past. If he does 
 not t-peak of this as probable, yet he so refers to it as to imply that he 
 regards it as one of the possibilities of scientific truth. 
 
 This statement, or figure at least, furnishes us as suitable an illus- 
 tration of the two classes of views as can be had. Let it be supposed, 
 for example, that long ago, from its expansion, due to its intense heat, 
 a portion of the sun's matter filled the space of the earth's present 
 orbit. In time, by cooling, this mass of matter may have been col- 
 lected into our present globe of the earth, and b}^ continued cooling 
 became solidified, and has gone through the changes necessary to 
 bring the earth to its present condition. Prof. Tyndali's view implies 
 that while this matter formed a part of the sun's mass, such forces were 
 impressed on it and such properties given to it, that all the organized 
 beings existing were the direct result of these former conditions of the 
 sun, and our every movement, pulsation and thought are the conse- 
 quences of that past condition. 
 
 So great and so complicated does such a problem seem, that the 
 mind does not readily grasp and comprehend it. If I throw a stone 
 against the window, we readily see that a glass may be broken as a 
 consequence of the movement of my muscles, and we easily perceive 
 that the motion of the hands of a watch is the result of the condition 
 of its mainspring. But to enable us to approach a comprehension of 
 so vast a proposition as this of Prof. Tyndall, two or three steps may be 
 taken by way of illustration. 
 
 Let us suppose that a scientific professor in the city of Washington 
 for example, should say, "I have such a perfect knowledge of the exist- 
 
(8) 
 
 ing condition of all the material and animal forces of the earth, that 1 
 will at a certain moment of time to-morrow, at a certain place, drop 
 into the Potomac this piece of cork which I hold, and it shall be carried 
 along down the stream, and though shaken by the moveirents of 
 steamers, and tossed by the fins of fishes, it shall not lodge against the 
 bank, but shall find its way into the Chesapeake Bay. It shall then 
 cross the Bay, and be floated along in the ocean till it reaches the Gulf 
 Stream. This stream will carry it into the Northern Sea, and it shall 
 be returned in a course not far from the British Isles, and pass along 
 through the Gulf of Guinea. It shall then be drifted westwardly, 
 pass through the Straits of Magellan and across the Pacific Ocean. 
 At a point which I can now designate, it will be found in the harbor 
 of Canton, in China, and within the period of thirteen years, four 
 months, three days, eleven hours, six minutes and two seconds, from 
 the moment when I have dropped it into the water, it will be picked 
 up by a boatman I" Such a statement as this, strange as it might 
 seem, serves to give us but a faint idea of what the sun has done. 
 
 We will consider another case by way of illustration. A certain 
 man declares that he has so much mechanical knowledge, and such 
 skill as a manipulator, that he will take an hundred bushels of print- 
 er's types, throw them into a large vessel which will be worked by a 
 steam engine, and that he will so regulate the movement of the vessel, 
 that after it has been agitated for an hour, with the types in it, a small 
 orifice will be opened in its side, through which at each revolution, 
 a letter will fall out. He will so shake the vessel that when the letters 
 fall successively, they shall be set up just as they fall, and when im- 
 pressions are made with them, there will be an accurate edition of the 
 works of Shakespeare in the order in which they have been originally 
 written; secondly, Milton's works; thirdty, Byron's entire works, and 
 fourthly, an accurate edition of the Bible ! It is evident that the 
 chances of producing such a result are more difficult than could be 
 mathematically expressed. It is not probable that the youngest person 
 here present, if he were to devote his life to the effort, would be able 
 to give accurately a single sentence of ten words by such a process. 
 
 Yet even this does not suffice to give more than a faint idea of what 
 the sun has done, for it has printed all the books in the world, pro- 
 duced all the vegetables and animals existing, and regulated every 
 one of their movements and thoughts. Let us conside' for a moment 
 one of the small items of its task. To form each observed part of a 
 single human body, countless atoms are required. Suppose, however, 
 all this has been accomplished, and that the several members of a 
 man's body existed and were thrown together with a capacity to adhere 
 as they touched each other. Would it not be rare luck that all the 
 teeth should happen to get together into two rows on the inside of the 
 mouth, that his eye lashes and eye brows should form themselves sys- 
 tematically without any of them straggling over his nose? Would it 
 not be still more strange that a hundred and forty thousand hairs 
 should congregate on his head, that the patches of his skin should all 
 get on the outside of his body, and the bones should, inside of it, ar- 
 range themselves in a suitable order? 
 
(9) 
 
 The sun not only made and arranged all these for one man, but it 
 had to provide in like manner for the innumerable millions that have 
 existed, as well as the countless other organized animals and vegetables, 
 and is now not only producing our movements and thoughts, but is 
 in like manner producing those of every existing insect. 
 
 If I were to attempt to give you the highest, and most expanded 
 conception of what an infinitely wise and powerful creator was capa- 
 ble of, could I do it better than to present this picture, and say that 
 He was capable of giving such qualities toward impressing such forces 
 on the sun, that for countless ages it would go on in the production of 
 such phenomena as these? 
 
 Let us now consider for a moment which of these two theories is the 
 most probably true? Remember that it is the human mind, con- 
 stituted as it is, that is to decide this question. Mathematical axioms 
 are held to be true, because they seem so, to our minds. Snow and 
 charcoal are held to be of different colors, because they necessarily 
 appear so to us. But it is easy for us to imagine the existence of a 
 mind which would see these propositions to be the opposite of the 
 truth. I repeat, however, that constituted as we are, our own minds 
 must decide which of these theories is the true one. To determine 
 this, let these cases be considered. On entering a room accompanied 
 by a scientific professor, I observe several books, among which are 
 the works of Shakespeare, Milton, Byron, and others. On looking over 
 them, I remark to my companion that they appear to be so accurately 
 printed that, evidently they were the work of skillful men. He re- 
 plies "I do not think this at all probable, but would rather account for 
 their accuracy in this mode. There is a man on the hill, who by ma- 
 chinery^ manufacturing type rapidly. The letters fall from his ma- 
 chine singly as grains of wheat fall from the hopper of a mill, and 
 they are picked up by boys who cannot read, just as they fall, and are 
 thus set up by them, and impressions are made from them, and it 
 seems to me that all these pages were thus printed." Which of these 
 two theories appears the most probable? 
 
 Or let us take another case which perhaps resembles rather more 
 the projectile operations attributed to the sun. I observe a thousand 
 bottles filled with small shot, and on examination it is seen that there 
 are in each of the bottles precisely ten thousand shot. I remark that 
 these bottles must have been filled by very careful hands, to produce 
 such absolute equality in the contents of each bottle. My companion 
 replies "I think you are mistaken in your views, and that the bottles 
 were filled in a very different manner. I believe that these thousand 
 bottles with a view of airing them well were set out in an open lot of 
 a couple of acres, at random, and promiscuously over the ground, and 
 that they were filled in the manner I will describe. A man in the 
 neighborhood is fond of shooting for exercise, and for that purpose he 
 goes into a street near the lot, he there loads a musket with small shot 
 and discharges it upward, but obliquely, in order that the shot may 
 not fall on him. Though he does not see any of the bottles in the open 
 field, for a stone wall prevents his so doing, yet he discharges his mus- 
 ket in such a direction upwards that one shot falls into the mouth of each 
 
(10) 
 
 bottle. He with his hand seemingly very carelessly catches hold of 
 one thousand shot each time, and thus one of them at each discharge 
 falls into the upturned mouth of a bottle. After making one hundred 
 discharges he rests for that day, and by continuing this operation for 
 a hundred days, he fills all the bottles. No matter what may be the 
 condition of the atmosphere, whether it be calm or windy, fair or rainy, 
 he never fails to cause a shot to fall into each bottle. In fact one day 
 when a thick hail was falling, he so discharged his musket that each 
 shot either missed the hail or so glanced from it, as to fall as usual into 
 the bottles, and thus they were all filled as you see them." Which of 
 these two surmises would sti ike the human mind as the most probable ? 
 
 Suggestions like these are calculated to assist us somewhat in decid- 
 ing as to the relative merits of the two rival theories, by which we are 
 to account for the existence of the elements constituting the material 
 and organic world. 
 
 So overwhelming is the evidence in favor of their being the work of 
 a powerful intelligence, that no arguments, however ingeniously con- 
 structed, will change the opinion of any considerable portion of the 
 human race. A man who should fail to recognize such conclusions 
 would not be regarded as fit to be entrusted with the ordinary trans- 
 actions of business in the affairs of men. 
 
 I am walking with a scientist and our attention is attracted by a 
 lofty monumental column. My companion says, " What a massive 
 stone the capital of that column is ; it must have required a great 
 force to raise it." I reply, " Do you think it required a great force to 
 raise it ?" " Certainly," he answered, " that stone must weigh twenty 
 tons and could only have been raised by a great force." I answer 
 him, "Then that must have been the greatest force that ever was 
 exerted, was it not ?" " By no means," he answers, " that was nothing 
 to the force which moves the earth on its axis." I answer him, 
 " Then you say that the force which moves the earth is much greater; 
 was it probably five times as great as this?" " You astonish me," he 
 replies, " the force which moves the earth is immeasurably greater." 
 At this moment the professor struck his foot against an object, 
 stooped down and picked it up. On examining it he exclaimed, 
 "What a beautiful watch this is. How could it have gotten here?" 
 I say to him, " Perhaps that hog, which you see rooting the ground 
 near us, made it." " What an absurd idea," exclaims the professor, 
 " why this is such a perfect piece of mechanicism that it must have 
 been made by a most ingenious man." "Then," I answer, "I would 
 like to find that man, for I wish for a horse very much, and as he is so 
 ingenious he would doubtless make one for me." " How laughable 
 the idea," exclaims my companion, " do you really suppose that man 
 could make a horse?" "Oh, Sir, I beg your pardon for my mistake, 
 for a horse is much larger than the watch, but he could make a canafey 
 bird for my little sister, perhaps." "Make a canary bird indeed," ex- 
 claims the professor, " why he could not make one of its feathers. 
 And now, sir, I am sorry to be obliged to change my mind about you. 
 As I told you this morning, I wished to engage you to superintend 
 my business, but you must excuse my declining to employ you. In 
 
(11) 
 
 the first place, you did not see at a glance that it must have required 
 force to raise that stone to the top of the monument, and then did not 
 know that the force with which the earth rotates on its axis was im- 
 measurably greater, and then your absurd proposition that the hog 
 might have made the watch, and that a man who had made a watch 
 might be able to make a horse, or at least a canary bird. All these 
 absurdities satisf} 7 me that you cannot have sense enough to manage 
 any sort of business, and therefore you must look for employment from 
 some one else." 
 
 To make the parallel complete however, the hog, in addition to his 
 other qualities, ought to have been dead, so that like the inanimate 
 matter of the sun he should have possessed the potentiality necessary 
 to enable him to make the watch. 
 
 When these two hypothesis are thus compared, the human mind, 
 constituted as it is, cannot fail to decide that the system around us is 
 the work of an intelligent power, acting with a purpose well under- 
 stood. Though an individual here and there may succeed in bringing 
 his mind to a doubt on such a point, yet the general judgment of 
 humanity will regard the proposition as being as palpably true as any 
 axiom ever pointed out, viz : that the world around us is the work of 
 an intelligent and an omnipotent Creator. 
 
 We are liable, however, to make a great mistake in the opposite di- 
 rection. When we observe and consider systems of facts as laid before 
 us, we often understand them so thoroughly in their bearings and 
 seeming purposes, that we imagine we could have anticipated what 
 we so clearly perceive. And like the Spanish philosopher, we are 
 sometimes tempted to think that we could, if consulted in advance, 
 greatly have improved the system ourselves. In fact, we thus are 
 prone to exaggerate our capacity to foresee and provide. To make 
 this manifest I will present an allegorical picture calculated to illus- 
 trate the truth of this proposition. 
 
 Let it be assumed that all the animals and plants now existing on 
 the earth were in being as we see them, but unchanged by man, and 
 that man had not been called into existence. Then in addition to this, 
 assume that a mind existed with all the faculties and knowledge that 
 the most scientific professor has, except that this mind had no knowl- 
 edge whatever of man or his works. The mind is informed that a 
 new animal is to be created, which is to be much superior to any of 
 those already created, and to be capable of exercising dominion over 
 them all, and existing in all the climates of the earth. This mind is 
 given to understand that the models of the new being are to be pre- 
 sented for its inspection, and that it is to be permitted to select the 
 most suitable one for its future habitation. 
 
 Full of anxiety and hope, the mind awaits the presentation. It has 
 placed before it such a form of man as the Apollo Belvidere might 
 have been 'modeled from. What impression would this figure make 
 on it ? We will permit it to speak for itself. 
 
 " The figure before me is certainly wonderfully beautiful, but at the 
 same time exceedingly tender in its appearance. This must be intended 
 by its deficiencies, merely to prepare my mind for the perfect image 
 2 
 
(12) 
 
 that is to follow it. When I look upon its parts they seem to consti- 
 tute a failure in every respect. It has but two feet, and of course it 
 stands much less firmly than the four-footed animals. When the bear 
 and the monkey stand on two feet only they are far more easily thrown 
 down than when they rest on all four of their feet. This new animal 
 would be falling constantly while it was attempting to move about, 
 or struggling with an adversary. 
 
 Again, when I examine its feet they are of the worst possible form and 
 structure. They are entirely flat, with no capacity to hold on to a limb, 
 as the bear, panther, or monkey can do. Its feet have even no claws 
 to assist it in its struggle as those of the panther or tiger do, nor can it 
 strike effectually, as the horse does, an adversary, with its hind foot. 
 And then see how tender they are. Even in the warm climates of the 
 tropics the briars and thorns, to say nothing of the reptiles, would give 
 them innumerable wounds, and torture the animal. But how would 
 they bear the ice and snow of the Arctic regions ? They would be cut 
 to pieces by the ice and frozen in the snow. Even if the animal is not 
 to be provided with the tough feet of the polar bear, he should at least 
 have been furnished with the hard round hoof of the horse, or that of 
 the goat or deer. 
 
 When I look to the fore paws or hands as they are called, they are if 
 possible, even worse than the feet. It is true they possess some power 
 to grasp, but then they present such a failure in the way of claws, that 
 they seem only intended to make one laugh at their absolute uselessness. 
 This creature is not only utterly unprepared to struggle with the lions, 
 tigers and bears, but even the wolves and foxes would chew up his ten- 
 der paws. 
 
 An animal so deficient in feet and claws ought, to enable it to make 
 any sort of defence, to have been furnished with the most tremendous 
 mouth. It should have projected like that of the crocodile, been armed 
 with the most formidable teeth, and possessed the powerful grasp of the 
 lion's jaws. Why this mouth is an utter abortion. Even a racoon would 
 enjoy eating that tender face. As the animal is not able to defend him- 
 self, he should at least have been furnished with such a muzzle as the 
 ox and sheep possess, so that he might live on the grass and other tender 
 herbs, until some of the strong animals might come along and devour 
 him. 
 
 As I gaze on him, each feature seems worse than those already in- 
 spected. What upon earth is he to do with that tender hide ? Even in 
 the tropics where he might not suffer from cold, the insects would render 
 his existence intolerable. What will become of him in those parts of Africa, 
 where the horse with his tough hide and thick coat of hair is killed by 
 certain flies? Why this new creature should at least have been provided 
 with a long and elastic tail, to assist him in keeping off the flies. When 
 these stinging insects alight on his back between his shoulders, his only 
 chance will be to lie down on his back, and the insects are so numerous 
 that they will keep him rolling all the while, with thorns and briars to 
 enliven his movements. 
 
 But then his existence in the tropics will be happiness in comparison 
 with his fate in the Arctic regions. There he. would be frozen to death 
 in half an hour. To enable him to exist in that climate he should have 
 
(13) 
 
 been provided with the thick coat of the white bear or the heavy wool 
 of the northern buffalo. This, however, would render his existence intol- 
 erable in the warm climates. Possibly the best thing that could have 
 been done with such a creature would have been to cover him well with 
 a thick coat of feathers, which he might, like the goose, shed in warm 
 weather. Instead of this animal being fitted to live in all climates and 
 dominate over all the other creatures, he ought rather to be designated 
 as the animal intended to constitute a delicious food for most of the 
 others. The tigers and lions of the tropics and the white bears and 
 wolves of the arctic regions, will regard him as a most tender and deli- 
 cate food. 
 
 But I will examine jour specifications, and explanations of his capac- 
 ities. You say that though his feet are tender yet he will make shoes 
 for them, out of the hides of deer and cows, so that he will protect them 
 even better than are the feet of other animals now existing. This state- 
 ment is absolutely laughable. He catch a deer indeed ! why he is slower 
 of speed than any quadruped whatever, except the terrapin. Even the 
 cows can outrun him, and if he did succeed in overtaking a bull, or even 
 a cow, he would soon wish himself somewhere else. But suppose that 
 even by some good luck, he could find a dead cow, what could he do 
 with its hide ? The nails on what you term his hands, would make no 
 impression on that tough hide, nor could he ever tear it with such a 
 mouth as he has. Were he provided with the teeth of the ground hog 
 he might possibly succeed in tearing off some strips of the hide, but then 
 he would have no means of fastening them together, so as to make a 
 protection for those feet of his. 
 
 Then I see that you state that he will provide a covering tor his body 
 by planting and cultivating such things as cotton, hemp and flax, and 
 making clothing of them in some mysterious manner, and also that he 
 will provide himself with better food than the cattle, and even the lions 
 and wolves can obtain. To effect this, you state that he will clear off 
 the trees and break up and soften the ground, and by the end of the 
 year he will have food and clothing. Of all your absurdities, this is 
 the most preposterous. How will he remove a tree ? Even the bear 
 with his strong teeth is only able to tear off the bark, but has never suc- 
 ceeded in cutting through the body of a single tree, much less in clear- 
 ing large spaces of land. If the forest were even removed, how can he 
 break up the ground ? Had he been furnished with a tough snout like 
 the hog he might have made some progress in that direction, but his 
 nose is the worst for rooting hard ground I have ever seen, while those 
 weak claws and tender fingers would be torn by contact with the earth 
 and gravel. Taking your animal as a whole, if your purpose was, by 
 making the most complete abortion, to throw the whole proposition into 
 ridicule, you are certainly entitled to a premium. Everybody is obliged 
 to see that your animal would starve to death or be frozen an hundred 
 times before he could complete the first operation of cultivating land 
 and obtaining a crop from it. 
 
 It must be admitted that you possess an imagination that is lively in 
 presenting absurdities, but you abuse it grossly when you suggest that 
 your new animals will penetrate the earth for thousands of feet and ob- 
 tain metals out of it and make instruments harder than rock, with which 
 
(14) 
 
 they will fight and subdue the other beasts. Indeed, you seem so absurdly 
 silly that you cease to be amusing. An animal that cannot scratch a 
 hole in the ground deep enough to hide himself, will split open the most 
 solid rocks, penetrate them for miles, and obtain imaginary substances 
 with which he will perform fabulous exploits ! ISTo extravagance and 
 folly will surpass yours." 
 
 When we divest our minds for the moment of our acquired knowl- 
 edge and place ourselves in the condition supposed, is it not evident that 
 the picture presented above is similar to that which the human mind 
 would adopt? Even with our present knowledge, does it not seem diffi- 
 cult, and even impossible, for man newly created, but without the aid 
 of knowledge derived from experience, to exist on the earth ? Assume 
 that two or even an hundred adults were brought into the world as it 
 was prior to man's existence, does it seem possible for them to live if 
 they were destitute of all such knowledge as observation and experience 
 teach? A party of men and women twenty years of age find themselves 
 standing in a forest, with no knowledge of the vegetable and animal 
 world except what they see before their eyes. If they think of eating, 
 the}' know not which of the innumerable things they see to take hold 
 of or attempt to swallow. By sight or even taste, if they strive to eat, 
 they could not distinguish nutritious vegetables from those that were 
 injurious. Even if they were standing on the shore of the sea, they 
 would not know that by wading into the shallow water oysters might be 
 picked up and broken open and eaten raw, rather than the pebbles that 
 might be lying along the shore. With no food provided and with no 
 knowledge to enable them to seek it, and dangerous enemies around 
 them, from the stinging insect to the formidable lion, could such beings 
 have existed ? Even if human infants had been created, their condition 
 would be only the more helpless. There is no reason to suppose that 
 bears or monkeys would have kept them alive, instead of eating them. 
 Even if they had been so kept, their foster mothers could only have 
 taught them such knowledge as these animals possess themselves. Such 
 a supposition is too absurd to be thought of as a possibility. As the 
 creation of a human infant would of itself be as much a miracle as that 
 of the adult, nothing could be gained for any class of scientists by the 
 substitution of this view. 
 
 As to the Darwinian theory, but for the fact that some few persons of 
 scientific reputation have spoken favorably of it, it is not plausible 
 enough to justify attack. It is said they find a stumbling block in their 
 failure to discover the missing link between the man and the monkey. 
 As, however, the animal constituting this link was much more recent in 
 its existence than the previous ones which are found, the remains of such 
 an animal ought to be the most numerous. In fact, there should have 
 been at least one hundred such links to bring the monkey up to the man, 
 instead of a single one. We should have had a monkey with one human 
 finger and an additional inch of brain, and so on in succession, each 
 addition requiring a miracle or change from the usual order of nature. 
 If a sow should produce one puppy in a litter of pigs, why should not 
 this be regarded as being as clearly a miracle as if she had produced a 
 whole brood of puppies or young ducks. As to the Darwinian theory, 
 I have in a former publication stated the proposition, that the theory is 
 
( 15) 
 
 improable in itself, without a single fact to support it, and to which 
 every known fact bearing any relation to the subject is directly hostile. 
 The Darwinians, instead of being positive philosophers who rely only 
 on observed facts, as they claim to do, are the most credulous of human 
 beings. .Gulliver's Travels and the stories in the Arabian Night's Enter- 
 tainments seem probabilities, and mere matter of fact narratives, in com- 
 parison with the most plausible arguments and fancies of the Dar- 
 winian evolutionists. 
 
 Constituted as the human mind is, are we not obliged to decide that 
 man when created must have been furnished with some knowledge of 
 his own powers and of certain information as to the qualities and capac- 
 ities of the things around him ? Are we not forced by reason itself to 
 adopt such a hypothesis as that given in the Mosaic account of man's 
 creation ? 
 
 While the inferior animals have been furnished with the instinctive 
 knowledge necessary to enable them to exist, they seem incapable, in 
 their successive generations, of making any considerable accumulations 
 of knowledge. But man wben first called into existence appears to 
 know nothing, and yet is capable of indefinite increase of his knowledge 
 and intellectual powers. 
 
 Having seen what he appears to have been when first called into ex- 
 istence, let us look at the other end of his progress. A large, eight 
 paged New York Daily Newspaper, can be printed anil delivered at the 
 rate of fifty thousand copies in a single hour. Consider how much men- 
 tal and mechanical action were called into play to produce this result. 
 To prepare the band of white paper, miles in length itself, brought com- 
 plicated mechanism into play. To produce the types, demanded the 
 skill of the metallurgist and the artisan. Then how much brain and 
 hand work were employed in perfecting the powerful and most compli- 
 cated machinery, which, in its action, surpassed in accuracy and precis- 
 ion the skillful movements of the cunning human hand ! And still it 
 did not become weary, or stagger, or pause for breath while doing alone 
 the work of several hundred men. Next think of the rail roads that 
 were giving aid to the movement. To obtain the iron from the elements 
 with which it was entangled, and by vast and intricate machinery to roll 
 it into the bars that support the powerful and complicated locomotive 
 engines, which aid the operation required immense thought and labor. 
 The later provided telegraph wires, and electrical apparatus, seem to 
 complete the mechanical part of the enterprise. Contemplation of the 
 result fills us with wonder and pride. When we attempt to bring into 
 view the vast and varied intellectual and mechanical action that has 
 produced such a result, it is not strange that we should exaggerate the 
 capacity of the human intellect. 
 
 This feeling rapidly subsides when we look backward and see how 
 slow the progress has been. Does it not seem strange that Aristotle and 
 Archimedes, Lucullus and Julius Csesar did not discover the convenience 
 of using chimne3 7 s in houses, and pantaloons in dress ? The fact that 
 the modern inhabitants of Greece and Italy so generally use them proves 
 that their ancestors only lacked a knowledge of their utility and the 
 modes of producing them. 
 
( 16) 
 
 Immense as has been human progress, it, nevertheless, seems to have 
 been made slowly, and step by step. We readily see that a step may be 
 taken from the point where we stand, but fail to perceive how we are 
 to pa9s over ocean and mountain until we have made the circuit of the 
 globe. We have made, however, an intellectual upward progress which 
 seems unlimited, in strange contrast with the ficticious Darwinian theory 
 of material evolution. While neither man nor any other animal has 
 been able to add a new physical member or organ to his body, thought 
 evolves thought, and we cannot see what is to be the limit of man's in- 
 tellectual progress. 
 
 Before the forests and coal fields of the earth shall have been ex- 
 hausted, it seems probable that there will be discovered some simple 
 and cheap mode of decomposing that abundant element, water, so that 
 we may be furnished with better fuel and lights than we now enjoy. 
 Ere the iron mines are worked out, we shall, perhaps, with more fa- 
 cility than cast iron is now produced, obtain from the clays and cer- 
 tain abundant rocks the light and handsome metal, aluminum. It 
 may serve a better purpose than iron does in the construction of ships 
 and houses, and by amalgamations not yet known, may surpass steel 
 itself, as the ancients, by mixtures of soft metals, obtained their razors 
 and other cutting instruments. 
 
 The great positive philosopher, M. Comte, once said, that as the 
 perfection of religion was the tracing of all to one Supreme God, so 
 the end to be sought in material science is the being able to refer all 
 its phenomena to one great cause, as, for example, the force of gravity. 
 But certain facts have been observed that tend to incline the mind to 
 believe that there is some strange influence or power in Nature that 
 may suspend or counteract the force of gravity itself. May it not be 
 possible that we shall in time trace not only magnetic attraction, but 
 the force of gravity also, to that mysterious agent which we term elec- 
 tricity? When we observe its action on inanimate substances and all 
 vegetable and animal existences, we are unable to set bounds to its 
 influence and its power. And should we obtain such a control of its 
 action as to use it to suspend at our will the power of the force of 
 gravity, such a result does not strike our minds as being more extra- 
 ordinary than a century ago would the suggestion of certain recent 
 discoveries. To the philosophers of that day, the electric telegraph, 
 the telephone and the phonograph would have seemed the propo- 
 sitions of the wildest imagination. That two persons situated on op- 
 posite sides of the earth should hold a conversation by the aid of 
 lightning, and even hear each other's voices, as they can in the tele- 
 phone, would have been regarded as more improbable than the story 
 of Aladdin's Lamp. 
 
 Stranger even still, would have seemed the phonograph. That songs 
 and conversations could be laid away for preservation, and "at will, 
 years afterwards, be reproduced and repeated in their very tones by 
 material machinery, would have been regarded as certainly miraculous. 
 
 When the great progress made already is contemplated, our minds 
 are so excited that we may anticipate an unlimited upward progress 
 in a continued and eternal existence. 
 
( 17) 
 
 What conclusions shall we draw from such considerations as have 
 been presented ? That each professor of science is to be trusted in 
 that line of study in which he has been specially engaged. But we 
 must remember that the closer his application to a single branch, the 
 less time is he able to give to other subjects. As the penetrative power 
 of the telescope is increased by excluding light from its sides, so does 
 close application to a single class of objects diminish the opportunities 
 to^acquire general knowledge. 
 
 It is sometimes, however, boastfully said, that science embraces all 
 knowledge in its range. But what man has been able to comprehend 
 it in all its extent? One may be a good chemist, and know little of 
 astronomy ; a first-rate mineralogist may be but slightly acquainted 
 with mechanical forces. In proportion, however, as a man's acquain- 
 tance with many branches is extended, so will be his general knowl- 
 edge and judgment. Sir Isaac Newton excelled in this respect. Had 
 Lord Bacon passed his life in a laboratory, it is not probable that he 
 would have made the great impression on the philosophy of the age 
 in which he lived that he actually did produce. His being a great 
 lawyer and statesman gave expansion, clearness and force to his views 
 of science. In fact, it is the greatness of his mind that strikes us 
 most, rather than the amount of his actual knowledge. 
 
 By learning two things, a man does much more than double his 
 knowledge. Perhaps the most important of all the intellectual facul- 
 ties is that of comparison, or conditionality as it was called by 
 George Combe, the great phrenologist. By perceiving that a similar 
 condition exists in many objects, we discover a general resemblance, or 
 principle which extends through them all. As a lawyer, by examin- 
 ing precedents, seeks to find a general principle which runs through 
 the cases, so the true scientist examines facts to be able to make gene- 
 ralization. Newton might in vain have observed the fall of the apple 
 and the motions of the moon, if he had not possessed a faculty that 
 enabled him to compare their conditions, and deduce the conclusions 
 that they were acted upon by a certain general influence, which he 
 designated as the law of gravity. The greater the number of facts 
 which one can embrace in his view, the more likely will he be to 
 discover the true principles involved, and to establish a sound system. 
 
 This proposition being conceded, it is important that every one 
 should endeavor to know as much as possible, provided always, that 
 he makes that knowledge his own. As the stomach should receive 
 only as much food as it can digest, so the mind should take hold only 
 of what it can understand, and make its own. By taking a wide range 
 but embracing only the large ideas of many subjects, a man will vastly 
 increase his general intellectual power. 
 
 On the other hand narrowness of view often produces overweening 
 conceit, even among scientists, as they call themselves. 
 
 I once presented to a professor of eminence, a paper describing cer- 
 tain singular natural phenomena. He seemed much interested and 
 surprised at the novelty of some of the facts, and said he would like 
 to publish them if I would strike out some suggestions made as to the 
 probable causes of the phenomena. I said that by references to a 
 
(18) 
 
 probable cause I could make the facts better understood. He answered, 
 that as I was not a professor, I could not be permitted to give an 
 opinion as to the causes of the phenomena. 
 
 The late Dr. Charles T. Jackson, of Boston, eminent as he was, did 
 not entertain so great a regard for the title of professor. Some few 
 years before his death I said to him, " Do you prefer to be called Doctor 
 or Professor ?" He answered, "Doctor, by all means, for every pre- 
 tender and mountebank is now calling himself Professor." Should 
 the barbers and bootblacks call themselves professors, they may 
 remind us of " Chess Congresses and Billiard Tournaments." If great 
 names could elevate trifling things, " Caesar and Washington " would 
 not so frequently be found in the penitentiary. 
 
 So great has been the progress of modern science, and so vast have 
 been the benefits it has conferred on the world, that its genuine devo- 
 tees can well afford to laugh at the criticisms and the foibles of its 
 weaker brethren. The tendency of modern positive science however, 
 to exclude to a great extent such ideas as are not evident to the senses, 
 is to be regretted. It thus often happens that palpable conclusions 
 are liable to be ignored. 
 
 When I observe that a boy is walking in the snow with shoes on, it 
 does not require a great strain of the reasoning faculties to enable me 
 to decide, that in giving him shoes, the purpose of his father was, to 
 protect his feet from the cold snow. In like manner we see that men 
 and other animals exist on the earth, and that water and air, and veg- 
 etation of various kinds also are provided. When we see that men and 
 beasts live by reason of these other elements, does it not seem a reason- 
 able conclusion that in creating these things, it was the -purpose of the 
 creative power to provide them, in order that animal existence and 
 comfort might be maintained ! 
 
 Again, when we look into the moral world, we see that man posesses 
 intelligence, selfishness, love of offspring, friendship, benevolence, love, 
 and also a sense of right and wrong, or duty, and a conviction that he 
 is responsible to some higher power for his conduct. Such elements 
 as these constitute human society. Strip man of all sense of right or 
 obligation, and organized society, such as we term civilization, will 
 cease to exist. Go further and deprive him of friendship and love, and 
 he may be as selfish, and far more cunning than the fox. Divest him 
 of his philoprogenitiveness or love of offspring, and the race ceases to 
 exist. When the creative power gave man all those qualities, which 
 are necessary to constitute society, as we see it around us, can we doubt 
 but that it was the purpose of that creative power to organize such a 
 system ? 
 
 The sense of obligation and accountability to a higher power, is just 
 as essential to the existence of a well ordered human society, as the 
 law of gravity is to the material world. If that law were destroyed, 
 we not only would be unable to move on the face of the earth, but 
 would even cease to retain our places on its surface. Its centrifugal 
 motion would cause the water, the atmosphere and all unattached ma- 
 terials to be thrown off into space. Even the earth itself, ceasing to 
 revolve about the sun, would move on in the line of a tangent to its 
 
( 19) 
 
 orbit, and pass away into darkness. In like manner, but for the great 
 moral law of duty, human society would cease to exist on the earth. 
 
 This being evident to all who reflect deeply, it seems strange that 
 any man of scientific attainments should seek to weaken in the human 
 mind the sense of accountability to a supreme power. Erroneous 
 views uncontradicted, often work an immense amount of mischief. An 
 atheistical journal published and circulated fifteen years ago in Rus- 
 sia, is represented to have spread its virus most extensively in that 
 great empire. It would seem as if the doctrine of the "Nihilists" 
 were penetrating all classes of society. This sect, among its votaries, 
 embraces professors in the high schools, nobles who have been impov- 
 erished by the loss of their serfs, army officers generally, fathers of 
 families, and even young girls. These last are particularly fanatical, 
 and most earnest in making proselytes, according to the official report 
 of the Minister of Justice, and their combined efforts are producing a 
 general dissolution of morals. Their aim is the destruction of "all 
 States, all religions, all subordination, and the re-establishment of chaos, 
 as the prelude to making everything over, anew." The Minister of 
 Justice in his report to the Emperor on the Nihilist trials writes, that 
 " the government is powerless to arrest the current of these subversive 
 doctrines, growing out of the dissolution of morals, and finally, of the 
 complete absence of religious principles." The alarming spread of 
 these doctrines is attributable to the general ignorace of the people, 
 and the degraded condition of the Russian church, which from its ig- 
 norance and demoralization, can make no effectual resistance to doc- 
 trines that seem about to destroy society, as now existing in that im- 
 mense Empire. 
 
 Such an example as this ought to awaken us to another great con- 
 sideration. If the progress of science furnishes new arguments and 
 weapons to the infidel, must not a wider and more extended knowledge 
 in like manner aid the friends of morality and religion, without which 
 society cannot be maintained ? In the middle ages our English ances- 
 tors were able to defend themselves with bows and arrows, but now all 
 nations are obliged to use the improved implements of modern war- 
 fare. As we cannot now defend ourselves without the use of rifles and 
 cannon, so has it become the duty of the friends of morality and relig- 
 ion to acquaint themselves with the advanced views of scientific phi- 
 losophy. A skillful general in war seeks to discover the positions of his 
 adversary, in order that he may be able to strike him with effect. The 
 physician, to relieve his patient of pain, endeavors to ascertain what 
 organ in his system is diseased, before he applies a remedy. In like 
 manner it is the duty of public teachers to acquaint themselves with 
 the weapons and movements of their adversaries. 
 
 It is said, however, by way of apology for clergymen, that their 
 whole time is required to be devoted to the study of theological wri- 
 tings. No greater mistake can be made than this. A man might 
 occupy his whole life in reading about hor-es, without knowing as 
 much of them as one could, who, after a few hours reading about 
 them, should spend only a week in examining and using them so as 
 to learn their qualities. 
 3 
 
(20) 
 
 There has been much controversy as to whether it was most advan- 
 tageous to man to acquire a classical or a scientific education. We 
 might, with as much propriety, debate the point, whether a man's 
 eyes or his ears were most advantageous in enabling him to acquire 
 knowledge, or whether the right or left leg was most useful to a soldier 
 in marching. A man may observe many things himself, but he 
 vastly increases his stock of knowledge by reading, so as to add to his 
 own the knowledge of others. A mere observer might learn some 
 things well, while he who depended on the words of others might 
 obtain a wide range of ideas, and yet know nothing thoroughly. To 
 become really wise, men must study both things and the opinions of 
 others also, whose observations and ideas will assist them. Society 
 presents us with few weaker and more useless men than some who 
 obtain the reputation of being learned because they can repeat much 
 of what they have read. 
 
 It is clear that if clergymen wish to combat error successfully in 
 their sermons, they must understand the theories and methods of their 
 more dangerous adversaries. In addition to studying the views of 
 men who have written learnedly on theological subjects, every clergy- 
 man should find time to read such books, for example, as Lyell's Prin- 
 ciples of Geology, Humboldt's Cosmos, and other works of like char- 
 acter. Thus the scope of his intellect will be greatty enlarged, his 
 knowledge become more precise and accurate, and he will improve 
 his methods of presenting his ideas. Mere dialectic discourses seldom 
 produce a permanent impression on an audience, nor do they tend 
 greatly to extend knowledge. 
 
 To show the effect of different systems on human society, historical 
 examples may be appealed to. How striking is the contrast between 
 the great Roman Republic, with the religious feelings generally preva- 
 lent among its citizens, and the later Empire, after scepticism had 
 become general. Compare the vigor of the early Mussulman move- 
 ments, impelled as they were by religious fanaticism, with modern 
 Turkey. To know what human society becomes without religion, we 
 have but to turn our eyes to France, when, less than a century ago, 
 the Goddess of Reason was placed on the throne. 
 
 Some act as though they feared that a comparison of material and 
 moral systems might tend to overthrow religion, as if the Supreme 
 Being had not sufficient knowledge and power to preserve consistency 
 in the order of the universe. If this, in fact, were true, of course the 
 enemies of religion would be willing to make the discovery and be 
 ready to avail themselves of its advantages. But in fact, it is only a 
 " little philosophy," as Bacon states it, that " inclineth men's minds to 
 atheism," or, as Pope says, " a little learning is a dangerous thing." 
 
 A thorough examination of both the material and moral systems 
 shows such a complete harmony that they stand together and consti- 
 tute a system so vast and grand as to fill the human mind with satis- 
 faction, wonder and sublimity of conception. 
 
 Before concluding, it may be proper that something should be said 
 as to the best mode of conveying information. In the first place, a 
 man must have distinct and clear ideas before he can convey such to 
 
(21) 
 
 his auditors. Few mistakes are more frequently made by the igno- 
 rant, than the supposition that a man is deep because he is obscure. 
 A. person once said to me, after using certain vague expressions, " If 
 I only had learning, as you have, I could express great ideas which I 
 have in my head." In fact, it was the mistiness and obscurity of his 
 ideas that rendered him unable to express them intelligibly. On 
 matters connected with his farming operations, which he understood 
 well, he expressed himself very clearly. 
 
 When it is stated that some orator took an exhaustive plunge into 
 some subject so deep that his audience could not follow him, it should 
 have merely been said that he performed an evolution like that of the 
 frog, which, by leaping into a shallow spring and kicking up the mud, 
 rendered it impossible that either he or the bottom should be seen. 
 All intellectual ideas that a man has distinctly in his mind may be 
 intelligibly expressed with ordinary powers of language. 
 
 It is otherwise, however, as to feelings and passions. It is often dif- 
 ficult for one to give an adequate idea of an emotion, becauso the sen- 
 timents and feelings var} r much in different persons. The intensity of 
 feeling varies so much in different individuals, that one person mpy 
 have sentiments and emotions which he finds it impossible to express 
 clearly and strongly in language to others. 
 
 In the second place, one must possess a fair command of language 
 in order that he may easily make himself fully understood. Though 
 pe sons differ in their powers in this respect, yet it is seldom that we 
 find a man who is unable to convey clearly what he well understands. 
 Much of the obscurity of speakers is due to a sort of vanity, which 
 causes them to pile up great masses of words that, like an empty 
 bladder when it is burst, give much noise without substance. By 
 tricks of this kind, certain men occasionally lead the ignorant into the 
 opinion that they are wise. 
 
 The fewer words that are needed and used to express the idea, the 
 better for the hearer, just as it is easier to find the wheat after it has 
 been thrashed than while it is mixed with the chaff. In the choice 
 of words, too, to obtain clearness and force, it is well to use, when 
 practicable, the Anglo-Saxon words, because as we in early life are 
 accustomed to them, they convey at once the most striking images. 
 On the other hand, when we wish to express an idea delicately, as a 
 lady sometimes, to help the imagination of the beholder, partially 
 veils her charms, phrases from the Latin or French may be used. 
 
 To impress the minds of auditors strongly, however, should be the 
 main purpose of public speakers. Men of great ideas can afford to be 
 simple in expression, as a perfect form can well challenge observation. 
 The praise bestowed on Csesar's style dates back to early times. Thiers, 
 in discussing the style of Napoleon, so wonderfully striking and im- 
 pressive, said that in his case " there was nothing between the word 
 and the thought." Feeble and pretentious men, when they happen 
 to have found a thought of some value envelope it in so many words 
 in their effort to magnify it, and spread it so thin, that the auditors 
 are wearied and disgusted, as a child handles and turns over his toy 
 until he tires of it. It was said of Demosthenes, that he never went 
 
(22) 
 
 back to the ground that he had utterly wasted as he passed over it in 
 his rapid onward progress. The highest evidence of a speaker's ora- 
 torical power is, that after he has filled the minds of his audience with 
 a great thought, before they have had time to fully master and meas- 
 ure it, and while they are still filled with wonder and surprise at its 
 vastness, he hurries them on to another and another like it in its pro- 
 portions. Sometimes, too, a great idea, merely glanced at, and a great 
 feeling, dimly presented, lift the imaginations and the feelings of 
 the audience to a pitch of excitement that carries them irresistibly 
 forward. To enable a man to do this, and at the same time make a 
 permanent impression, he must, however, by proper presentations to 
 the intellect, have satisfied the judgment of his auditors. Unless 
 this has been done, the effect is evasnescent, for unless intellectual 
 images are connected with the feeling, it cannot have permanency and 
 well retain its place in the mind. 
 
 Again, it must be understood that mere dialectic discourses, in 
 which successions of abstract propositions are stated, are not only 
 rather tiresome to the audiences, but they fail to make a lasting im- 
 pression. It is often difficult to remember long, a proposition which 
 seems intelligible at the moment while we are listening to it. Hence 
 the importance of using illustrations as figures of speech, parables, &c. 
 The four gospels of the New Testament, the best model I know of for 
 the student, abound in such illustrations. 
 
 By using a proper figure we cannot only give greater distinctness 
 to the idea, but we enable the hearer to retain it in his mind. In this 
 manner an illiterate person will for years be able to reproduce the 
 substance of an idea, because the figure used to illustrate it will retain 
 the proposition in his memory. On the other hand, a man after 
 having been harangued for three hours by a different kind of speaker, 
 
 will tell his neighbors "Mr. made a mighty long speech, no 
 
 doubt it was mighty great, but he talked so much that I cannot re- 
 member what he said." After listening to such a speech the audience 
 has merely a recollection of a disagreeable entertainment. 
 
 A contrary practice has, however, recently grown into use among 
 certain political speakers. Seeing that in many instances a felicitous illus- 
 tration or anecdote has produced a fine effect, they imagine that good 
 speaking consists in amusing au audience by relating what are usually 
 called anecdotes. These may be legitimately used for two purposes. 
 In the first place a tired audience may be relieved by a laugh at a 
 good story properly told. Secondly, these anecdotes, if .judiciously 
 applied to illustrate a proposition, or a hit on an adversary, give great 
 effect to a speech. Flowers and music are appropriate adjuncts to a 
 feast, but they of themselves do not satisfy hungry guests. In like 
 manner a so-called speech, which is mainly made of jokes, produces 
 no impression on the audience that might not be more strikingly 
 caused by the antics and ludicrous falls of the clown Fox in Humpty 
 Dumpty. Though the audience has been pleasantly entertained and 
 will afterwards feel rather grateful to the speaker for the entertainment, 
 yet no political impression has been made on it. 
 
(23) 
 
 I recall a striking instance of this. In 1844 I attended a Whig 
 barbecue at Knoxville, Tennessee The morning speeches had been 
 made by the Hon. John Bell and myself, and the large audience had 
 partaken of the barbecue. On our return to the stand a gentleman 
 of high position spoke for nearly three hours in such a manner as to 
 keep us in excellent humor and created almost incessant laughter, and 
 we broke up in the best spirits. On the next morning Senator Spencer 
 Jernagan spoke for two hours to a very attentive audience, without, 
 however, even causing a smile in the vast assembly. After he con- 
 cluded, a prominent Tennessee politician said to me, referring to Jer- 
 nagan, "he is the man that we owe the revolution in East Tennessee 
 to." I asked, enquiring if the gentleman who had spoken the evening 
 before did not help also. He replied, " No ; he is a fine man for a 
 rally, but he never makes us a vote." 
 
 In 1860 I was present at a barbecue at which a young gentleman 
 occupied most of the day. He possessed a good memory, had learned 
 almost all of the anecdotes that were retailed during that campaign, 
 and rehearsed them amusingly After he finished in the evening, an 
 intelligent gentleman remarked to me, " this day has been completely 
 lost to us." He was right in his view. Had a good band played 
 pleasant airs the assembly would have been as highty entertained, 
 and just as decided a political impression would have been made on it. 
 
 In 1872 I had an amusing illustration of the downward tendenc}' 
 produced by the fashion now so much in vogue. A young man whose 
 opportunities to acquire an education had been limited, but who had 
 commenced the study of the law, said to me, " General, I wish to learn 
 how you great Senators used to do in the Senate. I wish particularly 
 to hear about Mr. Webster ; was he not a mighty man on an anec- 
 dote ?" The question struck me as so ludicrous that I found it diffi- 
 cult to avoid laughing. A moment's reflection, however, enabled me 
 to understand how he came to possess such an idea. A speech abound- 
 ing in anecdotes had a few weeks previously been made in that region, 
 and some of the papers had stated that this was the greatest speech 
 that had been made since the times of Clay and Webster. 
 
 Genuine wit is a highly intellectual and important faculty. It has 
 been well said that no one ever laughed loud at a thing really witty. 
 The great English debater, Charles James Fox, was pronounced the 
 wittiest man of his day. His wit was most strikingly shown when 
 in the course of his powerful argument he so exposed the positions of 
 his adversaries as to make them appear supremely ridiculous. Mr. 
 Webster, in a lesser degree, sometimes exhibited this quality. Wholly 
 unlike it, and most demoralizing to the public taste, is that counter- 
 feit, a species of buffoonery, which consists in the retailing of stale 
 anecdotes, after the fashion of Christy's minstrels or the circus clown, 
 who delivers his jokes around at his successive performances. 
 
 Speakers should see that while they ought, to be effective, to avoid 
 wordy dullness on the one hand, and mere entertaining frivolity on 
 the other, they must, by thought, provide themselves with something 
 to say, and then endeavor to say it in a manner that will make it clear 
 and impressive. Especially should they, instead of degrading the 
 
( 24) 
 
 public tastes for the sake of temporary applause, strive to elevate the 
 tone of intellectual thought and of moral feeling and sentiment. 
 
 While such applause as comes spontaneously and generally from 
 the audience, gratifies a speaker, and adds to the force of his address, 
 the counterfeit substitute sometimes exhibited has the contrary effect. 
 
 Loud stamping and yelling is usually the work of a few zealous 
 partizans; it irritates opponents and disgusts fair minded persons, who 
 otherwise might be convinced. When one expects to make converts, 
 he must conciliate, rather than irritate opponents. In my canvass in 
 1840, learning that zealous friends had prepared a log cabin for parade 
 at a meeting, I caused it to be kept concealed in the woods, lest its 
 exhibition might irritate those whom I wished to win over. The most 
 effective speeches I ever heard were those that were listened to 
 in profound silence. An audience absorbed fully in the words and 
 thoughts of the speaker, is unwilling to interrupt him even for a single 
 moment, though at the close, they may sometimes give expression to 
 their feelings by deep, general, prolonged applause. 
 
 Ladies and gentlemen, more than fifty years have passed by since I 
 attended a commencement at this University. So numerous have been 
 the great events in the world's history within that period, that we have 
 not time even to glance at them. I regret to be compelled to say, that 
 as respects our own State, the anticipations of that day have not been 
 realized. For a few years prior to the late civil war, our State was 
 making great progress in her material advances. But for that war, I 
 think North Carolina would, when her condition as a whole was con- 
 sidered, rank with the foremost of the States. 
 
 Of her action in that war, it may truthfully be said that she did 
 her full duty to herself and to humanity. Having delayed her move- 
 ment as long as her safety and honor would permit her to do, she 
 went into the contest with uncalculating devotion to the public cause, 
 and I feel confident gave to it in material and men, more than any 
 other State. When the struggle closed, two thirds of our property had 
 been destroyed, and probably a majority of our best men had fallen in 
 battle. It then seemed to me almost impossible that all of our people 
 should escape starvation. Nevertheless there has in each successive 
 year, been an upward progress, and our citizens generally are provided 
 with the necessaries of life and some of its luxuries. 
 
 We often hear a desire expressed for the introduction of Northern 
 capital to aid us. There are two reasons why we cannot secure much 
 of this. The press of the dominant party there, to secure political 
 capital at home, makes it a business to assail and misrepresent our 
 people. When at the North, even within the last twelve months, I 
 hear persons apparently intelligent, assert that Northern men are not 
 protected in the South. The agents of Western emigrant societies, to 
 secure emigration to their own section, also seek to make similar im- 
 pressions. 
 
 A second obstacle to our obtaining capital from the North is due to 
 this disposition in the human mind. As speculators will not buy in 
 a falling market, so men seldom go to poor countries, but rather direct 
 their steps to communities that are rising and prosperous. If the im- 
 
(25) 
 
 pression existed that we were so prosperous that we did not need aid 
 from abroad, capital would seek our territory to share our prosperity. 
 
 We must rely mainly on the efforts of our own people. Industry, 
 directed by intelligence, and economy in expenditure, will, in time, 
 enrich us, Our present greatest enemies are indolence and ignorance. 
 Vigor in action, directed by intelligence in method and instruments, 
 must be our main reliance. I once told the members of our Legisla- 
 ture, that they could do nothing perhaps better for the State than to 
 send champions to fight these two old wrong-doers, ignorance and 
 laziness. 
 
 If our people, as a whole, perform three-fourths as much work as 
 they ought to do, and support themselves thereby, then if they would 
 only do the other fourth we should make a profit of twenty-five per 
 cent, per annum, and would thus soon become wealthy. If for a 
 dozen years our citizens were to labor as earnestly and industriously 
 as they did during the war, and live as economically, we should 
 become the richest people upon earth. If this cannot be hoped for, 
 at least let us strive to come as near to such a standard as possible. 
 
 The destruction of our system of education, and its only partial 
 restoration, is, to my mind, the saddest result of the war. Its full 
 restoration, with added efficiency and advantages, is the most urgent 
 call of the present hour. You whom I now address can do much in 
 this cause, and I trust the energies of the State will be vigorously and 
 successfully brought to your aid. 
 
 An intelligent, industrious and enterprising body of citizens can so 
 develope the great natural advantages of the State as to make North 
 Carolina one of the most prosperous and noblest communities that 
 has ever existed. 
 
 If, ladies and gentlemen, in the course of these suggestions, perhaps 
 too much extended, I shall have brought to your minds thoughts that 
 may be interesting in themselves, or calculated to be of advantage 
 hereafter, our time will not have been spent in vain.