THE REJECTED ADDRESS. 
MAN’S TRUE RELATION TO 
NATURE; 
HIS 
ORIGIN, CHARACTER AND DESTINY 
BY T. P. WILSON, M. D., 
Ui 
CLEYBLANR, o. 
EDITOR OHIO MEDICAL AND SURGICAL REPORTER. 
DELIVERED IN PHILADELPHIA, JUNE G, 1871. 
L. H. WITTE, PUBLISHER. 
CLEVELAND, O.: 
W. S. ROBISON & CO., PRINTERS, 65 AND 67 FRANKFORT STREET. 
1871. POSSIBLY A KEY. 
It often occurs to persons familiar with some scientific subject to hear 
men and women of mediocre gifts relate to one another what they have 
picked up about it from some lecture—say at the Royal Institute—where 
they have sat for an hour listening, with delighted attention, to an admirably 
lucid account, illustrated by experiments, of the most perfect and beautiful 
character, in all of which they expressed themselves intensely gratified and 
highly instructed. It is positively painful to hear what the}' say. Their 
recollections seem to be a mere chaos of mist and misapprehension, to 
which some sort of shape and organization have been given by the action of 
their own pure fancy, altogether alien to what the lecturer intended to con- 
vey. The average mental grasp of zohat is called a well educated audience will 
be found to be ludicrously small when rigorously tested.—[Gallon's Hereditary 
Genius, page 21. EXPLANATORY. 
The following address was delivered on the evening of June 6, 1871, 
in the Academy of Music of Philadelphia, before the American Institute 
of Homoeopathy, and a large and intelligent audience of citizens. For 
several years it has been customary for the Institute to regale the public 
with an annual address from one of its members. The addresses were 
usually delivered in some public hall. It was always understood the 
speaker was alone responsible for the views he advanced. But for several 
sessions no speaker had dared to go out of the beaten track of medicine. 
It was the same old story—medical history and glory to Hahnemann. 
This at last grew so tiresome that in 1868 it was ordered by the Institute, 
that 
“Whereas, In the opinion of this Institute the necessity of public ad- 
dresses in favor of Homoeopathy in our large cities and communities has 
passed away, 
“ Resolved That in the future the annual address to this body shall be 
upon some scientific or professional subject, and not upon popular med- 
icine.” 
It was in view of this clearly expressed sentiment that the following 
was prepared and delivered. The immediate result is perhaps well 
known. Its delivery was received with hisses and storms of applause. 
At its close, Dr. David Thayer, of Boston, moved, • 
“That while we do not all endorse the sentiment of the speaker, we 
present a vote of thanks for the able address.” 
This motion passed. 
“At the conclusion of his remarks, some of the members displayed their 
bad taste by a discussion deprecatory of the views advanced by the orator.” 
—Philadelphia Post, June 7. 
“ One of the physicians present moved that the address be printed and 
the thanks of the body be tendered the orator. Another member protested 
against the adoption of the sentiments enunciated. Another member in the 
house moved the oration be considered a gross outrage on the privilege 
given to the orator. It was finally decided to re turn thanks to the speaker 
of the evening, though not endorsing his views.” The Age, June 7. 
“An amendment was offered that the American Institute denounces the 
use of its platform for any theological purpose, and the resolution as 
amended was adopted.”—The Press, June 7. 
“A large part of the address following was a condemnation of theology, 
inspiration and the pulpit, and a plea for the substitution of the teachings 
of inductive science in their stead. Belief in inspiration was described as 
mental slavery, and the pulpit was declared to be the great obstacle to the 
investigation of truth.”—Forney's Press, June 7. 
Reporters are supposed to give better attention than most other people, 
but the discrepancies in the above extracts will no doubt amuse, if not 
astonish the reader. It was still worse with the audience generally; the 
most diverse and contradictory views were entertained concerning the 
views of the speaker and the general drift of the address. 4 
Explanatory. 
Subsequently, when a motion was made to print the address, it was 
negatived by a large vote. And not only so, but a resolution was unanimously 
passed that hereafter no more addresses should be given under the aus- 
pices of the Institute. One brilliant member proposed that addresses 
should be subjected to the censorship of a special committee before 
delivery. The good sense of the Institute rejected the proposition. 
This address, therefore, is not only plainly stamped with rejection, but 
it is the last of a noble line. It is unofficially published, out of no spirit 
of revenge, for the author took no exceptions to the course pursued by 
the Institute, but in order that it may be more carefully examined and 
accepted or rejected under a better understanding than could be obtained 
from its delivery. It is the product of many years of hard study, and 
need not be set aside as a sudden freak of a disordered fancy. It is the 
oirt-growth of a long time familiarity with such minds as John Stuart 
Mill, Huxley, Herbert Spencer, Maudsley, Max Muller, and a host of like, 
men who represent the progressive intellect of the age. 
Nor was it conceived in ignorance of, nor in opposition to, what is 
known as orthodox theology. The intelligent reader will see that religion 
in its broadest sense is made to cover the truths of revelation, from what- 
ever source they may come. This idea can never be grasped by narrow- 
minded and bigoted men. Theology and the pulpit, from this high stand- 
point, include vastly more than orthodox}'- or protestantism, or even 
Christianity. But in whatever form we meet them they assume to teach 
in a definite and emphatic manner .the very things that science teaches. 
And when any one says tlyat science and religion are not. at war,* we beg 
to inquire what science ? and what religion ? What theology is it with which 
science has always been, and still is, in such perfect accord ? That there 
is a disagreement somewhere is painfully evident. Protestants assert it of 
Catholics and Catholics of Protestants ; the orthodox assert it as true of 
the heterodox and vice versa; Christians believe it of pagans and probably 
pagans hold similar views of Christians. Comprehending all these, we 
declare that theology has often erred, inspiration has been grossly belied, 
and both in their truthfulness and purity must be found conformable to 
science. 
Those who think their pulpit and their theology have achieved perfection 
will not object to having all we have said applied to every other pulpit and 
theology. But our idea is to have the truth declared and maintained 
irrespective of all; and above all to have the rights of science vindicated. 
P. S. It is well for the reader to observe that the views presented do 
not appear as the adopted opinions of the speaker. They are offered as 
representing the opinions of a certain class of scientists, and their truth 
or falsity remains to be determined. 
* “The Sessions were generally interesting, hut the annual address, delivered by T. T. 
Wilson, M. D., of Cleveland, Ohio, as reported in the daily papers, contained remarks 
exceedingly distasteful to all right-thinking men in these parts. ***** The 
speaker referred to the pulpit in anything but kind tenns. With all its virtues it has some 
vices in his estimation at least. ‘We all know,’ said the speaker, ‘it is dogmatic. Men of 
theology and men of science have declared war because they find themselves antagonists.’ 
To us this is all news. We confess there is a science, falsely so called, which has always, is 
now, and will continue to he, antagonistic to the gospel of Christ, but all true science goes 
hand in hand with theology.”—Spectator, in the Christian Advance. MAN’S TRUE RELATION 
TO 
NATURE;’ 
HIS ORIGIN, CHARACTER AND DESTINY. 
IX THE WEST. 
Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen: 
One short year ago the members of the American Institute 
of Homoeopathy grasped the warm hands of a noble hand of 
pioneers in the far West. We stood there on the seeming verge 
of civilization, amid the most marvelous scenes of human energy 
and enterprise. 
There we beheld the morning dawn of human progress casting 
its vivifying beams over hill top and valley, over hamlet and 
town, over uncultivated wastes, and cities of magnificent possi- 
bilities. 
Since then but twelve brief months have been added to the 
■calendar of time, but they have been marked by an unprecedented 
progress in the history of the medical profession. In the year, 
the completion of which we celebrate to-day, we have gained 
more substantial victories, achieved more lasting results, accom- 
plished more permanent good, than in any other year since we 
have been organized as a Medical School. 
For this, we are indebted to the brief contact we then enjoyed 
with the young, aspiring and energizing West. 
IX THE EAST. 
To-day we stand in the Orient. We come to sit under palms 
that bear the fragrance of age, or to bask in the light of a sun 
that has risen well towards its lofty zenith. We are here that we 
may pluck from these o’erhanging boughs, the rich, ripe fruits 
of a matured civilization; that we may link to the resistless 
■energy of the West the culture and refinement of the East. Man's True Relation to Nature, 
Seeking in our individual and in our collective capacity to give 
the highest possible adornment to the Science and Art of Medi- 
cine, we come knocking at your doors ; we enter your domiciles, 
we sit at your firesides, in order that we may catch something of 
the true spirit of matured art and taste, that we may possess 
ourselves of the jewels of ripened social and intellectual culture. 
True it is that we are but medical men; that we are only a 
company of ambitious doctors, and for whom, in the estimation 
of some, the merest rudiments of civilization are amply sufficient.. 
True it is that we belong to a class, upon whom to put scholastic- 
culture and social refinement, is accounted a gross misapplica- 
tion of valuable endowments. What boots it that a doctor be 
wise or learned, if so be his prerogatives be compassed by the 
examining of the sick and the dispensing of drugs ? To such 
limited views of the true province of medical art; to such crude 
notions of the rights and duties, of the medical profession, I beg, 
in behalf of my medical brethren, respectfully to dissent. 
What though, in the pursuit of our calling, we give daily min- 
istration to the afflicted children of men, must we become the 
pariahs of society ? Because we attend the couch of suffering and 
stretch forth the hand of healing, must we become outcasts among 
the sons and daughters of civilization ? Are we not rather linked 
by every element of our professional nature to all that is good in 
man? Do we not hold an abiding interest in every question of 
social, religious and political progress ? What question so wide we 
cannot grasp it ? What relation of human interest so complex 
that we cannot comprehend it ? 
But I need hardly appeal to you, denizens of the “ City of 
Brotherly Love;” to you, citizens of this ancient and renowned 
metropolis of Medical Science and Art, and with all your vast 
hospitals, your colleges, your medical press, with your represent- 
ative men whose names are household-words in all civilized lands; 
I need hardly appeal to you in behalf of the claims of our pro- 
fession to all beneficial uses that may come from wealth and 
learning, culture and refinement, or that art and taste, age and 
wisdom can bestow. 
The tribute of respect and honor your presence bestows upon 
this occasion of our annual gathering, leads us to believe that your 
truest, deepest sympathies, are one with the great body of noble: 
workers whose lives are joined in active relation to Medical Art.. His Origin, Character and Besting. 
7 
And now, if some doubt lias been cast upon this too popular 
impression, that the duties of the medical profession are essentially 
menial in their character, and if we are prepared to admit that 
medical men are entitled to something'’more than the patronage 
of the sick and the sufferance of the well; that they have aspira- 
tions for something better than to rent an office, hang out a sign 
and engage in the routinism of practice; if only we can com- 
prehend the fact, that doctors are something better than galley- 
slaves ; if we can appreciate the truth that among the leaders of 
the race, among the nobility that is founded on the aristocracy 
of intellect, among the earnest searchers after truth, stand the 
humble sons of Aesculapius—then we may clearly see why it is that 
on the shoulders of these men is borne no small share of the greatest 
burden that wras ever laid upon the great collective mind of man. 
THE EHH AIMED AT. 
Then we may see why it is that on an occasion of this kind the 
public is not treated with a display of medical paraphernalia in 
the shape of potions, powders and pills ; is not harangued about 
patbies, and diagnoses, and prognoses, but is invited to a consid- 
eration of questions involving the stern logic of facts and the 
occult principles of philosophy. The discussion of these ques- 
tions may possibly demonstrate our inability to handle a subject 
so profound, but it will show to the world that doctors do some- 
times think about something more than how to make a prescrip- 
tion and pocket a fee, and do attempt something besides a lauda- 
tion of their particular school, and a depreciation of the character 
of their rivals. 
What I have to offer upon these important subjects is by no 
means presented as a finality, or as having a necessary claim upon 
your acceptance. If you will but kindly hear them you may re- 
ceive or reject. (Applause.) 8 
Man’s True Relation to Mature, 
THE ADDRESS. 
Who among ns can estimate all the problems that vex the 
human soul ? If we should attempt to number them, they are 
more than we can calculate. Among them chiefly are the found- 
ing of dynasties, the extension of empire and the maintenance 
of government. There is also the administration of law and 
there is the diffusion of knowledge; there are time and space, 
good and evil, the earth beneath our feet and the heavens above 
our heads—all these come trooping in with endless and meas- 
ureless questions, imperatively demanding of man a prompt and 
satisfactory answer. And to give the needed answer to these 
perplexing problems, what a noble army of volunteers prefer 
their services. There are poets and painters, statesmen and phil- 
osophers, jurists and divines, warriors and educators; there are 
men of letters and men of inventions; there are men of com- 
merce and men of art; aye, and there are women, too, who hold 
most honorable positions among the grand thinkers and still 
grander doers of the age. All these and multitudes whom I 
have not named, are each, in their several spheres, trying to an- 
swer some of these questions, the solution of which burdens the 
soul of man. 
THE PROBLEMS OF LIFE. 
And look you now at the fruit of their labor. Every picture 
that hangs on our walls, every song that strikes upon our ears, 
every work of fiction or history that Is written, every well.con- 
sidered effort delivered from the forum or the pulpit, the silent 
and unappreciated labors of the teacher, as well as the crash and 
carnage of the battle-field, each in its own Avay alike tends to 
the answering of these great and vital problems of the day. 
But high over all these subsidiary questions towers another 
problem, so vast in proportion, that it, “ like Aaron’s serpent, 
swallows up the rest; ” and that problem is the true relation of 
Man to Nature. Who among ns can answer this question? Can IT is 0 rig in, Character and Destiny. 
9 
yon, my theological friend? Can you, metaphysicians ? Can 
yon, scientists, statesmen, philosophers ? If so, then yon can an- 
swer all questions worthy of solution : tlr en yon can unlock all 
mysteries that trouble the human breast. Once determine man’s 
true relation to nature, and yon have the golden key that can 
open all doors in the Temple of Knowledge. 
Ah I but, yon say, this has all been found out long ago. If 
yon don’t believe it, go and ask our wise men; they know all 
about it. Yes, wTe have a thousand answers ready made and 
freely offered ns, but unfortunately they do not always prove to 
be satisfactory. There are those who believe that the true an- 
swer lies yet hidden from the eye of man. But we do not de- 
spair of eventually solving the riddle. How can it be that man’s 
self shall forever be man’s greatest mystery ? The processes of 
evolution that shall in the end develop? and determine the solu- 
tion of this question, may, only in the lapse of ages, reach their 
completion, but the long-desired answer must finally come. And 
to secure this, no class of thinkers anddelvers are more earnestly 
at work than are the members of the medical profession. 
In the very nature of things, you must know what man is be- 
fore you can rightly estimate his relations to his surroundings. 
You must investigate the nature of his physical structure, number 
all its varied and multiplied parts, search out its complex opera* 
tions, and from these be enabled to see and appreciate the fact that, 
man has a spiritual nature as well as a physical body. In fact, that 
he is soul and body joined in one. But before you do this, you must 
go to Nature and fearlessly and faithfully interrogate her. By 
long and patient labor you must learn what laws govern her 
structure and function. And, standing on this broad and stable 
base, you may hope successfully to work out the task you have 
in hand. 
THE TRUE METHOD OF SOLUTION. 
You go to Berlin, the imperial city of Prussia, and there may 
be seen, in the gallery of art, a mural painting by the immortal 
Kaulbach. It represents Attilla borne aloft on a shield, waging 
the fierce battle of the Huns before the gates of Home. The ar- 
mies, lifted by their frenzy into mid air, fight with the despera- 
tion of death, scorning to stand on the solid earth. But this will 
not answer in the study of man’s relation to nature. You must 10 
Man’s True Relation to Nature, 
come down from stilted theories and stand on the firm wide 
ground of settled facts. Induction and not speculation, will 
help you to solve the enigma. You cannot, in this matter, imi- 
tate the hoy genius of New Hampshire, hy starting in the mid- 
dle of the hook and reading both ways. It will not do to begin 
where rather you should leave off. (Applause.) 
Now then, this problem about which we are talking—namely, 
the relation of man to nature—presents itself to us under a 
threefold aspect. It leads us to inquire; 
Ist. As to Man’s Origin—whence comes he? 
2d. As to Man’s Character—what is he? 
3d. As to Man’s Destiny—where goes he? 
0, I don’t deny that these questions lack novelty. They are 
as old as are human speculations. They are the heir-looms of 
every thinking soul. We have them by inheritance from the 
pristine ages of the world. They come down to us from time so 
far back that the memory of man runneth not to the contrary. 
And I don’t deny that they have all been answered, and that 
the answers have been accepted, and recorded, and passed into 
history, and incorporated into our politics, and made a part of 
our religion ; they have been canonized and deified. 
And in the light of these answers these questions become very 
simple indeed. Suppose, for instance, you ask as to the origin 
of man, and they tell you that primarily, by a direct act of the 
Almighty, the first pair were created out of the dust of the 
earth about six thousand years ego, and that by a very simple 
act—so simple, indeed, that it need hardly be inquired into by 
ordinary people, and ought not to be inquired into by modest 
and refined people—by a simple act of reproduction, from these 
two sprang all the tribes and nations of men that fill the earth. 
And this settles the question of man’s origin beyond a peradven- 
ture. 
And then you ask as to man’s character; what sort of a being 
is lie? and you find that a less difficult question to be answered 
than the first. Any school-boy resting from his game of mar- 
bles can tell you that man is not an angel, nor a god, nor is he a 
brute. The popular idea is, you know, that the human race is a 
special creation, somewhere between the brute beneath it and the 
infinite above it, and that on either side are wide, deep chasms, His Origin, Character and Destiny. 
11 
that must forever separate man from all other orders of being.. 
We are solemnly instructed that all the wide creation is only 
man’s accessory; that all objects about him have been brought 
into being for his use and delectation. And not the earth onlyy 
but the planetary and stellar worlds, no less than the sun itself, 
exist only to aid, adorn and gratify man. And this is a very 
comfortable doctrine for the vanity of man’s heart. 
Well, how as to his destiny ? what is man’s future? This, to- 
be sure, is not a difficult question in the minds of a majority of 
the human race. The most degraded nations of the earth, no 
less than the most highly civilized, have claimed a possession of 
a knowledge of the future. The difficulty is not that, represent- 
ing any phase of this knowledge, whether of the red man of the 
West, or the African, or the Asiatic—the difficulty is not that we 
could not definitely answer the question, but we are met with 
the suggestion that this is no place to undertake the discussion 
of such subjects. Those who have come here to be amused or 
instructed do not desire to have their flesh chilled and their 
blood curdled by considerations of this sort. In short, this is 
no question for medical doctors and common people; it is the 
exclusive property of our divinity doctors, and if any informa- 
tion is needed we can go to them, and they will give the required 
answers. 
A PROTEST OFFERED. 
Now then, if on this occasion I do no more than enter an 
effective protest against a pernicious monopoly of investigation 
of any one field of thought by any one class of men, I shall 
have accomplished a deed I well may be proud of. The day is 
past in which any question pertaining to human interest can be 
Availed in and shut out from the scrutinizing eye of free and 
fearless inquiry. This is pre-eminently an age of free thought 
and untrammeled reason. Every man, armed Avith his probe, 
may, if he like, force his Avay down or up through all the long 
and tortuous Avindings of any and every problem he may Avish 
to investigate. 
To be sure, if he does so, he Avill be accused of sacrilege; 
injunctions will be served upon him at every step; he will be 
warned of danger and threatened with punishment. No matter 
Avhere he turns he will find every question pre-empted. By a 
sort of squatter sovereignty right, certain men have seized upon Man’s True Relation to Nature, 
12 
each department of inquiry, and concerning the subjects they 
involve, they propose to legislate for the balance of the human 
race. And this is a great act of benevolence upon their part, 
undoubtedly. 
It matters not that these things involve considerations import- 
ant alike to every member of the human family—that is no 
reason why everybody should needlessly inquire into them. Such 
subjects are considered as above the reach and comprehension of 
the sans calotte. (Applause.) 
And tins, ladies and gentlemen, is the burden of our protest. 
The world of finance is not more thoroughly cursed with char- 
tered monopolies of trade, than is the world of thought by self- 
constituted monopolies of investigation. And these latter do 
not so much themselves investigate as they prevent others from 
making the desired investigation. This indictment does not lie 
exclusively at any one door. 
The legislative and executive departments of all governments 
monopolize many of these questions. “The divine right of 
kings” is good warrant for any satrap to hold absolute control 
over the consciences and intelligence of the people. Tyranny 
puts her heel on the neck of her prostrate victims and holds it 
there “ by the grace of God and the king.” 
Also the bench and the bar have assumed to dictate to us the 
right and wrong, the truth and falsity of many questions that 
clearly affect the rights and consciences of men, and yet these 
questions are by no means so clearly settled as they would have 
us think. Matters in law are not always settled by evidence. 
Fundamental principles are established by purely arbitrary mea- 
sures often, and in the face of such evidence as science affords. 
The fact is, that speculative philosophy has long ruled in law, 
where, instead, inductive reason should have prevailed. 
The press must also come in for its share in this protest. I 
know it is not good policy, and hence not very fashionable, to offer 
criticisms on the press. Those merciless fellows called editors 
and reporters, manage always to give us the worst of every quar- 
rel we get into with them. They will have the last word, and 
they knowhow to use it to their advantage. The press is suppos- 
ed to be “ the parliament of the world” where every man can 
speak his opinion. In a very general way this is true. But in 
many of its more important departments it unfortunately is Ills Origin, Character and Destiny. 
13 
bound by shackles it cannot easily break ; and its most accepta- 
ble readers are those who wear the chains of slavery. 
ABOUT THEOLOGY. 
But the weight of this indictment must lie against the pulpit. 
And when I say this I use the terra in its widest possible sense. 
I mean that world wide agent that has in all nations stood before 
man as the exponent of the Divine will. The form or nature of 
the religion makes no difference. The fact remains that the priest- 
hood have exercised very general and exclusive jurisdiction over 
these questions we have now under consideration. Whether at 
the rude altar in the forest, laying his sacrifices on unhewn stone, 
or in the grand cathedrals, swinging his incense amid beautiful 
and costly surroundings, everywhere the same authority has been 
exercised, and the same submission demanded. No one can 
estimate the amount of good that even the rudest form of reli- 
gion has done mankind. It would be blindness and madness com- 
bined to detract aught from the virtues of the most imperfect, or 
the glory of the truest and purest. But why should we shut our 
eyes to the faults of those who dispense to the world so much 
light and knowledge, since their very faults are all the more seri- 
ous from having fastened themselves upon such influential agents ? 
If they become dogmatic in their teachings, and jealous of their 
authority, why may we not enter here, or anywhere, our earnest 
protest? Because of their office and authority, are they above 
criticism ? 
And because they have very definitely decided the questions 
we have raised, must we forbear to push our inquiries further 
lest we may possibly come in conflict with established authority ? 
Let those who think we are going out of our way to make a need- 
less attack, attempt themselves an independent investigation, and 
ascertain what are the obstacles they have to meet. (Hisses and 
applause.) 
If you would know aught concerning the origin, character and 
destiny of man, you have but to ask theology, and the information 
is at once afforded you. And you are not expected to call in 
question the correctness of the settlement thus made of the whole 
matter. 
ABOUT INDUCTIVE SCIENCE. 
But it cannot have escaped the observation of every intelligent 
person that a new era of thought is dawning upon the world. 14 
Man’s True Relation to Nature, 
Self-constituted authority in matters of morals and intellect, is 
fast losing its prestige. Not alone the favored few, hut the earn- 
est, anxious many, are grappling the problems of the day. And 
the principles those enquiries involve, so far from being accepted 
as settled, are now suejected to new tests. The whole ground is 
being upturned, and the plough-share of free thought goes driv- 
ing through cherished systems of faith, in a manner quite horri- 
fying to the spirit of conservatism. 
Heretofore a body of men, under the guise of theology, and un- 
der the assumed sanction of divine authority, have been our law- 
givers and our judges. Bui now another class of men, under the 
banner of Science, and by the authority of inductive reason, 
claim our attention and confidence. These men assume juris- 
diction over these very questions, and demand that their settle- 
ment shall be in accordance with no professed inspiration from 
any quarter; in accordance with no metaphysical subtilties of 
any sort or kind; but by the stern logic of induction.* 
And so men of theology, and men of science, finding their views 
mutually antagonistic, have declared war. 
Do not, I beg of you, blame me for this state of affairs. It is 
not so because I have the temerity to stand here and declare it; 
but lam bold to assert it because I know it is so. It is a matter 
of history and fact, and not of opinion. 
And if you are so blind that you cannot see the progress of 
events, then it is time that your eyes were opened and your range 
of vision enlarged. For this contest, which has but just begun, 
and which is likely to last through many coming years, involves 
principles of vital importance to you and me. 
SCIENTISTS IMPEEEECT. 
But I would not have you think that I hold these professed 
men of science to be the paragons of virtue. They are not with- 
out their faults. They sometimes draw hasty conclusions from 
facts that are scanty and obscure. They build systems and pro- 
mulgate doctrines with as little show of reason as do men in the 
*This may seem to some like a denial of inspiration, but such is not the 
fact. Pure scientific investigation necessarily includes everything but scien- 
tific truths. It can no more make use of inspirational truths than can math- 
ematics make use of music or poetry. The statement, therefore, represents 
a simple fact about which no more controversy can be held than about the 
multiplication table. His Origin, Character and Destiny. 
15 
pulpit. But Ido not care to place scientists, by any sort of com- 
parison or contrast, by the side of theologians. We are not con- 
cerned about the men but about the principles they profess, and 
through the uses of which they propose to lead us into all truth. 
WHAT SCIENCE TEACHES. 
I desire, with your permission, to look at these problems about 
which we have been talking, through the eye of this new philos- 
ophy. We know very well what theology thinks about them. 
Man’s origin is easily disposed of by putting it in the garden of 
Eden; his character is easily settled by making him “ the lord 
of creation,” the measure of the universe; and as for his destiny 
an entire uniformity of opinion does not exist. 
Charles Dickens never drew a finer picture than that of hon- 
est, ragged, little Joe, offering to give in his testimony before a 
coroner’s jury. Joe said he knew very well what it was to tell a 
lie. His poor dead mother had long ago taught him to distin- 
guish between right and wrong. “But, Master Joe, what is go- 
ing to happen to you after you die ? ” “Ah,” said the ragged, 
honest Joe, “That’s more than I can tell.” “Well, then,” says 
the officer, “you can go.” “Why,” says an interested juryman, 
“ can’t the little fellow be allowed to tell his story ? ” “ That he 
can’t,” exclaims the indignant coroner, “for when I asked him 
about the future, didn’t you hear him say he didn’t knoiv?” 
What shocking ignorance! What horrible depravity! And 
yet there are many doubting little Jocs scattered up and down 
this wide world of ours. And can we wonder at this, since the 
pulpit is at disagreement with itself in regard to the matter ? 
Must we decide when doctors of divinity cannot agree? You 
know how it is. One party, as in Holy Willie’s Prayer, 
“Sends ane to heaven and ten to hell,” 
While on the other hand, others send all to heaven and none to 
hell; and between these two extremes are all varieties of opinion 
to suit our varied tastes. (Hisses and applause.) But most of 
these agree in this one thing, that the material form, as well as 
the spiritual, will be endowed with future life. The resurrection 
of the body and the immortality of the soul are twin and insep- 
arable articles of faith. 
So much for theology. Mail’s True Relation to Nature, 
Now what says inductive philosophy? Or, suppose we stop a 
moment and inquire what is inductive philosophy? Whence 
comes it? What are its results ? In particular, what has it to 
say about these problems that so involve man’s interest and 
welfare ? 
THE ORIGIN OR THEOLOGY. 
Well, in the first place, inductive philosophy is not so old as 
is theology. In the infancy of the human race, man found him- 
self amid the vastness of elements whose nature and phenomena 
he could not understand. Fire and air, earth and water, with 
their resistless forces, overpowered and paralyzed him. Earth- 
quakes and lightnings, floods that overflowed and hurricanes 
that swept by, awoke in his breast only the deepest terror. Be- 
fore such manifestation of resistless power what was he but ab- 
ject and powerless. It was under such conditions as these that 
paganism and demonolatry took their rise. Invisible gods and 
mischief-working devils were on every hand to be propitiated. 
He built them altars and offered them sacrifice. The beasts of 
the field, the birds of the air and the serpents that crawled along 
the earth, were the embodiments of these supernal and infernal 
powers. Even the stones which he hewed and the clay which he 
fashioned, became supernatural in his hands, and he fell down 
and offered them worship. 
man’s humility and arrogance 
It was then that man conceived himself to be the least among 
all things that existed in the universe. He thought himself 
living only by sufferance; that he was the freak of fortune 
and the child of chance. But as time rolled on, man began to 
investigate, and ere long he found that he was one'with nature, 
twin child with her elements and her offspring. Then he ceased 
worshiping nature and began carefully to study her operations. 
When he found that he could trace out the working of her 
laws, nay, more than that, that he could guide and control her 
operations so as to enhance his pleasure, then in his imagination he 
straightway became lifted up above nature. He conceived him- 
self to be better than the world which he inhabited; more noble 
than the objects with which he was surrounded. So strong a 
hold did this idea get upon his mind that in some instances he His Origin, Character and Destiny. 
17 
assumed to be God himself. ISTot a few of the human race put 
on kingly and imperial prerogatives. Not a few made proclama- 
tion that they were vice-gerents of the Almighty—anointed of 
God. It was everywhere acknowledged that certain of the human 
race could, under certain conditions, attain unusual excellence, 
and so, as it were, stand on a higher plane than that occupied by 
ordinary mortals. But whether ranked as royal or plebeian, it 
was held that being man, they were, by creation and by acquire- 
ments, better than all else the world contained. 
Placing himself thus above nature he easily brought himself 
to the point of despising her. Nay, more than this, because he 
found his body to be of the earth earthy, he looked disdainfully 
upon that also. And so, as his body did not constitute an object 
of sufficient reverence, his conception enthroned within his phys- 
ical form a spiritual essence that in its nature was ethereal and 
god-like. 
This he naturally endowed with immortality. Hence the doc- 
trine of the soul. This spiritual principle he at once placed in 
supreme authority. As in his philosophy the world was made 
for man, so the body was made for the soul. 
"ABOUT INSPIRATION. 
Still as he did not wholly unravel all the processes of nature’s 
laws, he looked upon much of her phenomena as supernatural. 
The harmony and design of those phenomena led him to seek 
out an intelligent cause. Eventually, he comprehended it, and 
called it God. This he worshiped as supreme and infinite. Then, 
naturally, he sought to know the mind or will of God, and 
straightway revelation came to him through inspired men. This 
inspiration took on the form of law, was duly and carefully 
recorded, and is presented to us in the Koran of the Mohammedan, 
in the Zend-Avesta of the Persian, in the Shaster of the Hindo, 
in the teachings of Confucius and in the Bible of the Christian. 
I know, alas, that the spirit of bigotry will sharply protest 
against such liberal classification. Zealots of each faith will 
claim exclusive title to the rights of inspiration. But nothing 
can be more idle than to thus limit God’s revelations to men 
through inspiration. 
With perfect truthfulness we might well enlarge, rather than 
narrow, the scope and source of divine communications to man. 18 
Man’s True Relation to Mature, 
Though not myself a follower of Emanuel Swedenborg, I gladly 
and thankfully recognize in him a teacher inspired of God. But 
I could not consent to make his writings, however valuable, the 
limit of inspiration.* 
Assuming then, that we have a written will of God, what more 
natural than that we should have an order of priests, qualified by 
education, and possibly by inspiration also, to explain and en- 
force the truths therein revealed. And allowing this priesthood, 
notwithstanding its elevation above the rest of mankind, to be 
still possessed of human nature, is it at all strange they were 
prone to assume prerogatives of a high and responsible order? 
Is it at all strange that they became jealous of their official 
rights, dogmatic in their teachings and bigoted in their opinions ? 
Every careful student of history knows how certainly true all 
this has been. 
And now it cannot be denied that here we find the origin of 
theology stated as a system of religion. Ho more can it be de- 
nied that whether in Persia, or China, or Christendom, theology 
has swayed an almost absolute sceptre over the minds and con- 
sciences of the people. Here in Christendom, we accord it high 
rank. Hot only the Bible upon which it plants itself, but the 
doctrines it enunciates, are accepted as from God himself. 
This is very broad ground to stand upon, and I trust you will not 
understand me as calling in question the right of the claims that 
theology makes; no, nor the truthfulness of its teachings. lam 
stating fact and history and not opinion. 
Well, now, theology, in the pursuit of its avocation, has most 
thoroughly settled the grand problem of man’s origin, character 
and destiny. No matter where you go, in all lands, men have 
always gone to the sacred oracles for all needed information upon 
these points. Private opinion was not known, certainly not pro- 
mulgated. And so it has been until the present time. And so 
it would have continued to be, had not a disturbing spirit risen 
up and demanded that these questions have a new hearing. And 
this is none other than the potential spirit of inductive philoso- 
phy, the character of which we have proposed to investigate. 
This disturbing force took its origin in the dissatisfaction 
* The reader will find ample corroboration in Sympathies of Religiously T. 
W. Higginson ; Chips from a German Work Shop, by Max Muller ; Ten Great 
Religions, by James Freeman Clark. His Origin, Character and Destiny. 
19 
which thinking minds have long had with certain teachings of 
theology; in the unwillingness on their part that these vital 
questions should be settled alone by the assumption of those who 
teach inspiration. 
But what is the character of this new authority ? Let us see. 
Inductive philosophy “makes man the servant and interpreter of 
nature.” It “is in reality the systematic pursuance of the law 
of progress in organic development; it is the conscious intend- 
ing of the mind to external realities.” It is an appeal taken from 
inspiration to nature. It is science assuming the office and au- 
thority of theology. 
THE SCOPE OF INDUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY. 
In the opinion of some, this new philosophy (I mean new be- 
cause of its more recent applications) is but the supplement of 
theology, acting merely to enforce its teachings. Others accord 
it the right to materially amend theology, to correct and finally 
determine the truthfulness of its teachings; while others, a less 
numerous and more radical class, aver and insist that it substi- 
tutes, and so renders obsolete, all theology based upon inspira- 
tion. 
Why! say some simple souls, this is base infidelity. This is 
rebellion against law. This is a fearful subversion of the estab- 
lished order of things. Ho doubt of it. And if you are really 
fearful that this heresy will overthrow the universe or peril man’s 
hope of heaven, why then, in heaven’s name, bestir yourself, and 
know 
“What rank and name the foeman wears 
Who dares thee to the fray.” 
It will not answer the ends of successful opposition to go about 
calling it hard names. Men will think, though they be branded 
as infidels; they will think, openly and. independently, though 
they be burned as heretics. Nothing can blunt the edge or turn 
the point of this spirit of free inquiry but argument. So if any 
of you desire to offer substantial opposition, you had better arm 
yourselves with the necessary weapons. 
man’s origin. 
And now in regard to man’s origin, what says this new ex- 
pounder of the truth ? It says in the first place that in the set- 
tlement of this question, we must eschew all traditional and in- 20 
Man’s True Relation to Nature, 
spirational teaching; that we must go to the great Book of Na- 
ture, turn its leaves over with care, and read the lessons they con- 
tain. And yet, this demand, so seemingly simple and just, has 
been stoutly resisted. 
Do you remember the time when you first heard of that fright- 
ful pre-Adamite doctrine ? Don’t you remember how shocked 
was the religious Avorld with the idea that anybody by any possi- 
bility could have existed before Adam’s time ? The tocsin of 
alarm was sounded from the pulpit and echoed from the press. 
Popes, arch-bishops, prelates and laymen came to the rescue of 
an established and endangered theology. 
Yet the careful man of science, in reading the lessons of geol- 
ogy, found most indubitable evidences of a human race long an- 
terior to six thousand years ago. And he affirmed it in the face 
of a universal belief to the contrary—a belief that had the sanc- 
tity of age and inspiration to enforce it. What is the result ? 
I presume you foresee it ; most unmistakably a gradual acquies- 
cence in the truthfulness of this doctrine by intelligent theologians 
everywhere. 
No doubt the most of us were brought up in the faith of a 
literal six day’s creation of the earth. When inductive science 
said we must substitute for six days, six interminable ages, we 
all thought the Bible was about to be destroyed and the founda- 
tions of our religions overturned. To-day, who believes that the 
formation of the earth was the result of a single week’s work ? 
And yet, to affirm the contrary in John Calvin’s time would have 
entailed upon the person so daring, the fagot and the flame. 
Less than forty years ago, Prof. Stuart, of Andover, standing at 
the head of orthodox theology, declared his sincere belief in the 
literal interpretation of the Mosaic account of the Creation. 
To-day, his successor would as soon declare his sincere belief 
in .ZEsop’s Fables or the stories of mythology. After all, theology 
misinterpreted the teachings of inspiration, and so inductive 
philosophy triumphed. Knowing this, we should prepare our- 
selves for further changes in the same direction. (Applause.) 
, But what more does science say about man’s origin ? It says 
that this great volume of Nature has suffered a partial destruc- 
tion of its earliest leaves ; that they are so crumpled and torn and 
scorched by fire that the record is effaced or so mutilated that it 
cannot be made out; and just where man began his existence on 
earth cannot be certainly known. His Origin, Character and Destiny. 
21 
And here it must be confessed that the certainties of theology 
are in happy contrast with the uncertainties of science. But 
here comes up another question, not less important than this one 
concerning the time of man’s origin. We stand face to face 
with the query, how did the human race begin its existence? In 
other words, what is the origin of species, be it man or the lower 
animals ? 
Inductive science attempts to show that by the law of devel- 
opment the lower everywhere gave birth to the higher; that be- 
ginning on the sub-stratum of mineral forms, we have had 
successively evolved, first the vegetable, then the animal, and 
from the lowest animal up through a long evolution we come at 
last to the highest, which is man. This particular view of man’s 
origin is perhaps a half century old, but it has been specially be- 
fore the world about ten years; and I do not mis-state the fact 
when I say that no doctrine of like importance ever gained con- 
verts so rapidly as this.* 
THE LAW OF DEVELOPMENT. 
And though it may not be considered proven—and I do not 
wish to present it as such—it contains so much of the germs of 
truth that few men of science deny it, and those who do deny it 
are evidently impressed with the force and magnitude of its as- 
sertion. This view of man’s origin represents the advanced 
radical doctrine of inductive philosophy. 
We come now to speak briefly of man’s character, as viewed by 
the light of science. We all know how in his pride man has 
exalted himself above the objects of nature which surrounded 
him. Did we but know the thoughts of the animal world, we 
should doubtless find that from the lowest to the highest, each in 
its proper sphere deems itself the center of creation. The worm 
that crawls upon the earth and the insect that dances in the sun- 
beam are the peers of man in vanity and self-exaltation. 
mak’s character. 
But th e truth is, these beings have their existence solely be- 
cause the conditions of nature allow it. And but for those con- 
ditions such life would not be possible. Before this law of 
* Consult “ Progress ; its Law and Cause,” by Herbert Spencer : “ The 
Origin of Species,” and “ The Descent of Man,” by Charles Darwin. 22 
Mans True Relation to Nature, 
nature man is as powerless as the animalcule. So that you see 
induction does not flatter the human race. It boldly places man 
where in his earlier history his own belief placed him—on a plane 
common with all other objects of nature, making him one with 
all the multitudinous forms that swarm the earth, subject with 
them alike to the great law of evolution, whose grand march 
through endless ages must forever be man’s wonder, admiration 
and study. 
INDUCTION' ELEVATES MAN. 
But wdiile it thus, in a striking manner, depreciates man’s 
relation to nature, depriving him of the glory of being the result 
of a special act of creation, it yet endows his physical form with 
some new uses, new beauty and new dignity. The crime of our 
modern civilization has been that we have lost the value of the 
material in our anxiety to serve the interests of the spiritual. 
The moral and intellectual have subordinated the physical. 
Save your soul, says the pulpit. Save your mind, says the uni- 
versity. And so between getting through college and getting to 
heaven, the body has fallen into sad neglect. 
But you cannot have failed to notice that within the past few 
years physical education has persistently and successfully 
demanded its right in our schools, and muscular Christianity has 
invaded and subjugated at least some of our pulpits, so that to- 
day our education is less dyspeptic, and our theology less con- 
sumptive ; for which God be thanked, and we will put it down 
to the credit of inductive philosophy. With a blindness border- 
ing on infatuation men have attempted to construct religious 
systems and to build up mental sciences without reference to the 
body. Induction has shown most clearly the folly of all this. 
THE SOUL DEMONSTEATED, 
But while it thus gives due honor to the body, it does not, as 
some suppose, ignore the existence of the soul. Metaphysical 
psychology, like inspirational theology, has long held undisputed 
sway over the opinions of men. It has assumed to teach all that 
may be known concerning the human mind. Since the time of 
Plato until now, metaphysicians have usurped all power and 
authority, in the study of the human soul. We may thank Sir 
Francis Bacon that they have not compassed and enshrouded all 
other fields of thought with their subtleties. But their grasp on His Origin, Character and Destiny.'' 
23 
the science of psychology lias been lasting and death-like. Only 
under the sternest necessity have they yielded the vantage ground 
at any point to science. Their fault lies not in their energy, nor 
in their perseverance, nor in their honesty of purpose, but in their 
method. 
ABOUT METAPHYSICS. 
Metaphysics was born of the earlier age when science was 
unknown. As men then knew not how to read nature, they 
looked into their own self-consciousness for wisdom. They stu- 
diously and religiously shut their eyes to the great outer world 
and gazed only upon the inner world of self. With them man’s 
relation to nature was counted as nothing, but man’s relation to 
abstract truth was everything. Based upon so faulty a founda- 
tion, they could not be eminently successful. 
And now you see why it is a new system of study has been 
adopted. With inductive reason the great law of investigation 
is to interrogate nature. She searches out the phenomena of all 
animal life, not omitting the least that may be known ; for it is a 
fundamental doctrine with her that only by using the lower as 
stepping stones can we ever arrive at a just conception of the 
higher. In the pursuit of psychology she faithfully studies ner- 
vous phenomena; first in the simplest animal forms, then in those 
having higher and more complex development, through the 
whole series, until we come to the cerebro-spinal system of man. 
The alphabet out of which she builds her systems of truth is to 
be found amid phenomena and forms down where metaphysics 
never deigned humbly to stoop. Inductive philosophy learns of 
babes, of idiots, of madmen, no less than of the philosopher and 
the man of genius, and out of the facts thus freely gathered 
everywhere she builds a rational system of psychology, which is, 
in the end, an unanswerable demonstration of the truth that 
man does possess a soul. 
INDUCTION—HOW FOLLOWED. 
Scientists in this department, like metaphysicians, may, and 
doubtless do, err, but that does not invalidate their method of 
study. To read nature is to read God in his own works, and 
our finite minds may not and do not always grasp the truth as 
revealed in creation. But that system of philosophy which bases 
itself upon the actualities of nature, not discarding the slightest Man’s Irue Relation to Nature, 
fact that may by any possibility be known, and that studiously 
avoids all hypothetical assumptions, cannot go far astray. And 
this is inductive reason. 
man’s destiny, 
We come now to the last point in the problem we have 
been considering: “What is the great hereafter to which we 
all are tending ? What destiny awaits the human race on the 
other shore. Perhaps it is presumptuous in ns to raise such a 
question as this. But by those accustomed to hearing it flip- 
pantly and dogmatically dwelt upon from the pulpit, there can 
be no valid objection raised to our discussion of it. It may 
seem idle to those who have already settled opinions about it, 
and it may see irreverent to those who have hedged it about with 
the exclusive claims of theology. 
But I know no question of this nature too sacred for investi- 
gation, The naked truth shames none but the ignorant. (Ap- 
plause.) If we do not know, then that is the very reason why 
we should attempt to find out. They tell us there is a limit to 
philosophical inquiry, and metes and bounds have been freely 
prescribed, but they should have no binding force to hinder our 
execution of the warrant of search God has put into our hands.* 
If in the settlement of this vexed question of the hereafter we 
share the interest of theology, we propose to share with it the 
great labor of searching out the truth. 
THE RESURRECTION OP THE DEAD. 
The doctrine of the future life has rested on these two points: 
the resurrection of the body and the immortality of the soul. 
Not very many years ago the pulpit held to a very literal inter- 
pretation of the doctrine of the resurrection. On this point its 
ideas were gross and material in the extreme. Of late those 
ideas have undergone substantial change. Science has placed 
her test upon the question, and developed not a few complicat- 
ing facts. She has put into her crucible the dead body, and de- 
termined with very great exactness the composition of the phys- 
ical structure. 
And when she demonstrates that the elements of which the 
body is made are common to nature, common to all animal and 
*Consult Mind and Matter, by Henry Maudsley, M. D. His Origin, Character and Destiny. 
25 
kindred human forms, she may well ask this pertinent question: 
How can the whole human race be furnished in the future with 
tlieir actual bodily forms, since the material of which those 
forms are and have been composed have been component parts of 
many distinct individuals.* 
Science then demands that the cherished doctrine of the res- 
urrection be made to conform itself to the teachings of induct- 
ive philosophy. I have already said that this new method of 
study is not so old as is theology. It therefore lacks ripeness 
and perfection. It neither accomplishes everything it under- 
takes, nor does it attempt to accomplish everything. 
SCIENCE AT FAULT. 
It has assumed to re-investigate, re-adjust and re-determine 
most of the leading problems of the day. But so recently has it 
entered upon the work that its results are sadly inperfect. And 
here stands a question that it does not attempt to solve. As yet 
inductive reason gives no clue as to man’s condition in the other 
world. What we shall be hereafter does not appear from her 
teachings. 
This may seem like a confession of weakness, but a moment’s 
consideration will show that in the nature of things science can 
take cognizance of only what has been and is. It cannot fore- 
cast the future; or perhaps we may better say that, standing 
upon nature and compassed by time, it cannot unfold eternity. 
If theology, through inspiration as the voice of Hod, can do this, 
most gladly will we welcome it to our hearts. 
IN CONCLUSION. 
I have spoken fearlessly, and some may think harshly, of the 
pulpit and the attitude it sustains. Why I have done so must 
be obvious to every patient listener. It is not because Ido not 
regard of inestimable value its labors, nor because I do not rev- 
erentially respect the doctrine it teaches. But I know its weak- 
nesses, and Ido not care to hide its faults. I prize it too highly 
*uSome believe this mortal body rises again. Thank God, not I! 1 
have had enough of it. And when once the earth takes it let it keep it. 
* * * * * Good-bye, old flesh and blood. I am bound for God’s 
kingdom without flesh and blood. What it will be without them I cannot 
tell, but I know it will be magnificent—never tiring any more, unwearied 
and unweariable, with nothing to hinder and everything to help.”—Henry 
Ward Beecher's Sermon, May 13, 1871. 26 
Man’s True Relation to Nature. 
to look in silence upon its short-comings. The average pulpit is 
charged with placing itself in the path of progress. It is said 
there can be no true advance without meeting its opposition. 
How far this is true is perhaps known to you as well as to me. 
To such indictment, however, there are many and notable excep- 
tions. There is a large and growing company of theologians 
whose position as enlightened and earnest teachers commands 
our highest admiration. In every denomination there are pul- 
pits that know and speak the truth. Eight gladly do we bid 
them God-speed. 
But no pulpit nor theology can long stand that ignores, denies 
or belittles the teachings of science. The age demands that an 
adjustment shall be made between the interpretations of inspira- 
tion and the teachings of science. Each for completion may re- 
quire the other. God forbid that I should consent to a separa- 
tion and divorce between them. 
I would that, hand-in-hand, as twin offspring of the Infinite 
Mind, they would together walk the highways of earth, scattering- 
light into every darkened soul, lifting irp poor, ignorant, erring- 
humanity out of the depths of degradation—so that in his char- 
acter, man might reach a grand and noble development, thus 
honoring his divine origin and fitting him for a future full of 
glory and immortality. (Applause.) THE REJECTED ADDRESS. 
MAN’S TRUE RELATION TO 
NATURE: 
HIS 
ORIGIN, CHARACTER AND DESTINY. 
T. P, WILSON, M. D„ 
CLEVELAND, O. 
EDITOR OHIO MEDICAL AND SURGICAL REPORTER. 
DELIVERED IN PHILADELPHIA, JUNE 6, 1871. 
L. H. WITTE, PUBLISHER. 
NO. 17 PUBLIC SQUARE. 
W. S. ROBISON & CO., PRINTERS, 65 AND 67 FRANKFORT STREET. 
CLEVELAND, O. : 
1871.