I am speaking here in the presence of expert chemists. You say I have no business to know anything about these topics. Well, the new professor in Andover on the relations between religion and science has no business to know them. The new professor at Edinburgh University and in Princeton has no business to know them. The lectureship at the Union Theological Seminary in New York has no right to teach on these themes. There is getting to be a tolerably large company of us who are intending to look into these matters at the point of the microscope and the scalpel. In a wiser generation than ours the haughty men who will not speak themselves of the relations of religion and science, and will not allow others to speak--veritable dogs in the manger--will be turned as dogs out of the manger. I speak very strongly, for I have an indignation that can not be expressed when it is said that men who join hands with physicians, and are surrounded by experts to teach them the facts, have no right to make inferences. Men educated and put into professorships to discuss as a specialty the relation of religion and science have no right to discuss these themes! We have a right as lawyers to discuss such topics before juries, when we bring experts in to help us. I bring experts before you as a jury. I assert the right of Andover, and Princeton, and New Haven, and Edinburgh, and even of this humble platform to tell you what God does in the brain, and to exhibit to you the freshest discoveries there of both His mercy and wrath. My support of temperance reform I would base upon the following propositions: 1. Scars in the flesh do not wash out nor grow out, but, in spite of the change of all the particles of the body, are accurately reproduced without alteration by the flux of its particles. Let us begin with an incontrovertible proposition. Everybody knows that the scars of childhood are retained through life, and that we are buried with them. But we carry into the grave no particle of the flesh that we had in youth. All the particles of the body are in flux and are changed every few years. There is, however, something in us that persists. I am I; and therefore I am praiseworthy or blameworthy for things I did a score of years since, although there is not a particle of my body here now that was here then. The sense of the identity persisting in all the flux of the particles of the system, proves there is something else in man besides matter. This is a very unsubstantial consideration, you say; but the acute and profound German finds in this one fact of the persistence of the sense of identity in spite of the flux of the particles of the body, the proof of the separateness of matter and mind.