may the accordance be at once made out. By way of illustration:-it is known to all phrenologists, that our simple and primary notions of things result from impressions being made, through the senses, upon the faculty of Individuality, and upon those communicating notions of the qualities of objects; then the faculties of Eventuality, Locality, and Time, receiving their materials, on which to operate, from the faculties of which I have just spoken, furnish the mind with ideas of relation, whether in reference to circumstance, situation, or duration; then we have the faculty of Comparison observing the analogies existing between notions received through the various media; and lastly, the laws of the mutations of objects and their relations being duly observed, and the whole being fairly classified, and their analogies recognised, we have Causality noting the true connection, in the way of efficiency, between one event and another,—and, the invariability of succedence and precedence being observed, pronouncing the precedent efficient as a cause to the succedent, which is the effect. And only by the recognition of the true relation, as to cause and effect, amongst a series of circumstances, can a true axiom be established; but when once fairly fixed, it forms an infallible guide, as a basis of experiment, to illimitable improvement. Thus, I will attempt to analyze the process which would occur in the mind of a Baconian student, in the supposed investigation relative to the effect of cold on fluids. I assume that nothing, as a general principle at least, is known upon the subject, when the student commences with his inquiry. Does he start with some preconceived theory, or assumed general principle, built upon a false analogy? Does he, from remembering the effect of a gradual withdrawal of heat from many of the ordinary materials in general use, start with the general axiom, that fluids gradually and sensibly harden, in the proportion in which heat is withdrawn? Does he, from this axiom, erected on a false foundation, attempt to deduce ten thousand intermediate propositions, without once deigning to prosecute so vulgar an affair as the conduct of an experiment? No. The Aristotelian would do all these things, and his labours would be fruitless. But the sober and persevering student of the present day would, first of all, apply his faculties of Individuality and Eventuality, and the other perceptive powers, to the collection of all the facts relating to the subject, which were within his reach; the faculty of Comparison, in the first instance, might suggest certain methods of experiment as a means of observing the absolute influence of cold upon fluids; and, after having gone through a sufficiently lengthened series of experiments, Causality would intuitively perceive and declare the general affirmation afforded by the whole series. But the cautious spirit of

the Baconian would not be satisfied with this: he would vary the experiment; he would torture nature to elicit the truth; at every step where the fact rendered it necessary, he would apply the pruning-knife to the general affirmation; and, when the invariableness of the sequence was fairly made out, he would form his axiom, and declare, that "as heat is withdrawn from fluids, their dimensions decrease." Having established an axiom, he starts again with renewed ardour, and resumes the race of experiment and observation. In a short time, he discovers the anomaly afforded by water on being reduced to 40° Fahrenheit; and here he remodels his axiom and resumes his philosophical course. This way of arriving at a general conclusion is the "method of induction,"

There is, however, another most important consideration to be estimated in the investigation of science; and that is, that the mind of the inquirer becomes thoroughly freed from all wayward conceits and preconceived notions; and that "he becomes as a little child as he enters the portals of philosophy." For this purpose, Bacon points out the nature and the source of those mischievous prejudices which possess the human mind, and so take root therein, that truth can hardly enter these prepossessions he designates idols; they are well known, and can be traced to abuses of the faculties as distinguished by Phrenology.

Now, on comparing the old and the new systems of philosophy, will there be a difference of opinion as to which is that one which leads to truth, in its immediate results, and to the advancement of human civilization in its consequences? The outlines of the two systems need only be presented to the unbiassed decisions of common sense, and the "method of induction" will at once be declared to be that whose true foundation is nature, and natural ordinances. Speculation and hypothesis may amuse, delight, and surprise mankind; and in former days fame and honour would have been their handmaids: but the time is now gone by, and every one who would reap the reward must be industrious at seed-time. And here I will again quote, from the "Novum Organum," an aphorism regarding the evidences of true philosophy :-" Signs are also to be taken from the progress and increase of philosophies and the sciences; for things planted in nature will grow and enlarge; but things founded in opinion will differ and not thrive. And, therefore, if the ancient doctrines had not been like plants plucked up and severed from their roots, but still adhered to the womb of nature, and were fed by her, that could not have happened which we see has happened for these two thousand years; the sciences still remaining where they were, and almost in the same condition, without any considerable improvement; nay, they rather flourished most in their original authors, and afterwards de

clined. On the contrary, the mechanic arts which are founded in nature and the light of experience, and remaining pregnant, as it were, with spirit, so long as they continue to please, are ever upon their increase and growth; being first rude, then fashioned, and, lastly, polished and perpetually improved."

I do not know a better illustration of the value of the two systems of philosophy, than that afforded by a comparison of the labours of the metaphysicians and the phrenologists-the proceeding of the former having been to rise from a few particulars to the most general axioms, and these being rested upon as truths, to attempt the formation of intermediate axioms; and the latter, raising axioms from an extended series of observations, and, by a gradual ascent, arriving at the most general conclusions. The metaphysicians, like their philosophical predecessors of the ancient world, erred in making their few facts bend to their assumed general notions; and hence, whole systems rested, almost exclusively, upon the opinions of their founders-systems which "will differ and not thrive." For example, Descartes and Malebranche assumed the doctrine of innate ideas, almost as a postulate; and, their metaphysical system hinging altogether upon this assumption, it necessarily followed that the next ingenious man who could expose the fallacy of the assumed general principle, would entirely supersede the authority of former systems: for here, there was no association or accumulation of labour, no gradual advancement, no being "first rude, then fashioned, and, lastly, polished, and perpetually improved." All was perfect and complete until utterly demolished! Bacon, in confuting the false philosophy, has the following passage, which will admirably apply to the metaphysician:-"When a person goes upon an inquiry, in the first place he searches out and peruses what has been said upon it by others; in the next place, adds his own thoughts thereto; and lastly, with great struggle of the mind, solicits and invokes, as it were, his own spirit, to deliver him of oracles which is a method entirely destitute of foundation, and rolls wholly upon opinions." How different is the proceeding and the progress of the phrenologist! Does he start by assuming any thing? Does he let the suggestion of his own fancy dictate to him those matters on which he relies as truth? Does he, with great struggle of mind, invoke his spirit to deliver him of oracles? He does none of these things; but, for what he actually does, let us refer to the history of the labours of Dr Gall. What, then, was the first proceeding of this true philosopher, and that which ultimately led to the discovery of Phrenology? In the true Baconian spirit, he first made numerous observations upon the peculiar talents and dispositions of individuals, and, at the same time, noted a correspondence in the

shape of the head; and, on a peculiar form of head being observed to be notably and repeatedly coincident with some peculiarity of talent or disposition, he inferred the probability of the existence of a definite relation between the two conditions; and, the facts unequivocally warranting the probability of the inference, it was made the guide-post to further observation; and when facts abundantly multiplied, and all in corroboration, the general axiom was induced, recognising a necessary relation between form of head and peculiarity of mind. By this ceeding, Phrenology is rendered a science of accumulation,— the labours of one being transferable to the use of another; and thus, all studying from the same source-the Book of Nature, axioms may be established, raised, and daily rendered of a more general nature, according as observations, the materials of induction, increase, multiply, and accumulate. Hence, unlike metaphysical science, Phrenology may be "first rude, then fashioned, and lastly polished, and perpetually improved."

pro

ARTICLE X.

THE CLERGY VINDICATED FROM THE CHARGE OF HOSTILITY TO THE DIFFUSION OF SCIENCE; being an Answer to the Pamphlet of Mr H. G. WRIGHT. By a PHRENOLOGIST. Edin burgh, John Anderson, Jun. 1836.

THIS pamphlet, under the imposing title of "The Clergy Vindicated," is intended as a reply to Article X. in the last number of the Phrenological Journal, being Remarks on the religious objections to Science and Phrenology, afterwards published separately.

The object of that article was to point out the utter groundlessness of these objections. The prospectus of the Scottish Christian Herald was referred to, as exemplifying the uneasy feeling that existed on the subject; and Drs Chalmers and Buckland, and the Quarterly Review, were summoned to bear witness to the truth of the general proposition, which they did in very distinct terms. The great improvement which secular knowledge had wrought on the whole tone and spirit of the human mind was pointed out, and this effect traced to its cause by the aid of Phrenology; next, some of the principal objections, by inference, against Phrenology, and which stand in the way of an examination of the facts on which it is based, were stated and replied to; and lastly, the unfounded notion that Phrenology usurps the place of Religion was noticed.

All this appears to have given great offence to the writer of the pamphlet of which the title is prefixed. Whether it was the

truth of the remarks, vouched by such unquestionable evidence, that nettled him (unconsciously, of course), it is not for me to say; but were one to judge from the petty personalities and the quality of may I call it-argument that pervade the pamphlet, certainly something approaching to conviction would force itself on the mind that this was the case.

He announces to the world that he has doubts whether my antagonist has had fair play in the encounter, and says, "We must summon him to the field again." Satisfied that without his aid the Church would be in danger, he stretches out his protecting arm to the clergy, and bids them cheer up, for that he is their friend, and will vindicate them from all the libels that truth ever uttered. Accordingly, throwing around him the cloak of " A Phrenologist," away he marches with his protégés to the field to enact the part of the eighth champion of Europe. His opponent stood in the open field, feeling that

"Thrice is he arm'd that hath his quarrel just ;"

but not so thought our champion, who, remembering Falstaff's catechism, that though honour "pricked him on," honour might prick him off" also,-exclaimed, with his prudent prototype, "I'll none of it." Accordingly, skulking under shelter, out

66

come

"The slings and arrows of outrageous John,"

with the charge of "unfair" pinned to one-of "unhallowed" to another of "conscience-stricken" to a third-and so on; and when we look round to find the author of all this, we see the cloak of " A Phrenologist" held up on a pole to answer the charge. Now, independently of the poor compliment which this is paying to the clergy, from the implied mistrust in the goodness of his cause, it does appear not a little despicable in a person to throw out such charges, and at the same time sneak away from the merited contempt which the exposure of their injustice and absurdity would have showered upon him.*

At the very commencement of the pamphlet there is a ludicrous mistake of the printer of course-by which the writer is made to assume a false character. The printer makes him say that he assumes" the office of umpire.” (P. 1.) This awkward blunder is so palpable, even in the very first paragraph, that we immediately turn to the "errata" to find the printer's amende honorable to the libelled feelings of the writer, in the shape of "For umpire read champion or partisan ;" but, will it be credit

The author of " The Clergy Vindicated" reproaches me with being unknown in the republic of letters. This charge, of course, could come with effect only from a person of literary note; but here it comes, curiously enough, from a writer who has not even a name.