ed, not a word can be found, and the champion's shame and vexation, and his virtuous indignation against Messrs Neill and Company, may be imagined. Truly this is vexatious, I admit. But, as he cannot be more desirous than I am of his being seen in his true character, I will do him all justice by acquitting him, as I now do, and as I am sure his readers will do, of the slightest appearance of the cool, lukewarm feeling of an umpire. Let him comfort himself by thinking, that his leaning to one side is obvious from first to last; and, with this assurance, he may bid his conscience lie still. In fact, the very title shews he is no umpire" The Clergy Vindicated." Had he meant to call himself an "umpire," the pamphlet would have shown him to be guilty of such gross want of candour and fair-dealing, as to have merited the severest reprobation; while, by his self-election to the office of vindicator merely, he is only chargeable with consummate assurance and hardihood, in presuming to rebuke Dr Chalmers and other eminent members of the church. Take an example or two. Thus writes Dr Chalmers (using, as a friend, the language of warning and reproof): "Those narrow and intolerant professors (he is speaking of certain of the clergy) who take an alarm at the very sound and semblance of philosophy, and feel as if there were an utter irreconcilable antipathy between its lessons on the one hand, and the soundness and piety of the Bible on the other."* Now let us hear his Vindicator on this subject. He says (p. 1), "Of all the devices resorted to for the purpose of undermining the influence of the clergy, we know of none more characteristic of those who boast themselves the enlightened advocates of liberality, or more calculated to effect their unhallowed object, than that of arraigning the former before the tribunal of public opinion as enemies to the diffusion of knowledge." Take Dr Chalmers again: "It were well, I conceive, for our cause, that the latter (the intolerant professors) could become a little more indulgent on this subject; that they gave up a portion of those ancient and hereditary prepossessions which go SO far to cramp and enthral them."+ Hear the Doctor's Vindicator again (p. 1): " Were the clergy indeed to deem it worth their while to refute every idle calumny which is circulated against them, their task would be an endless one." Now, as these sentiments of Dr Chalmers were before the Vindicator when he penned his remarks, it would thus appear, that, while he pretends to vindicate the church, he is in reality making a target of one of her most gifted sons. A pretty vindication this truly! Well may the Church, seeing herself at the mercy of so weak a brother, exclaim, " Save me from my friends!"

In the "Remarks," I quoted a passage from the prospectus

* Preface to Dr Chalmers's Astronomical Discourses. + Loc. cit.

of the Christian Herald, in which the writer spoke of "all sorts of literary machinery,"-inter alia, "school-books, libraries of knowledge for use or entertainment,"-as being set in motion for purposes all but "hostile to the Gospel."

The vindicator attempts to defend this and similar passages, and tells us that the objection is taken not to teachers of truth, but of error; and he gives us a dissertation upon the various disguises which the "Prince of Darkness," as the head teacher, adopts when he has work in hand; the inference from all which is, that these "school-books" are some of "Satan's ministers." Now, only imagine a poor innocent Latin or Greek grammar "set in motion" to overthrow the Gospel! Imagine the Prince of Darkness couching, like a deer-stalker, amongst the declensions or conjugations, till the unhappy boy comes within reach! I suppose we shall have penna penna, and amo amavi amatum amare, now freely translated thus: "The Gospel is an old wife's fable." To be sure there may be danger in such an example of a rule of syntax as this" Descensus averni facilis est." There, if any where, the Devil ought to be met with going to and fro," or up and down his "descensus" or inclined plane. Imagine also such works as "Insect Architecture" being full of evil purposes! It is well that no proof has been attempted on the subject; vague assertion is the thing to stick by in such cases. Well might Dr Fletcher exclaim, "It argues rather a sickly kind of piety in the advocates of revealed truth to be thus tremblingly alive to every imaginary encroachment ;" and "it seems to me to betray even some degree of infidelity to be so morbidly tenacious of the faith."*

But let us even suppose that the charge is true; that Satan, by a refinement in policy hitherto unknown, has instigated these individuals to write a series of admirable works on moral and intellectual science, "for the accomplishment of his deep-laid machinations"-what will be the result? To ascertain this, we must take a look at Satan's objects. What are they? According to St Paul, they are "murder, adultery, strife, hatred, envyings," &c. &c. Now, to produce these works, the Devil must stimulate the propensities, and bring them up to a white heat, whilst he also takes care to keep the mind in a state of ignorance as to the uses and abuses of all its faculties. Such being his "purposes," how does he set about attaining them? Why, he endeavours to strengthen the intellectual and moral powers, and to check the abuses of the propensities. Instead of resorting to his old-fashioned policy of rousing the passions and misleading the judgment, he now, under the vindi

• Discourse on the Importance of the Study of Physiology, p. 15.

cator's theory, checks the passions and enlightens the judgment. Those not in the secret would imagine that he was outwitting himself by thus opening the eyes of his pupils,-that in every step of his instructions he was removing them farther and farther from his reach. But this, the vindicator tells us, is quite a mistaken idea; on the contrary, the Devil is making philosophy "subservient to his designs." As the vindicator has the advantage of us in this view, we must wait patiently until the march of intellect overtake us.

66

It is true that I suggested the possibility of Phrenology being the chief science aimed at-not certainly from any hint in the prospectus, which was directed broadly and distinctly against "all sorts of literary machinery," specifying seven or eight different sorts," in addition to "the resources of the lecturer's desk, the platform, and the press" generally; but simply because, the charge against "all sorts" being utterly ridiculous, Phrenology was at the present day bearing the brunt of the attacks that formerly were directed against Astronomy and Geology.

The vindicator alleges that only phrenologists have considered the charge of seeking to undermine the Gospel, as levelled against them. Let us, however, see what Dr Fyfe, a lecturer on Chemistry, says to his audience: "Their instructors, while labouring in their vocations among them, had been assailed as tending to disseminate principles bordering on infidelity,"* &c. And we have shewn what opinion was entertained by Dr Fletcher, a lecturer on Physiology.

It has been mentioned, that in the "Remarks" some of the principal objections by inference against Phrenology were stated and answered. In noticing the first of these, namely, "That Phrenology cannot be true, because its doctrines are inconsistent with revelation," the vindicator asks if it is "fair or honest" to represent the objectors stating this as their "sole" objection. Now, what I stated was, that such an inferential objection prevented some from investigating the facts on which Phrenology is based; that, as the world was examining the subject on its merits, such an objection was useless if the objectors wished to retain their influence; and that they ought therefore at once to try the science by its facts. I see nothing in this that is not quite "fair or honest." Had the objection been a link in a chain of argument, I could have understood the meaning of the remark, but as it was merely an insulated preliminary point that stood in way, the vindicator's commentaries on it appear to be somewhat hypercritical: besides, he knows, or ought to know, that the objections on the ground of fact have been repeatedly answered. But in future, when I notice any one objection, I suppose there

the

See Dr Fyfe's concluding Lecture, reported in the Edinburgh Chronicle of May 7. 1836.

must be added-" Here take in such and such replies, remarks, answers, observations, &c. &c. on all the objections against Phrenology."

The next objection which I noticed was, that "the cultivators of science" were said to be merely "men of this generation." The vindicator is pleased to say that this is a creation of my distempered fancy," and adds, "we are bold to deny that he ever heard the cultivators of science, as such, stigmatised as 'men of this generation.'

I agree with the vindicator that he is "bold to deny" this. What says Dr Chalmers in the passage above quoted? Why, he accuses the "intolerant professors" of believing that the truths of science were hostile to the truths of the Bible,--implying, of course, that they must believe the cultivators of science, as such, to be "men of this generation." But the vindicator's boldness extends so far as to contradict himself. He says (p. 9), 66 If science be unaccompanied by religion [i. e. science strictly as such], and gains an entrance into minds which have not previously been visited by religion [still as such alone], we behold nothing but melancholy examples of the apostolical aphorism, that knowledge puffeth up, and thereby engenders a spirit of hostility to the Gospel." So that, in plain English, the vindicator does himself stigmatise the cultivators of science (in the strictest sense) as such, as being "men of this generation." This he even does a second time, again contradicting himself, when he speaks (p. 9) of "scientific men of eminence" (i. e. cultivators of science as such), as "deists," i. e. in his view "men of this generation."

The third objection which I combated was, that " Whether Phrenology was true or not, it was inconsistent with revelation, and therefore dangerous." The vindicator asks when I ever heard any rational being maintain this. That the beings were "rational" I certainly never said or imagined; but that the vindicator considers them "rational," may be inferred from the fact of his advocating their views. To recur to Dr Chalmers as last quoted-he accuses his brethren of believing philosophy (he is speaking of the truths of philosophy) to be inconsistent with revelation. Dr Buckland* does also; and, as usual, the vindicator answers himself. He insinuates that the "scientific" men of eminence (therefore "rational") have become deists through their science. It follows that they must consider that science "inconsistent with revelation" as interpreted by the vindicator. Again, the writer in the Presbyterian Magazine insists upon "philosophy being tested by revelation." Now, if Phrenology could be disproved by facts, he would not have been driven to such an

"Remarks," p. 12, note.

unphilosophical position. If, on the other hand, its established results were consistent with his views of revelation, he would obviously have said so. The inference from his language therefore is, that he considers Phrenology true, and yet inconsistent with his views of revelation. I might go on quoting authorities, and proving these positions; but it would be idle to go further. Of course I do not notice any of the weak or unphrenological opinions or statements in the pamphlet, which do not concern me. I leave the vindicator to go on contradicting himself;-as, for example, where he lays it down that "to the mind unenlightened by science the Bible in most cases is not a dead letter, and then adds, that during the dark ages of the Church there were only a few" who were truly religious;-that is, the Bible in most cases was a dead letter.

66

H. G. WRIGHT.

ARTICLE XI.

CASE OF JOHN LINN, A PARRICIDE.

SEVERAL years ago a cast of the head of John Linn of Belfast, who had been found guilty of parricide, was presented to the Phrenological Society by Dr M'Donnell of that town; and as the head is a remarkable one, we were induced to make inquiry into the history and character of the criminal. Through the kindness of an intelligent phrenologist of Belfast, Mr John Grattan, by whom the case was carefully investigated, we are enabled to lay the following particulars before our readers.

The circumstances of the crime for which Linn was tried are thus narrated in The Belfast Commercial Chronicle of 1st September 1833:

"About one o'clock the inhabitants near the house of William Linn, turner and wheelwright in Smithfield, were alarmed by screams and shouts from the house. John Linn, commonly known by the name of Lippy Linn, a tall powerful man, was observed with a hatchet destroying the furniture of the house, breaking the windows, crockery, &c.; and two women and two boys rushed out of the house, exclaiming that John had murdered his father. The boys ran to the Court-house, where the magistrates were sitting, and a party of police was immediately desired to proceed to the spot. At this time they found the door bolted; the unfortunate wretch had retreated to the back houses, and was, in his phrensy, destroying all the windows he could come at with the hatchet. On going up a few steps into a small workshop, they found the old man lying on his face, weltering in his blood, and quite dead. The murderer, after