let him remember that he is adorned for the sacrifice, and that the incense of his ashes will ascend to heaven; so will he forget that he is dressed for death, and immolated to intolerance. If, indeed, he who makes two blades of grass to grow where only one grew before, be a benefactor of his species, how much greater is he who has planted the rich harvest of truth in the place of the rank weeds of ignorance and error, and engrafted thought upon a mind that would otherwise have been barren of speculation.

These are the premises from which the details of our future conduct may be fairly deduced. We shall speak with perfect sincerity. "Licet omnes fremant-dicam quod sentio." The reader shall be as our bosom friend, or our strong box, the depositary of all we hold precious, and of all we know and feel. We shall suppress only what we do not believe, and shall conceal nothing because it may offend. To bigotry, we bid defiance; and on superstition, we look with all the contempt that pity has left us. With the humblest worshipper of truth, we are ready to take our part and lot, and from his side we shall be terrified by neither ridicule nor rags. Yes, our challenge is not an idle one, for we are not rich enough to be dependent, nor do we move in a circle so exalted as to make us the slave of its opinions. So long as there is a grade of society below the notice of persecution, and bread and water for hard but honest labour, we fear neither priest nor poverty, nay, not even neglect, obscurity, nor the slow, unmoving finger of jealous scorn. We are fool enough to think that he who can dare to act as he feels, and speak as he thinks, is a greater and richer man than a coward in a carriage, or a hypocrite at a prince's ear; and that there is consolation in the assurance, that although banished from society, or even persecuted by his country, a man has yet the power to retort the sentence, "I banish you!" and to feel happy in the consciousness that "there is a world elsewhere." Let not the churchman fear that we will cheat him into heresy, nor the priest suspect that we will insinuate, implicate, and infer uncanonical views, and principles that contradict the standards of the church. When we are heterodox, we shall give fair warning, and fair battle also. So long as we hold our own opinion to be as probably correct as that of any other man, we shall not be at all sorry to find that it differs from either the Confession or the Articles-productions, for no part of which we have any peculiar respect, except in so far as they state what is true; and against which, we entertain no prejudice, except where we conceive them to advance what they cannot prove, or confidently assert what is manifestly false.

The secrets of the Confessional being now disclosed to the reader, we proceed to the discharge of our secular duties, with the alacrity which attends the making of a clean breast, and the possession of a clear conscience.

CHAPTER I.

Objections considered-Christianity-Scepticism-Materialism-Fatalism.

THE word "Phrenology" is intended to express the object of the science, which is the philosophy of mind, of which it embraces a new and peculiar hypothesis. Its leading doctrines are, that the mind (in which term are classed all sensations, instincts, appetites, sentiments, and modifications of reason) is manifested by the brain, the former being not single but complex in its action or faculties, and the latter exhibiting a corresponding multiplicity of divisions of organs and functions. It supposes the mind to perform its evolutions through the medium of these cerebral organs; the amount of power possessed by each mental faculty to be modified by, and the result of the size, structure, and quality of these encephalic divisions; and its energy indicated by certain easily distinguished convolutions of the brain, discoverable during life by parallel protuberances on its shield, the skull. It is based altogether upon the observation of a correspondence betwixt cerebral projection and mental manifestations, or absence of developement, and deficiency of relative psychological indications. It has not assumed a single principle-advancing in its career through a process of severe induction, and establishing its doctrines solely by the classification of individual phenomena. Professing to be founded altogether upon fact and observation, it declines the jurisdiction of all other systems, whether metaphysical or theological, and refuses to be tried by the standard of rival hypotheses. It is an induction from existing phenomena, and the libel is irrelevant to infer the pains of refutation, which merely indicts it of contradiction to theory, however plausible, or of opposition to propositions, however skilfully advanced. Facts are its peers, and form the jury by which it clamours to be tried. The laws of nature are those alone to which it owns allegiance, and it will not admit the obligation of any other statutes. As the captain would scout the absurdity of measuring his recruits by their correspondence in height with a drummer who merely alleged that he was the regimental size, while he had at his elbow the metrical standard erected for the purpose of testing their altitude, so would the philosopher who beats up for recruits to join the ranks of knowledge, refuse to try one branch of science by its consonance with another, when both profess to appeal to the common gauge of nature. This proposition is indeed founded upon the plain principle, that facts alone are infallible, because they are the handiwork solely of God; and that the deductions from them, of which all theories ostensibly consist, are possibly erroneous, because the production of frail and fallible mortality. How absurd, then, as well as dangerous, is it, to peril the truth or falsehood of theory upon its conformity with, or dissent from, the canons of a fashionable hypothesis; and how foolish is it, so long as the dictum of one man is as good as that of another, to rest satisfied with gauging either by the other, when both may be wrong. To measure one doctrine by another, when both may be tested by truth, is to act like the pilot who would steer by his knowledge of the coast, when the compass and chart are placed before him for the very purpose of directing his course. It was to the exposure of this fallacy, that Bacon owed his fame, and modern Europe its progress and philosophy; it was by adhering to it, that all prior ages may be called blanks in the stupendous history of science. The reason is plain. By making the reception of one theory consequent upon its conformity with another, without having recourse to nature, the error which existed in the pattern or model hypothesis, was perpetuated in all its collateral and descendant systems, while the truth of other doctrines, by its disagreement with this false and erroneous principle, formed the very reason and cause of their rejection. By the Baconian method of declining all mensuration of one theory by others, and testing each by one common crucible, the alchymy of nature, error when committed was discovered, and was never suffered to mislead or pervert.

Those who object to Phrenology, upon the assumption that it is opposed to Christianity, have hitherto been answered by the apostles of the science in a spirit with the strain of which we cannot sympathise. They have pleaded the general issue, and have never ventured to demur to the relevancy of the accusation; thus, by implication, acquiescing in the competency of the objection. The conduct of both the accuser and the panel is the natural result of the prevalent irreligion of philosophers, and the want of philosophy among theologians. Did each combine a complement of both qualities, the one would be ashamed to start the objection, and the other would disdain to answer it. Truckling to the rampant fanaticism of modern ignorance, Phrenologists have not ventured to dispute the premises of the objectors, but have contented themselves with exposing the fallacy of their conclusions. They have not dared to decline the jurisdiction of the court before which they were arraigned, but, on the contrary, have acknowledged its authority, by pleading before it their innocence of the delict contained in the accusation. A little more courage would have produced a little more candour, and sincerity would wondrously have improved the logic of both parties.

There is, indeed, nothing so striking in the history of mankind, as the power of bigotry, and the weakness of philosophy. Why should the mouth of truth be shut before the ear of theology? Because, forsooth, priests are omnipotent, and mankind are their slaves. Why is this? May not moralists appeal to that very people from whose suffrages priests derive their sovereignty? May they not divide their empire, and eventually overthrow their dynasty? We know that the answer is, No. Men are not enlightened enough to listen to reason, but they are ignorant enough to love the flattery of their prejudices. And thus the evil of society, is its want of knowledge and liberality; and because this is so, it is still to have truth concealed from it, and error assumed by implication to be the proper path of every nation. This is, indeed, a specimen of dastardly selfishness, but has small pretensions to the character of philanthropy. It breathes the very spirit of aristocracy. It assumes that the great body of the people are base and vile, and that philosophy sits upon a throne, from which it should look down with calm indifference and contempt upon the cannaille of humanity, that lie, gasping slaves of superstition, at the feet of a vulgar tyrant, without one emotion of pity or generous regret. The vice of philosophers in all ages, has been that of not having sufficient confidence in the excellence of human nature, in its generous impulses, in its healthy mental condition, in its uniformity of genuine and unsophisticated feeling. They might have been the leaders of mankind, had they trusted in man. The same ears that heard the yells of persecuting denunciations, were open to the nobler appeals of benevolence and truth; the popular heart is always sound, and pontiffs would have been compelled to resign the sceptre to philosophers. The real lover of truth will ever have sympathy with the people; he will live among them-he will be with them, and of them. But the lover of truth is the lover of religion, and it is from a want of devotion to this great object, that philosophy has not found a kindred spirit in unsophisticated but truthloving humanity. It has never yet condescended to investigate the harmony betwixt nature and religion, or the profundity of reason, which is to be found in the spirit, although often clouded by the words of revelation. It has never looked upon the contemplation of God and immortality as the highest aspiration of man; and hence, has it not roused the strongest sympathies of nations. It has left men to be the interpreters of religion, who knew nothing, and cared less, for the broad book of nature-who stuck to the letter of Scripture, however much it offended reason; and considered the discovery of a great plan and system of interpretation, as impious and sceptical. It has taken for granted, that reason was at antagonism with religion, because priests elevated religion above reason; and forgotten that fanatics had committed the grand mistake of assuming, that he who was merely questioning the interpretation which they themselves presumed to put upon Scripture, was professing a doubt of revelation itself. These two classes of inquirers must be combined in the present state of society, if the friends of social order would preserve morality. Men have received enough of knowledge to emancipate them from priestly thraldom, and are in danger of being disengaged from piety also. What nobler office could philosophy fulfil than to discover and demonstrate the harmony of reason and Scripture? and what more necessary task can the theologian impose on himself, than that of proving by the test of fact, to which everything must be subjected, that nature,

the elder revelation, has fixed its own stamp upon the only child whose parentage it can authenticate, the younger inspiration of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

We believe in Christianity, deliberately, advisedly, solemnly, devoutly. Our dependence in it adds much to our soul's comfort, and to our mental satisfaction and happiness. It is the source and centre of our theory of morals, divinity, and psychological philosophy. We say this in no spirit of ostentation, which we now proceed to prove to the satisfaction of the most suspicious, by committing in the eyes of bigotry the unpardonable offence of declaring that we hold belief to be neither an indication of virtue nor a mark of vice, and that, too, upon the authority of the Bible, which preferred the servant who knew not his master's will but did it, to him who knew it and did it not. Although we are sincerely, and from heart-conviction, devoted to Christianity, its truth, its excellence, and the imperishable solidity of its foundation on the Rock of Ages, is, we are quite aware, a mere matter of opinion, held by us in common with many virtuous and able men, and disputed by not a few whose excellence and sagacity we would be proud to emulate. Although we trust we are not among the number of those who make the blaspheming of the precious gift of what they term carnal reason, when it contradicts their principles, an apology for indulging their own spiritual pride, and feel assured that "they only cry out against reason because reason cries out against them," it is without cant or hypocrisy that we state our diffidence in the infallibility of our own judgment, and therefore our distrust in the proposition, that it is impossible we can be mistaken in our estimate of Christianity. It is quite possible that the Bible may not be true, because it is perfectly probable that our reason may be fallacious; and, let us not be misunderstood, as too many others have been misrepresented: we are here expressing no doubts of the truth of Revelation, but only our scepticism of our own infallibility, to which the certainty of the divine origin of Christianity is an indispensable condition and a necessary preliminary. It is upon this ground, that we complain of the manner in which Phrenologists have hitherto treated the objections urged against the science, of its antagonism to the doctrines of the Bible. They have either had the insincerity to affect a deep respect for a religion in which they did not believe, and thus have given further currency to the monstrous proposition, that mere faith or opinion is meritorious or vicious; or they have, as true Christians, had the bigotry to assume, that the professors of the philosophy would be worse men if their ideas were opposed to their peculiar notions of religion, and have been so lame in their logic as to grant the position, that if their principles of the Bible contradicted Phrenology-a system of pure induction-the latter would, without further evidence, be manifestly false. Christians though we be, we cannot, for the very sake of the rights of conscience or the freedom of inquiry, grant this assumption. It is perfectly possible that Christianity may be inconsistent with nature, because it is very probable that our most sincere convictions and confident opinions may be altogether fallacious. Phrenology, therefore, may be established on a perfectly solid foundation, although it were to be altogether destructive of Revelation. Whether is Truth or Christianity oldest? The former is coeval with, because indeed it is the very essence of, God; and the latter is not above a third of the age of this paltry world. Whether is Truth or Christianity supreme? Truth is the will of God; Christianity, at the best, is no more than a revelation of that will. Christianity, then, is a nonentity, if it be not a discovery of the laws of the Deity; and, as a necessary consequence, if it be not true, it cannot be a revelation. Truth, then, is the basis of all inquiry; and Christianity, if it be anything but a mere delusion, can be nothing more than a section of this universal principle. Thus, the ultimate tribunal to whose decision all controversy must resort, and from whose award there is alone no appeal, is, not Christianity, but Truth, a court of cassation supreme in its decrees-in which the Bible itself must be content to appear, not as a judge but a suitor, deriving its whole title to attention from the favourable verdict which it may there receive, and possessing no jurisdiction whatever over other litigants at the same omnipotent bar and sovereign judicatory. It is plain, then, that the Gospel is not an ultimate standard; and that it were a vain inquiry which was occupied in comparing with it the harmony or discord of other systems.

Neither is that investigation calculated to be more profitable in its results, which proposes for its object, the preliminary consideration of the benefits to be derived, or the injuries to be sustained, from the recognition of Phrenology, as a criterion of its

title to reception or rejection, prior to an examination of the evidence on which it founds its pretensions to universal belief and attention. It was the favourite aphorism of a popular poet, that

"Where ignorance is bliss
'Tis folly to be wise!"

and what does this sentiment imply? Wisdom is the knowledge of truth, and truth is but a convertible term for the laws of nature or the ordinances of God. Ignorance is error, delusion, or a belief in the existence of what has either no being, or has been prohibited by the Deity. The proposition, then, stripped of its metrical aptness of expression, maintains that a knowledge of the government and character of God, may be the necessary harbinger of misery, and that falsehood and illusion are indispensable to human happiness. An ancient classic, in proclaiming his confidence in the existence of immortality, confesses, that, if in this belief he errs, he errs so willingly, that he would never wish to learn the truth and to be disabused. We hear it preached from the pulpit, and pleaded by learned bishops from the press, alternately in fulminations against sceptics and flattering appeals to candid Deists, that even although Christianity were a delusion, religion an error, and immortality a chimera, their general reception and influence preserve the order of the state, promote the well-being of society, are the source and centre of the happiness of thousands, and form the hope, stay, and comfort of the mass of mankind. Hence, it is argued that the sceptic, even although truth, and reason, and fact, were on his side, is left without excuse, when he endeavours to disabuse his fellow-creatures of errors in which they have built up their tranquillity and hope. And what is the moral of this argument? No less than that it is quite possible happiness may depend on error, and misery be the result of knowledge of the actual state of God's moral government; that Bishop Watson reigns supreme over truth; that it cannot possibly be good or excellent unless it approve itself to his reason, and meet all his views of the fitness of things; while if the management of the universe be not directed on the basis of his peculiar plan, it must be defective, immoral, and unwise! Frail, ignorant short-sighted mortality. Is the creature of a day and of the dust to assume the attribute of omniscience without the arm of omnipotence-to presume that it can see the end from the beginning, and to say it is dangerous or unprofitable to teach any given doctrine, whether it be true or false, because it can see that consequences are to proceed from it, which are destructive to the happiness of mankind? Is man, who cannot even see what a day may bring forth, to palter with truth, which producing troubles that at the most are but for a moment, always does and must work out a far more exceeding, yea, an eternal weight of glory? And yet, are there not men, who, doctrinally confessing that they are desperately wicked, blind, ignorant, and erring, act as if they could trace the results of certain doctrines through the whole history of society, and object to their promulgation, because, whether true or false, they are inimical to peace and good order? Is not every legislator even, who allows to remain on the statute-book a single penal enactment against Deism, Atheism, nay, blasphemy itself, upon the plea, not that the doctrines they involve are false, but of their tendency to obstruct the order of social government-or who objects to the open declaration of sincere opinion, without reference to the accuracy of its deductions, but with an eye solely to its anticipated results,—is not he setting himself above truth, and presuming to judge of the extent of its efficacy. We remember of a religious society, which, in its laws, declared that it was instituted to promote the goodness of God; and, truly it may be said, that enactments against Atheism, are passed upon the pretence of endeavouring to promote his existence; or, that attempts to put down by prejudice or clamour, heterodox doctrines, are equivalent to establishing the truth of orthodoxy; as if God and Christianity required such crutches to extend their influences through the length and breadth of the land—or, as if the value of the impression of their existence did not depend upon its truth-or, as if truth were not stalwart enough to contend single-handed against error, even although its name were legion-or, as if the only causes of its failure were not the officious interference of the treacherous ally, state power-or, as if truth, however dangerous or terrible, were to be concealed by the potency of parchment, the generalship of judges, the jealousy of juries, or the grim jaws of a jail.

But every man who, abjuring the repudiation of truth for its apparent consequences, even refuses to listen to it unless a palpable present advantage can be pro