proportions, a beautiful and harmonious whole; that Benevolence, Veneration, and Conscientiousness being of these faculties, we learn that charity, humility, and integrity are virtues imposed by "Divine wisdom." And though Phrenology acknowledges faculties of Combativeness, Destructiveness, and Secretiveness (whose names convey the idea of their abuse rather than of their use), yet it also acknowledges others of an intellectual nature; by which we can perceive that such faculties are necessary to stimulate and support us in our duties towards each other, ourselves, and our God. As in this manner Phrenology offers a system of theology which, from being furnished by Nature herself, is free from fraud and imposition, and is therefore a reliable guide in revealing to us the laws which govern our physical, moral, and intellectual natures, I have come to the conclusion that Phrenology is orthodox. And as the purport of the present work is to show this, I have chosen for its title "Orthodox Phrenology." This, then, is the reason why the book is so called; and, such being its tenor, I hope it will meet somewhat the need of the times, now that the truth of the Scriptures is disputed even by the most learned bishops, especially as atheism is now so much on the increase, even among those who claim to be the thinkers of the age. As the views advocated in this work were long ago hinted by Dr. Gall, it has been seen already that atheism would meet a "stumbling-block" in Phrenology. Those to whom this has been objectionable have tried to evade this block by repudiating Phrenology altogether; others, clear-sighted enough to see that Phrenology is based on too firm a foundation to be thus put aside, have arranged a system of their own, in which they have omitted such faculties as point to duties which they prefer to regard as fallacious and useless. This has been ingeniously accomplished by Auguste Comte, the author of "Philosophie Positive." Among those who have been at the pains to derogate Phrenology may be mentioned G. H. Lewes, who says of Phrenology, "Instead of surviving opposition, it has decayed with the declining opposition. It has ceased to be ridiculed, it has ceased to be declaimed against as immoral, and it has ceased to occupy attention." From this he insinuates that Phrenology cannot be true. For one who has presumed to dictate what each philosopher, ancient and modern, should have said, instead of what he did say, to employ a test so unphilosophical seems unaccountable, and says but little for his judgment. As to Phrenology having ceased to occupy attention, this, from my own experience, I know to be false. In endeavour ing to procure phrenological works, for which I have frequent applications, I have learned from many of the booksellers of London that such works are still much sought for, and command high prices, which would not be the case if the study of Phrenology was on the decline. Another person of note who has assumed an aggressive position towards Phrenology is Sir David Brewster, late Principal of the University of Edinburgh. On the opening of the session, he said to the professors and students, "To desire more knowledge of our neighbour than is shown in his daily life is to seek an unenviable privilege, and to gratify a dangerous curiosity. Society could hardly exist had such a power as physiognomy been conferred on man. If the soul of man is inwrought into every part of his corporeal frame, modifying its outline, and moulding its form -the body the woof, the spirit the warp-the fabric cannot be otherwise than material. In the interests, then, of truth, morality, and religion, we warn you against speculations thus fraught with danger." Here is an old denunciation which has assailed nearly every attempt at discovery. To such Socrates owed his death, Galileo his persecution; but the discoveries of these men are not now regarded as either dangerous or demoralising. There seems a deplorable ignorance in regarding as vile the connection which God himself has chosen to make between the body and soul. Locke says, "All the difficulties that are raised against the thinking of matter, from our ignorance or narrow conceptions, stand not in the way of the power of God if He pleases to ordain it so." "Hoping, as I do," says Bishop Watson, "for an eternal life, I am not disturbed by my inability clearly to convince myself that the soul is or is not a substance distinct from the body." While Phrenology offers the means, as it does, to rescue the mind from the catalogue of incomprehensible mysteries in which this problem has so long been included, its study will have sufficient recommendation to overcome such vain fears as those enter tained by Sir David Brewster. That there is a physiognomic instinct or innate power to judge of character from appearances there is no reason to doubt, notwithstanding what Sir David Brewster would have us believe to the contrary. When this power, guided by scientific principles, shall become general, it may induce us to mend our ways, that we may the better bear inspection; and society will then be improved rather than dissolved by it, as Sir David Brewster fears. But the study of Phrenology has its recommendation less in the art which it furnishes to decipher the mental characteristics of others than in the means it affords of learning to know ourselves. It is only by an acquaintance with the power and weakness of our faculties that we can know what to undertake without disappointing our hopes of success. To acquire this knowledge involves no less than the study of the mental constitution of man, which has in all ages occupied minds of the highest order, and is justly termed— "The proper study of mankind." And there can be no doubt that if we learn, as Robert Burns says "To see oursels as ithers see us! It wad frae mony a blunder free us, An' foolish notion." It is less in the preface than by the perusal of this work that I hope the reader to become convinced that the misgivings of Sir David Brewster are perfectly groundless. London. A. L. VAGO. ORTHODOX PHRENOLOGY. PHRENOLOGY is the science which treats of the Mind in connection with the Brain. It proposes Firstly, That the brain is the material instrument through which the mind holds intercourse with the external world. Secondly, That the brain is an aggregate of parts (otherwise cerebral organs), each of which has a special and determinate function in subserving to one of the various mental faculties of which the mind consists. Thirdly, That the cerebral organs (which agree in number to the mental faculties) are developed each in proportion to the power of its particular function. Fourthly, That the skull (though the harder substance) conforms to the shape of the brain, and is, therefore, indicative of the power or weakness of the mental faculties; just as the appearance of the body indicates to the physician the presence of health or disease. Concerning the first proposition, it may seem strange that the free and unbounded mind should be ensconced into so mean a space as that afforded by the interior of the skull. To some minds this view of the case is considered sufficient at once to overthrow the very foundation upon which Phrenology is based. But however it may determine the belief, the truth of Phrenology is in no wise affected by ridicule; nor does it become a mind disposed to inquiry to be led or prejudiced against any subject by the derision which has been cast upon it, for if censure could falsify a science, a true one could not be found, as none, not excepting the most holy, have escaped derision. On the other hand, nothing could more glaringly expose a weakness of judgment than to yield our assent to a proposition because it is couched in fine terms, since a fallacy may be conveyed in the finest eulogy that was ever penned as easily as a truth may be obscured by obloquy. If the truth of the Phrenological proposition which connects the mind with the brain rested upon being expressed with elegance of phrase, there would be no want of such evidence of its truth, for Lord Byron says, in reference to the skull— "Yes, this was once Ambition's airy hall, The dome of thought, the palace of the soul." Pope, also, in speaking of the head, says— "That noble seat of thought;" and Drummond, in his "Pleasures of Benevolence," says— "In that small world, the Brain, each virtue claims Her own fair mansion. Veneration there And gracious welcome-there lodge all the powers The artist's pencil in the hues of heaven, That build the fretted dome, that shape and clothe The marble block with God-like lineaments, Or give sweet numbers to the poet's song, With beauty, grandeur, imitative grace, Since, then, ridicule does not make false what is true, nor fine words make veritable what is false, the sober lover of truth will do well to dismiss both, and seek evidence of the truth of the proposition now under consideration in nothing short of fact. What appears strange in so spacious a power as the mind having its residence in the head will readily disappear when we consider the subtlety of the mind, which is such as to admit of its abode even in a nutshell. This explanation necessarily renders it difficult to understand how the mind, being so subtle, can be traced to the brain. The fact, however, that the operations of the outer world reach the mind only through the impressions they make upon the eye, ear, nose, tongue, and skin, and their respective nerves, which terminate in the brain, sufficiently justifies the conclusion that the mind and brain are connected. For when either the optic, auditory, olfactory, glosso-pharyngeal, or sensor nerve is severed or divided from the brain, the mind ceases to be affected by the impressions which such nerve communicates to it from the external world when connected with the brain. Although this alone affords convincing proof that the brain is the organ of the mind, phreno |