seemed to find these qualities highly developed. Experience had also shown me, without fully appreciating my observations, that in the Araucanians, the Bosques, the Welsh, the Scotish, the Calabrians, the Greeks, and all the people descended from high mountainous districts, from whom the world has derived its notions of national liberty and free institutions, have all comparatively large hind-heads. If we take, retrospectively, a comprehensive view of human society, we shall find, that at one period the Celt, at another the Roman, and at another, which is the present, the Goth, have held universal dominion over mankind. In comparing the heads of these three various species of Europeans, we shall find that they are very much alike in general size; but the Roman has a larger and more elongated back-head than the Celt-and the Goth than the Roman. Besides, it is only by supposing that the occiput produces feelings of a grasping, secretly impelling, and constantly persevering nature, that we can account for the indomitable and fearful energy of such men as Ximenes, for the cool collected courage of the English, and for the irresistible go-a-head of the Americans.

Ideas like these, which had often crossed my mind, and to which I had paid no special attention, corroborating your convictions on the functions of the back-head, have now broke forth with new light upon my mind.

As to the organ of Cautiousness, I was never a believer in the functions ascribed to it. I soon saw too many fearless heads with preponderating Cautiousness, without much check, at the same time, from its antagonistic region of Combativeness and Destructiveness, to have much faith in the doctrine that ascribed to it the feeling of fear. I fully concur with you in the opinion, that courage, as well as fear, are feelings produced by a combined action of the whole brain, depending more on quality than quantity of the cerebral organs, and more on results produced by efforts of antagonistic regions simultaneously acting, than as specific functions of any peculiar set of organs. I think with you, that names expressive of a mental operation considered only in a peculiar. relation, or to which the mind attaches but one single definite, limited conception, to signify function in all its various degrees of intensity, power, and activity, have retarded the progress of phrenology.

Your attempt in forming a new nomenclature, which will be expressive of the locality and not of the function of the organ, must ultimately redound to simplify and improve the science. By divesting from the mind, for example, the conception of Firmness, aud directing it solely to a portion of the brain producing such a function, we shall understand more closely, and retain more lastingly, this function in all its various degrees, modifications, and combinations of action.

Phrenology is destined soon to become the only system of mental philosophy taught in all our literary and scientific institutions; the chief guide to direct us in our efforts for intellectual, moral, and religious advancement. How important it is, then, that in this science the march of its adoption and extension should keep pace with that of its improvements and discoveries.

Mr. Combe's Lectures at New Haven, Ct.-The New Haven Record, of March 21st, in noticing Mr. Combe's lectures in that city, has the following very candid and common-sense remarks on the science:

The course of lectures on phrenology, by Mr. Combe, came to a close this week, having been attended throughout by an audience, for numbers and respectability, such as rarely falls to the lot of a public lecturer in this city. Much interest was felt to hear this subject expounded by its greatest living teacher, and the interest was continued unabated through

out the course. All who heard the lectures will, we believe, acknowledge that they have not only been interested, but profited by hearing much important truth ably illustrated, and many principles presented of great practical value. Indeed, we sometimes hear it objected to phrenology, that all the truth it contains was known well enough without it. But, although many of the principles deduced from it commend themselves to our understanding when fairly presented, yet they are principles which without it, we have, at least in practice, failed to recognise. When they are demonstrated from the connection of the mind with its material organs, they become much more tangible, are more likely to be remembered, and thoroughly realised and acted upon.

The simple fact, that the mind is dependent on the body, and influenced by its condition, is by some hardly even recognised at all in practice. If phrenology only fixes this single principle, it will have rendered an important service. In the daily practice of life, and in our systems of mental philosophy, it is exceedingly important that the fact of the connection of body and mind be not lost sight of, and that the modes in which the one affects the other be understood. To this department of investigation, phrenologists have turned their attention and the attention of the public-the doctrina de fædere, as Lord Bacon calls it, a department in the field of science which his sagacity marked out, but which has been hitherto little explored.

It is perfect folly to laugh at phrenology, when the science of the mind, as taught in other systems, is confessedly in so unsatisfactory and unsettled a state. It is perfeet folly to deny its principles, without examining the facts to which it appeals. Considered simply as a system of mental science, laying out of view its organology, there is no other, we are persuaded, which will so well account for the actual diversities which the human character presents, and so well explain the various phenomena of the mind, as this. As a system of mental science, it is indeed very imperfect as yet, having been thus far more employed in external observation, (both of men's characters and their heads,) than in mental analysis. When observation shall have been carried to a sufficient extent, provided the science is true, there will still be a field for investigation, by interrogating consciousness more fully, guided by the light which observation has shed. Phrenologists have begun at the right end in this study, in beginning with observation. They have adopted the inductive method; and with facts so many and so well attested as they produce, the modesty of true science should lead us to inquire, and not to sneer or to dogmatise.

The most serious objection urged against phrenology is, that it is unfriendly to religion-that it is a system of fatalism, overthrows responsibility, and leaves no place for the doctrines of the Bible respecting sin and regeneration. Such objections we think are founded in mistake. Few will deny that men are endowed with certain constitutional propensities and faculties-differing in relative strength in different individuals -which develope themselves in the character, and are frequently transmitted from parents to children. These constitutional traits we know are so combined in some individuals, as to render it extremely improbable that they will ever become virtuous or religious men; while in others it is the reverse. Neither in the subjects of renewing grace, are any of these constitutional principles eradicated or new ones implanted, but a new direction is given to those already existing. Nor is the character of all true Christians shaped in one mould; but their religious character receives its cast from their natural character-their constitutional dispositions are retained, though differently directed and modified.

The

character of the apostle Paul differed as much from that of the apostle John, after their conversion, as before. It is difficult to see that the phrenologist goes a step further towards any dangerous consequences, when he makes these elementary faculties dependent on material organs. We should distinguish the legitimate tendencies of the science itself from the use which individuals may have made of it. Phrenologists, too, like all other men, are apt to go to extremes-to take partial viewsto exaggerate that which has occupied their attention, and lose sight of other things. Thus they may place all sin in the violation of organic Jaws, overlooking our relation to God as a moral governor-they may think so much of the influence of the body on the mind as to forget other more important influences of a moral nature-or they may be so confident in the efficacy of a proper discipline and training of the faculties, that they may think little of the necessity of divine influence. In doing so, they err by taking truth which is important in its place, and giving it a universality which does not belong to it. The candid and intelligent inquirer will admit the truth and reject the error.

More than three hundred persons have attended this course of lectures. At the conclusion of the course, some resolutions, complimentary to Mr. Combe, were offered by Gov. Edwards, and seconded by Prof. Silliman, and unanimously adopted by the class. This is the last course of lectures which Mr. Combe delivers in this country. The set of casts which he used were purchased by the class, and are to be deposited in the Medical College.

Moral Agency-In our first volume, two articles were presented on the subject of "Phrenology in relation to Fatalism, Necessity, and Human Responsibility." It appears that there were certain views advanced in those articles, which prove unsatisfactory to some friends of the science, and which, in their opinion, interfere with the Scripture doctrine of moral agency. We do not deem it judicious, or profitable, to enter into any discussion or controversy on this subject in the Journal; but, at the same time, we take pleasure in acceding to the request of those friends by copying the following remarks on this subject, which are from the pen of Mr. Joel Barlow, of New York, and were published in Zion's Watchman, Sept. 21, 1839.

Moral character, or the virtue and vice of mankind, supposes the moral liberty of man; or, in other words, man is a moral agent. It would be useless to state the objections to this doctrine, or the general arguments by which it is supported. I shall attempt a definition which will be the least objectionable. It is the ability of men to choose between motives, to select motives, and to act according to their choice. I do not believe that any other science but phrenology can fairly illustrate or satisfactorily prove this proposition. With this conviction, I shall proceed to give phrenological arguments, and if I am able to convey my ideas to others in my own language as clearly as I understand them myself, I believe the argument will be perfectly satisfactory to all.

Phrenology establishes the existence, and illustrates the function, of the organ of Language. It is that primary faculty which applies specific sounds to the things perceived by the mind; both when it apperceives its internal states, and when it uses the senses on the external world. Its function is correlative, and necessary in the inseparable connection and organic action of mind and matter; and its terms are specific and well known beyond the possibility of self-deception. The thing expressed must first be a matter of consciousness, before any term can be

applied to it; and whatever thus receives a term, general in its use, and specific in its meaning, cannot be denied an existence.

Now the term liberty, and its correlatives, freedom, choice, and agency, has a specific meaning in mental philosophy, is used by all mankind, and is alike understood by the child and the philosopher. The sense of liberty, to which the term is given which we feel to be what the term expresses, must be a state of mind inseparable from the mental constitution, or the term never could have existed. And the apprehension of the term is as general as the consciousness of the state it expresses; so that the term, either written or spoken, as necessarily awakens our consciousness of the state, as does the consciousness of the state originate the term, or necessitate Language to give it the term. Thus the phrenological argument is, that man must be a free being, and that the freedom expressed in the term liberty, as applied to choice of, and motives between, is inherent in his nature, of which he cannot be divested, and which is self-determined by the consciousness it endures; for the term liberty is applied to every mental operation, and to each action of life. Then man is necessarily free, not from choice, and he who denies this, must deny the very necessity which he would prove by denying the liberty in question.

There is yet another phrenological argument which proves this free agency of man. The terms approval and disapproval, which express two of the strongest states of mind, and which express half our happiness or misery, could never have been applied, if we did not know ourselves able to choose between the motives which urged us to the action, respecting which we feel innocent or guilty. All men, then, are free to choose between motives, and able to act according to their choice. But this liberty differs in men, according to the strength and activity of the fundamental faculties. Now, since the faculties can be educated, so also can liberty be educated to good or bad choices; and a man is as much to blame for choosing wrong as for acting wrong.

But it will be objected that "your moral liberty is, in itself, necessity, and man is free to be what he is, and nothing else." I reply that a necessity to be free, as he is, also involves a necessary freedom to be something else. Man is, indeed, necessarily free; but it is the necessity which makes the freedom, and this is the thing contended for. All the disputes which have agitated the philosophic world, have been more about the laws of phenomena than about the phenomena themselves. This is eminently true of moral agency. The world admits this state of mind, and acts accordingly; none but minds partially organised will deny it. The phrenologist must admit it, or destroy his system of induction, based on the evidence of consciousness.

Material Instruments for Mental Manifestations.-A friend has placed in our hands the following curious extract from the work of Jeremy Taylor, on the Nativity:-"For if the soul of man were put into the body of a mole, it could not see nor speak, because it is not fitted with an instrument apt and organical to the faculty; and when the soul hath its proper instruments, its music is pleasant or harsh, according to the sweetness or unevenness of the string it touches; for David himself could not have charmed Saul's melancholic spirit with the strings of his bow, or the wood of his spear. And just so are the actions or dispositions of the soul, angry or pleasant, lustful or cold, querulous or passionate, according as the body is disposed by the various intermixtures of natural qualities."

Phrenological Society at Albany, N. Y.-About the middle of March, a society was formed in this city for the cultivation and advancement of phrenology, and the following gentlemen appointed officers-Thomas W. Olcott, President; Rufus W. Peckham, Vice-President; John Newland, Secretary; William Combe, Treasurer; Amos Dean, W. A. Hamilton, and Amos Fish, Executive Committee. We would here correct a mistake made in our sixth number, page 238, in the notice of Mr. Combe's lectures at Albany. It should have read "Combe on Physiology," instead of "Combe on Phrenology," that was used as a textbook in the Albany Female Academy.

Phrenology in the Family.-This little work on the Application of Phrenological Principles to Early Domestic Education, by Rev. J. A. Warne, seems to be very favourably received by those who are competent to judge of its real merits. We recently received from a gentleman connected with the Canadian government, a letter, dated Toronto, U. C., March 13th, 1840, in which the writer speaks of Mr. Warne's book, and another work, titled "Woman's Mission," in the following manner:MR. EDITOR,

Sir,-On the first day of June last I embarked at New York in the packet ship which sailed that day for London, having that morning purchased, and carried on board with me, a small work on education entitled "Phrenology in the Family," addressed especially to mothers, and written by the Rev. Joseph A. Warne, of Philadelphia.

From my youth upwards, my mind has been more earnestly employed in reflecting on the various modes of improving the human mind than on any other subject whatever. I have read with the most earnest attention, all I found written on the subject for the last forty years, and I have exercised myself much in communicating knowledge to children and to adults during nearly the whole of that period.

The value of this book appeared to me so great, that, after my arrival in London, I went to an eminent publisher and offered him the book if he would republish it. After keeping it for twenty-four hours, he returned it to me, declining to print it. From day to day I offered it to six other publishers, the last of whom accepted the book and promised to republish it, and I have since learned that he did so. This was Mr. Hodgson, No. 111 Fleet street.

On returning to New York in September, I purchased another copy, and have since perused it again with more interest than ever.

While in London, I saw and purchased a small work, also on education, just then published, and addressed especially to mothers, entitled "Woman's Mission," and written, as I was told, by a Miss Lewis. This last is a book of general principles, whilst the former is one of details; together, I think them absolutely invaluable. During my stay in that city, I was many times on the point of addressing a letter to the editor of the Times, subscribed with my proper name, and calling upon every woman in Britain to purchase and study these two works, and devote themselves to the duties and practice recommended in them, with all the zeal of affectionate mothers. But the fear of ridicule, and certain peculiar circumstances in which I was then placed, constrained me to silence.

On arriving in New York, I called on an eminent publisher there with "Woman's Mission," and recommended him earnestly to republish it, and he said he would. He did not, however, do so; but I now learn that Messrs. Wiley and Putnam have republished it, and that Bishop Onder