ages under a feudal administration, though one of all others the least congenial to the spirit of true liberty. We do not state more than the simple truth when we assert, that the Swiss were free under a despotic, and that the Romans were an enslaved people under a republican form of government. The Franks too might call themselves free, and think that they enjoyed liberty, because they enjoyed independence; but where is their liberty now, or rather when had it ever an existence? We observed, that a free people are naturally a peaceful people: this has been eminently true of the Swiss; it has been as eminently the reverse of all those other nations whose character and history we have been employed in considering.

Nor will we now, I trust, be disposed, like some historians, to refer the aptitude of the Swiss for liberty to the natural situation of their country, surrounded with mountains, torrents, and woods; for then, not only must liberty desert the plains for the mountains, but we must believe, if similar causes produce similar effects, that Alpine nations have ever been, and are now free,-a fact contradicted by the whole tenor of history. A mountainous country is, doubtless, one of those circumstances which may favour the assertion of liberty, if the spirit of its people is as free as the air which they breathe; but no fortresses, natural or artificial, will protect a nation of slaves, nor will liberty desert the most unbroken plain, if its inhabitants are sincere in the homage which they yield to her. This we will have occasion to illustrate in our next example, drawn from the case of the United Provinces. But I must reserve this, and the other topics to which I formerly alluded, as the subject of a future paper.

252

ARTICLE IX.

Letter to the Author of "A Vindication of the Church of "Scotland from the Charge of Fatalism urged against it "in the Phrenological Journal, No VIII., Art. 5th."

SIR,-Though I had imagined, that it was scarcely possible for any one to have misunderstood the scope and meaning of the article" on Fatalism and Phrenology," and particularly the term Fatalism as employed in that article, yet as you, at least, seem completely to have misapprehended it, I shall first advert to the meaning of the term in question, and then make some remarks on what you are pleased to call "A Vindication "of the Church of Scotland," &c.

Fatalism, then, is used by different writers in different senses. These I briefly alluded to when I quoted Dr Johnson's definition, and contrasted "a decree of fate" with "predestination." "Certain writers," observes a late author, "un"derstand by fatalism every thing in the world, and the world it"self, as existing by necessity; and all events as results of change, " and not of supreme and guiding intelligence. This fatalism in"volves atheism." "Another kind of fatalism teaches, that there " is no liberty of action,-that man does good or evil according to "his faculties, that he cannot change his character,-that his acts "are irresistible,-consequently that he cannot be rewarded or "punished for them." And there is a third kind of fatalism or necessity, which, by teaching, that we necessarily act according to the influence of motives, in opposition to the dogma of the will's self-determining power, as maintained by Chubb, Hobbes, &c., is the only foundation on which religion and morality can be established. This last kind of fatalism, or necessity, is advocated by President Edwards, and by all Calvinistic divines, and it was my object to defend Phrenology from the two first kinds of fatalism, by shewing that it was fatal in the last sense. Hence I observed, that I knew of "no system of "human nature which, compared with Phrenology, demonstrates, "with equal clearness, that man is a free agent, or rather, to speak

"more correctly, one which reveals a greater number of motives to " right acting" and this I proved from the existence of the phrenological faculties of Benevolence, Veneration, and Conscientiousness, particularly the last, the existence of which, as a primitive faculty, is denied by Hume, Hobbes, Mandeville, Paley, &c.

The fatalism, or necessity which depends on motives, is susceptible of a very simple illustration. It is, for example, as morally impossible for me (the condition of sanity being supposed) to precipitate myself from the top of Nelson's monument on the Calton Hill, as it is physically impossible to leap from the bottom to the top of it. Or, (the condition of sanity being still supposed,) it is absolutely impossible for me to stab to the heart a beloved friend. By no self-determining power of the will can I do this. I am necessarily influenced in the former case by motives inspired by Cautiousness; in the latter, by those which spring from Benevolence, Adhesiveness, &c., and, therefore, the doctrine of a self-determining power in the will is an absurdity. Necessity is the law of the whole universe. The Almighty and Satan, the one the most holy, the other the most depraved, are, for this very reason, the most necessary beings in existence. Thus Edwards observes, that, in the exercise of his infinite holiness, God “acts "therein in the highest degree necessarily; and his actions of this "kind are in the highest, most absolutely perfect manner virtuous "and praiseworthy; and are so, for that very reason, because they "are most perfectly necessary."

The whole conception of your "Vindication," therefore, is founded in error. There is not a single passage in the whole article which, even by implication, charges the church of Scotland with fatalism in one or other of the two first senses of this term to which I have alluded. The argument was simply this: "Phrenology is charged with fatalism,—it "might with equal truth be brought against the Calvin"istic system, though it forms the Confession of Faith "of the church of Scotland, but the charge against Phre"nology is unfounded;" therefore, (for this is your argument,) the charge of fatalism is urged against the church

of Scotland. It would be difficult to point out a more complete non sequitur than this. My assertion was of the nature of an argumentum ad hominem, or a reductio ad absurdum; it necessarily implied the absurdity of the charge asbrought against the church of Scotland, an absurdity to be equalled only by bringing a similar charge against Phrenology. But this, it would appear, you either did not, or could not perceive, and forth comes a vindication against a man of straw, against the creature of your own imagination, which is to be found anywhere or everywhere except in the 5th Art. of the 8th No of the Phrenological Journal.

Though I might here close my letter, because I have substantially answered the charge involved in the " Vindication," there are one or two passages in it on which it may be worth while to make a few strictures.

66

66

The second paragraph of your pamphlet contains a specimen of the mode of attack, which is deemed quite philosophical in an argument against Phrenology. You tell us, "I do not mean to enter at present into any dispute of the merits of these "claims, (viz. the claims of Phrenology to rank as a science,) and objections;" that is to say, it is of no consequence to inquire whether or not the doctrines you attack are true; and, utterly disregarding this fundamental question, you proceed as follows: "It is notorious to all who have paid the slightest "attention to the subject, that, INDEPENDENTLY of the question respecting the truth and accuracy of the facts and reasoning, "upon which the pretended science of Phrenology is founded, the principal, and by far the most weighty objections to the whole "conclusions of the craniological hypothesis, arise from their obvious repugnance to the plainest doctrines of religion and morality."

66

It is recorded, that, about two hundred years since, a certain assembly of old women, with large hats and red cloaks, decreed that the earth should on no account presume to turn round its axis, the assertion of the said rotatory motion being "a proposition absurd, false in philosophy, heretical and "contrary to Scripture ;" and the author of this heresy, who had had the audacity to attempt to reconcile it with Scripture, in his epistles to Marc Vesler, in 1612, was by them condemned to perpetual imprisonment in the dungeons of the In

quisition. Now these said reverend old women have at least the merit of being consistent,-they do not say that the aforesaid rotatory motion may be true in fact and in philosophy, and yet at the same time be heretical and contrary to Scripture. They boldly and consistently declare, that it is both unphilosophical and heretical; while your argument is, that the doctrines of Phrenology are repugnant " to the plainest "doctrines of religion and morality," independently of the question of their truth and accuracy; that is to say, they may be true, and yet in opposition to piety and virtue !

At pages 521 and 522 of the Journal, I remarked, that the objectors ought, in common fairness, to have stated the good as well as the evil which results from the doctrine,that if it is true, as is alleged, that large Destructiveness must produce a murderer, it follows that large Benevolence must produce a philanthropist, and that as a large proportion of the inhabitants of this country, at least, had a superior endowment of the higher sentiments, it followed, on the shewing of the objectors, that, by invincible necessity, a great majority of the people of Scotland are and must be pious, benevolent, and conscientious. This assertion too was plainly of the nature of an argumentum ad hominem. On this passage you observe with the greatest naiveté: "But as this is an argument of "which I cannot perceive either the force or the application to the present question, I must just be content to leave it as I find it."And in this I shall strictly imitate your example.

In the paragraph which immediately follows, you tell us, and apparently with perfect seriousness," A distinction is attempted to be drawn between great difficulty and invincible ne"cessity, of which the latter alone, we are told, can be characterized as fatalism. The argument founded upon this distinction is also one of which I have some difficulty in comprehending," &c. "Difficulty," I had observed, "is not impossibility." In your estimation, then, they are convertible, at least not different, or distinct terms. When our Saviour addressed these solemn words to the multitude, "Strive (or agonize) to enter in at "the strait gate," did not this imply great difficulty, but did