phenomena, to the explanation of which the prevailing philosophy is so inadequate.

Mr Combe, in his Elements of Phrenology, writes thus on the subject:" This faculty produces the sentiment of Respect and "Reverence, and, when directed to the SUPREME BEING, leads to "adoration. It predisposes to religious feeling, without determining "the manner in which it ought to be directed; so that, if the un"derstanding be very unenlightened, it may be gratified with the worship even of images or idols. It is the source also of the tendency "to look up to and admire superiors in rank and power; and in this "way disposes to obedience. It gives rise to the profound emotion "of respect experienced by many when looking on the ruins of a "palace or temple, the graves of their forefathers, or the former ha"bitations of men eminent for genius or virtue. It enters largely "into the constitution of a devoted antiquary. It is also the chief "element in filial piety. When the organ is large, and that of "Self-esteem small, humility is the result."

It is not intended here to give any account of the discovery of the organ. This will be found detailed at some length, and with much vivacity, in Dr Gall's great work on the Organology. Supposing its existence to be established, it must be felt as satisfactorily explaining that variety of anomalous appearances in human life, adverted to in the beginning of this paper, which, on a hasty review, seem so little reducible to principle.

Every faculty of the mind has some object on which it is expended. Veneration, in its connexion with earthly objects, speedily gratifies itself, in all stages of society, by deference for superior worth or talent, for ancestry, for titles of honour, and even for inanimate objects which have become associated with these or other great qualities. But it has a craving for a higher gratification than can be afforded by earthly things. In all these, there is such an intermixture of feebleness, that the natural force. of the sentiment shoots out beyond them, even where its exercise is not restrained by the sense of justice and other moral feelings, which so often interfere with its application to buman things. It is a matter, accordingly, of universal experience, that the minds of men have gone forth, not merely in a belief of supernatural beings, (for that may perhaps be

partly accounted for on other principles of our nature,) but in Worship, which is the proper manifestation of this particular sentiment. The faculty, thus considered, has powers which either cannot be at all directed to created things, limited and imperfect as these are, or which are, in their capacity, infinitely beyond what can be called into action by these; and, as none of our sentiments has been given in order to remain inactive, it follows, from the very definition of the principle, that there is something in our common human nature, which, according to the principles of a true philosophy, carries us directly and instinctively to the worship of a Deity. Were we travelling in a quarter where we found a steam-engine, or other instrument of great power, we should immediately conclude, that some corresponding weight was to be raised, or other application of it to be made, equivalent to its power. Accordingly, when we find in the human mind a sentiment of veneration existing, which, though it rises even to the character of a passion when exerted on worldly objects, possesses capabilities for an infinitely higher flight, and, darting from earth to heaven, can embrace the idea even of an omnipotent God, and feel a power of offering to Him an acceptable service, we immediately infer, that such is one of the principles of his nature and reasonable ends of his being.

But if the existence of this principle thus explains the reasonableness of religious worship, it follows, from the very fact, that a Deity, who is the object of it, exists. Every faculty has an object towards which it is directed. The Love of Children, Animal Love, Adhesiveness, Benevolence, Combativeness, and Destructiveness, lead instinctively to the objects on which, by nature, their gratification is to depend. Veneration does not fail to carry this as a part of its functions. Its earthly objects need not be again explained. But if, besides these, its powers carry us forth, as by an irresistible impulse, to a higher object, to a Deity, we may be very sure that this higher object, this Deity, exists.

It cannot be too soon explained, that we do not intend to found religion wholly on the principle of Veneration. In this, as in almost every other case, a plurality of powers are called into action; or rather, it'may be said, that true worship implies the activity of all the principles of our nature. Intellect perceives the excellence of the almighty object of worship. Love, Hope, Wonder, the sense of Justice, Fear, Imagination, have unlimited play in contemplating the Divine character. Destructiveness, Secretiveness, Wit itself, in a spiritual man, may bring their powers to the grand employment. And, with reverence be it spoken, who can assert, that even the animal part of our frame may not be elevated to the declaration of his glory?

It is proper, also, to explain, that to the discovery (supposing it not revealed), and, at any rate, to the right apprehension of the character of God, the intellect is requisite, as indeed all the powers of the mind are requisite, apart from Veneration. It is the intellect, for example, that traces the connexion between nature and nature's God. But Veneration we hold to be the corner-stone of the edifice. It is the power which leads us to look up to and long for a Deity; and, though of itself not sufficient to discover or discern him in all his glory, it is essential to that discovery. It is that without which his character and relation to us never could have been rightly apprehended-perhaps never would have been searched for.

It is in this view of the human mind, that Lord Bacon's principle becomes true, that philosophy reconciles us to religion. The principles of that other philosophy, to which we previously adverted, have not this for their legitimate effect. According to our view, the belief and worship of a Deity form part of the rational nature of man, resulting from one of his implanted principles, or rather one manifestation of that principle, just as much as a sentiment of justice, or of love, is a part of his nature. We admit farther, no doubt, or rather we necessarily hold, that all the more intricate inquiries into his nature, or into the principles of the universe, VOL. III.-No. IX.

B

will be found to coincide with this primitive principle. We accordingly agree with the philosophy of Mr Stewart, in holding, that the existence of Deity is capable of being established, though not discoverable, by a mere examination of the appearances of Design, of Power, of Benevolence, of Justice, in the universe; and that the uniformity of purpose which marks all these appearances, forms a powerful incentive to the belief of his Unity. But we differ from Mr Stewart in two material respects. In the first place, we hold these to be mere confirmations from reasoning of an elementary principle, which precedes all reasoning. And, in the second place, we deny that one universal and invariable attendant of the principle-the worship of that Deity, to the belief of whom it leads-is a philosophical consequence of any mere intellectual belief. When Mr Stewart says, that the great attributes of the Deity "render him a proper object of Religious Worship," he plainly intends to bring these forward as accounting for that worship. But it is evident that this is a non sequitur. The most learned disquisition on the daily waste of the animal substance, and the necessity of its continual repair to meet its dissolution, would be unavailing to excite the desire of food, if there were not an implanted appetite. No consideration of human excellence could excite Love; nor could the most profound views of the fitness of things lead to Conscientiousness, if there were not, in the mind, a sentiment of Benevolence and of Justice, which was independent of reasoning. In the same way, we hold, that no proof of the excellence of God would, of itself, be sufficient to induce Religious Worship. In one view, indeed, the more profound our knowledge became of the power and character of Deity-or, in other words, of his independence of us, the less would our belief be that he should care about our adoration. Were the case otherwise, indeed, and were Mr Stewart's views correct, it would follow, that moral qualities in a human being should not merely justify, but should universally lead to the worship of the individual possessing them,-in a degree suited, of

course, to the measure in which he possessed them. But this is contradicted by all experience. No one thinks of worshipping Mrs Fry or Mr Howard. And if it be objected, that idolatry of all kinds is abolished in modern times, we reply, what is both a very singular fact, and is in itself a confirmation of our principles, that in ancient times, the heathen made gods of trees, the moon, of stocks and stones, cows, crocodiles, beetles, and the vilest reptiles; but they did not worship their heroes and statesmen, their wisest and best benefactors, during their lives. They deified them at death: but during life they refused to worship; though it was then that they were most constantly experiencing the value, and witnessing the beauty, of those high qualities, which Mr. Stewart considers as the origin of worship.

Worship, however, easily and naturally flows from the phrenological principle. It is the appropriate exercise of an implanted instinct. No doubt, the beauty and excellence of its manifestations is heightened by an alliance with those finer feelings of our nature, which flow from the contemplation of Power, Goodness, Justice, and Truth; and it is the glory of the worship of a Deity, in whom all perfection dwells, that every faculty of our nature may and will unite with Veneration, in yielding their appropriate tribute to the mighty Disposer of the universe. But these, it must ever be kept in view, are associated feelings, aiding, but not giving birth to, the primitive principle; and this is the peculiarity of the phrenological doctrine. Butler, one of the most philosophical of Christian divines, has set himself to establish the truth of natural and revealed religion, by shewing its conformity to the Analogy of nature. But beyond this principle of reasoning, his philosophy did not carry him. The phrenological system, however, while it does not undervalue the argument from analogy, has the further and peculiar distinction of drawing its proofs directly from the principles of our nature, and thus of affording to religion the strongest foundation, apart from revealed truth, on which it can be placed.