perhaps, it is destined to receive the impressions of heat and cold, or of other sensations derived through the medium of the senses of taste and smell.

But, independently of this, we are not aware that it is any objection to a theory, which explains a part of the system of nature, that it does not explain the whole. This would be to say, "If you cannot master the universe of knowledge, you shall learn nothing.

It may happen, that the inner and lower parts of the brain are beyond the scrutiny of man; yet surely we ought not to reject knowledge so far as it can be acquired. It is possible that future investigation may extend farther. In the meantime, let us make use of what we already possess. What should we say to an adversary, who, in declaiming against the discoveries of the geologist, should observe, that, although he had penetrated beyond the exterior crust, or cranium, of the earth, and subjected many of its strata to a strict analysis, yet his knowledge was fallacious, and his researches useless, because he could not shew the nature and properties of the centre of the globe!

2. The next objection is, that-" there are no inequalities, such as the system describes, on the surface of any brain, when dissected, and the inequalities are uniformly confined to the cranium.”

In the first place, we deny the accuracy of the allegationwe join issue on the fact- inequalities on the brain are obvious on the slightest inspection.

Another answer to this objection is, that the brain, after death, is expected to retain the same appearance that it did in life. Of course, "when dissected," the subject is defunct: the living principle, which animated this seat of existence, has fled to the regions of vitality; the inert mass sinks under the cold and contracting grasp of death. Is it unreasonable to suppose, that it will present a different aspect, when under the knife of the anatomist, to that state in which it glowed in health, and vibrated in energy? Surely not! The inequalities of the cranium remain fixed, in durable impressions, upon its bony surface; whilst the soft and tender structure of the flexible brain undergoes a change perfectly consistent with its particular elements, and its general nature. The living action having ceased, the mass retires into some appearance of uniformity and comparative level; and may be illustrated by analogy to the principle of heat, which, acting upon a liquid body, imparts, whilst in operation, an agitated appearance, that subsides with the cause that produced it: so, I take it, does the principle of life act upon the brain, which is the seat of thought and of sensation.

In the next place, we may ask this objector, how it has happened that the inequalities upon the cranium, the existence of which he admits, and which no person, with an eye to see, or a finger to feel, can possibly deny,-how were these inequa lities produced? Did they come by chance? Are they effects without adequate causes? Is it perfectly a matter of accident, whether the skull be in the form in which we observe it, or in any other? Might it have been square or octangular? Is it not reasonable to suppose, that the shape, which, in so many different individuals, it assumes, is owing to the action of some internal power, the constant and incessant movement of which has fashioned the external shape, according to the extent of its force, energy, and continuance?

3. It is again objected, that-" the brain is not only uniform in level, but in structure, which ought not to be the case; for the organs of Destruction, Veneration, and Music, ought to differ as much in structure as the hand, the eye, or the ear. Dr. Spurzheim ought, on his principles, to be able to point out the different organs from their structure alone, were they all cut out of the brain, and laid on a table!"

The fallacy of this objection consists in confounding the external instruments with the internal faculty. The outward organs, called the hand, the eye, and the ear, are certainly distinct enough; but is not the blood, and are not the nerves, which communicate with the hand, the eye, and the ear, "uniform in structure?" and, therefore, if these external senses of touch, of sight, and hearing, operate by an internal organization of the same general nature, why should not the feeling of revenge, the sentiment of veneration, and the appreciation of music, be also received by instruments of a similar structure?

The statement, that the Phrenologist ought to point out the organs, if laid upon a table, by their structure alone, scarcely needs a refutation. Suppose that all the fibres of the human body were cut out, and laid on a table,"-could the most skilful anatomist discriminate between those which form the sense of touch, and those of taste; or between those which constitute the scent, and those which form the sight? Whether Dr. Spurzheim "be able or not to point out the different organs, from the structure alone, were they all cut out of the brain, and laid on a table,” I am not prepared to say; but I think it very unreasonable to require him to do it.

4. The fourth objection is, that-" a faculty, such as that of Destruction, when subdued, and rendered dormant by the efforts of other faculties, is not accompanied by a diminution of protuberance of the organ.

This point, however, is not very positively stated; the

WE

writer qualifies it by the expression, "we believe:" a very convenient method by which the individual gains importance by imagined plurality: but, believed or not, the objection is futile. It assumes, that the subdued faculty is rendered dormant. Now, the excess of the destructive, or any other, propensity, may be subdued by benevolence, by caution, or conscientiousness, and yet not be "rendered dormant:" on the contrary, circumstances will occasionally arise to re-excite the passion, and arouse its supposed dormancy; and, therefore, any diminution of protuberance ought not to be expected. It is, besides, a most irrational expectation, that the diminution should immediately or speedily accompany (as the objection evidently assumes) the reduction of the faculty.

And, should a change occur in the moral character of the individual, in a late era of life, it is still less reasonable to expect that such a diminution should, at an early period, take place; the impression, of course, remains long after the original cause which produced it has ceased to operate: the very nature and structure of the cranium naturally leads us to expect that no such sudden change can possibly arise.

Besides these considerations, it may be added, by way of illustration, that the senses of vision, hearing, and touch, (to which the writer himself refers for analogy,) are frequently destroyed, without any apparent injury to the external organ: the ear of a deaf person continues in the same shape; a paralytic hand is not altered in outward appearance; and even the eye, under one of the diseases to which it is subject, may look the same, although the power of sight be annihilated.

5. Again, it is objected," that the supposed protuberances of the skull could not be formed from corresponding protuberances of the brain, in Nos. 20, 23, and 29," (that is, the organs of Form, Colour, and Language,)" as they are quite disjointed from it by intervening bone.

This objection evidently does not touch the general principle it applies only to a small part of its detail; but, even in this limited extent, I consider it ill-founded. Admitting the fact assumed, that there exists an intervening bone between the part of the brain in question and the exterior skull, still it does not follow that the brain should possess no power; it would only prove that it could not act in a direct manner: it still acts in an indirect one, namely, by impressing itself on this intervening bone, and the latter, of course, conveys that impression to the exterior; and this will be peculiarly obvious, when we look at the nature and situation of the bone in question. Independently of this, we must take into consideration the action of the external muscles, that action being, of course, produced by the internal faculties.

We must besides recollect, that the whole of the bony struc ture must depend upon the supply it receives from the circulating fluids; and there can be no doubt of the fact, that there exists a constant connexion and communication between the structure of the brain and that of the cranium.

6. It is next urged, that-" the inductions of the theorists are too scanty; for, like a quack medicine, which cures one, and kills a thousand, the successful examples are brought for-. ward, and the unsuccessful overlooked, or kept in the background."

This assumes, that the exceptions are more numerous than the rule; and, being a matter of bare assertion, without proof, can only be met by a flat denial. So far from the examples of success being only as one in a thousand, the in-. stances of mistake are only in that proportion. We may suspect, indeed, that this critic has been making experiments as a practitioner in the new science, and is "himself the quack he draws." Deficient in the organ of form, and of some others, which are essential to a perfect acquisition of the art, he has naturally blundered in his progress; and his organ of self-esteem prevents him from conceiving it possible that any one can be better acquainted with the subject than himself!

7. It is further stated, that-" when a puzzling case occurs, such as the organ of destructiveness being strong in a man of gentle disposition, the theorists evade the objection, by shuffling off to some counteracting organ, which they never would have thought of, but for the objection."

Now, supposing that the explanation would not have occurred had the ingenuity of our antagonists been less distinguished, still it is but an imputation of deficient wisdom and foresight, and does not affect the scientific truth. It happens, however, that the principle of counteraction forms a part of the theory itself, and is stated and explained in the very first publication of Dr. Spurzheim. This, indeed, is no new invention in the study of human character; for at all times it has been allowed, that one passion or affection has the effect of controlling the operation of another. Character, indeed, must necessarily be estimated by its aggregate elements, and not from any single part, or a limited number. This courteous antagonist admits, indeed, that the explanation evades the objection, and the essence of the remark is, that it is "shuffling off."

8, and 9. The next two objections have been often stated, and as often refuted. The one is, that-" the system, notwithstanding the express denial of its advocates, is clearly built upon materialism, for it identifies the dispositions of the mind with animal appetites:" and the other point is, that it sup

ports the most diabolical features of fatalism, and the immoral doctrines of German novelists."

To these objections, it may be enough here, briefly, to state, that the system contends only, that the mind acts by material organs, and that, upon their activity and excellence, depend its skill and efficiency. The mind, like the sovereign of a kingdom, acts through the intervention of his ministers and agents. If they be wise, virtuous, and powerful, the affairs of the community are well conducted: if they be weak, wicked, and foolish, the results are commensurate with their incapacity; and so it is with the mind. It is not true that the system "identifies the dispositions of the mind with animal appetites." The mind is influenced only by them; and it is the office of the superior faculties, and of the moral sentiments, to control the appetites; whilst the latter impart activity to the former; and out of this union of the whole constitution of man, when well poised, arises his perfection,-as harmony is produced by the blending of concordant notes with occasional discords.

Such is the beautiful and wise system of nature! but, whether beautiful and wise, or not, it is the system of nature, and the objection can only be founded upon a censure which partakes, in no small degree, of the arrogant, if not the impious.

The doctrine of fatality has no necessary connection with the system; and the very principle of control, which has been discussed in a former paper, is a sufficient answer to this position,-a principle, which gives all that the advocates of free-will can reasonably require. The phrase regarding "the immoral doctrines of German novelists," serves well to round the period, but resolves itself precisely into the same objection.

10. The last objection of this writer is, that-" even if the system were true, its prevalence would be most injurious to society." To support this position, some instances are referred to,-" An innocent lad was accused of theft,"-" Several families will not hire a servant, without scrutinizing the head,"-" Several merchants look after those with whom they have transactions." And it is contended, that-" if this were to go on, universal distrust would be the consequence; and the system must be suppressed by law, as it was at Vienna."

Leaving aside the discussion of the question that the knowledge of truth can ever be injurious, let us look to the instances which are relied upon to bring this science within the scope of such an objection. The accusation of the innocent lad was surely a consequence, not of a knowledge of the sys