or, indeed, who has writ better than David or Solomon, as also many others, who cannot be said to have been inspired, or ever received the Christian faith.

The Grecians and Romans always writ in their original tongues, the latter of which went to Egypt and Greece to learn the language or customs of the place (without studying the dead tongues), as we may go to France, Holland, or Italy.

Nevertheless, the Greek and Latin are more necessary to us, whose laws, physic and divinity so much depend upon those authors.

Yet I think it cannot be said or alleged that these add one grain to wisdom, reason, or human understanding; and were it possible to make a just, full, and exact translation, our judgment of it must be the same, whether with or without the language. From these, then, and such like considerations, I conceive that the greatest perfection of wisdom or the understanding, is absolutely depending upon the perfection of the organization or exactness of the human proportion (especially the brain) or the good form of the solids and fluids of the body.

For it is evident that no part of the body seems so much to affect our reason or wisdom as the head and brain being well or ill formed, which is the principal [organ]; together with the fluids being in a proper state.

For this seems to be the more noble part of the body; the seat of all the senses; the sensorium commune; and chief seat of wisdom and reason, or the understanding.

(To be concluded in next Number.)

ARTICLE X.

A TREATISE ON THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF DOUBT IN RELIGIOUS QUESTIONS; WITH A PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO CHRISTIANITY. London, Longman & Co. 1831. 12mo. Pp. 194.

THE object of the author of this Treatise is to prepare the minds of inquirers for the study of formal works on the Evidences of Christianity, by removing causes which either indispose for, or hinder conviction from, an examination of those evidences. The causes of religious doubt he considers under two heads, Intellectual and Moral. The intellectual are, 1st, "Misconceptions as to the nature of the proof in religious questions" and, 2d, "Inadequate acquaintance with the facts of the Christian evidence." The moral are, 1st, "Excess in some legitimate propensities ;" 2d, "Pride;" 3d, "Want of adequate

seriousness;" and, 4th," Fear." In the Appendix, which we think the most valuable portion of the work, the author has collected a number of extracts from eminent writers, with the view of solving various popular difficulties. Materialism is one of the subjects discussed; and in none of his arguments does the author arrive at a more satisfactory conclusion.

Some years ago Phrenology was very currently objected to, on the ground that it leads to Materialism; but the objectors thought it prudent to hold their peace, as soon as they discovered that the universally received doctrine that the brain as a whole is the organ of the mind, must have exactly the same tendency in that respect, as the phrenological principle that each faculty is manifested by a cerebral part peculiar to itself. But it may be asked, What if also the former doctrine lead to Materialism? This question we considered at some length, in vol. i. p. 120, where we attempted to prove that, in whatever light the matter is viewed, the cry of Materialism is utterly groundless and unphilosophical. Even were it demonstrated, however, that Phrenology is subversive of the notion of the soul's immateriality, this would not in the slightest degree affect the question of its immortality. Such an assertion will perhaps startle some of our readers; but it is, we think, pretty well borne out by the arguments contained in the following extract from the Treatise under review :

"Why may not a Materialist be a Christian ?-and have not many excellent persons been needlessly alarmed about the opinions of certain foreign physiologists, and their ingenious supporters in this country? I grant, that the inculcation of any doctrine which tends to prove the soul is necessarily extinct, when the present organization of the matter of the human body is at end, has a bad moral tendency, and is an uncomfortable doctrine. But who, it may be asked, of the most strenuous asserters of the present dependence of the mind on organization, ever asserted that it may not be immortal, notwithstanding?

"The immateriality and immortality of the soul, are two very different questions; but these have been confounded; and in consequence, many well-intended treatises have altogether failed in their effects upon that class of persons for whom they were chiefly designed.

"Whatever the physiologists alluded to may have thought themselves, or even insinuated; that, because the soul seems to terminate with the organization of the matter of the body, it ceases for ever to exist, is not at all a necessary consequence, nor do I think that all who have been treated as if they said have meant any thing of the kind.

So,

"The assertion,' writes Dr. Elliotson, in his. Notes to Blumenbach, the assertion that the mind is a power of the living brain, is not an assertion that it is material; for a power or

property of matter cannot be matter; neither is it an assertion that this power cannot be something immortal, subtle, immaterial,-diffused through and connected with the brain. Nor, because we refuse to listen to a mere hypothesis, respecting spirit, are we necessarily to deny the resurrection. For if a divine revelation pronounce that there shall be another order of things, in which the mind shall exist again, we ought firmly to believe it, because neither our experience nor our reason can inform us what will be hereafter; and we must be senseless to start objections on a point beyond the penetration of our faculties.”*

"This is, to my mind, a just and admirable statement of the case; and it is assuredly giving the arguments of some sceptical physiologists a degree of importance in a religious point of view, which they do not merit, and encouraging a notion that physiological or any other researches are hostile to Christianity, for men to write and speak of them in the illiberal manner of some well-intentioned and excellent people, who have, however, proved themselves very unequal to the subject,-and by the confusion spread by them over the whole question, applying some passages in senses which the professional delinquents never meant, and arguing as if the soul, because it now seems to depend on the organization of the living brain, cannot therefore be immortal, have made many more sceptics than they have convinced.

6

"The celebrated Dr Rush, of America, remarks, I think most justly, upon this subject, that the writers in favour of the immortality of the soul have done that truth great injury by connecting it necessarily with its immateriality. The immortality of the soul depends upon the will of the Deity, and not upon the supposed properties of spirit. Matter is in its own nature as immortal as spirit. It is resolvable, by heat and moisture, into a variety of forms; but it requires the same Almighty power to annihilate, that it did to create it. I know of no arguments to prove the immortality of the soul, but such as we derive from the Christian revelation.'-Medical Inquiries and Observations, vol. ii., p. 15, as quoted by Elliotson, p. 77.

"All the great ends of morality and religion (writes Mr Locke), are well enough secured, without philosophical proofs of the soul's immortality; since it is evident, that He who made us first begin to subsist here, sensible and intelligent beings, and for several years continued us in such a state, can restore us to the like state of sensibility in another world, and make us capable there to receive the retribution he has designed to men, according to their doings in this life. And, therefore, it is not of such mighty necessity to determine one way or the other, as some, over-zealous, for, or against, the immortality of the soul, have

Blumenbach's Elements of Physiology, by Dr Elliotson, 4th Edition,

p. 72-75.

been forward to make the world believe.'-Essay, Book iv., ch. iii., sec. vi.

"It seems to have been too much taken for granted, by writers on these questions, that the Scriptures assert the strict immateriality, as well as the certain immortality of the human soul; this is a great error! The Scriptures are plain enough on the latter point; on the former, good men may, I am convinced, and will, more or less, always differ. A materialist may be an infidel, but not at all necessarily, as we have seen.

"It is of no consequence in the world to any purpose of religion (remarks the profound Mr Hallet), whether the soul of man be material or immaterial. All that religion is concerned to do, is, to prove that that which now thinks in us, shall continue to think, and be capable of happiness or misery for ever. This religion proves, from the express promises and threatenings of the gospel. But religion is not concerned to determine of what nature this thinking immortal substance is.

"For my part, I judge it to be immaterial; but if a man should think that the soul is mere matter, endowed with the power of thought, he would not overturn any article in religion, that is of the least consequence to promote the ends of religion. For, while a man thinks that his soul is matter, he necessarily thinks, that God, who made matter capable of thinking, and endowed the matter of his soul in particular with the power of thought, is capable, by the same Almighty power, of preserving the matter of his soul capable of thinking for ever.'

"I will now draw this extended note to a conclusion, with a passage from the writings of one of the least bigoted and most intellectual men that perhaps ever lived; in which, I heartily concur. 'Believing, as I do, in the truth of the Christian religion, which teaches that men are accountable for their actions; I trouble not myself with dark disquisitions concerning necessity and liberty, matter and spirit. Hoping, as I do, for eternal life through Jesus Christ, I am not disturbed at my inability, clearly to conceive myself, that the soul is, or is not, a substance distinct from the body.' Nor need any one! To ascertain this positively, is beyond our faculties. The objections, from experience or reason, either way, neither help nor hinder us.”

ARTICLE XI.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF SLEEP. By ROBERT MACNISH, Author of "The Anatomy of Drunkenness," and Member of the Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow. Second Edition. Glasgow: W. R. M'Phun. 1834. Pp. 336.

IN noticing (Vol. VI. p. 576) the first edition of this work, we mentioned that the author had adopted the phrenological explanation of dreaming and other phenomena connected with sleep, but that it would have been satisfactory if he had brought Phrenology more conspicuously forward. In the second edition, we are glad to perceive, no reserve whatever is manifested with respect to the science. On the contrary, the phrenological doctrines openly and undisguisedly pervade the whole work; and in the preface, Mr Macnish, with a degree of boldness and honesty which some other writers would do well to imitate, has made the following declaration of his opinions :-" The disciples of Gall assume that his system, having ascertainable facts to illustrate it, is at all times susceptible of demonstration-that nothing is taken for granted, and that the inquirer has only to make an appeal to nature to ascertain its fallacy or its truth. The science is entirely one of observation: by that it must stand or fall, and by that alone ought it to be tested. The phrenological system appears to me the only one capable of affording a rational and easy explanation of all the phenomena of mind. It is impossible to account for dreaming, idiocy, spectral illusions, monomania, and partial genius, in any other way. For these reasons, and for the much stronger one, that having studied the science for several years with a mind rather hostile than otherwise to its doctrines, and found that nature invariably vindicated their truth, I could come to no other conclusion than that of adopting them as a matter of belief, and employing them for the explanation of phenomena which they alone seem calculated toelucidate satisfactorily. The system of Gall is gaining ground rapidly among scientific men, both in Europe and America. Some of the ablest physiologists in both quarters of the globe have admitted its accordance with nature; and, at this moment, it boasts a greater number of proselytes than at any previous period of its career. The prejudices still existing against it result from ignorance of its real character. As people get better acquainted with the science, and the formidable evidence by which it is supported, they will think differently." These sentiments, circulated in a work so popular as that under review, will, we doubt not, have considerable effect in restoring gravity to the countenances of those who still amuse themselves by smil