about to be true? admit the general principles of Phrenology 17. What number of such persons make Phrenology a particular subject of study, or are so far conversant with it as to entitle them to be called "Phrenologists;" applying this term in the same sense as Botanist, Chemist, or Geologist, are usually applied? 18. What number of educated persons, of ability not below average, deny the truth of Phrenology so far as to come under the designation of " Antiphrenologists?" 19. What number of such Antiphrenologists are acquainted with the facts and principles of Phrenology (as set down in the works of Gall, Spurzheim, or Combe) in a sufficient degree to entitle them to pronounce a decision respecting the merits of the science? " III. Miscellaneous Queries applying to Members of Phrenological Societies and others indifferently. not 20. Is there any Phrenological Museum in belonging to a Phrenological Society,—and what are its contents according to the queries 6 to 11 on the preceding page ?› 21. Have any Public Lectures on Phrenology been given 25. If no Phrenological Society yet exists in there any prospect of an early formation of one? 26. Is there any other Scientific Society in 27. What are the name and objects of such Scientific Society? 28. What number of Members does such Scientific Society consist of? 29. Does the person, answering any of the questions in this letter, object to seeing his name joined with his replies when printed? "IV. Queries addressed to the Authors of published Works and Essays in which the facts and principles of Phrenology are discussed, whether favourably adversely. N. B.-It is earnestly requested that persons into whose hands this letter may come will communicate the following queries to any of their author-friends to whom such queries may be applicable. 30. What are the titles of your distinct Works treating of Phrenology? 31. What are the references to your Essays on the same sub ject in other works, or in the standard Periodicals not devoted exclusively to Phrenology? 32. What are your Works or Essays on other subjects, in which Phrenology is applied to elucidate the subjects particularly treated of? 33. Where are any of these Works reviewed or noticed (omitting any notices in the Phrenological Journal) ? 34. What, in your opinion, is the best work or essay published in opposition to Phrenology ?” ARTICLE X. REMARKS ON THE ERRONEOUS IMPRESSIONS AND SPIRIT OF HOSTILITY AT PRESENT EXISTING, MORE ESPECIAL LY AMONGST THE RELIGIOUS PUBLIC, IN REGARD TO THE DIFFUSION OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE IN GENERAL, AND OF PHRENOLOGY AND ITS SUPPOSED EFFECTS IN PARTICULAR. By Mr H. G. WRIGHT. WERE phrenologists to consider it necessary to answer every ephemeral objection that is hazarded against their science, the task might be an endless one. But when from time to time arguments of seeming weight are adduced,-although of seeming weight only,—it is befitting to give the world assurance of its power, by shewing how little ground there really is for such objections. It appears to me that this might be advantageously done at present, when there exists, more particularly among the religious instructors of the community, a very erroneous impression of, and consequent spirit of hostility towards, the doctrines of Phrenology. An idea has got abroad that science aims at usurping the place of Christianity. Not only is this heard in conversation, but, in a printed Prospectus recently issued, intimating the proposed establishment of a religious periodical, under the name of the "Scottish Christian Herald," the following passages occur:"All sorts of literary machinery, newspapers, lectures, treatises, magazines, pamphlets, school-books, libraries of knowledge for use or for entertainment, are most diligently and assiduously set in motion, if not for purposes directly hostile to the Gospel, at least on the theory that men may be made good and happy without the Gospel, nay though the Gospel were forgotten as an old wives' fable;" and the writer, after enumerating the facilities and resources now existing for disseminating knowledge, says, that religion should be "going forth in the might of the Lord to meet the gigantic foe on the very terms of his own challenge. She may not indeed adopt his unholy spirit, but righteously she may wield his own weapon for consummating her godly triumph." Whilst every well-wisher to the great cause of human improvement must rejoice in the establishment of a work promising to -be productive of much good, it is certainly to be regretted that it should have been heralded in such a jealous, grudging spirit. It is not my intention or object, however, to offer any farther remarks on this prospectus than are rendered necessary by its relation to the subject in hand; and I shall therefore confine myself at present to pointing out the extraordinary, though, as it appears to me, strictly legitimate, consequence to which one of the passages leads. The writer states that religion should be going forth" in the might of the Lord," to attack the “gigantic foe," viz. the teachers and the taught-the authors and their works. Now it is obviously implied here, that the directors of "all sorts of literary machinery," and the pupils, are proceeding "in the might of"-the devil-for there is no medium-they must be serving either God or Mammon; and thus we have the "father of lies" in the somewhat novel and anomalous situation of lending his powerful aid in spreading the truths of science, and inculcating the beauty of morality and religion! Let us follow out the writer's idea, and imagine the people acting up to what the "unholy spirit" teaches them, viz. that the Creator having bestowed upon them faculties, the fruits of which are benevolence, justice, integrity, &c., it becomes an imperative duty, dictated by Nature and enforced by Christianity, to keep these faculties in habitual action, What would be the result? Why, according to the prospectus, these unfortunates, being under an "infatuation," would be doomed to follow their arch-instructor to the regions below; and we should thus have the curious spectacle of the place of the wicked being occupied by highly moral beings. This, I suspect, would be carrying the millennium considerably beyond what even its most sanguine advocates have imagined possible. Let it not be thought that this is meant in any profane spirit. If the conclusion at which we are arrived be rather startling, it is at least a fair deduction from the premises laid down in the prospectus. When I saw at the head of the list of those individuals who cordially approved of the design stated in the prospectus, the name of the Reverend Dr Chalmers, I could not help feeling very considerable surprise, that a writer who had entertained the sentiments stated below, who had deprecated that "nar * * "Those narrow and intolerant professors, who take an alarm at the very sound and semblance of philosophy, and feel as if there were an utter irreconcileable antipathy between its lessons on the one hand, and the soundness and piety of the Bible on the other. It were well, I conceive, for our cause, that row, exclusive, and monopolizing spirit," which he feared was "too characteristic of the more declared professors of the truth as it is in Jesus ;" and who had subsequently borne testimony to the beneficial effects flowing from the rapid progress of education;-I say I did feel considerable surprise, that this very writer should view the diffusion of intellectual and moral knowledge as bordering upon hostility to the Gospel! When such a view is entertained, there must be some strange misapprehension as to the nature and tendencies of the knowledge alluded to. But, I would ask, in what respect do the lectures, treatises, school-books, and other means of diffusing knowledge above mentioned, differ from all former lectures, treatises, school-books, &c., which were never, so far as I know, objected to by the clergy? Are the lectures of Dr Hope, and Professors Wilson and Jameson, in the College, less "hostile to the Gospel," than those given by Dr Fyfe, Mr Combe, and Professor Nichol, in the Waterloo Rooms? Is there some latent poison lurking in the words of the latter? Does some moral Upas tree grow in these rooms, making the atmosphere fatal to all who breathe it ? Or is it the Philosophical Association that, like a modern Cerberus, with its three lecturers for its mouths, "tria guttura pandens," indicates the proximity to Pandemo nium? "Cerberus hæc ingens latratu regna trifauci Or does Mr Simpson hold up some Gorgon's head, converting the hearts of all who enter the Cowgate Chapel into stone? The lecturers and authors of the present day, as well as of the past, profess to expound the great laws by which the universe is governed. Where, then, lies this moral difference? But, perhaps, though not said in so many words, the anathema may be intended to be launched principally at Phrenology, and its superstructure of Moral Philosophy; and it may not be unseasonable therefore to examine the grounds on which the false impressions on this subject rest. But, before doing so, I should wish briefly to notice the effect which has actually been produced on the human mind, so far as regards the spirit of Christianity, by the dissemination of mere " secular knowledge." It has often been lamented, that, down to the nineteenth century, the spirit of Christianity should have made comparatively so little progress. Whence was this? it was asked. One answer indeed was always ready-Because the human heart the latter could become a little more indulgent on this subject; that they gave up a portion of those ancient and hereditary prepossessions which go so far to cramp and enthral them."-Preface to Dr Chalmers's Astronomical Dis courses. * Discourse I. p. 20. 8th Edition. was "desperately wicked." But this left the inquirer exactly where it found him, so far as any practical purpose was concerned. We therefore still ask, Whence is this? In vain have we looked for any tangible reply until Phrenology solved the problem, by pointing out in a plain intelligible manner the true ultimate cause. What that cause was will immediately appear. Religion produces its effects-lovely or terrible-according to the objects upon, and means by which, it acts. We see how a barbarous and warlike age conceived itself to be promoting Christianity in its true spirit by bloody crusades; how, more recently, men thought they did God service by torturing and destroying their fellow-creatures for their conscientious opinions; and how, in still later times, ministers of the reformed religion-ministers of the religion of peace and good-will-were the foremost to doom unfortunate wretches to the flames, from the horrible, though unquestionably sincere, belief that they were interpreting God's message to man in its genuine sense. How is it that we now look back upon these dark pages in the history of religion with such very different feelings? Christianity had been preached, and was well known for centuries. Its ministers were bold and able men, conscientiously desirous to seek the truth (6 as it is in Jesus." The contents of the Bible—the grand depository of that truth-were as well known, and, generally speaking, it is admitted, much better than now. Men gave you chapter and verse for all they did. How, then, is it to be accounted for that the spirit and temper in which Christianity is now interpreted are so much improved? If the mind sees things in so very different a manner, and if the things seen remain unchanged and unchangeable, must not the mind or its medium of vision be altered? But what has made this alteration? I reply, the progress, the diffusion of secular knowledge —that is, of science. But it may be asked, How is this shewn? In what way has science done this? Let Phrenology now tell. Often as the fact has been stated, proved, and urged as a proved and therefore practical truth, that the mind acts through a material medium, it seems to me that this great truth has made little or no impression on that part of the community denominated the religious public; at least it has been received merely as an isolated fact, and not as one from which the most important results flow. They look at it as the world would have looked at the apple falling from the tree under which Sir Isaac Newton sat; but they do not, in the spirit of that great man, seize upon it as a key to the most splendid consequences. I must therefore beg leave, once more, to point to this fact as a grand fundamental practical truth, with which those who question the tendencies of Phrenology cannot be made too familiar. But let it not therefore be imagined, as has been often most unphilosophically |