individual whose name and qualifications are unknown, in a case which probably presented difficulties; for cases do occur in which even a good observer may err in estimating the organ of Tune.

We have spoken of these cases as if the whole information furnished by Mr Butler were scrupulously accurate, so far as it goes; but we must be excused for now expressing our doubts of the perfect correctness of the reports, even mutilated as they are. Experience leads us to doubt the truthfulness of the greater part of the reports of adverse cases, and we shall shew presently that Mr Butler is not particularly accurate, where perfect accuracy was not only within his power, but incumbent on him as a duty.

In stating his objections against "The Constitution of Man," he refers to "the People's Edition," and, in commenting on them, we shall use the same edition.

First, All his quotations are drawn from, and his commentaries expended upon, the "Introductory Remarks" to the work. Not a word is extracted from it, from chapter first, page 7, to the conclusion on page 98.

Secondly, He does not combat one of the facts stated in "The Constitution of Man," nor controvert one logical deduction from them, unless his two cases can be called facts. The whole article is an argument in which he first assumes that his own theological opinions are infallibly correct, then endeavours to shew that Mr Combe's doctrines are at variance with them, and finally arrives at the conclusion that therefore Mr Combe's work is dangerous and deistical.

We strongly recommend to phrenologists not to allow themselves to be drawn into an argument in answer to such objections as these; because, by such a mode of reasoning, the adherents of every sect, however widely they may differ from, and even contradict each other, may, with the greatest ease, demonstrate not only phrenology, but geology, astronomy, or physiology to be theologically unsound. The philosophical answer to such objectors is given in "The Constitution of Man," page 89. "If," says Mr Combe, "the views of human nature expounded in this work be untrue, the proper answer to them is a demonstration of their falsity. If they be true, they are mere enunciations of the institutions of the Creator, and it argues superstitious and not religious feelings, to fear evil consequences from the knowledge of what Divine Wisdom has appointed. The argument that the results of the doctrine are obviously at variance with Scripture, and that therefore the doctrines cannot be true, is not admissible; for, in the words of Dr Whately, if we really are convinced of the truth of Scrip

ture, and consequently of the falsity of any theory (of the earth, for instance) which is really at variance with it, we must needs believe that that theory is also at variance with observable phenomena; and we ought not therefore to shrink from trying the question by an appeal to these.'" We repeat that Mr Butler has disregarded these most obvious principles, and so conducted his argument as to take it out of the field of philosophy, and place it in that of polemical divinity.

Finally, He lays the foundation of his objections in misquotations of Mr Combe's text. On page 2 of the Constitution of Man, Mr Combe says, " The constitution of this world does not look like a system of optimism. It appears to be arranged, in all its departments, on the principle of slow and progressive improvement." Mr Butler suppresses this statement entirely. In quoting the following passage (which he does by placing it between inverted commas, and saying that Mr Combe asserts it), he omits the words here printed in italics, and inserts those printed in capitals. "In our own country," says Mr Combe on page 4, "two views of the constitution of the world and of human nature have long been prevalent, differing widely from each other, and which, if legitimately followed out, would lead to distinct practical results. The one is, that the world, including both the physical and moral departments, contains within itself the elements of (ITS OWN) improvement (AND PERFECTIBILITY)."

Again, Mr Combe has said, "There is no countenance given to atheism by this theory. On the contrary, it affords the richest and most comprehensive field imaginable for tracing the evidence of Divine power, wisdom, and goodness in creation." Instead of this, the reverend Rector makes Mr Combe say that it affords, in his opinion, "the richest field imaginable for blessing and praising God" ! !

The conclusion which he arrives at is, that "The latter assertion certainly makes this, the material theory, his (Mr Combe's) own."

Let us see, then, by what steps he reaches this inference. First, after "world," in the foregoing passage, he omits the words," including both the physical and moral departments;" secondly, he inserts the words " ITS OWN" before "improvement;" and thirdly, after "improvement," he inserts the words " AND PERFECTIBILITY," in direct contradiction to Mr Combe's text. The conclusion is then plausibly made out, that "the material theory is Mr Combe's own"!!

The reverend gentleman knew that he was misrepresenting these passages; for, after having not only said that Mr Combe "asserts" and "states this doctrine," but placed the words as

now cited, between inverted commas, to shew that they were quotations, he, in the perfect consciousness that this would be detected and exposed, proceeds, on page 513, to secure for himself a door of escape; for he there says, "We must now grapple with that gentleman's exposition of the case between these two antagonising principles; and, in order to do it fairly, we shall give it in his own language." He then quotes the passage correctly. But why did he at all do it otherwise than "fairly?" Why did he strike the key-note of his argument in misrepresentation? He shews the dexterity of a wrangler, without the spirit of a philosopher. The correct quotation is introduced as a mere variation in the air, which he trusts that his readers will not scrutinize, or will immediately forget; for, in the paragraph immediately following it, he resumes his argument, not on Mr Combe's text, but on his own suppressed and interpolated version of it! His objections are directed against the proposition that the world contains a system of "perfectibility," a word introduced into the text by himself, in direct contradiction to Mr Combe's positive statement, that to him this world "does not look like a system of optimism."

The object of the author is avowed to be, to fix "the material hypothesis" on Mr Combe; and, in trying to accomplish it, he proceeds in his misquotations. On page 516, he quotes the following passage from "The Constitution of Man,” in which he interpolates the word here printed in capitals, and omits the words printed in italics. "In short," says he, "according to it (the second hypothesis), science, philosophy, and all (THE) arrangements of the physical, moral, and intellectual elements of nature, are subordinate in their effects on human happiness in earth, to religious faith." If we insert the word "the" before " arrangements," and omit the words "moral and intellectual elements" before "nature," in this quotation, we shall certainly make it approach more closely to an assertion of a "material hypothesis."

The reverend Rector has altered the following passage to so great an extent that we cannot point out its errors by any varieties of type. We therefore beg our readers carefully to compare the original with his version, and judge for themselves. "If," says Mr Combe, "the one hypothesis be sound, man must fulfil the natural conditions requisite to the existence of religion, morality, and happiness, before he can reap full benefit from religious truth." The words here printed in italics are in the same type in Mr Combe's text. Mr Butler's version, given by him between inverted commas, is this: "The philosophers,' he (Mr Combe) says, assert that there are natural conditions which man must fulfil, before religious

6

truth can enter into his heart with good effect. Mr Combe continues, According to the other, he must believe aright in religion and be the subject of spiritual influences, independent of natural causes, before he can become capable of any virtue or enjoyment."" Mr Butler, in quoting this passage on page 516, omits the words "independent of natural causes," which form the real subject of the controversy; and, in repeating it on page 517, he transforms it into this proposition, "We do not believe, as he (Mr Combe) ascribes unto us, 'That no man can be capable of any virtue or enjoyment, who is not a true believer."

In quoting the following passage, he omits the words here printed in italics. "This may be attributed to the premature formation of a system of theology in the dawn of civilization, before the qualities of the physical world, and the elements of the moral world, and their relationship, were known; and to erroneous interpretations of Scripture in consequence, partly, of that ignorance." (P. 5.)

Perhaps the reader may suspect that Mr Butler and we are quoting from different editions of Mr Combe's work. But this is not the case: the "People's Edition," which we both cite, was stereotyped at first, and the same plates are still used. Only blank pages could preserve an author from condemnation, where such liberties as these are used with his text; and yet Mr Butler appears as the champion of the Gospel of truth, and his object is to convict Mr Combe of being its foe!

Mr Butler's article, we have said, is temperately, nay courteously, written, so far as Mr Combe personally is concerned. We do not wish to treat Mr Butler in a different spirit; but this very respectful treatment of his author was calculated to wound him more deeply than the foulest abuse, because it disarmed suspicion of the misrepresentations which were committed against him.

For the reasons before stated, we abstain from entering into any discussion of Mr Butler's theological views; and we have bestowed this notice on his article both for the sake of suggesting to our readers the line of argument which, in our opinion, every scientific phrenologist should adopt in answer to such attacks, and to solicit them to make it a general rule to scrutinize closely all quotations brought forward against phrenology by opponents professing a regard to religion as their motive; for, according to our experience, these controversialists seem to think that the end sanctifies the means, and that no misquotation or misrepresentation can be wrong, if only used to support what they conceive to be religious truth.

89

All the British quarterly medical journals have noticed Dr Morton's Crania Americana in those terms of high approbation in which it so well deserves to be spoken of. The longest, and to the phrenologist most interesting, of the notices, is that in the Medico-Chirurgical Review, occupying thirty closelyprinted pages. The reviewer has selected from Dr Morton's work a number of particulars regarding the heads and mental characteristics of different families of the human race, "with a view to elucidate that natural correspondence which subsists between the shape of the head and the character of mind, in active life, which," says he, "we regard physiologically as constituting the most important fundamental principle in Mental Science-not useless in education, government, and legislation, in moral, religious, and medical philosophy."—(P. 439.) On Dr M.'s anthropological classification and its elements he remarks, that, instead of adopting the forehead as a chief physical," and "intellectual" capacity as a principal "moral," character in the distinction of races, the Professor "might have drawn three kinds of organic characters from the head, by viewing it under a threefold distribution, corresponding with the three recognised lobes of the brain. From the mind, also, in a similar way, he might have obtained three kinds of mental characters, by considering its faculties under the threefold distribution into affections, sentiments, and intellectual powers. Such an arrangement would have yielded the principles of a consistent, though limited, scientific system; for, as in individuals, both families and races may be distinguished by the predominancy of one lobe of the brain over the other two, and of one order of the mind's faculties over the other two-for example, the anterior cerebral lobe may exhibit an ascendancy of size and energy over the other two, while the intellectual powers are displaying a high degree of vigour and activity over the two other orders of mental faculties. We find a clear illustration of this example in Dr M.'s system; for, in the large oval head' and its full elevated forehead,' co-existing with the highest intellectual' aptitude, we distinctly perceive a remarkable confirmation of the psychosophical doctrine, that the anterior cerebral lobe, by its several parts, performs the functions of organic instruments, appropriated to the higher intellectual powers."-(P. 439.) With respect to the effects of artificial change of the form of the skull by compression, the reviewer is of opinion that this "does not change the structure or qualities of the brain, but merely