is the wine styled the 'mocker,' and condemned in the Bible, and the latter (the pure blood of the grape) the wine pronounced a blessing, and granted to Jacob for a beverage. We are led to address you by reason of the distinction taken and the doctrines taught in these Lectures, being the same which have been taken and taught in works sanctioned and published by ourselves, and because we firmly believe this distinction to be intelligible and sound, and the only one which avoids a conflict with the unyielding laws of nature or the infallible word of God. Considering these Lectures as a pre-eminently able and convincing argument against the use of all intoxicating liquors, especially against the use of wine of every sort as a beverage, among the more wealthy and fashionable classes of community, we cannot but approve of the course Mr. Delavan has taken, and hope he will persevere in his endeavors to give them a wide circulation And we take the liberty of soliciting your careful attention to these Lectures,-to their richness in scientific and historical facts and illustrations, their kindness, force, candor, and eloquence of argument, and their peculiar fitness to disabuse the mind of the Christian public of those perversions of Scripture, from which the cause of temperance has suffered so much in times past."

To the preceding we will only add the approval of one of the most distinguished Biblical critics of the age. Professor Moses Stewart, writing to Mr. Delavan, says :-"I have read the discourses," (of Dr. Nott,) "and have no hesitation in saying that they are powerful, eloquent, argumentative, candid, and kind, without exaggeration, and without any timid shrinking from a fulllength portrait. If Dr. Nott had been raised up for nothing else, it would have been a great end to be accomplished, to write these discourses. My compliments and my earnest congratulations to him on the ground of his complete success in his noble and benevolent undertaking. Sero in cælum redeat, even a sober heathen would say to him; that is, Late may he return to glory! or, in other words, Long may he live! The criticisms that I should have to make in the way of calling in question, would be 'few and far between.' I deem them unnecessary-my meed of praise is in full measure, 'heaped up and running over.' Yes, give as many wings as you can to such a messenger, and let him visit the whole English world. God has given you an opportunity to do more good than many kings and princes have: use it to your utmost, and then ascribe all the glory to him."

We have adduced the preceding commendations, both to show the estimate in which these Lectures are held by the clearest heads

and purest hearts of our country, and to aid, as far as possible, in giving them circulation. It will have been seen that we have confined our remarks, chiefly, to those parts of the book under review which relate to the Scripture bearings of the question of total abstinence from all intoxicating liquors. If we have not noticed other parts of it, it was simply because it did not fall within our design to do so, and not because we do not deem them exceedingly valuable and interesting. The volume is worthy of the serious perusal and careful study of all classes, and is especially commended to the attention of those who, by an incorrect generalization, have fallen into either of the two opposite errors upon "the wine question." They will in this case, as in most others, find that the truth lies between the two extremes. P.

ART. IV.-1. Methodist Quarterly Review for April, 1847. Art. I. Phrenology and Revelation. A Review of Fowler on Religion. By Rev. D. W. CLARK.

2. The British Quarterly Review: Phrenology tested. A Review of Contributions to the Mathematics of Phrenology. By JAMES STRATTON. Also, The Brain and its Physiology; a Critical Disquisition on the Methods of determining the Relations between the Structure and Functions of the Encephalon. By DANIEL NOBLE, M. R. C. S. Eng. London, 1846. Eclectic Magazine, February, 1847.

SUPERFICIAL men often find their favorite hypotheses, which they have dignified by the name of science, in direct contact with the most ancient and thoroughly established truths. The history of one such Utopian reformer is the history of all. He never infers the probable error of his own scheme, but decides at once that the time-honored system is unsound merely because it is opposed to his! Regardless alike of the teachings of experience in relation to the fate of such men, and of the importance of the truths he attempts to overthrow, he proceeds forthwith to proclaim the baselessness of these venerable principles, and to show how clearly this discovery follows from his own demonstrable science. With no very special regard to the graces or forms of modesty, he proceeds immediately to prefer his claims to the gratitude and respect of mankind as their deliverer from the thraldom of custom, and from the delusion of happiness in the enjoyment of their holiest institutions. The very extent and apparent impracticability of the

revolutions he proposes, rather encourage than alarm him. There is something so flattering to natural vanity in the idea of standing out before the world as the fearless opposer of what even general experience has found to be true; something so noble and manly in being, de facto, in the place of "Athanasius contra mundum," that he throws himself, with the most reckless daring and enthusiasm, against even the impregnable walls of truth; and such is his delirium of joy in these assaults, that he really seems not to know when he has dashed out his own brains! At the very moment in which he has just succeeded in drawing sufficient attention to himself to expose the ridiculousness of his attempts, and provoke a smile at their folly, he is waiting, with suppressed breath and "erectis oribis," to catch the universal acclamations of praise and eternal obligation for the glorious deliverances he has wrought out for oppressed humanity.

In no instance is the truth of these remarks more evident than in the history of phrenological discoverers. Having caught a glimpse of a supposed relation between craniology and psychology, they have jumped at once into the broad daylight of the science of phrenology! They have discovered a universal law by noticing a few slight or striking coincidences, which may, however, be easily accounted for without the existence of any such law. They have generalized without competent facts, and been content with conjecture and assumption nearly endless, as the basis of a splendid

science.

But phrenology assumed as true, and what follows? Why, the established principles of metaphysical philosophy are all false. Locke, Reid, Stewart, and Brown, are all wrong in asserting the indivisible unity of mind. The clearest distinctions are confounded. The ablest philosophers are treated with contempt, and men are kindly notified to beware of such blind guides, and to rely upon phrenologists as the true wonder-working spirits in the philosophy of mind. From them we must receive the key of metaphysical knowledge, and the pure principles of that philosophy which shows, plainly enough, all philosophy to be not merely false, but simply ridiculous.

The Christian religion, too, is directly in the way of this furious science. But it must go through, and will. No use to remonstrate. And what then, but to run over, trample down, and stamp into the earth, this old, and, no doubt, superannuated system? Consolation to our doting hearts if then we can gather up so much as a fragment, as a relic of its former greatness and power! Ten years-not more than ten years, certainly, will be ample to esta

blish the new theory of man! Universal nature, its own restorer, stands out beautified and adorned, with only one God (the genius of phrenology) to adore, and the immortal discoverer, the high priest of a regenerated world.

That true science and religion are in no permanent danger from such empiricism as this, is quite certain. The experience of centuries has abundantly shown their ability to resist all such strengthless assaults, however furious they may be. These fictitious schemes of radicalism and folly evidently have no power to uproot the great principles of inductive philosophy or of revealed religion; and yet they do harm. They unsettle the weak, delude the romantic and visionary, and encourage the morbid sensitiveness of the masses. They divert the attention of multitudes from reliable sources of improvement, and become fatal by inducing dependence upon false remedies for the ills of nature, until it is too late for the true. He, therefore, who points out the errors of such schemes, and throws insuperable obstacles in the way of their progress, however plausible or contemptible they may be, does a good and essential service to the cause of truth, and deserves well of his country and his race.

Such a service, to some good extent, has, as I conceive, been rendered by the reviewer of "Fowler on Religion," whose article is introduced at the head of this. He has shown conclusively the falseness of many of Mr. Fowler's infidel doctrines. In the style of its argument his paper is clear, caustic, and popular; and it seems to be, on the whole, a good execution of his design.

We cannot, however, resist the conviction that his design was such as to leave room for an article of a different character, calculated to promote the same general ends. Indeed, the doubts of the reviewer, as to how much was due to phrenology as a system, and his evident inclination to admit that it might be entitled to the rank of a science, necessarily very much modified his plan, and, we think, deprived him of his very best weapons in the conflict upon which he had entered. The doctrines of his author in regard to religion he denies, nay, utterly abhors. He must, therefore, either reject his premises, or deny that his conclusions are legitimate. He prefers the latter, and hence commits himself to the pledge of sundering the irreligious theology of Mr. Fowler from the doctrines of phrenology. For ourselves, we could wish that he had more formally and distinctly addressed himself to this important point. If, by a clear statement of the premises and conclusions of Mr. F., he could have shown that they were not legitimately connected, he would have spoiled the book, and then he could easily have exhibited the.

incorrectness of the doctrines, and left phrenology to take care of itself. That his readers had some reason to expect such a course, we think is evident from the following:

"Let us premise, however, that we wage no war against phrenology -none against the science proper-kept within its legitimate bounds. We may even assent to many of its general principles-many of the results to which the experiments and researches of scientific men seem to have led them. But our author must pardon us if our credulity fails when we attempt to follow him through some of the varied applications he has sought to give it."

Again:

"We will, however, endeavor to point out some of the gross absurdities involved in our author's theory of the relations existing between phrenology and revelation; and also to show that that theory is illegitimate, even if the truth of phrenology, as a science, were admitted."

We regret, therefore, that the reviewer did not make a point-blank issue with his author upon the infidel tendencies of phrenology; for as religious as Mr. Fowler believes his philosophy to be, Mr. Clark evidently and truly considers it unvarnished infidelity. Objectors to the system have charged these results upon it as legitimate and necessary, and Mr. Fowler has fully conceded the ground. But our reviewer, as I understand him, denies it, and hence upon the question, Do the principles of phrenology tend to infidelity? he takes the negative. As we consider this view of the subject far from being established, we should have been pleased to see a close and thorough argument in its favor from so able a pen as the reviewer's. Evidently, however, this was not his design. He meant to exhibit the philosophy and not the philosophizing of his author, and in this he has succeeded. He is a candid and amiable writer; and hence, while he treats with deserved severity the erroneous doctrines of Mr. F., he gives him credit for "much that is good," for "many sound principles." "He has," says Dr. Bond, in effect, "done much, but much more remains to be done."

To contribute what we can in so small a compass to what "remains to be done," is our sole purpose. We by no means appear as the opponent of our esteemed friend the reviewer, but merely ask permission to take our place by his side, as a co-laborer in the field of truth. We do not, it is true, agree with him in regard to phrenological tendencies, but upon this point we feel ourselves occupying a ground of argument which he has seen proper mainly to omit.

Says the writer of "Phrenology tested," mentioned at the head of this article