Causality's powers are limited, but not that Individuality is deceitful in its indications.

Another class of philosophers, by an error of a similar kind, have denied Causation. When Eventuality contemplates the relation of cause and effect, it discovers only one event following another, in immediate and invariable sequence: For example, if a cannon be fired, and the shot knock down a wall, Individuality observes only the existence of the powder, Eventuality perceives the fire applied to it, the explosion, and the fall of the building, as four events following in succession; but it forms no idea of power or energy in the gunpowder, when ignited, to produce the effect. When Causality, on the other hand, is joined with Eventuality in contemplating these phenomena, the impression of power or efficiency in the gunpowder to produce the explosion, arises spontaneously in the mind, and Causality produces an intuitive belief in the existence of this efficiency, just because it is its constitution to do so; and it is as absurd for Eventuality to deny the existence of some quality in the matter which gives rise to this feeling, because only Causality perceives it, as for Causality to deny the existence of the external world, because only Individuality perceives it.

A practical application of much importance follows from these doctrines.

Some men deny the existence of GOD; and others strenuously maintain, that that existence is demonstrable by a legitimate exercise of reason. The former, who deny GoD, say, that all we perceive in external nature is existence and the succession of phenomena; that we can form no idea of efficiency or power; and that, therefore, all we know philosophically is, that matter exists, and undergoes certain changes. This is the natural conclusion of men in whose heads Individuality and Eventuality are large, and Causality small; and, accordingly, Atheists are generally very deficient in the organ of Causality, and shew its weakness in their general arguments on other topics. If,

on the other hand, a mind in which Causality is very powerful, surveys the phenomena of nature, the conviction of a Cause of them arises irresistibly and intuitively from the mere exercise of the faculty. Benevolence and design, in the arrangements of the moral and physical world, are clearly perceived by it; and it therefore instinctively infers, that Benignity and Intelligence are attributes of the Cause which produced them. Hence the fact is phrenologically explained, why all master spirits are believers in GOD. SOCRATES, PLATO, and the ancient philosophers, are represented as endowed with large organs of Causality; and they all admitted a Deity. VOLTAIRE had too large a Causality to doubt of the existence of GOD; and FRANKLIN continued to reverence the Supreme Being, although he had renounced Christianity.

To some who, perhaps for the sake of argument, have seemed inclined to deny the existence of a Deity, I have made the following appeal, without receiving any satisfactory answer :-A tree with roots exists; the earth exists; and there is exquisite adaptation of the one to the other. The adaptation is not a quality of the tree, nor of the earth; but a relation between them. It has no physical existence, but is clearly apprehended by mind. Mind, therefore, must have contrived it; and this mind we call the Deity. Causality perceives the adaptation.

Another argument resorted to by atheists finds an answer in the principles now explained. They object that we have no evidence of the self-existence of GOD; and affirm, that, for any thing we know to the contrary, the Maker of the world may himself own a superior, and have been created. Their objection is stated in this form: "You who believe in God infer his existence from seeing his works, on the principle that every effect must have a cause. But," say they, "this Being himself is an effect. You have no evidence from reason of his self-existence, or self-creation; and as he does exist, you must assign a cause of him, on the same principle that you regard him as the cause of the ma

terial creation."

The atheists carry this argument the length of a denial of GOD altogether, in respect that it is only the first cause that, according to them, can be entitled to be regarded as Deity; and the first cause, say they, is to us unknown.

This speculation may be answered as follows: Individuality perceives existence directly, and Causality infers qualities from their manifestations. To be able to judge thoroughly of


any object, both of these faculties require to be employed on it. When a watch, for example, is presented, Individuality, and the other Knowing Faculties, perceive its wheels, spring, lever, &c. and Causality discerns their object or design. If the question is put, Whence did the watch proceed? From the nature of its materials, as perceived by the knowing faculties, Causality infers that it could not make itself; and from discovering intelligence and design in the adaptation of its parts, this faculty concludes, that its Cause must have possessed these qualities, and therefore assigns its production to an intelligent artifiSuppose the statement to be next made," This artificer himself is an existence, and every existence must have a cause, Who, then, made the watchmaker?" In this case, if no farther information were presented to Causality than what it could obtain by contemplating the structure of the watch, the answer would necessarily be, that it could not tell. But let the artificer, or man, be submitted to the joint observation of Individuality and Causality, and let the question be then put, Who made him ?-Individuality and the knowing powers, by examining the structure of his body, would present Causality with data from which it could unerringly infer, that, although it perceived in him intelligence and power sufficient to make the watch, yet, from the nature of his constitution, he could not possibly make himself. Proceeding in the investigation, Causality, still aided by the knowing faculties, would perceive farther the most striking indications of power, benevolence, and design in the human frame; and from contemplating these,

it would arrive at a complete conviction, that the watchmaker is the workmanship of a great, powerful, and intelligent Being. If, however, the question were repeated, “Whence did this Being proceed?" Causality could not answer. It would then be in a situation similar to that in which it would be placed, if required to tell, from seeing the watch alone, who made the watchmaker. Individuality cannot observe the substance of the Maker of the human body; and none of the perceptive faculties can reach him. His existence is the object of Causality alone; and all that it can accomplish is to infer his existence, and his qualities or attributes, from perceiving their manifestations. I have stated the argument in the plainest language, but with perfect reverence; and we are arrived at the conclusion, that this faculty is silent as to the cause of the Creator of man, and cannot tell whether he is self-existent, or called into being by some higher power; but thus far it can go, and it draws its conclusions unhesitatingly, that he must exist, and must possess the attributes which it perceives manifested in his works; and these points being certain, it declares that he is God to us; that he is our Creator and Preserver; that all his qualities, so far as it can discover, merit our profoundest respect and admiration; and that, therefore, he is to man the highest and most legitimate object of veneration and worship.

The organ is established.

[ocr errors]


ALL the faculties, when active in a due degree, producé actions good, proper, or necessary. It is excess of activity that occasions abuses; and it is probable that Phrenology has been discovered only in consequence of some individuals, in whom particular organs were very largely developed, yielding to the strongest propensities of their nature. The smallness of a particular organ is not the cause of a faculty producing abuses. Thus, though the organ of Benevolence be small, this does not occasion cruelty; but, as it will be accompanied with indifference to the miseries. of others, it may lead to the omission of duties. When, also, one organ is small, abuses may result from another being left without proper restraint. Thus, powerful faculties of Acquisitiveness and Secretiveness, combined with weak faculties of Reflection and Conscientiousness, may, in certain circumstances, lead to theft. Powerful Combativeness and Destructiveness, with weak Benevolence, may produce cruel and ferocious actions.

Every faculty, when in action, from whatever cause, produces the kind of feeling, or forms the kind of ideas, already explained as resulting from its natural constitution.

The faculties of the PROPENSITIES and SENTIMENTS cannot be excited to activity by a mere act of the will. For example, we cannot conjure up the emotions of Fear, Compassion, Veneration, by merely willing to experience them. These faculties, however, may enter into action from an internal excitement of the organs; and then the desire or emotion which cach produces is experienced, whether we will to experience it or not. Thus, the cerebellum being internally active, produces the corresponding

« VorigeDoorgaan »