something that nameless something in the brain-which gives intimation of the presence of external objects; and by the same means it can re-illumine the same spot, so that the images of things external can be brought again to our mental sight." We will not hold up this hypothesis, to the ridicule which the author anticipates. This is a topic which has no end. All sorts of conjectures and conceits may be entertained relative to the development of ligut. Before we leave this branch of our author's theory, however, viz. the setting of light free, we must notice the sufficiently fantastic account given of the mode in which, what we call solar light, is produced :—

"If light," says the author, "can be set free by the sudden collision of two gases, as is familiarly illustrated in chemical experiments, a perpetual fountain of it can be generated at a point where this collision is constantly taking place, between vast masses of gaseous matter thrown off by the sun and earth." Now, even admitting this incessant strife among the gasesthis endless conflict at that "certain point where the ultimate powers of the sun and earth meet," and admitting that light is set free there in the battle-we apprehend, notwithstanding our author's asserted conviction, "that a new theory of light - must be formed," it will be necessary to resort to one of the two rival theories already received, in order to account for the return of the light in its character of "luminousness," back to the earth, from that "certain focus" where it is thus "set free."

Thus much for the new theory advanced by this writer. We consider it in many respects fanciful, and unsupported by the great mass of optical phenomena—and, indeed, in some particulars, which it would require too great an extension of our limits to enlarge upon-it is in direct opposition to the results of geometry itself. At the same time, it is but justice to point out some really curious and valuable suggestions, which the author has presented.

One of the difficulties heretofore experienced in the phenomena of vision, has been to explain the mode in which the eye adapts itself to different distances; and while it has been conjectured that an advance or recession of the crystalline lens was the immediate process for this purpose, no satisfactory agency has been detected to produce the motion in that lens. Our writer has discovered that "the crystalline lens is attached to something possessing an elastic principle, by which its motions are adjusted and regulated"-and inasmuch as "the retina, with the ciliary processes are the only membranes that answer to this description," the author concludes that it is by an extension

or contraction of these that the crystalline is made to advance or recede. This suggestion is worthy of the nicest examination.

The author's remarks on the "dark angle" of the eye, also merit attention, both as concerns the experiments recorded on that point, and touching the suggestion offered to account for that peculiar phenomenon by the law of interference. We must here however allude to an incidental confirmation, furnished to the ingenious theory of Mr. Horn, by this break in vision; for since the choroides do not cover the base of the nerve, that portion of the posterior surface, will be less adapted to reflect the rays of the inverted image to the anterior surface, as a lookingglass fails to reflect the rays that fall on it where the amalgam may have been rubbed off, and this must occasion a corresponding deficit in the erect images formed by this second reflection, and which Mr. H. supposes to be the images to which sight is due.

There are, besides these, some curious experiments suggested by our author, showing that we can see certain parts of our own eyes. We have been able to discern certain minute bubbles apparently floating in the fluids that lubricate the cornea. But for the rest, there is too much room for illusion and fancy for us to credit what is pretended to be visible, as for instance the choroides, retina, humors, &c.

There are certain notions held by this writer which by many will doubtless be attributed either to an affectation of singularity, or to the ambition of appearing a bold speculatist. For instance, that there is a principle of levity, opposed to the principle of gravity—and a principle of cold, opposed to the principle of heat.

Upon the physico metaphysical part of our author's work, we have but little to say. The scope of all these professed "discoveries in the mental faculties," if we rightly understand the author, is to show that the will is useless and impotent, except as the slave of the several organs of sense.

It is true, some novel and sufficiently curious statements are made respecting certain effects of the excited or dormant state of the several external organs of sense. Many of these may be true and yet the conclusion apparently intended, may be far from being established.

ART. XI.-Lectures on Moral Philosophy, delivered before the "Edinburg Philosophical Society," and reported for the "Edinburg Chronicle." By GEORGE COMBE, Esq. Boston: Marsh, Capen, & Lyon. New York: Daniel Appleton & Co., 1836.

THOUGH this volume purports to be only a report of Mr. Combe's Lectures on Moral Philosophy, it is evident that the report has been revised by himself; and is, therefore, to be regarded as a fair expression of his opinions. Those opinions are entitled to some notice-emanating as they do from one who is looked upon, on both sides of the Atlantic, as the Coryphaeus of phrenology, and who may be supposed, therefore, to represent truly the ethical spirit and tendency of the system.

These lectures are, in fact, but a supplement to the well known treatise of Mr. Combe on the Constitution of man-a treatise which has served, more than all his other works, to render the author's name favorably known in the United States. As in that work, so here, he insists at length and with great earnestness, on the importance of a knowledge of the natural laws. A vast proportion of the evils of human life, according to Mr. C. are chargeable to ignorance alone; and were such ignorance dispelled, and mankind made familiar with the laws of their own nature and of the external world, and with each as adapted to the other, the result would be not only a vast accession of individual enjoyment, but a rapid approach to a state of universal happiness and purity. The object of these lectures, is to explain and enforce the obligation we are under of respecting these laws in all our relations, as organized, intellectual, and moral beings. Having discovered the nature and functions of any faculty of mind or body, and observed the consequences of exercising it in different degrees of activity, we are enabled to determine the limits which have been prescribed for it; and these limits serve, of course, to measure the duty which we owe in respect to some corresponding object. In this way, we can investigate our personal, domestic and social duties independently of revelation, and ascertain how far the constitution, which God has given us, corresponds with the requirements of his revealed will.

To such investigations, if conducted in the right spirit, there can be no reasonable objection. The written and unwritten laws of God must harmonize; and we have no fears that science will ever establish any principle which can impair our re

spect for the Bible. If properly pursued, such researches will be certain to disclose new analogies between the constitution of nature and the system of revelation, and thus strengthen the proof of their common origin. Besides, there are questions in regard to our duty, which the Scriptures do not notice, and which must be decided therefore either by a moral instinct, or by deliberation. We do not quarrel with Mr. Combe, then, because he recommends the study of the natural laws as subsidiary to a proper knowledge and practice of our duty. On the contrary, we believe that this study is destined to be, in this respect, of the greatest value. The fact that the lessons given in the Bible respecting temperance, justice, benevolence, &c., are inculcated every where throughout nature, and that God has subjected our organs and faculties to such laws, that we cannot attain happiness without conforming to the moral precepts of Christ, is a fact which if clearly seen must always present a strong motive to virtue. Still, we have a right to require of every laborer in this department of science :

1. That he does not mistake for science, the results however ingenious, of a partial and hasty induction.

2. That such results, or in other words, conjectures be always kept in subordination to the Scriptures; i. e. where the Scriptures have distinctly expressed the will of God, there should be no attempt to set them aside on the pretence that science speaks a different language.

3. That the efficacy of mere knowledge be not overrated, but that there be a recognition of the melancholy but well known fact, that men may clearly understand the laws of God, whether made known through nature or revelation, and yet disregard them.

4. That no principles be put forward which tend to weaken our sense of accountability, or disturb our confidence in moral distinctions, or our reverence for virtue.

We are sorry to say, that Mr. C. is guiltless in neither of these respects. In connection with some judicious and many ingenious suggestions, he still evinces such a thorough disregard of the principles of inductive investigation, that we feel bound, as friends of science no less than as Christian reviewers, to protest against the whole style and spirit of his speculations. In doing this, we shall incur, we are aware, the displeasure of his admirers; and we proceed therefore to show very briefly that our charges are not made without reason.

1. We have said that no writer should put forward, as science, mere conjectures however ingenious; and, least of all, should he do this on a subject so sacred as morality. Mr. C.

however, appears to know no difference between knowledge and conjecture, excepting in the investigations of the metaphysicians and divines. In regard to physiology or phrenology he can see nothing unsettled or doubtful. Majendie, one of the greatest living physiologists deplores the unceriainty of his science, and speaks of it, as being now, in the condition in which physical astronomy was before Newton commenced his labors. In Mr. C's estimation, however, all its guesses are to be received as established laws.

So with phrenology. To most scholars, this new revelation of light, looks very much like a tissue of loose assumptions and still looser reasoning, combined, however, with many useful observations and some shrewd conjectures. But to Mr. C.'s mind it is the scientia scientiarum, without which there can be no moral philosophy-no jurisprudence-no education. For example, "Mr. C. observed that the present course will be founded in phrenology, some knowledge of which he must assume his audience to possess. Without phrenology he should have found, in science, no resting-place for the sole of his foot, and never have attempted to clear up the mystery of God's moral government of the world."! "It was necessary to assume that phrenology affords a true exposition of the natural constitution of the mind-otherwise no data would be possessed for treating of moral duties."! (p. 4.) "It would be of the utmost importa.ce to have a sound and serviceable philosophy of mind (in criminal cases) to guide the judges, managers, inspectors, and criminals themselves, because without such a philosophy the treatment would be empirical-the results unsatisfactory and the public disapprobation great. Phrenology appears to be the philosophy required." (p. 140.) "A child therefore, may be stubborn at one age, or under one kind of treatment, who shall prove tractable at a future period or when differently treated. Phrenology comes home to the hearts of parents in this department of life like a revelation from Heaven; it enables them to appreciate the natural talents and dispositions of each child, to modify the treatment, &c." (p. 81.) There is a vast deal more to the same purpose throughout the volume; but this, we presume, will be deemed sufficient.

2. After such declarations, it could surprise no one if Mr. C. were to give his science precedence of revelation, and maintain that its decrees are sufficient to set aside those of the Bible. Such seems to be the spirit of the following passages-"The New Testament confines divorce to the single case of infidelity in the wife. The question now occurs, What does the law of nature, written on the constitution enact?" Ans. "The law