such a feeling. But a difficulty still remains. If, according to the Doctor's hypothesis, the truth of which can be easily confirmed, the fruit of two years may be seen at one time on the tree, how could it be said, the time of figs was not yet? To some it will rather increase, than remove the difficulty.

It may seem presumptuous in any other writer, to offer a different solution as to the time of figs. I need not inform many of your readers, that the word " yet," is not in the original. Montanus exactly copies the Greek, "non enim erat tempus ficorum," i. e. it was not the time of figs., With deference to superior judgments, I would understand the allusion to be, not to the season of the year, but to the matured age of the tree. It had long been planted, but was fruitless.

In the parable of another figtree, Luke xiii. 6., the owner thereof orders it to be cut down, because, after it had been in the ground long enough to have borne fruit three years before, he found none. To me it appears probable, that our Lord saw, from the size, growth, and appearance of the tree which he cursed, that it ought to have been bearing fruit when he passed by, and that finding it barren, not answering to its appearance, he addressed it in the manner stated.

Why had it no one to plead for it as in the other instance? The disciples were present, and "heard" what their Master said; but they made no reply on behalf of the tree. Indeed, how could they, if, on account of its continuing barren long after the age for bearing fruit had arrived, it had lost its character, and was, therefore, considered only fit for the fire!

But now, as to the moral suggested. This appears to lose nothing; but, if the writer mistake not, to rise in importance by the above interpretation. The primary allusion is supposed to be, to the

approaching excision of the Jews from their national and church state, and this because of their unbelief as to the Messiah, and for their manifold transgressions in general. The Apostle Paul says, "Because of their unbelief, they were broken off." But its aspect may be considered as having a more general character. It shows, that God expects a conduct from men answering to their state of privilege. The church is likened to a vineyard, where professors of religion are considered as the vines, from whom fruitfulness is expected; but it is said, Isa. v. 2.." And he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes." Alas! of how many is this descriptive at this day, in this our highly favoured land. As to our religious institutions, and our privileges, it may be justly said,

66

He hath not dealt so with any nation." But were God to deal with us after our sins, even as a people professing his name, what could we expect but a condemnation similar to that denounced by our Lord upon the tree!

This subject also suggests, that among many who call the Redeemer-Lord, there may be an entire destitution of religious principle. We may have the leaves of profession, yea, the blossoms, yet be wholly without the fruits of grace. But however such may glory in the name of Christians, Christ will disown them. "Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, he taketh away."

The subsequent state of this fig-tree struck the disciples with surprise. "Peter saith unto him, Master, behold the fig-tree which thou cursedst, is withered away." Hypocrites will not always appear to call upon God. Let but their motives to profess Christ be taken away, and their leaf soon withers. Where are many now, who once were flaming professors? They walk the ways of God no more,

tion at a quotation which had appeared in the Phrenological Journal, from the Biblical Fragments," by Mrs.Schimmelpenninck. Since I penned that paper, I have received, through the hands of the Editors of the Congregational Magazine, a pamphlet transmitted for the purpose of communicating to me farther information as it regards my objections to phrenology. I beg leave, therefore, to acknowledge the obliging at tention of Mr. Lyon, and the courtesy of his accompanying note. The pamphlet is entitled "The Harmony of Phrenology with the Scripture Doctrine of Conversion, by George Lyon, Esq." Before I proceed to make any comment on it, however, I must beg leave to state, that it was not against phrenology that my observations were directed; but against its extravagances, and those alone. And that it is not free from them, I shall endeavour to prove, after a very few necessarily brief remarks upon Mr. Lyon's pamphlet.

Mental and moral manifestations depend upon cerebral development, say the phrenologists. Now, if the deductions from this principle be always correspondent with FACTS, it is evident, that a phrenologist, if he were to examine an individual, both before and after conversion, ought to draw very different inferences at the two different periods. Since the event of conversion would manifestly make a material difference in that individual's character, I say, a phrenologist ought to give us two statements, if his principles be consistent with facts. But whether he does or not, it is plain that, in both cases, he must proceed upon the same data, since the configuration of the head would remain precisely the same, both before and after conversion-not the slightest alteration to be perceived in the unfortunate "cerebral development." What then becomes of the consistency of phrenology?

Mr. Lyon tells us, that in the fallen state of man the animal propensities triumph over the higher faculties of the soul. In this I perfectly agree with him. That at conversion, the higher faculties being excited into action by the influence of the Spirit of God, once more restore things to something like primeval order-and that at length those effects are produced which constitute what is called conversion. In this we are also agreed. But it is one thing to believe in the existence of certain propensitics and faculties, and their capability of certain changes--facts which were known long before phrenology had a being-and another to believe, that certain faculties and propensities are indicated by a certain cerebral development." It is seen that these organs remain the same, whatever alterations may take place in the faculties, of which they are said to be the insignia. What then becomes of the consistency of phrenology?

Mr. Lyon endeavours to obviate this difficulty, by bringing forward the phrenological principlethat an organ may be well developed, and yet not in a state of activity. Thus a phrenologist, if he find some particular organ largely developed in an individual, and after inquiring whether mental manifestations correspond with such development, receive an answer in the negative, has only to say "Yes, it may be very true; but does not at all impugn the truth of phrenology; the organ is largely developed, but not in a state of activity." And, vice versa, if he find an organ but very moderately developed, and yet exerting great influence upon the conduct of the individual, the answer may be-"True, the organ is small, but in a high state of activity." This, and the doctrine which tells us, that one organ balances another, appear to me to be holes, by which

phrenology may always escape, and hide the shame of false and unwarranted conclusions.*

It is upon the supposition above mentioned, that an organ may be well developed, and yet not in a state of activity, that Mr. Lyon principally maintains the consistency of phrenology with the doctrine of conversion, and which accounts for the unaltered appearance of the cerebral development," after the character has been materially changed. We must, therefore believe, if we believe phrenology, that in every converted character, the organs of the evil propensities, both when active and inactive, and that the organs of the higher faculties, both when inactive and active, possess precisely the same degree of development. And I would appeal to any one, whether such an admission must not render null and void those inferences which are drawn from the size of the organs.

Of the truth or falsehood of phrenology, as I said before, I am, from want of experience, incompetent to judge, and much deference is due to the opinion of those undoubtedly scientific men who have embraced its tenets; still I cannot but think, that some of those theoretical refinements which I have seen in phrenological works, are unworthy the grandeur of science, and the bold eagle-flight of true philosophy. And after all, cui bono? Something, indeed, I have heard whispered, of the great benefits to be derived from phrenology, if it should be found true; but really I could never discover them. I am sure I should be

It was upon the last mentioned principle, that the rather contradictory appearances of Thurtell's head were said to harmonize with phrenology. He had, it is true, a large development of VENERATION and BENEVOLENCE, but unfortunately for his victim, DESTRUCTIVENESS was found to preponderate! We might come to the same conclusion without the aid of phrenology.

happy to have them pointed out to me. I said that I would, ere I closed my paper, endeavour to substantiate the charge of extravagance, which I have brought against some of the advocates of phreno-logy.

As to the passage from the "Biblical Fragments," it may be sufficient to justify my assertions, to make your readers acquainted with the following truly ludicrous sentiments. It seems, that the fair authoress, in telling us how the different organs are acted upon at conversion, hardly knew what to do with the ugly and unruly organs of combativeness and destructiveness, which, spite every thing, will still maintain their position upon the head, however small their influence upon the heart. How

were these barbarous and unchristian-like protuberances to be disposed of? Why, the matter ended by Mrs. S.'s inducing them to join the sacred cause, and she accordingly represents them as bending their energies after conversion, solely to the annihilation of moral evil!!! The organ of locality also, which is supposed to give travellers their vagabondizing, wandering disposition, is represented as that which, excited by benevolence, sends the Missionary out to the scene of his hallowed labours!!

Neither is Mr. Lyon, in my humble opinion, quite free from phrenological extravagance in the little pamphlet, the title of which stands at the head of this article ; but your readers shall judge for themselves. Mr. L. tells us, that the fact, that members of the same family, through several successive generations, often become partakers of the same piety, is to be attributed, at least in a great measure, to a similarity of " cerebral development;" that children resemble their parents in cerebral organization, as certainly as in the features of their coun