Remarks on the erroneous impressions and spirit of hostility at present existing, more especially amongst the religious public, in regard to the diffusion of scientific knowledge in general, and of phrenology and its supposed effects in particular / [H.G. Wright].

  • Wright, H. G.
Date:
1836
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Remarks on the erroneous impressions and spirit of hostility at present existing, more especially amongst the religious public, in regard to the diffusion of scientific knowledge in general, and of phrenology and its supposed effects in particular / [H.G. Wright]. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    15/16 (page 15)
    that the time is approaching when sound knowledge of every kind will be hailed as the handmaid of religion.*' Are there any who still have lurking fears, that Phrenology usurps the place of Christianity, or treats the Gospel as “ an old wives1 fable T* If so, let a short allegory in conclusion dispel their dread. The human mind is a garden on which the sun of Christiani¬ ty has been shining for centuries. The mental gardeners, un¬ able to gain admission, or to see over the walls, were obliged to content themselves with throwing over the seed, some here and some there. They lamented that but a small portion sprung up and bore fruit. They presumed that something was wrong; but how could they remedy that something, while they were unable to perceive the real cause ? Nay, even though they might guess its general nature, what the better were they ? But now the key of Phrenology has thrown open the garden door, and lo ! we have the cause lying palpably before our eyes. Here we see thorns running wild, which, being originally there, have been acted upon by that same sun, even to the detriment of the garden; and there we perceive the thin soil which was quickly exhausted, and could bring nothing to maturity. Now, the moral philosophv of Phrenology points out the implements by which we may cut down the thorns to their proper dimen¬ sions, and turn them to useful purposes, and by which we may gradually so deepen and improve the soil, that the sun may draw' * It is remarkable that while the prejudices alluded to in the text are so rife in the under current of private society, no divine has ventured, as far as I am aware, to support them by the authority of his name. Dr Chalmers’ Bridgewater Treatise runs parallel in its subject to Mr Combe’s Constitu¬ tion of Man, yet although the latter work has been in the hands of the pub¬ lic since 1828, and Dr Chalmers published recently, he takes no notice of its existence; an omission not conceivable if he had regarded it as dangerous, and had been prepared to refute it. The late Dr Andrew Thomson was to some extent acquainted with Phrenology, and he survived the publication of the Constitution of Man for some years; yet although he was the editor of the Christian Instructor, a ready writer, and neither loth nor slow to attack er¬ ror in every form, he never published a word against it. Even now, who among the clergy ventures his name and fame in the lists against Phreno¬ logy ?—Not one. Every thinking man will infer from these facts, that it is assailed by mere blind prejudice, and by prejudice alone, which must yield to the progress of investigation and of reason.