The clergy vindicated from the charge of hostility to the diffusion of science : being an answer to the pamphlet of Mr. H. G. Wright / by a phrenologist.
- Date:
- 1836
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: The clergy vindicated from the charge of hostility to the diffusion of science : being an answer to the pamphlet of Mr. H. G. Wright / by a phrenologist. Source: Wellcome Collection.
Provider: This material has been provided by The University of Glasgow Library. The original may be consulted at The University of Glasgow Library.
10/12 (page 10)
![propounded by Calvin three centuries ago, it has long been our conviction that they confirm it, and we know of many other phrenologists who entertain the same opinion. We must now call the attention of our readers to Mr H. G. Wright’s masterly refutation of the religious objections to Phre- nology. In the first place, he discusses the objection that this science cannot be true because its doctrines are inconsistent with reve- lation. Now we put it to Mr H. G. Wright whether it be either fair or honest in him to represent the clerical antiphre- nologists, or indeed any antiphrenologists, as bringing this ob- jection forward as their sole argument against Phrenology ? We have been not less in the society of antiphrenologists than of phrenologists, and have fought many a hard battle in de- fence of the new doctrine; but never did we hear this objection urged in any other form save that of a presumption against the truth of the science, or a corroboration of other arguments. Nor are we aware that any public assailant of Phrenology has ever wielded this weapon exclusively. Even Mr Combe’s reviewer in the Presbyterian Magazine attempts to refute the doctrines of Phrenology on philosophical as well as on religious grounds; and though we are far from vindicating the prejudice against Phrenology which prevents such opponents from reading the answers which have been given to their objections, still w^e think that Mr iJombe and Mr H. G, Wright might shew some little toleration for conduct, of which even the former confesses he w^as himself at one time guilty. But instead of this, Mr H. G. Wright writes eloquent articles in the Phrenological Journal (for it was in that periodical that his pamphlet first appeared), and Mr Combe quotes the case of Galileo usque ad nauseam,— nay more, inserts a whole chapter in the Constitution of Man,” for the purpose of shewing the infatuation of divines in bringing religion and philosophy into collision, when, in point of fact, the utmost that can be proved against them is, that, among other reasons for objecting to Phrenology or Combism, they happen to mention tlie discrepancy which appears to them to exist betw'een these systems and the doctrines of revelation. The next objection that Mr H. G Wright takes in hand is, that ]'*hrenology at best is but the Avisdom of this w'orld,](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b2493060x_0012.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
