countenance.

iii. 2, 3.-What need have the good of letters of recommendation to the good? The open countenance recommends itself to the open No letters of recommendation can recommend the perfidious countenance, nor can any slanderer deprive the countenance, beaming with the divine spirit, of its letters of recommendation. A good countenance is the best letter of recommendation.

I shall conclude with the important passage from the ninth of the Romans:

"God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. Oh! the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things. To whom be glory

for ever.

Amen."

CHAP. LV.

Of the apparently false decisions of Physiognomy -Of the general Objections made to Physiognomy-Particular objections answered.

ONE of the strongest objections to the certainty of physiognomy is, that the best physiognomists often judge very erroneously.

It may be proper to make some remarks on this objection.

Be it granted the physiognomist often errs; that is to say, his discernment errs, not the countenance. But to conclude, there is no such science as physiognomy, because physiognomists err, is the same thing as to conclude there is no reason, because there is much false reasoning.

To suppose that, because the physiognomist has made some false decisions, he has no physiognomical discernment, is equal to supposing that a man, who has committed some mistakes of memory, has no memory; or, at best, that his memory is very weak.—We must be less hasty. We must first inquire in what proportion his memory is faithful, how often it has failed, how often been accurate. The miser may perform ten acts of charity: must we therefore affirm he is charitable? Should we not rather enquire how much he might have given, and how often it has been his duty to give? The virtuous man may have ten times been guilty, but before he is condemned, it ought to be asked, in how many hundred instances he has acted uprightly. He who games must oftener lose than he who refrains from gaming. He who slides or skaits upon the ice is in danger of many a fall, and of being laughed at by the less adventurous spectator. Whoever frequently gives alms, is liable, occasionally, to distribute his bounties to the unworthy. He, indeed, who never gives, cannot commit the same mistake, and may truly vaunt

of his prudence, since he never furnishes opportunities for deceit. In like manner, he who never judges, can never judge safely. The physiognomist judges oftener than the man who ridicules physiognomy, consequently must oftener err than he who never risks a physiognomonical decision.

Which of the favourable judgments of the benevolent physiognomist may not be decried as false? Is he not himself a mere man, however circumspect, upright, honourable, and exalted he may be; a man who has in himself the root of all evil, the germ of every vice; or, in other words, a man whose most worthy propensities, qualities, and inclinations, may occasionally be overstrained, wrested, and warped?

You behold a meek man, who, after repeated and continued provocations to wrath, persists in silence; who, probably, never is overtaken by anger, when he himself alone is injured. The physiognomist can read his heart, fortified to bear and forbear, and immediately exclaims, behold the most amiable, the most unconquerable, gentleness. You are silent-You laugh-You leave the place, and say, "Fye on such a physiognomist! How full of wrath have I seen this man!"-When was it that you saw him in wrath?-Was it not when some one had mistreated his friend? "Yes, and he behaved like a frantic man in defence of this friend, which is proof sufficient that the science of physiognomy is a dream, and the physiognomist a dreamer."

-But who is in an error, the physiognomist or his censurer?-The wisest man may sometimes utter folly This the physiognomist knows, but, regarding it not, reveres and pronounces him a wise man.-You ridicule the decision, for you have heard this wise man say a foolish thing.Once more, who is in an error?—The physiognomist does not judge from a single incident, and often not from several combining incidents. -Nor does he, as a physiognomist, judge only by actions. He observes the propensities, the character, the essential qualities and powers, which often are apparently contradicted by individual actions.

Again,-He who seems stupid or vicious may yet probably possess indications of a good understanding, and propensities to every virtue. Should the beneficient eye of the physiognomist, who is in search of good, perceive these qualities, and announce them; should he not pronounce a decided judgment against the man, he immediately becomes a subject of laughter. Yet how often may dispositions to the most heroic virtue be there buried! How often may the fire of genius lay deeply smothered beneath the embers! -Wherefore do you so anxiously, so attentively, rake among these ashes? Because here is warmth Notwithstanding that at the first, second, third, fourth raking, dust only will fly in the eyes of the physiognomist and spectator. The latter retires laughing, relates the attempt, and makes others laugh also. The former may

-

perhaps patiently wait and warm himself by the flame he has excited. Innumerable are

the instances where the most excellent qualities are overgrown and stifled by the weeds of error. Futurity shall discover why, and the discovery shall not be in vain. The common unpractised eye beholds only a desolate wilderness. Education, circumstances, necessities, stifle every effort toward perfection. The physiognomist inspects, becomes attentive, and waits. He sees and observes a thousand contending contradictory qualities; he hears a multitude of voices exclaiming, What a man! But he hears too the voice of the Deity exclaim, What a man! He prays, while those revile who cannot comprehend, or, if they can, will not, that in the coun tenance, under the form they view, lie concealed beauty, power, wisdom, and a divine nature.

Still further, the physiognomist, or observer of man, who is a man, a Christian, that is to say a wise and good man, will a thousand times act contrary to his own physiognomonical sensation; I do not express myself accurately-He appears to act contrary to his internal judgment of the man. He speaks not all he thinks.-This is an additional reason why the physiognomist so often appears to err; and why the true observer, observation and truth are in him, is so often mistaken and ridiculed. He reads the villain in the countenance of the beggar at his door, yet does not turn away, but speaks friendly to him, searches his heart, and discovers;-Oh God,