manifeftly declared to be the epiftle of Chrift miniftered by us, written not with ink, but with the spirit of the living God." 2 Cor. iii. 2, 3.-What need have the good of letters of recommendation to the good? The open countenance recommends itself to the open countenance. No letters of recemmendation can recommend the perfidious countenance, nor can any flanderer deprive the countenance, beaming with the divine spirit, of its letters of recommendation. A good countenance is the best letter of recommendation.

I fhall conclude with the important paffage from the epiftle to 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 unfearchable are his judgments, and his ways paft 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 recompenfed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things. To whom be glory for ever. Amen."

CHA P. LV.

Of the apparently falfe decifions of Phyfiognomy—Of the general Objections made to Phyfiognomy-Particular objections answered.

ONE of the ftrongeft objections to the certainty of phyfiognomy is, that the best phyfiognomists often judge very erroneously.

It

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

Be it granted the phyfiognomist often errs; that is to fay, his difcernment errs, not the countenanceBut to conclude there is no fuch science as phyfiognomy, because physiognomists err, is the fame thing as to conclude there is no reason, because there is much falfe reafoning.

To fuppofe that, because the phyfiognomist has made fome falfe decifions, he has no phyfiognomonical difcernment, is equal to fuppofing that a man, who had committed fome mistakes of memory, his no memory; or, at beft, that his memory is very weak. We must be lefs hafty. We muft firft enquire in what proportion his memory is faithful, how often it has failed, how often been accurate. The mifer may perform ten acts of charity: muft 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 inftances he has acted uprightly. He who games must oftener lose than he who refrains from gaming. He who flides or fkaits upon the ice is in danger of many a fall, and of being laughed at by the lefs adventurous fpectator. Whoever frequently gives alms, is liable, occafionally, to diftribute his bounties to the unworthy. He, indeed, who never gives cannot commit the fame mistake, and may truly vaunt of his prudence, fince he never furnishes opportunities for deceit. In like manner, he who never judges never can judge falfely. The phyfiognomift judges oftener than the man who ridicules phyfiognomy, confequently must oftener err than he who never risks a phyfiognomonical decifion.

Which

Which of the favourable judgments of the bene volent phyfiognomist may not be decried as falfe? 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 germe of every vice; or, in other words, a man whofe moft worthy propenfities, qualities, and inclinations, may occafionally be overstrained, wrested, and warped?

You behold a meek man, who, after repeated and continued provocations to wrath, prefifts in filence; who, probably, never is overtaken by anger, when he himself alone is injured. The phyfiognomist can read his heart, fortified to bear and forbear, and immediately exclaims, behold the most amiable, the moft unconquerable, gentlenefs-You are filentYou laugh You leave the place, and fay, " Fye on fuch a phyfiognomift! How full of wrath have I feen this man!"-When was it that you saw him in wrath ?-Was it not when fome one had mistreated his friend?" Yes, and he behaved like a frantic man in defence of this friend, which is proof fufficient that the science of phyfiognomy is a dream, and the phyfiognomift a dreamer."-But who is in an error, the phyfiognomist or his cenfurer?—The wifeft man may fometimes utter folly-This the phyfiognomist knows, but, regarding it not, reveres and pronounces him a wife man.- You ridicule the decifion, for you have heard this wife man fay a foolifh thing.-Once, more, who is in an error?—The phyfiognomist does not judge from a single incident, and often not from feveral combining incidents.-Nor does he, as a phyfiognomift, judge only by actions. He obferves the propenfities, the character, the effential qualities and powers, which often, are apparently contradicted by individual actions.

Again-He who seems stupid or vicious may yet probably poffefs indications of a good understanding,

and

and propenfities to every virtue. Should the beneficent eye of the phyfiognomift, who is in search of good, perceive thefe qualities, and announce them; fhould he not pronounce a decided judgment against the man, he immediately becomes a fubject of laughter. Yet how often may difpofitions to the most heroic virtue be there buried! How often may the fire of genius lay deeply fmothered beneath the embers! Wherefore do you fo anxioufly, fo attentively, rake among these afhes ?-Because here is warmth-Notwithstanding that at the firft, fecond, third, fourth raking, duft only will fly in the eyes of the phyfiognomift and fpectator. The latter retires laughing, relates the attempt, and makes others laugh alfo. The former may perhaps patiently wait and warm himself by the flame he has excited. Innumerable are the inftances where the most excellent qualities are overgrown and ftifled by the weeds of error. Futurity fhall difcover why, and the disco. very fhall not be in vain. The common unpractifed eye beholds only a defolate wildernefs. Education, circumftances, neceffities, ftifle every effort toward perfection. The phyfiognomift infpects, becomes attentive, and waits. He fees and obferves 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 countenance, under the form they view, lie concealed beauty, power, wisdom, and a divine

nature.

Still further, the phyfiognomift, or obferver of man, who is a man, a Chriftian, that is to fay a wife and good man,will a thoufand times act contrary to his own phyfiognomonical sensation, I do not express myself accu

rately

rately-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 phyfiognomist so often appears to err; and why the true obferver, obfervation and truth are in him, is fo often mistaker, and ridiculed. He reads the villain in the countenance of the beggar at his door, yet does not turn away, but fpeaks friendly to him, fearches his heart, and difcovers ;-Oh God, what does he discover! -An immeafurable abyfs, a chaos of vice !-But does he discover nothing more, nothing good?-Be it granted he finds nothing good, yet he there contemplates clay which must not fay to the potter, why haft thou made me thus?" He fees, prays, turns away his face, and hides a tear which speaks, with eloquence inexpreffible, not to man, but to God alone. He ftretches out his friendly hand, not only in pity to a haplefs wife, whom he has rendered unfortunate, not only for the fake of his helpless innocent children, but in compaffion to himself, for the fake of God, who has made all things, even the wicked themselves, for his own glory. He gives, perhaps, to kindle a fpark which he yet perceives, and this is what is called (in fcripture) giving his heart. Whether the unworthy man mifuses the gift, or misuses it not, the judgment of the donor will alike be arraigned. Whoever hears of the gift will fay, How has this good man again fuffered himself to be deceived!

Man is not to be the judge of man, and who feels this truth more coercively than the phyfiognomift? The mightiest of men, the Ruler of man, came not to judge the world, but to fave. Not that he did not fee the vices of the vicious, nor that he concealed them from himself or others, when philanthropy requir ed they should be remarked and detected.—Yet he

judged