idea of the original design of this system, and of the laws under which it was intended to act. The moral organ discharges its functions irregularly and unhealthily; but this cannot prevent the competent inquirer from perceiving what these functions are, the adaptation of the organ to perform them, and consequently the great principles of moral truth, in accordance with which that adaptation must have been contrived and executed.

If it be said, that after all this does not hold out to man the prospect of infallible accuracy in the pursuit of moral truth, we reply that, as little does any other source of information within his reach in the present state. In one sense, indeed, the Bible is an infallible standard of morals, but it is in the sense in which the same may be affirmed of nature as a revelation of Deity. Both embody perfect truth; the only difference between them being, that the lessons of the one are greatly more extensive and simple than those of the other. Objectively they are both infal lible; but subjectively neither of them is infallible. Man may err in studying Scripture, as he may err in studying nature. It is only in the exceptive case of an entire supercession of his own intelligence by a supernatural agency, that infallibility either in doctrine or in practice, is a boon within his reach.

With these remarks we must bring this article to a close. We have endeavoured to furnish an answer to the question with which we started, What ought I to do?-by showing that man's duty is determined by his relations-that it is enforced by the authority of that great and universal law which constitutes the moral order of the universe, and has its source in the unchang ing essence of Deity-and that it may be ascertained by man, through the use of those faculties with which he is endowed, from the study of the course of nature and the declarations of Scripture. Of the doctrines we have endeavoured to expound there are many weighty applications, bearing both ordinary course of man's life, and upon the special relations which arise out of that new life into which man is brought by the reception of Christianity. To some of these, had our space permitted, we should have been glad to have directed the thoughts of our readers; but our limits are already transgressed, and we cannot venture even to glance into this otherwise inviting field. If what we have written shall have the effect of inducing any, who may hitherto have overlooked it, to explore for themselves the too much neglected region of theoretical morals, we shall not have written in vain.

upon

the

437

ART. VII. The Vegetable Kingdom; or the Structure, Classification, and Uses of Plants, illustrated upon the Natural System. By JOHN LINDLEY, Ph. D., F.R.S.. & L.S., Professor of Botany in the University of London, and in the Royal Institution of Great Britain. With upwards of 500 Illustrations. pp. 908. 8vo, London, 1846.

PREVIOUSLY to the introduction of the Baconian philosophy, it was the usual practice of those who professed themselves students of the works of Nature, to pursue their investigations, (in accordance with the teachings of the Peripatetic school, which till then held supreme authority,) by methods applicable merely to the solution of abstract problems. Instead of observation and experiment, instead of noting and comparing facts, as the true source of real knowledge upon such subjects, they were content to syllogize in the retirement of their closets, where they contrived those fanciful and vain hypotheses which they mistook for science, but which now are noticed merely with a smile, as curiosities in the bygone history of natural philosophy.

But, when the inductive process, as propounded in the Novum Organon, was once established, and then generally adopted as the only method of research capable of yielding real information in the science of observation, naturalists were obliged to descend from the cloudy regions of debate and hypothesis, and with a diminished pomp and show of present learning, though with far better hopes of future progress, to betake themselves to the humble employment of attending to the real phenomena of nature, which hitherto they had so little condescended to regard. It was not, however, quite at once that the older, more facile and attractive system could be entirely discarded; and long after the value of experiment and observation to the natural philosopher, and the worthlessness of mere speculation, had been fully acknowledged, the influence of habit, or of long established custom was still apparent in the labours of naturalists, even the most observant, and of highest reputation. The writings of Bacon himself, upon subjects of Natural History, are by no means free from the mistaken practice, the fallacy of which he has elsewhere so ably exposed; Des Cartes and the philosophic Boyle afford instances of a like nature; and Swift in his time found sufficient to suggest those satires upon mere speculative philosophers, which are furnished by the adventures of Gulliver in the metropolis of Laputa. Gradually, however, the true method has acquired an entire supremacy; observation and experiment, statistics, and the numerical method, have driven empty speculation from the field,

and the latter can now gain no attention, or is only adverted to that it may receive rebuke. In proportion to the predominance of the method now in vogue over that of Aristotle and the middle ages, has been the rapid advance of our scientific knowledge, our acquaintance with the operations of nature, and the more intimate and secret workings by which she accomplishes her great results. Take for instance the various branches of chemistry and physiology, in which the modern philosopher, as though a spirit of a superior order, becomes cognizant of forces and effects, which, though acting and resulting equally as now, from the first period of the present constitution of our planet, have been hitherto unobserved and unsuspected; examines the most minute and intimate structure of organized beings, explaining many of the more secret operations of vitality to which these subserve; or traces the almost imperceptible gradations of development as cending through innumerable species, from the lowest organization to himself, in whom, so far as regards the inhabitants of this planet, the series reaches its highest limit.

The work before us ably illustrates the progress that had been made in the various branches of our botanical knowledge up to the present time; though, perhaps, with regard to this depart ment of natural history, the contrast between the past and the present is somewhat less striking and complete than in the instance of chemistry or animal physiology. The objects of which the science of Botany treats are amongst the most familiar and attractive which present themselves to our attention, as well as amongst the most important for the sustenance and convenience of our race. Hence, from the earliest period, the peculiarities of form and structure, as well as of the habits and properties of plants, have been matter for careful observation and research. Mankind seems very soon to have found the advantage of forming some arrangement of the various plants which fell under their observation, or ministered to their convenience, together with descriptions by which the different species might be recognised and discriminated. Such attempts towards the science of botany are apparent from the times when history commences:-we read in the earliest writings of 'grass,--and herb yielding seed, and fruit tree yielding fruit;' we are told that Solomon spake of trees, from the cedar tree that is in Lebanon, even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall;' Theophrastus had his water plants and parasites, pot-herbs, and forest-trees, and corn plants; Dioscorides had aromatics and gum-bearing plants, eatable vegetables, and corn herbs. The progress of botanical knowledge is somewhat less marked likewise, inasmuch as the structure and the phenomena of vegetable beings are less com

plex and subtle than those which are disclosed by researches in other branches of natural science. The triumphs of an original observer in the science of botany are hence less striking and conspicuous than are those of a Davy, or a Faraday, of an Harvey, a Hunter, or a Cuvier. And, again, although the true and independent philosopher can allow little force to the captious inquiry of cui bono? so often objected to his labours by shortsighted Utilitarians; yet it may not be denied that the greater importance of the practical results which have followed investigations in the other departments which we have instanced, are further inducements likely to secure for them a succession of zealous workers more numerous than those who devote their powers to search into the phenomena of vegetable life. Only the more meritorious then (unstimulated by these secondary motives,) must be the labours of such men as Linnæus, Ray, Jussieu, Brongniart, Brown, De Candolle, Greville, Mirbel, Hooker, Lindley, and others, who have advanced Botany from the occupation of a herbalist to the scientific elevation which it now holds.

In attempting some illustration of the most recent of the works of the last mentioned botanist, we must remark, in the first place, that the study of botany, like that of other branches of natural history, comprehends two principal divisions; the one having relation to vegetable structure and functions; the other to the description of species, and their classification upon some definite and appropriate system.

These two divisions may be taught, or the study of both may be pursued, contemporaneously; but as the former is necessary for the elucidation of the latter, it is impossible that systematic botany can be either taught or studied to any really scientific or useful purpose, unconnected with the facts of anatomy and physiology, upon which alone can be founded a practically useful system, one of the chief purposes of which, indeed, is that it may reciprocally serve for the further illustration of such facts as those pon which it is itself founded.

He is not a botanist, in any worthy signification of the term, whose knowledge is equal only to the distinguishing of different species of plants by their external appearance, and applying to them their technical appellations, aided much, perchance, in his diagnosis, by frequent reference to engraved representations, or whose practice is limited to the arrangement of his specimens in a herbarium. Such an employment is, indeed, a harmless recreation, one in which the phrenologist might recognise the control of the organs of order and acquisitiveness; but it is too much to dignify it as a scientific pursuit.

The work before us combines much of both the divisions of botany which we have specified as necessary to constitute the science in its integrity.

"Its object is to give a concise view of the state of Systematical Botany at the present day, to show the relation, or supposed relation, of one group of plants to another; to explain their geographical distribution, and to point out the various uses to which the species are applied in different countries.'

The systematic arrangement adopted is not merely stated, but is illustrated throughout by explanations of the structural and physiological peculiarities in which are to be traced the natural affinities of the different orders. A work fulfilling these intentions differs entirely from a Flora,' or mere classical catalogue of plants, characterised merely by the most brief descriptions which can suffice for their recognition; and must necessarily combine a great amount of information in every department of the science of which it treats.

We have spoken of the natural affinities of plants; an arrangement which has these for its foundation is called a Natural System of Botany, antithetically distinguishing it from an Artificial System; by which latter is understood any mode of classification whereby plants may be conveniently arranged with reference to some external particular easily recognised, however accidental and unimportant-facility of reference being the only object intended upon such a plan. That artificial system which has attained by far the greatest celebrity-as being the most available for those purposes which such a system is capable of subserving is the sexual system, as it is called, of Linnæus, which determines the classes of plants according to the number and position of the stamens, and the orders by the numbers of the styles or stigmata contained in their flowers. These particulars are so easily recognised, and generally so invariable in each species, as to be peculiarly available for the purposes of an arti ficial classification; so that, among such systems, this one has long been recognised as the facile princeps. The objection is, that by thus confining the attention to a single peculiarity of structure, to the exclusion of all others, though of equal or even of higher importance, orders and genera the most dissimilar are often closely approximated, and those placed far apart which are most nearly allied. Thus, plants so intimately related as are sage and marjorum, for example, are separated by one-half the entire system; and even the grasses are not all in the same class; whilst, on the other hand, genera so different as Euphorbia and Carex are associated together. Linnæus himself saw clearly the insufficiency of any merely artificial plan, and attempted likewise