incompatible with, Christianity. Believing, as I do, that Phrenology has a foundation in nature, that its general principles are true, and that it must ultimately lead to highly important results, I am anxious to relieve the minds of those who have conceived a prejudice against it (an extremely natural one under the circumstances) from the idea that it leads to doctrines of a dangerous and anti-Christian tendency; and I hope to be able to shew, not only that there is no inconsistency between it and any doctrine of Scripture, but that, as far as the two subjects admit of being compared, there exists a perfect harmony and correspondence between them.

66

In adverting to the objections which have been made to his views, as inconsistent with the doctrines of Scripture, Mr Combe states in the ninth chapter of his work :-" It is gratifying to observe, that these objections have not been urged by any individual of the least eminence in theology, or countenanced by persons of enlarged views of Christian doctrine." In a letter addressed by him to Dr Neill, as one of the patrons of the University of Edinburgh, lately published among the documents in reference to his claims as a candidate for the Logic Chair, he endeavours to bring this specially home to individuals. He there states," The late Reverend Dr AndrewThomson attended a course of my lectures on Phrenology in 1822 or 1823, and survived the publication of the Constitution of Man' (a copy

of which I presented to him) for nearly three years; and although he conducted the Christian Instructor, and was a zealous, ready, and powerful writer, vividly alive to the purity of the faith which he espoused, yet he never published a word against that book. I sat for several years in his church, and was personally acquainted with him, and yet I never received even any private remonstrance from him on the subject.'

وو

It is not a little surprising, that Mr Combe should either have forgotten, or never have been acquainted with, the fact which I am now to mention. In the end of the year 1828, on an application being made to Dr Thomson to become a director of the Edinburgh Infant School, then in the course of being established, he declined having any connection with that institution, solely on the ground that Mr Combe was to be a director, and that he did not approve of Mr Combe's principles. It would appear that, in some communications which passed on this subject, between Dr Thomson and Mr Combe's friends, the latter represented this to be persecution,— -a charge which Dr Thomson indignantly repelled. I have now before me a copy of a letter on the subject, addressed by Dr Thomson to the late Mr William Ritchie, a particular friend of Mr Combe, in which he says:-" I need not repeat the opinion I formerly expressed in regard to Mr Combe. I adhere to it without qualification or reserve.

And yet I cannot see it to be persecution of him,
that I should refuse to be connected with a
voluntary association, of which he is to be a
member, when I am convinced that his opinions
and his reputation would be injurious to the cause
which that association is formed to promote.'
I have not seen any of the previous correspon-
dence, containing the opinion which Dr Thomson
had expressed in regard to Mr Combe; but it is
quite obvious what must have been its nature.
I should add, that the above quoted letter is
dated 22d December, 1828, six months after the
publication of the "Constitution of Man."

Mr Combe refers also to another eminent pillar of the Church.-" Farther,” he says, “Dr Chalmers published his Bridgewater Treatise several years after my work had appeared; and although the subjects in his book and mine are closely analogous, he has stated no objections whatever to my views, which is quite inconceivable if he had regarded them as dangerous and unfounded in nature, and been prepared to refute them." With submission, the circumstances here referred to lead to a conclusion the very opposite of that which is here stated by Mr Combe. being the case that Dr Chalmers published a book a very few years after the publication of

It

*It is proper to mention, that the copy letter above quoted was sent to me by a member of Dr Thomson's family, with a request that I would make it public-so as to remove the impression which might be created by the passage now referred to in Mr Combe's letter to Dr Neill.

this work of Mr Combe's, and on a subject, as he says, very closely analogous, is it conceivable that Dr Chalmers would have entirely omitted all mention of that work if he had approved of the doctrines which it contained? Knowing the high character of Dr Chalmers, and how much he must be above any feeling of jealousy in a matter of this kind, I say it is inconceivable that he should not, in such circumstances, have taken some notice of Mr Combe's book, if he had considered it to be deserving of a favourable notice.

Lastly, Mr Combe has in this letter referred to the announcement of my intended publication; as to which he says, "I can hardly anticipate that Mr Scott will consider himself called on to supply the supposed omission of the two learned Doctors in Divinity above named. If, however, I shall be mistaken in this, and if Mr Scott shall make any attempt to shew that my work contains doctrines inconsistent with sound Christianity, it will be sufficient for me to remind you and the public, that Mr Scott is a layman, that he enjoys no reputation for theological learning, and that his opinions, therefore, are not of authority to decide the question."

What Mr Combe has here stated of me is all

literally and strictly true. It is true I am a layman, as Mr Combe himself is, and that I enjoy no reputation for theological learning. I never heard, and do not now understand, that

Mr Combe enjoys any reputation for theological learning, and, therefore, so far as mere authority goes, his opinion will probably not have greater weight than mine. I may also observe, that if Mr Combe, a layman, has written any thing erroneous in reference to Christianity, there can be no objection to his being answered by a layman. Still less can there be any objection to such an answer coming from me, when it is recollected that his attacks against the teachers of our religion are professedly founded on the doctrines of Phrenology, which doctrines circumstances had led me to make a subject of study; and therefore, I may be supposed better prepared to meet him on this particular ground than those who are comparatively strangers to these doctrines.

I have nothing more to add here, except to express my gratitude to those friends who have favoured me with their advice, encouragement, and assistance, during the progress of my little work. To one of these my acknowledgments are particularly due, without whose assistance I should hardly have been able to finish my undertaking, even in the imperfect manner in which, I am well aware, some parts of it have been executed.

EDINBURGH, August 5, 1836.