صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

In regard to another most important point, his system is the reverse of that recommended in Scripture. We are there directed "to set our affections on things above, and not on things that are on the earth." Mr Combe, on the contrary, in his Essay, (intended, it will be observed, as a practical manual of conduct, for the use chiefly of the lower classes,) omits all consideration of a future state, and rests all the motives to good conduct on the consequences of that conduct in the present life.

With respect to Revelation, as Mr Combe's system is not founded on it, he had no occasion to speak of it at all. He has done so, however, and has written an entire chapter on the Connection between Science and Scripture. In this, and throughout his book, though he seems to admit the reality of revelation, it is perfectly clear that he entertains no confidence in its power and efficacy as an instrument for the improvement of the human race. Indeed, he seems to consider it as little entitled to attention in any respect, as he represents it as being so obscure, or so corrupted in the text, that no positive reliance can be placed on any thing it



I have here omitted a sentence of my original Preface, in which I referred to a passage in Mr Combe's book, where I had supposed him to state, that the precepts of Christianity are scarcely more suited to human nature and circumstances in this world, than the command to fly would be to the nature of the horse." I am satisfied that, in this instance, I have somewhat misapprehended Mr Combe's meaning. The words do occur, but

Lastly, he states views with regard to a Special Providence, and the efficacy and uses of Prayer, which are totally at variance with the doctrines of every Christian Church.

The above may serve as a specimen,—but it is quite clear that we are yet merely on the threshold,—that Mr Combe has but just broken ground before the walls of our Zion, and that he already contemplates still greater triumphs. Indeed, he has not left it to inference, but has openly declared his aim to be nothing less than to plant the standard of Phrenology on the very pinnacle of the Temple, and to make our pulpits resound with the preaching of "The Natural Laws!" He loudly accuses our divines as blind guides, because they have not already adopted these in their instructions to their flocks, instead of the clear and simple morality, and the sublime and consoling doctrines, of the Gospel.

Let it be observed, that in entering upon my present undertaking, I do not come forward for the purpose of defending Christianity, which I look upon as far removed above any risk of injury from such attacks,—but to vindicate Phrenology from the reproach which has been brought upon it by some of its supporters, and by none more than Mr Combe, of its being hostile to, or

they are used conditionally, and in reference to special circumI still consider the passage objectionable, but not in the way I had at first supposed.


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.

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 Andrew Thomson 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."

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 correspondence, 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. It being the case that Dr Chalmers published a book a very few years after the publication of

* 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.

« السابقةمتابعة »