INTRODUCTION.

SCIENCE and religion must be really harmonious. No one truth can contradict any other truth. There may be apparent contradiction; real contradiction there never can be. How could sound science contradict Divine revelation? The Bible, when correctly interpreted, cannot disagree either with the facts of geology, the facts of phrenology, or the other facts of physiology.

We may interpret the Holy Scriptures inaccurately. The philosopher may err in reference to his facts. In this manner, incompatible conclusions may be drawn by the respective parties. Hence there may arise fierce contentions, each party regarding the other as hostile to truth. Such contentions, however, are only the results of our ignorance. Let the disputants carefully re-examine both their data and their deductions ; instead of striving to magnify, let them strive to remove the vexatious discrepancies. When each obtains a thorough knowledge of his own department, and correctly apprehends the opinions of his former opponents, conflict will be succeeded by amity among the votaries of theology and the

votaries of physical science. Since much of the abounding infidelity and ignorance of the present day may be rightly ascribed to such contentions, it is exceedingly desirable that they be speedily terminated. This, however, cannot be effected by a pusillanimous suppression or an unprincipled sacrifice of truth on either side; but it may, by candid examination and extended information, on both sides. Both parties have been to blame as to occasioning variance. Some theologians, and some philosophers also, have seemed eager to force religion and science into the position of antagonism. They deprecate the unnatural war, and yet they persist in those measures which tend to its perpetuation.

It is with deep regret that we charge Mr George Combe with being guilty of this fault.

In his work on "The Constitution of Man considered in relation to External Objects," he has put forth and advocated, in various instances, speculations which are distinctly opposed to the plain statements of the Bible. His book contains much that is unobjectionable, much that is highly valuable,—not a little that the Christian may read with advantage. In consequence of this, the unwary are in great danger of receiving all his views as if they were accurate. The evident good so occupies their attention, as to prevent their suspecting the existence of the latent evil. Our object, in this tract, is to furnish a suitable antidote to what we deem to be dangerous in that elaborate and popular work.

Against the sentiments of Mr Combe we shall urge no captious objections, but shall willingly admit what we think we can admit with safety,

and gladly approve what appears to us worthy of approbation.

The topics introduced by Mr Combe in the progress of his work are numerous and varied. A large proportion of them have no necessary connexion with his peculiar views, and therefore may be left unnoticed. Of the topics that remain, a considerable number are, in substance, mere varieties or duplicates of each other. A specimen case the case that seems to possess the greatest measure of pertinence and force-will generally be sufficient to dispose of the entire class in which it is included. Though the limits within which our observations must be confined-narrow, when compared with the extent of Mr Combe's work - will oblige us to omit much on which we could wish to dilate, yet no topic necessarily connected with the points at issue, will be passed over without notice.

Among other things, Mr Combe labours to prove that the world has within itself the elements of improvement, which time will evolve and bring to maturity; that man, when created, was liable to death; that man had at his creation the very same dispositions and tendencies that he has now; that prayer is advantageous only by improving our own minds, thus qualifying us to receive what we ask; that supernatural influences transforming the character are not to be expected; that all human suffering is punishment consequent on disobedience to the "Natural laws;" that human character is to be improved chiefly by observing the "Natural Laws;" that there are some tribes of human beings who cannot, with their present cerebral development, adopt

christianity; and that phrenology is an indispensable guide of human conduct.

These topics have been so mixed up with each other by Mr Combe that it is no easy matter to disentangle them. As it is not our design to advert to all the matters that he has introduced, we shall take them up in that order which seems the most easy and natural, without attending very scrupulously to regularity of succession.

We shall not appeal to the holy Scriptures alone for the purpose of deciding the points at issue. We shall need to cite Scripture passages for the purpose of showing what the views which it exhibits really are, just as we shall need to cite passages from Mr Combe's work for the purpose of showing what his views really are; but we shall not quote texts of Scripture as arguments which preclude scientific inquiry. We shall appeal to recognised facts and phenomena. On these we shall rely as the chief, though not always the only evidence that we have to adduce. An appeal to the Bible would at once decide the whole case against Mr Combe. But he declines the appeal. He demands other proof. He says expressly, "If the views of human nature expounded in this work be untrue, the proper answer to them is a demonstration of their falsity." "If they be true, they are mere enunciations of the institutions of the Creator; and it argues superstitious, and not religious feelings, to fear evil consequences from the knowledge of what Divine Wisdom has appointed. The argument, that the results of the doctrine are obviously at variance with Scripture, and that therefore the doctrines cannot be true, is inadmissible,