had some concern in the outrage which was perpetrated upon the statues of Mercury in the seventeenth year of the Peloponnesian war, and that he profaned the sacred mysteries. To this idea, in part, and not merely to the apprehension that he was meditating the subversion of the democracy, it is to be attributed, that he ceased to be the favorite of the Athenians, and became the object of their hatred.* At the period of this war, there appear also traces of suspicion in regard to the oracles, for which, indeed, there may have then been special occasion; for it cannot admit of a doubt, that they were under the influence of political leaders, and gave such responses as their policy suggested. The charge of impiety, which Alcibiades incurred at Athens, Dionysius incurred also at Syracuse;‡ and that infidelity found its way likewise to the Egyptian court may be concluded, from the fact, that the Theodorus already mentioned lived there, as it appears, in high honor with the king. But traces of the unbelief to which philosophy gave rise appear still more decidedly in many of their writers. We can infer but little, it is true, in regard to the prevalence of a general contempt of religion among the Athenians, from the ridicule of sacred subjects, which was allowed in comedy. Thus Calderon, in Spain, ventured to bring forward the saints upon the stage, although every serious expression of disrespect to the public faith was there treated as a crime. Still, it is impossible, that the poet who exhibited the gods in so ridiculous and contemptible a light as Aristophanes did Jupiter in his play of the Clouds, Bacchus in that of the Frogs, Mercury in the Plutus, and Minerva herself, the tutelary goddess of the city and the land, in the Birds, could have cherished in his heart any reverence for the superior powers. The father of history, Herodotus, spoke, indeed, of the gods with a pious reserve, and recorded the sacred traditions concerning them with a credulous conviction of their truth. The later historians, however,-Polybius particularly, and Strabo, the geog

* Thucydides, L. VI., c. 27-29, c. 60. Diodor. XIII., 2, 5. Plutarch. Alcib., 20, 21.

Thucydides, L. V., c. 16.

+ His accuser, Theodorus, calls him τον ἐπ' ἀσεβεια διωνομασμένον. See Diodorus Siculus, Bibl., L. XIV., c. 67, ad fin. Aelian also Var. Hist., L. I., c. 20, speaks of his robbing the temples.

§ In such terms have Polybius, L. VI., c. 56, and Strabo, L. I., p. 36, 37, Tom. I. ed. Amst., expressed themselves.

VOL. II.-NO. VIII.

68

rapher, who belongs to the age of the Romans,-considered the public religion merely as a cavesson, by which the levity of the inconsiderate multitude might be checked, and their desire for philosophical knowledge properly controlled; although the former of the writers just named praised the Roman state as fortunate in respect to the union which existed between its religion, and public and private life, and accounted for the origin of a belief in the gods by making it the effect of a politic legislation. Upon the same ground stood Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who took exception, in particular, to the low, unworthy views of the Grecian theology; and for this reason he also adjudged the superiority to the religion of the Romans. He was, indeed, aware, he said, that the Grecian fables might have an allegorical sense, and thus be vindicated; but the great mass of men understand them more readily in a bad than in a good sense, and either despise the gods, or allow themselves in all the depravity which the received mythology attributes to the objects of their worship. Hence, there is no doubt, that infidelity was widely diffused throughout the Grecian world; that in all places, among those who were improved by science, and still more among those who were corrupted by luxury and pleasure, there were multitudes who either renounced all belief, or ridiculed the worshippers of the gods, or at least rejected a great portion of the sacred legends. The ancient rites of worship, however, still existed, along with the schools of the philosophers, even for centuries, in their full splendor; and much sincerity, too, characterized their observance among the Grecian tribes, notwithstanding the skepticism which at the same time so extensively prevailed. The susceptible Greek might doubt to-day, and still worship to-morrow; in the evening he might laugh at the gods, as they were ridiculed by Aristophanes, and in the morning be found bringing to them his sacrifices. In many, an alternating belief and unbelief may have swayed the mind by turns, or the two may have mingled and existed there together, in a state of strange contradiction. Many, also, to whom the gods were no longer what they had been to their fathers, still found nourishment for the religious tendency of their minds in the temples and sacred festivals; and even the avowed despisers of the gods still repeated those forms of worship which the customs of public and private life had rendered so venerable.

* Antiqq. Rom., L. II., c. 20, 68.

[The preceding sketch, it will be borne in mind, does not extend over the whole field of Grecian history. It traces the relation of philosophy to religion, in the comparatively early ages of Greece. It may be considered as bringing down the subject, which it discusses, as late as the time when Socrates and Plato lived, and when the Grecian mind exhibited its greatest intellectual activity. The few remarks, which occur in relation to names and events of a later date, are introduced for the incidental connection which they have with previous ages, and not by any means as presenting a full view of the periods to which they appropriately belong. The three or four centuries, which intervene between the limit just named, and the Christian era, pertain to the history of Roman, rather than Grecian philosophy; and, accordingly, they are so treated by our author in his work. As to what remains, it may be proper to add, that the philosophy of Greece, after being transplanted to Rome, developed still the same tendencies, which had distinguished it hitherto. Those tendencies may, indeed, have been somewhat checked, for a time, by that closer alliance between religion and the state, which Tschirner mentions as characteristic of the Romans, and whose effect must have been to lead them to support the public forms of worship from motives of patriotism, even when they felt no attachment to them from motives of mere piety. The temporary advantage, however, which paganism derived from this peculiarity, was more than counterbalanced by the greater corruption of manners, which poured, like a deluge, into the capital of the world, so soon as its supremacy was established. The reigning taste of the nation now became such, that it could find its gratification in nothing but pleasure and excess, and its apology, with much difficulty indeed, any where, yet with most ease, in the loose morality of Epicurus. But this philosophy, whose general principles harmonized so fully with the practices of the Romans, and which, for that reason, they preferred to every other, was the very one, which disagreed most with their religion. It was the very system, which encouraged the greatest license of speculation, which was most fraught with unbelief and atheism, which shook with severest violence the altars of the gods, and tended most rapidly to bring both them and their worship into contempt. Such was the ultimate leading form, which the philosophy of the Greeks assumed after it was embraced by the Romans. Such was the spirit of hostility to the institutions

of paganism, which it continued to display, under influences, more and more favorable to its development; until, at length, Christianity appeared as the antagonist of heathenism, and for a time caused to rally in its defence, not only those, who had been its sincere supporters, but many also, who would have been willing to see it expire by their own neglect or opposition, but who chose to prolong its existence, and restore its vigor, so far as in their power, rather than submit without a struggle to the dominion of so different a faith.-Tr.]

ARTICLE IV.

SEWALL ON PHRENOLOGY.

[We insert the following article, from a valued correspondent, because we think it right to allow a full liberty of discussion, in a suitable spirit, on every proper subject. Some of our readers probably consider phrenology as an improper, or at least a useless, theme. It would be sufficient to say, that others among our readers, who are equally entitled to have their tastes consulted, regard phrenology as true and important. Nothing is unworthy of serious examination by Christians, which has any bearing on the intellectual and moral powers of the soul. If phrenology is true, it will introduce a new era in mental science,—a science hitherto so fluctuating and dubious, as to make it evident, that some new mode of investigation must be adopted. We agree most fully with archbishop Whately, in the opinion expressed in a recent letter to the celebrated phrenologist, Mr. George Combe. After saying, that he has not made up his mind concerning the truth of phrenology, the archbishop says, "I am convinced, that even if all connection of the brain with mind were regarded, not merely as doubtful, but as a perfect chimera, still the treatises of many phrenological writers, and especially yours, would be of great value, from their employing a metaphysical nomenclature, far more logical, accurate, and convenient,

than Locke, Stewart, and the other writers of their schools. That the religious and moral objections against the phrenological theory are utterly futile, I have, from the first been convinced." We have no doubt, that a needless alarm, lest religion should be injured by the prevalence of phrenology, has been the origin of a large part of the opposition which it has encountered. But geology, long opposed for the same reason, is now triumphantly establishing its most astounding theories respecting the past duration of the earth. Let not Christians be afraid of investigation. No doctrine which is not true can be permanent; and all truth will finally be found to be perfectly harmonious, emanating from the same great Fountain, and concurring to accomplish the same end, the display of his glory, and the promotion of happiness in his universe.-EDITOR.]

An Examination of Phrenology, in two Lectures, delivered to the Students of the Columbian College, D. C., Feb., 1837. By THOMAS SEWALL, M. D., Professor of Anatomy and Physiology. Washington City. pp. 70. 1837.

PREJUDICE is one of the most formidable opponents to the progress of truth. The light of truth can easily dispel the darkness of ignorance; but prejudice closes the eyes against its rays, and may effectually prevent illumination. It were well if prejudice were confined to the ignorant, in the ordinary sense of that word; but such is by no means the case. Errors, venerable by age, and propagated by powerful and cultivated intellects, whose very offices in the halls of literature and science depend for existence on their perpetuation, are not to be rooted out by the mere presence of truth. There is a pride of intellect, and of learning, which makes it difficult for men, eminent in their departments, to acknowledge, that they have been mistaken, and have received and propagated error: and yet, such an acknowledgment is sometimes imperiously demanded, by a due regard to the importance and majesty of truth. On the difficulty of this conquest over prejudice, Mr. Locke thus remarks (Book IV., c. 20, § 11):

"Who, ever, by the most cogent arguments, will be prevailed upon to disrobe himself, at once, of all his old opinions and pretensions