the People by an oath, to observe his policy till his return from a voyage, which he had determined beforehand never to bring to that period.

Having shewn that there was no need of a pretence to revelation, for the establishment of civil Policy, it follows, that it was made for the sake of Religion.

SECT. III.

THE SECOND step the Legislators took to propagate and establish Religion, was to make the general doctrine of a Providence (with which they prefaced and introduced their laws) the great sanction of their institutes. To this, Plutarch, in his tract against Colotes the Epicurean, refers, where he observes, that Colotes himself praises it; that, in civil Institutes, the first and most important article is the belief of the Gods. And so it was (says he) that, with cows, oaths, divinations, and omens, Lycurgus sanctified the Lacedemonians, Numa the Romans, ancient Ion the Athenians, and Deucalion all the Greeks in general: And by HOPES and FEARS kept up amongst them the awe and reverence of religion*. On this practice was formed the precept of the celebrated Archytas the Pythagorean; which sect, as we shall see hereafter, gave itself up more professedly to

Αλλὰ μὲν ἧς γε καὶ Κολώτης ἐπαινεῖ διατάξεως τῶν νόμων, πρῶτον ἐστιν ἡ στερὶ θεῶν δόξα, καὶ μέγισον. ἢ καὶ Λυκέργος Λακεδαιμονίας, καὶ Νέμας Ρωμάνες, καὶ Ἴων ὁ παλαιὸς ̓Αθηναίες, καὶ Δευκαλίων Ἕλληνας ὁμε του πάνας καθωσίωσαν εὐχαῖς, καὶ ὅρκοις, καὶ μαντεύμασι, καὶ φήμαις, ἐμπαθεῖς πρὸς τὰ θεῖα δι ̓ ἐλπίδων ἅμα καὶ φόβων καλαςήσαντες. Edit. Francof. fol. 1599. p. 1225. D.

legislation; and produced the most famous founders of civil policy. This Lawgiver, in the fragments of his work de lege, preserved by Stobaus, delivers himself in this manner: The first law of the Constitution should be for the support of what relates to the Gods, the Dæmons, and our Parents, and, in general, of whatsoever is good and venerable*. And in this manner, if we may believe Antiquity, all their civil institutes were prefaced; its constant phrase being, when speaking of a Lawgiver, ΔΙΕΚΟΣΜΕΙ ΤΗΝ ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΑΝ

ΑΠΟ ΘΕΩΝ ΑΡΧΟΜΕΝΟΣ.

The only things of this kind now remaining, are the PREFACES to the laws of ZALEUCUS and CHARONDAS, Lawgivers of the Locrians and of the Chalcidic cities of Italy and Sicily, contemporaries with Lycurgust. These, by good fortune, are preserved in Diodorus and Stobæus. A great Critic has indeed arraigned their authority; declared them spurious; and adjudged them for an imposture of the Ptolomaic Aget. And were it as he supposes, the fragments would be rather stronger to our purpose: for, in that case, we must needs conclude, the very learned SOPHISTS who forged them had copied from the general practice of antiquity: And that very learned they were, appears both from the excellence of the composition, and the age of the pretended composers. Whereas, if the fragments be genuine,

* Δεῖ τὸν νόμον τὰ περὶ θεὸς καὶ δαίμονας καὶ γονίας, καὶ ὅλως τὰ καλὰ καὶ Tiμia apăra ribotas. Stob. de Rep. Serm. xli. p. 269. lin. 13. Tiguri, fol. 1599.

† Arist. 1. ii. c. 12. p. 449. Edit. Du Val.

Dissert. on the Epistles of Phalaris, with an Answer to the

objections of Mr. Boyle.

they

they do not so directly prove the universality, as the antiquity, of the practice. But as my aim is truth, and truth seeming to bear hard against this learned Critic's determination, we must hold to the common opinion, and examine what hath been offered in discredit of it.

The universal current of antiquity runs in favour of these remains, and for the reality of their author's legislative quality. Aristotle, Theophrastus, Tully, Diodorus Siculus, and Plutarch, the most learned and inquisitive writers of their several ages, declare for their being genuine. However, TIMEUS thought fit to deny that Zaleucus had given laws to the Locrians; nay, that there was ever such a Lawgiver existing. We shall be the less surprised at this paradox, when we come to know the character and studies of the man: he was by profession an historian, but turned his talents to invent, to aggravate, and expose the faults and errors of all preceding writers of name and reputation. Polybius, Strabo, and Diodorus Siculus, three of the wisest and most candid historians of Greece, have concurred to draw him in the most odious colours. The first speaks of him in this manner: How he came to be placed amongst the principal writers of history, I know not.-He deserves neither credit nor pardon of any one; having so manifestly transgressed all the rules of decency and decorum in his excessive calumnies, springing from an innate malignity of heart*. This envious rabid

Οὐκ οἴδ ̓ ὅπως ἐκφέρεται δόξαν, ὡς ἕλκων τὴν τότε συγγραφέως προτασίας — ΕκείνΘ δ ̓ ἂν οὐκ εἰκότως τυ[χάνοι συγγνώμης ἐδὲ πίσεως ὑπ ̓ ἐδενὸς, διὰ τὸ προφανῶς ἐν ταῖς λοιδορίαις ἐκπίπλειν το καθήκοντος, dià vàr iμqulov wixgiar. Excerpt. ex 1. xii. Hist.

temper, joined to a perversity of mind, delighting in contradiction, gained him the title of EPITIMÆUS, the CALUMNIATOR. And, what is a certain mark of a base and abject heart, he was as excessive in his flattery; as when he makes Timoleon greater than the greatest Gods*.. He took so much pleasure in contradicting the most received truths, that he wrote a long treatise, with great fury and ill language, to prove that the bull of Phalaris was a mere fable. And yet Diodorus and Polybius, who tell us this, tell us likewise, that the very buli itself was existing in their time: To all which, he was so little solicitous about truth, that Suidas says, he was nicknamed гPAOΣYAAEKTPIA, a composer of old wives fables. Polybius informs us with what justice it was given him. In censuring the faults of others, he puts on such an air of severity and confidence, as if he himself were exempt from failings, and stood in no need of indulgence. Yet are his own histories stuffed with dreams and prodigies, with the most wild and improbable fables. In short, full of old wives wonders, and of the lowest and basest superstition. Agrecable to all this, Clemens Alexandrinus gives him as the very pattern of a fabulous and satiric writer. And he appeared in every respect of so ill a character to Mr. Bayle, that this excellent Critic did not scruple to say, that, "in all appearance, "he had no better authority when he denied that

* Suidas in Timmo. Τίμαιο. δὲ μείζω ποιεῖν Τιμολέοντα τῶν επιφανεςάτων Θεῶν.

† Οὗτῷ γὰρ ἐν μὲν ταῖς τῶν πέλας καληΓορίαις πολλὴν ἐπιφαίνει δεινότητα καὶ τόλμαν ἐν δὲ ταῖς ἰδίαις ἀποφάσεσιν ἐνυπνίων καὶ τεράτων καὶ μυθῶν ἐπιθάνων, καὶ συλλήβδην και δεισιδαιμονίας ἀγεννᾶς καὶ τερατείας; γυναικώδες wangns. Excerpt. de Virt. & Vit. ex 1. xii.

"Zaleucus

To

"Zaleucus had given laws to the Locrians*" say all in a word, he was the OLDMIXON† of the Greeks; and yet this is the man whom the learned writer hath thought fit to oppose to all antiquity, against Zaleucus's legislation and existence. It appears the more extraordinary, because he himself hath furnished his reader with a violent presumption against Timæus's authority, where he says, That Polybius charges him with false representations relating to the Locrians. He adds indeed, that nothing is now extant that shews Polybius thought Timæus mistaken concerning Zaleucus. But since Polybius quotes a law as a law of Zaleucus, it seems a proof, in so exact a writer, of his being well assured that, amongst Timæus's falsehoods concerning the Locrians, one was his denying Zaleucus to be their Lawgiver.

Timæus's reasons are not come down to us from Antiquity: But the fragments of Polybius §, mentioning his outrageous treatment of Aristotle concerning the origin of the Locrians, speak of one Echecrates a Locrian, from whom Timæus boasted he had received information on certain points in question: Hence the learned Critic, as it would seem, concludes this to have been a part of the Locrian's intelligence, that there was no such man as Zaleucus. As if, because Timæus relied on Echecrates's information in the dis

* Et apparemment il ne fut pas mieux fondé, quand il nia que Zaleucus eût donné des loix à ce peuple, [les Locriens.] Timée, Rem. F.

† See Clarendon and Whitlock compared.

Dissert. upon Phalaris, p. 337.

§ Excerpta ex Polybio de Virt. & Vitiis, ex l. xii.

P. 336. Dissert. upon Phalaris.