them of having a third end, distinct from these two; that is to say, the advancement of their own private interest. And this with great judgment. He knew well the difference between a LAWGIVER and a TYRANT; though the world soon after seems to have lost the memory of that distinction.* Such views became not the former; they destroyed his character, and changed him into his direct opposite; who applied every thing to his own interest; and this amongst the rest. Aristotle, in his maxims for setting up, and supporting a tyranny, lays this down for one, to seem extremely attached to the worship of the gods, for that men have no apprehension of injustice from such as they take to be religious and to have a high sense of providence. Nor will the people be apt to run into plots and conspiracies against those, whom they believe the gods will, in their turn, fight for and support.† And here it is worth noting, that, anciently, tyrants, as well as lawgivers, gave all encouragement to religion; and endeavoured to establish their irregular wills, not by convincing men that there was no just nor unjust in actions; but by persuading them that the privilege of divine right exempted the tyrant from all moral obligation. Hence may be seen the absurdity of Hobbes's scheme of politics, who, for the sake of the magistrate, was for eradicating religion. But the ancients knew better; and so too did some of the moderns.‡

The question then is, whether these pretensions of the ancient lawgivers were feigned in the first intention, for the sake of society or of religion? For it is no question, but that what we here show was contrived by the magistrate for the service of religion, was done ultimately for the sake of civil government. Or in other words, the question, I say, is, whether this pretence to inspiration was made to establish a civil or a religious society? If a civil; the ends aimed at must be the reception of his policy, or provision for its perpetuity. I speak not here of that third end, the securing a veneration, for them, to posterity; and for a good reason, because this is the very thing I contend for; such veneration being only to be procured by the influence of religion; the peculiar mode of which, the pretended inspiration introduces. The ends then in

* Quintilian, lib. viii. c. 6. (pag. 415, edit. Oxon. 1693, 4to) de Tropis, says that pastor populi, though used by Homer, is so poetical that he would not venture to use it in an oration: and ranks it with Virgil's-volucres pennis remigare. What could occasion so strange a piece of criticism, but that when Quintilian wrote under the tyrants of Rome, the people had lost the very idea of the kingly office?

† Ετι δὲ τὰ πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς φαίνεσθαι ἀεὶ σπουδάζοντα διαφερόντως, ἧττόν τε γὰρ φοβοῦνται, τὸ παθεῖν τι παράνομον ὑπὸ τῶν τοιούτων, ἐὰν δεισιδαίμονα νομίζωσιν εἶναι τὸν ἄρχοντα καὶ φρον τίζειν τῶν θεῶν καὶ ἐπιβουλεύουσιν ἧττον, ὡς συμμάχους ἔχοντι καὶ τοὺς θεούς.—Polit. lib. v. cap. 11. t. iii. p. 547. D. E. edit. Paris. fol. 1639.

Et non è cosa piu necessaria à parere d'avere che questa ultima qualità [religione] perché gli uomini in universale giudicano piu a gli occhi che alle mani, perché tocca à vedere a ciascuno a sentire à pochi.—Machiavel del Principe, cap. 18.

question, are reception for the policy; or provision for the perpetual duration of it.

1. For the reception, there would be small need of this expedient. 1. Civil laws are seen by all to be so necessary for the well-being of every individual, that one can hardly conceive any need of the belief of divine command or extraordinary assistance to bring men to embrace a scheme for associating, or to manifest the right they have of so doing. For (as the great geographer says) man was born with this inclination to associate. It is an appetite common both to Greeks and Barbarians: for, being by nature a civil animal, he lives readily under one common policy of law.* Besides several of these legislators gave laws to a willing people, on the strength of their personal character of virtue and wisdom; and were called upon to that office, in which nothing was wanting to beget the necessary veneration to him who discharged it. And though it might possibly have happened to a people to be so far sunk into brutality, as to be disinclined towards the recovery of a reasonable nature, like those with whom it is said Orpheus had to deal; who (being savages, without the knowledge of morality or law) reduced them into society, by recommending to them piety to the gods, and instructing them in the ways of superstition:† yet this was not the case of the generality of those with whom these lawgivers were concerned: and therefore if we would assign a cause of this pretence to revelation as extensive as the fact, it must be that which is here given. But, 2dly, we find, that where religion was previously settled, no inspiration was pretended. On this account neither Draco nor Solon, lawgivers of Athens, laid claim to any; for they found religion well secured by the institutions of Triptolemus and Ion. And we know, that, had pretended inspiration been only, or principally, for the easier introduction and reception of civil policy, the sanguinary laws of Draco had stood in more need of the sanction of a revelation, than any other of antiquity. Indeed, Maximus Tyrius goes so far as to say, that Draco and Solon prescribed nothing in their laws concerning the gods and their worship;‡ which, if true, would make as much against us, on the other hand. But in this he is mistaken. Porphyry quotes an express law of Draco's concerning the mode of divine worship. Let the gods and our own country heroes be publicly worshipped, according to the

* Πέφυκε γὰρ οὕτω. Καὶ κοινόν ἐστι τοῦτο καὶ τοῖς Ἕλλησι καὶ τοῖς Βαρβάροις· Πολιτικοί yàg ővtis, àñò ≈goováyμatos noivos Zon.-Strabo, Georgr. lib. xvi. edit. Casaub. p. 524.

lin. 16.

† Οτι θηριώδεις ὄντας τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, καὶ οὔτε ἔθη, οὔτε νόμους, εἰδότας εἰς δεισιδαιμονίαν ἀγαγῶν, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ εὐσεβεῖν παρακαλέσας.—Heraclit. de Incred cap. 23.

† Ποῦ γὰρ Αθηναίοις συνιέναι,τὶ μὲν τὸ δαιμόνιον, πῶς δὲ τιμητέον; οὐ γὰρ τῷ κυάμῳ λαχόντες δικασται χίλιοι ταῦτα ἐξετάζουσιν, οὐδὲ Σόλων τὶ ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν γέγραφεν, οὐδὲ οἱ Spánovcos acμevod vép-Dissert. xxxix. p. 383. Edit. Lugd. 1630, svo.

established rites; when privately, according to every man's abilities, with terms of the greatest regard and reverence; with the first fruits of their labours, and with annual libations.* Andocidest quotes another of Solon, which provides for the due and regular celebration of the ELEUSINIAN MYSTERIES. Athenæus does the same. And how considerable a part these were of divine worship, and of.what importance to the very essence of religion, we shall see hereafter.

2. As to a provision for the perpetuity of national laws and institutions; this entered not into the intention of the old Greek legislation; nor, if it had, could it have been obtained by giving them a divine original. Amongst the wild projects of the barbarous eastern policy, one might find, perhaps, something like a system of immutable laws; but the Grecian lawgivers were too well acquainted with the nature of man, the genius of society, and the vicissitude of human things, ever to conceive so ridiculous a design. Besides, the Egyptian legislation, from which they borrowed all their civil wisdom, went upon very different principles. It directed public laws to be occasionally accommodated to the variety of times, places, and manners. But had they aimed at perpetuity, the belief of a divine imposition would not have served the turn; for it never entered their heads that civil institutes became irrevocable by their issuing from the mouth of a god; or that the divinity of the sanction altered the mutability of their nature: the honour of this discovery is due to certain modern writers, who have found out that divine authority reduces all its commands to one and the same species. We have a notable instance of this in the conduct of Lycurgus. He was the only exception to the general method, and singular in the idle attempt of making his laws perpetual. For his whole system being forced and unnatural, the sense of that imperfection, it is probable, put him upon the expedient of tying them on an unwilling people. But then he did not apply divine authority to this purpose; for, though he pretended to inspiration like the rest, and had his revelations from Apollo, yet he well knew that the authority of Apollo would not be thought sufficient to change the nature of positive laws: and therefore he bound 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 shown 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.

* Θεοὺς τιμᾶν καὶ Ἥρωας ἐγχωρίους ἐν κοινῷ, επομένως νόμοις πατρίοις, ίδία κατὰ δύναμιν σὺν εὐφημίᾳ καὶ ἀπαρχαῖς καρπῶν, καὶ πιλάνοις ἐπετείοις.-De Abst. lib. iv. sect. 22. (edit. Cantabr. 1655, 8vo,) according to the emendations of Petit and Valentinus.-The law is thus introduced, Θεσμός αἰώνιος τοῖς 'Ατθίδα νεμομένοις, Κύριος τὸν ἅπαντα χρόνον.

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 vows, 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 legislation; and produced the most famous founders of civil policy. This lawgiver, in the fragments of his work de lege, preserved by Stobæus, 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.

A

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 Lycurgus.‡ These, by good fortune, are preserved in Diodorus and Stobæus. great critic has indeed arraigned their authority; declared them spurious; and adjudged them for an imposture of the Ptolomaic age.§ 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, they do not so directly prove the universality, as the

* — ̓Αλλὰ μὲν ἧς γε καὶ Κολώτης ἐπαινεῖ διατάξεως τῶν νόμων, πρῶτον ἐστιν ἡ περὶ θεῶν δόξα, καὶ μέγιστον· ἡ καὶ Λυκοῦργος Λακεδαιμονίους, καὶ Νοῦμας Ρωμαίους, καὶ Ιων ὁ παλαιὸς Αθηναίους, καὶ Δευκαλίων Ἕλληνας ὁμοῦ τοι πάντας καθωσίωσαν εὐχαῖς, καὶ ὅρκοις, καὶ μαν τεύμασι, καὶ φήμαις, ἐμπαθεῖς πρὸς τὰ θεῖα δι' ἐλπίδων ἅμα καὶ φόβων καταστήσαντες.-Edit. Francof. fol. 1599, p. 1225. D.

† Δεῖ τὸν νόμον τὰ περὶ θεοὺς καὶ δαίμονας καὶ γονίας, καὶ ὅλως τὰ καλὰ καὶ τίμια πρώτα ila-Stob. de Rep. Serm. xli. p. 269. lin. 13. Tiguri, fol. 1599.

Arist. lib. ii. cap. 12. p. 449. Edit. Du Val.

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

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, Timæus 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 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 bull itself was existing in their time: to all which, he was so little solicitous about truth, that Suidas says, he was nicknamed IPAOTAAEKTPIA, 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 Agreeable to all this, Clemens Alex

lowest and basest superstition.

Οὐκ οἶδ' ὅπως ἐκφέρεται δόξαν, ὡς ἕλκων τὴν τούτου συγγραφέως προστασίαν, — ̓Εκεῖνος δ' ἂν οὐκ εἰκότως τυγχάνοι συγγνώμης οὐδὲ πίστεως ὑπ ̓ οὐδενὸς, διὰ τὸ προφανῶς ἐν ταῖς λοιδορίαις ἐκπίπτειν τοῦ καθήκοντος, διὰ τὸν ἔμφυτον πικρίαν.—Excerpt. ex lib. xii. Hist.

+ Suidas in Timmo. Τίμαιος δὲ μείζω ποιεῖν Τιμολέοντα τῶν ἔπιφανεστάτων Θεῶν. † Οὗτος γὰρ ἐν μὲν ταῖς τῶν πέλας κατηγορίαις πολλὴν ἐπιφαίνει δεινότητα καὶ τόλμαν· ἐν δὲ ταῖς ἰδίαις ἀποφάσισιν ἐνυπνίων καὶ τεράτων καὶ μυθῶν ἀπιθάνων, καὶ συλλήβδην καὶ δεισιδαιμονίας ἀγεννοῦς καὶ τερατείας; γυναικώδους ἐστὶ πλήρης.—Εxcerpt. de Virt. et Vitiis, ex lib. xii,