dissolution of the kingdom. It is said that on his deathbed he gave the royal signet to Perdiccas, a general of bigh birth, while he declared that he left the kingdom to the most worthy. A day or two after his death, his friends called a council of the chief commanders. Here all was difference and contention. One would have Hercules, the son of Alexander and Barsina, proclaimed king. Another would have the throne kept vacant, till it was seen if Roxana should have a son. A third party called for Aridoeus, the brother of Alexander, arrayed him in the royal robes, and proclaimed him by the name of Philip. All pretended concern for the publick; but each one intended their own advantage, and had private purposes in the part they took. After some contention the son of Roxana being born, it was arranged that he and Aridous should divide the regal title; while the actual power, under the name of governments, was divided among the principal generals. Antipater had the government of the European provinces. Perdiccas had the power of protector, under the style of general of the household troops. Ptolemy had Egypt, Lydia, and Arabia. Laomedon had Syria and the other provinces about the Euxine. Antigonus had Phrygia and the provinces of Asia Minor. Various other commanders had in like manner provinces assigned them. The regal power remained effectually in the hands of Perdiccas and Roxana; and began to be immediately exercised with excessive cruelty; Eumenes, another o Alexander's courtiers, acting as the friend and minister of Perdiccas.

Wars and contentions immediately commenced; and these various governors began to embroil themselves one with another. Perdiccas first conspired to rid himself of Antigonus, while Antipater engaged in his defence. Not long after, Perdiccas found a pretext to march against Ptolemy, and was there slain in an engagement. On the death of Perdiccas, Antipater had the ascendancy, and made a new distribution of the provinces.

He was opposed by Eumenes, and died shortly after. Antigonus became then the chief aspirant, and resolved to seize the government of Asia, of which the young kings had appointed Eumenes general; one Polyperchon having succeeded Perdiccas in the protectorship. Olympias too, of whose turbulent spirit we heard in the days of Philip, took an active part in the affairs of her grandchildren. It is difficult, without entering into very minute events, to follow the course of these contentions; obscure as they are, even in the best histories of the period. The kings, one of whom was in infancy, the other quite imbecile, were but cyphers. The generals, whether on their side or against them, were but contending with each other for empire, without real regard to the interests of the princes, or any fear of their authority.

Asia was the scene of perpetual warfare, in which Antigonus ultimately prevailed over his competitors, and was the first whom we may rightly consider as succeeding to the empire of Alexander. In B. C. 315, he finally defeated Eumenes and put him to death. He then marched to Babylon, and dispossessed Seleucus, to whom those provinces had been assigned. In 314 he seized upon Syria, Phoenicia, and Judea, notwithstanding the resistance of Ptolemy and Cassander. In 311, he made war upon the Arabs; but against this extraordinary people he was as little successful as other invaders had been. Demetrius, the son of Antigonus, led the forces against them; but unable to effect any thing, he proposed a peace, with which they readily complied. Demetrius thence marched to the Asphaltic Lake, of which he caused exact description to be made, and a computation of the profit derived from the bitumen taken from it, and from the balm gathered from the plantations in that place, the admired Balm of Gilead. On receiving his report of it, Antigonus sent a party to the lake to bring away all the bitumen they could collect. The Arabs gave them no interruption,

till they were carrying off the bitumen, when they surrounded the workmen with their troops, cut them in pieces, and took possession of their treasure. This ended all attempts against Arabia.

In 306, Demetrius defeated the fleets of Ptolemy and took Cyprus. Thus every where successful, and having no more occasion to dissimulate, Antigonus assumed to himself the title of king, making his son Demetrius the partner of his crown. On this Seleucus, Cassander, Lysimachus, and Ptolemy, also assumed the title of kings: all of whom had been officers of Alexander's army; and now usurped and divided his distracted empire.

Antigonus, a harsh and ambitious though otherwise not an unworthy character, had acquired great glory; Demetrius was in the prime of his age, greatly distinguished, and hitherto of good character. The first act of their royalty was an expedition into Egypt; and then into Attica and Macedon. The vanity of Demetrius grew exorbitant with his successes; and very shortly, with the vice and debauchery in which he sunk himself, brought ruin on himself and his father.

The rival kings, Cassander, Ptolemy, Lysimachus, and Seleucus, conspired against them. Of what particular territory each of these was king, it is impossible to define, as their possessions changed with every campaign, according as one or other was successful. The battle of Ipsus, fought by these confederate kings against Antigonus and his son, ended the empire of Antigonus. A shower of arrows deprived him of life at the age of 84. B. C.301.

In 294, through much misfortune, crime and bloodshed, Demetrius, displaced in Asia, possessed himself of the throne of Macedon, again become a separate kingdom. Neither content with this, nor deserving of it, in attempting to recover the dominions of his father, he found himself expelled from those he held and obliged to throw himself on the mercy of Seleucus. By him he was kept in perpetual confinement, but supplied with

every luxury and indulgence, and thus terminated his life in banquets and sports. B. C. 283.

A brief account of the affairs of Macedon from this time to the final conquest of it by the Romans, will finish our history of what is usually called the Empire of Greece.

REFLECTIONS

ON SELECT PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE.

If I am a child, I risk to incur chastise

O how I love thy law.-PSALM exix. 97. PAUSE there, my soul, a moment, and consider. It is one thing to obey a law-another to love it. Obedience at its best is but the spirit's acquiescence, not its choice. It may be its assent to the law as good, and so far a choice-but still it is the reason's choice, not the affection's still it has nothing of the character of love. How is it with me in this matter? If I am a servant, I must needs obey my Master, or I risk to be refused my wages and dismissed his service. must needs obey my Father, or I ment and privation at his hands. If I am a willing servant and a loving child, obedience is no slavish, hard necessity-it is the spontaneous offering of a grateful heart; conscious, at the same time, of pursuing its own interest, while walking in the path of duty. But is this all? If it is, there will be some shuffling and evading still, very close and critical examination of the law, with much pleading of exemptions. There will be doubtings many, and excuses many; and nice enquiry after cases in which we need not follow it, and often a feeling of hardship, with certain regrets for what appears a sacrifice. No, this is not all. Apart from the duty, apart even from the love of him who gave it, I love thy law itself.

And why not? For in itself it is altogether lovely. If thou wouldst forego it, I would not part from it. I would much rather that thy power enable me to keep it, than that thy mercy pardon me the breaking of it. When thou bidst me this or forbidst me that, I do not thy pleasure at the cost of my own; and while I yield willingly because it is thy pleasure, would rather that it had not been. No-it is so we begin our obedience—it is not so we end it. In proportion as I become more intimate with the law of God, its intrinsic excellence and loveliness appear, and what was once consent, grows into preference. I would no more be exempted, be excused -I would be enabled to fulfil it utterly. The grace that sanctifies seems almost more precious now than the grace that pardons-the one dispenses with what I love-the other procures it me. "O how I love thy law." But where did I learn to love it? Not in that letter which was once against me, and when no longer so, seemed yet too hard for me: neither in the miserable exemplifications I have seen of it in myself, and those around me. I saw it in Jesus, and then I loved it. I saw the law of God as he fulfilled it-I traced it out in his actions, in his words, in all the characters of his humanity—and then I saw how beautiful it is; and I began to love what I before had but endeavoured to obey for love of him who gave it. Surely now I would be like him.

But I would have you without carefulness.-1 Co

RINTHIANS vii. 32.

FEW christians-no christians are there among us, who are not heard to complain of the withering influence of this world's care upon the better hope that is within them-how it checks its growth, and blights its blossoms and decays its fruit. We know what we might enjoy of essential bliss, if these aching cares did not break in upon our rest, depress our efforts and engross our minds. We struggle to forbid them, and the very effort seems but a care the more. Has it ever entered into our minds to

?