general, signifies an account of some remarkable facts which have happened in the world, arranged in the true order in which they actually took place, together with the causes to which they were owing, and the different effects they have produced as far as can be discovered.—The word is Greek, ἱστορία; and literally denotes a search of curious things, or a desire of knowing, or even a rehearsal of things we have seen; being formed from the verb ἱστεῖν, which properly signifies to know a thing by having seen it. But the idea is now much more extensive, and is applied to the knowledge of things taken from the report of others. The origin is from the verb ξέρω, "I know;" and hence it is, that among the ancients several of their great men were called polyhistores, i.e. persons of various and general knowledge.

Sometimes, however, the word history is used to signify a description of things, as well as an account of facts. Thus Theophrastus calls his work in which he has treated of the nature and properties of plants, an history of plants; and we have a treatise of Aristotle, intitled an history of animals; and to this day the descriptions of plants, animals, and minerals, are called by the general name of natural history.

But what chiefly merits the name of history, and what is here considered as such, is an account of the principal transactions of mankind since the beginning of the world; and which naturally divides itself into two parts, namely, civil and ecclesiastical. The first contains the history of mankind in their various relations to one another, and their behaviour, for their own emolument, or that of others, in common life; the second considers them as acting, or pretending to act, in obedience to what they believe to be the will of the Supreme Being.—Civil history, therefore, includes an account of all the different states that have existed in the world, and likewise of those men who in different ages of the world have most eminently distinguished themselves either for their good or evil actions. This last part of civil history is usually termed Biography.

History is now considered as a very considerable branch of polite literature: few accomplishments are more valued than an accurate knowledge of the histories of different nations; and scarce any literary production is more regarded than a well-written history of any nation.

With regard to the study of history, we must consider, that all the revolutions which have happened in the world have been owing to two causes. 1. The connexions between the different states existing together in the world at the same time, or their different situations with regard to one another; and, 2. The different characters of the people who in all ages constituted these states, their different geniuses and dispositions, &c. by which they were either prompted to undertake such and such actions of themselves, or were easily induced to it by others. The person who would study history, therefore, ought in the first place to make himself acquainted with the state of the world in general in all different ages; what nations inhabited the different parts of it; what their extent of territory was; at what particular time they arose, and when they declined. He is then to inform himself of the various events which have happened to each particular nation; and, in so doing, he will discover many of the causes of those revolutions, which before he only knew as facts. Thus, for instance, a person may know the Roman history from the time of Romulus, without knowing in the least why the city of Rome happened to be built at that time. This cannot be understood without a particular knowledge of the former state of Italy, and even of Greece and Asia; Civil History; seeing the origin of the Romans is commonly traced as high as Aeneas, one of the heroes of Troy. But when all this is done, which indeed requires no small labour, the historian hath yet to study the genius and dispositions of the different nations, the characters of those who were the principal directors of their actions, whether kings, ministers, generals or priests; and when this is accomplished, he will discover the causes of those transactions in the different nations which have given rise to the great revolutions above mentioned: after which, he may assume the character of one who is perfectly versed in history.

The first outline of history, as it may be called, is most easily obtained by the inspection of an historical chart; and that subjoined to the present treatise will answer the purpose as well as any. Along with this it will be proper to peruse a short abridgement of general history, from the creation of the world to the present time; but in this way there have been but very few attempts attended with any tolerable success. The following is collected from respectable authorities, and may serve to help the ideas of the reader on this subject.

Sect. I. Civil History.

History, though seemingly incapable of any natural division, will yet be found, on a nearer inspection, to resolve itself into the following periods, at each of which a great revolution took place, either with regard to the whole world, or a very considerable part of it. 1. The creation of man. 2. The flood. 3. The beginning of profane history, i.e. when all the fabulous relations of heroes, demi-gods, &c. were expelled from historical narrations, and men began to relate facts with some regard to truth and credibility. 4. The conquest of Babylon by Cyrus, and the destruction of the Babylonian empire. 5. The reign of Alexander the Great, and the overthrow of the Persian empire. 6. The destruction of Carthage by the Romans, when the latter had no longer any rival capable of opposing their designs. 7. The reign of the emperor Trajan, when the Roman empire was brought to its utmost extent. 8. The division of the empire under Constantine. 9. The destruction of the western empire by the Herauli, and the settlement of the different European nations. 10. The rise of Mahomet, and the conquests of the Saracens and Turks. 11. The crusades, and all the space intervening between that time and the present.

Concerning the number of years which have elapsed since the creation of the world, there have been many disputes. The compilers of the Universal History determine it to have taken place in the year 4305 B.C. so that, according to them, the world is now (1806) in the 6111th year of its age. Others think it was created only 4000 years B.C. so that it hath not yet attained its 6000th year. Be this as it will, however, the whole account of the creation rests on the truth of the Mosaic history; and this we must of necessity accept, because we can find no other which does not either abound with the grossest absurdities, or lead us into absolute darkness. The Chinese and Egyptian pretensions to antiquity are so absurd and ridiculous, that the bare reading must be a sufficient confutation of them to every reasonable person. See the articles CHINA and EGYPT. Some historians and philosophers are inclined to discredit the Mosaic accounts, from the appearances of volcanoes, and other natural phenomena: but their objections are by no means sufficient to invalidate the authority of the sacred writings; not to mention that every one of their own systems is liable to insuperable objections. See GEOLOGY. It is therefore reasonable for every person to accept of the Mosaic account of the creation as truth: but an historian is under an absolute necessity of doing it, because, without it, he is quite destitute of any standard or scale by which he might reduce the chronology of different nations to any agreement; and, in short, without receiving this account as true, it would be in a manner impossible at this day to write a general history of the world.

1. The transactions during the first period, viz. from the creation to the flood, are very much unknown, no-thing indeed being recorded of them but what is to be found in the first six chapters of Genesis. In general, we know, that men were not at that time in a savage state; they had made some progress in the arts, had invented music, and found out the method of working metals. They seem also to have lived in one vast community, without any of those divisions into different nations which have since taken place, and which evidently proceeded from the confusion of languages. The most material part of their history, however, is, that having once begun to transgress the divine commands, they proceeded to greater and greater lengths of wickedness, till at last the Deity thought proper to send a flood on the earth, which destroyed the whole human race except eight persons, viz. Noah and his family. This terrible catastrophe happened, according to the Hebrew copy of the Bible, 1656 years after the creation; according to the Samaritan copy 1307. For the different conjectures concerning the natural causes of the flood, see the article DELUGE.

2. For the history of the second period we must again have recourse to the Scriptures, almost as much as for that of the first. We now find the human race reduced to eight persons, possessed of nothing but what they had saved in the ark, and the whole world to be covered with animals from those which had been preserved along with these eight persons. In what country their original settlement was, no mention is made. The ark is supposed to have rested on Mount Ararat in Armenia*; but it is impossible to know whether Noah* See and his sons made any stay in the neighbourhood of Ararat, this mountain or not. Certain it is, that some time after, the whole or the greatest part of the human race were assembled in Babylonia, where they engaged in building a tower. This gave offence to the Deity; so that he punished them by confounding their language; whence the division of mankind into different nations.

According to a common opinion, Noah when dying left the whole world to his sons, giving Asia to Shem, Africa to Ham, and Europe to Japhet. But this hath not the least foundation in Scripture. By the most probable accounts, Gomer the son of Japhet was the father of the Gomerians or Celtes; that is, all the barbarous nations who inhabited the northern parts of Europe, Europe, under the various names of Gauls, Cimbrians, Goths, &c. and who also migrated to Spain, where they were called Celtiberians. From Magog, Melchec, and Tubal, three of Gomer's brethren, proceeded the Scythians, Sarmatians, Tartars, and Moguls. The three other sons of Japhet, Madai, Javan, and Tiras, are said to have been the fathers of the Medes, the Ionians, Greeks and Thracians.

The children of Shem were Elam, Ashur, Arphaxad, Lud and Aram. The first settled in Persia, where he was the father of that mighty nation: The descendants of Ashur peopled Assyria (now Curdistan): Arphaxad settled in Chaldea. Lud is supposed by Josephus to have taken up his residence in Lydia; though this is much controverted. Aram, with more certainty, is thought to have settled in Mesopotamia and Syria.

The children of Ham were Cush, Mizraim, Phut, and Canaan. The first is thought to have remained in Babylonia, and to have been king of the south-eastern parts of it, afterwards called Khuzistan. His descendants are supposed to have removed into the eastern parts of Arabia; from whence they by degrees migrated into the corresponding parts of Africa. The second peopled Egypt, Ethiopia, Cyrenaica, Libya, and the rest of the northern parts of the same continent. The place where Phut settled is not known: but Canaan is universally allowed to have settled in Phoenicia; and to have founded those nations who inhabited Judea, and were afterwards exterminated by the Jews.

Almost all the countries of the world, at least of the eastern continent, being thus furnished with inhabitants, it is probable that for many years there would be few or no quarrels between the different nations. The paucity of their numbers, their distance from one another, and their diversity of language, would contribute to keep them from having much communication with each other. Hence according to the different circumstances in which the different tribes were placed, some would be more civilized and others more barbarous. In this interval also the different nations probably acquired different characters, which afterwards they obstinately retained, and manifested on all occasions; hence the propensity of some nations to monarchy, as the Asiatics, and the enthusiastic desire of the Greeks for liberty and republicanism, &c.

The beginning of monarchical government was very early; Nimrod the son of Cush having found means to make himself king of Babylonia. In a short time Ashur emigrated from the new kingdom; built Nineveh, afterwards capital of the Assyrian empire; and two other cities, called Rezzen and Rehoboth, concerning the situation of which we are now much in the dark. Whether Ashur at this time set up as a king for himself or whether he held these cities as vassal to Nimrod, is now unknown. It is probable, however, that about the same time various kingdoms were founded in different parts of the world; and which were great or small according to different circumstances. Thus the Scripture mentions the kings of Egypt, Gerar, Sodom, Gomorrah, &c. in the time of Abraham; and we may reasonably suppose, that these kings reigned over nations which had existed for some considerable time before.

The first considerable revolution we read of is the migration of the Israelites out of Egypt, and their establishment in the land of Canaan. For the history of these transactions we must refer to the Old Testament, where the reader will see that it was attended with the most terrible catastrophe to the Egyptians, and besides with the utter extermination of some nations, the descendants of Ham, who inhabited Judea. Whether the overthrow of Pharaoh in the Red sea could affect the Egyptian nation in such a manner as to deprive them of the greatest part of their former learning, and to keep them for some ages after in a barbarous state, is not easily determined; but unless this was the case, it seems exceedingly difficult to account for the total silence of their records concerning such a remarkable event, and indeed for the general confusion and uncertainty in which the early history of Egypt is involved. The settlement of the Jews in the promised land of Canaan, is supposed to have happened about 1491 B. C.

For near 200 years after this period, we find no History of accounts of any other nation than those mentioned in the Greek Scripture. About 1280 B. C. the Greeks began to make other nations feel the effects of that enterprising and martial spirit for which they were so remarkable, and which they had undoubtedly exercised upon one another long before. Their first enterprise was an invasion of Colchis (now Mingrelia), for the sake of the golden fleece. Whatever was the nature of this expedition, it is probable they succeeded in it; and it is likewise probable, that it was this specimen of the riches of Asia which inclined them so much to Asiatic expeditions ever after. All this time we are totally in the dark about the state of Asia and Africa, except in so far as can be conjectured from Scripture. The ancient empires of Babylon, Assyria, and Persia, probably still continued in the former continent, and Egypt and Ethiopia seem to have been considerable kingdoms in the latter.

About 1184 years B. C. the Greeks again distinguished themselves by their expedition against Troy, a city of Phrygia Minor; which they plundered and burnt, massacring the inhabitants with the most unrelenting cruelty. Aeneas, a Trojan prince, escaped with some followers into Italy, where he became the remote founder of the Roman empire. At this time Greece was divided into a number of small principalities, most of which seem to have been in subjection to Agamemnon, king of Mycenae. In the reign of Atreus, the father of this Agamemnon, the Heracleidae, or descendants of Hercules, who had been formerly banished by Eurythius, were again obliged to leave this country. Under their champion Hyllus they claimed the kingdom of Mycenae as their right, pretending that it belonged to their great ancestor Hercules, who was unjustly deprived of it by Eurythius*. The controversy was decided by single combat; but Hyllus being killed, they departed, as had been before agreed, under a promise of not making any attempt to return for 50 years. About the time of the Trojan war, also, we find the Lydians, Myrians, and some other nations of Asia Minor, first mentioned in history. The names of the Greek states mentioned during this uncertain period are, 1. Sicyon. 2. Leleg. 3. Messina. 4. Athens. 5. Crete. 6. Argos. 7. Sparta. 8. Pelopgia. 9. Theffaly.

* See Heracles. 9. Theffaly. 10. Attica. 11. Phocis. 12. Locris. 13. Ozela. 14. Corinth. 15. Eleusina. 16. Elis. 17. Pilus. 18. Arcadia. 19. Egina. 20. Ithaca. 21. Cephalone. 22. Phthia. 23. Phocidia. 24. Ephrya. 25. Eolia. 26. Thebes. 27. Calisfa. 28. Etolia. 29. Doloppa. 30. Ocealia. 31. Mycenae. 32. Euboea. 33. Mynia. 34. Doris. 35. Phera. 36. Iola. 37. Trachina. 38. Thrasyprocia. 39. Myrmidonica. 40. Salamine. 41. Scyros. 42. Hypeiria or Melite. 43. The Vulcanian isles. 44. Megara. 45. Epirus. 46. Achaia. 47. The isles of the Egcan sea. Concerning many of these we know nothing besides their names: the most remarkable particulars concerning the rest may be found under their respective articles.

About 1048 B. C. the kingdom of Judea under King David approached its utmost extent of power. In its most flourishing condition, however, it never was remarkable for the largeness of its territory. In this respect it scarce exceeded the kingdom of Scotland; though, according to the accounts given in scripture, the magnificence of Solomon was superior to that of the most potent monarchs on earth. This extraordinary wealth was owing partly to the spoils amassed by King David in his conquests over his various enemies, and partly to the commerce with the East Indies which Solomon had established. Of this commerce he owed his share to the friendship of Hiram king of Tyre, a city of Phenicia, whose inhabitants were now the most famed for commerce and skill in maritime affairs of any in the whole world.

After the death of Solomon, which happened about 975 B. C. the Jewish empire began to decline; and soon after many powerful states arose in different parts of the world. The disposition of mankind in general seems now to have taken a new turn, not easily accounted for. In former times, whatever wars might have taken place between neighbouring nations, we have no account of any extensive empire in the whole world, or that any prince undertook to reduce far distant nations to his subjection. The empire of Egypt indeed is said to have been extended immensely to the east, even before the days of Sesostris. Of this country, however, our accounts are so imperfect, that scarce anything can be concluded from them. But now, as it were all at once, we find almost every nation aiming at universal monarchy, and refusing to fet any bounds whatever to its ambition. The first shock given to the Jewish grandeur was the division of the kingdom into two, through the imprudence of Rehoboam. This rendered it more easily a prey to Shishak king of Egypt; who five years after came and pillaged Jerusalem, and all the fortified cities of the kingdom of Judah. The commerce to the East Indies was now discontinued, and consequently the sources of wealth in a great measure stopped; and this, added to the perpetual wars between the kings of Israel and Judah, contributed to that remarkable and speedy decline which is now so easily to be observed in the Jewish affairs.

Whether this king Shishak was the Sesostris of profane writers or not, his expedition against Jerusalem as recorded in scripture seems very much to resemble the defultory conquests ascribed to Sesostris. His infantry is said to have been innumerable, composed of different African nations; and his cavalry 60,000, with 1230 chariots; which agrees pretty well with the mighty armament ascribed to Sesostris, and of which an account is given under the article Egypt, No. 2. There indeed his cavalry are said to have been only 24,000; but the number of his chariots is increased to 27,000; which last may not unreasonably be reckoned an exaggeration, and these supernumerary chariots may have been only cavalry; but unless we allow Sesostris to be the same with Shishak, it seems impossible to fix on any other king of Egypt that can be supposed to have undertaken this expedition in the days of Solomon.

Though the Jews obtained a temporary deliverance from Shishak, they were quickly after attacked by new enemies. In 941 B. C. one Zerah an Ethiopian invaded Judea with an army of a million of infantry and 300 chariots; but was defeated with great slaughter by Afa king of Judah, who engaged him with an army of 580,000 men. About this time also we of the Syrians grown a considerable people, and bitter enemies both to the kings of Israel and Judah; aiming in fact at the conquest of both nations. Their kingdom commenced in the days of David, under Hadadezer, whose capital was Zobah, and who probably was at last obliged to become David's tributary, after having been defeated by him in several engagements. Before the death of David, however, one Rezon, who it seems had rebelled against Hadadezer, having found means to make himself master of Damascus, created there a new kingdom, which soon became very powerful. The Syrian princes being thus in the neighbourhood of the two rival states of Israel and Judah (whose capitals were Samaria and Jerusalem), found it an easy matter to weaken them both, by pretending to assist the one against the other; but a detail of the transactions between the Jews and Syrians is only to be found in the Old Testament, to which we refer. In 740 B. C. however, the Syrian empire was totally destroyed by Tiglath Pileser king of Assyria; as was also the kingdom of Samaria by Shalmaneser his successor in 721 B. C. The people were either massacred, or carried into captivity into Media, Persia, and the countries about the Caspian sea.

While the nations of the east were thus destroying each other, the foundations of very formidable empires were laid in the west, which in process of time were to swallow up almost all the eastern ones. In Africa, Carthage was founded by a Tyrian colony, about 869 B. C. according to those who ascribe the highest antiquity to that city; but, according to others, it was founded only in 769 or 770 B. C. In Europe a very considerable revolution took place about 900 B. C. The Heraclidae, whom we have formerly seen expelled from Greece by Atreus the father of Agamemnon, after several unsuccessful attempts, at last conquered the whole Peloponnesus. From this time the Grecian states became more civilized, and their history becomes less obscure. The institution, or rather the revival and continuance, of the Olympic games, in 776 B. C. also greatly facilitated the writing not only of their history, but that of other nations; for as each Olympiad consisted of four years, the chronology of every important event became indubitably fixed by referring it to such and such an Olympiad. In 748 B. C. or the last year of the seventh Olympiad, the foundations of the city of Rome were laid by Romulus; and, 43 years after, the Spartan state was new modelled, and received from Lycurgus those laws, by observing of which it afterwards arrived at such a pitch of splendor.

3. With the beginning of the 28th Olympiad, or 568 B. C. commences the third general period above-mentioned, when profane history becomes somewhat more clear, and the relations concerning the different nations may be depended upon with some degree of certainty. The general state of the world was at that time as follows.—The northern parts of Europe were either thinly inhabited, or filled with unknown and barbarous nations, the ancestors of those who afterwards destroyed the Roman empire. France and Spain were inhabited by the Gomerians or Celtes. Italy was divided into a number of petty states, arising partly from Gaulish and partly from Grecian colonies; among whom the Romans had already become formidable. They were governed by their king Servius Tullius; had increased their city by the demolition of Alba Longa, and the removal of its inhabitants to Rome; and had enlarged their dominions by several cities taken from their neighbours. Greece was also divided into a number of small states, among which the Athenians and Spartans, being the most remarkable, were rivals to each other. The former had, about 599 B. C. received an excellent legislation from Solon, and were enriching themselves by navigation and commerce: the latter were become formidable by the martial institutions of Lycurgus; and having conquered Messina, and added its territory to their own, were justly esteemed the most powerful people in Greece. The other states of most consideration were Corinth, Thebes, Argos, and Arcadia. In Asia great revolutions had taken place. The ancient kingdom of Assyria was destroyed by the Medes and Babylonians, its capital city Nineveh utterly ruined, and the greatest part of its inhabitants carried to Babylon. Nay, the very materials of which it was built were carried off, to adorn and give strength to that stately metropolis, which was then undoubtedly the first city in the world. Nebuchadnezzar, a wise and valiant prince, now sat on the throne of Babylon. By him the kingdom of Judea was totally overthrown in 587 B. C. Three years before this he had taken and razed the city of Tyre, and overrun all the kingdoms of Egypt. He is even said by Josephus to have conquered Spain, and reigned there nine years, after which he abandoned it to the Carthaginians; but this seems by no means probable. The extent of the Babylonian empire is not certainly known: but from what is recorded of it we may conclude, that it was not at all inferior even in this respect to any that ever existed; as the scripture tells us it was superior in wealth to any of the succeeding ones. We know that it comprehended Phoenicia, Palestine, Syria, Babylonia, Media, and Persia, and not improbably India also; and from a consideration of this vast extent of territory, and the riches with which every one of these countries abounded, we may form some idea of the wealth and power of this monarch. When we consider also, that the whole strength of this mighty empire was employed in beautifying the metropolis, we cannot look upon the wonders of that city as related by Herodotus to be at all incredible. See BABYLON; and ARCHITECTURE, No. 13. As to what passed in the republic of Carthage about this time, we are quite in the dark; there being a chasm in its history for no less than 300 years.

4. The fourth general period of history, namely, that from the end of the fabulous times to the conquest of the Babylon by Cyrus, is very short, including no more than 31 years. This sudden revolution was occasioned, by the misconduct of Evil-merodach, Nebuchadnezzar's son, even in his father's life-time. For having, in a great hunting match on occasion of his marriage, entered the country of the Medes, and some of his troops coming up at the same time to relieve the garrisons in those places, he joined them to those already with him, and without the least provocation began to plunder and lay waste the neighbouring country. This produced an immediate revolt, which quickly extended over all Media and Persia. The Medes, headed by Astyages and his son Cyaxares, drove back Evil-merodach and his party with great slaughter; nor doth it appear that they were afterwards reduced even by Nebuchadnezzar himself. The new empire continued daily to gather strength; and at last Cyrus, Astyages's grandson, a prince of great prudence and valour, being made generalissimo of the Median and Persian forces, took Babylon itself in the year 538 B. C. as related under the article BABYLON.

During this period the Romans increased in power under the wise administration of their king Servius Tullius, who, though a pacific prince, rendered his people more formidable by a peace of 20 years than his predecessors had done by all their victories. The Ians, Greeks, even at this early period, began to interfere with the Persians, on account of the Ionians or Grecian colonies in Asia Minor. These had been subdued by Croesus king of Lydia about the year 562, the time of Nebuchadnezzar's death. Whether the Lydians had been subdued by the Babylonish monarch or not, is not now to be ascertained; though it is very probable that they were either in subjection to him, or greatly awed by his power, as before his death nothing considerable was undertaken by them. It is indeed probable, that during the infancy of Nebuchadnezzar, spoken of by Daniel, the affairs of his kingdom would fall into confusion; and many of those princes whom he formerly retained in subjection would set up for themselves. Certain it is, however, that if the Babylonians did not regard Croesus as their subject, they looked upon him to be a very faithful ally; so much that they celebrated an annual feast in commemoration of a victory obtained by him over the Scythians. After the death of Nebuchadnezzar, Croesus subdued many nations in Asia Minor, and among the rest the Ionians, as already related. They were, however, greatly attached to his government; for though they paid in tribute, and were obliged to furnish him with some forces in time of war, they were yet free from all kind of oppression. When Cyrus therefore was proceeding in his conquests of different parts of the Babylonish empire, before he proceeded to attack the capital, the Ionians refused to submit to him, though he offered them very advantageous terms. But soon after, Croesus himself being defeated and taken prisoner, the Ionians sent ambassadors to Cyrus, offering to submit on the terms which had formerly been proposed. These terms were now refused; and the Ionians, being determined to resist, applied to the Spartans for aid. Though the Spartans at that time could not be prevailed upon to give their countrymen any assistance, they sent ambassadors to Cyrus with a threatening message; to which he returned a contemptuous answer, and then forced the Ionians to submit at discretion, five years before the taking of Babylon. Thus commenced the hatred between the Greeks and Persians; and thus we see, that in the two first great monarchies the seeds of their destruction were sown even before the monarchies themselves were established. For while Nebuchadnezzar was raising the Babylonish empire to its utmost height, his son was destroying what his father built up; and at the very time when Cyrus was establishing the Persian monarchy, by his ill-timed severity to the Greeks he made that warlike people his enemies, whom his successors were by no means able to resist, and who would probably have overcome Cyrus himself, had they united in order to attack him. The transactions of Africa during this period are almost entirely unknown; though we cannot doubt that the Carthaginians enriched themselves by means of their commerce, which enabled them afterwards to attain such a considerable share of power.

5. Cyrus having now become master of all the east, the Asiatic affairs continued for some time in a state of tranquillity. The Jews obtained leave to return to their own country, rebuild their temple, and again establish their worship, of all which an account is given in the sacred writings, though undoubtedly they must have been in a state of dependence on the Persians from that time forward. Cambyses the successor of Cyrus added Egypt to his empire, which had either not submitted to Cyrus, or revolted soon after his death. He intended also to have subdued the Carthaginians; but as the Phoenicians refused to supply him with ships to fight against their own countrymen, he was obliged to lay this design aside.

In 517 B. C. the Babylonians finding themselves grievously oppressed by their Persian masters, resolved to shake off the yoke, and set up for themselves. For this purpose, they took care to store their city with all manner of provisions; and when Darius Hystaspes, then king of Persia, advanced against them, they took the most barbarous method that can be imagined of preventing an unnecessary consumption of those provisions, which they had so carefully amassed. Having collected all the women, old men, and children, into one place, they strangled them without distinction, whether wives, fathers, mothers, brothers, or sisters; every one being allowed to save only the wife he liked best, and a maid servant to do the work of the house. This cruel policy did not avail them: their city was taken by treachery (for it was impossible to take it by force); after which the king caused the walls of it to be beaten down from 200 to 50 cubits height, that their strength might no longer give encouragement to the inhabitants to revolt. Darius then turned his arms against the Scythians; but finding that expedition turn out both tedious and unprofitable, he directed his course eastward, and reduced all the country as far as the river Indus. In the mean time, the Ionians revolted; and being assisted by the Greeks, a war commenced between the two nations, which was not thoroughly extinguished but by the destruction of the Persian empire in 330 B. C. The Ionians, however, were for this time obliged to submit, after a war of six years; and were treated with great severity by the Persians. The conquest of Greece itself was then projected: but the expeditions for that purpose ended most unfortunately for the Persians, and encouraged the Greeks to make reprisals on them, in which they succeeded according to their utmost wishes; and had it only been possible for them to have agreed among themselves, the downfall of the Persian empire would have happened much sooner than it did. See ATHENS, SPARTA, MACEDON, and PERSIA.

In 459 B. C. the Egyptians made an attempt to recover their liberty, but were reduced after a war of six years. In 413 B. C. they revolted a second time: and being assisted by the Sidonians, drew upon the latter that terrible destruction foretold by the prophets; while they themselves were so thoroughly humbled, that they never after made any attempt to recover their liberty.

The year 403 B. C. proved remarkable for the revolt of Cyrus against his brother Artaxerxes Mennon; in which, through his own rashness, he miscarried, and lost his life at the battle of Cunaxa, in the province of Babylon. Ten thousand Greek mercenaries, who served Xenophon's in his army, made their way back into Greece, though retreated surrounded on all sides by the enemy, and in the heart of a hostile country. In this retreat they were commanded by Xenophon, who has received the highest praises on account of his conduct and military skill in bringing it to a happy conclusion. Two years after, the invasions of Agelaius king of Sparta threatened the Persian empire with total destruction; from which, however, it was relieved by his being recalled in order to defend his own country against the other Grecian states; and after this the Persian affairs continued in a more prosperous way till the time of Alexander.

During all this time, the volatile and giddy temper of the Greeks, together with their enthusiastic desire the Greeks of romantic exploits, were preparing fetters for themselves, which indeed seemed to be absolutely necessary to prevent them from destroying one another. A zeal for liberty was what they all pretended; but on every occasion it appeared, that this love of liberty was only a desire of dominion. No state in Greece could bear to see another equal to itself; and hence their perpetual contests for pre-eminence, which could not but weaken the whole body, and render them an easy prey to an ambitious and politic prince, who was capable of taking advantage of those divisions. Being all equally impatient of restraint, they never could bear to submit to any regular government; and hence their determinations were nothing but the decisions of a mere mob, of which they had afterwards almost constantly reason to repent. Hence also their base treatment of those eminent men whom they ought most to have honoured; as Miltiades, Artilides, Themistocles, Alcibiades, Socrates, Phocion, &c. The various transactions between the Grecian states, though they make a very considerable figure in particular history, make none at all in a general sketch of the history of the world. We shall therefore only observe, that in 404 B. C. the Athenian power was in a manner totally broken by the taking taking of their city by the Spartans. In 370 B. C. that of the Spartans received a severe check from the Thebans at the battle of Leuctra; and eight years after was still further reduced by the battle of Mantinea. Epaminondas the great enemy of the Spartans was killed; but this only proved a more speedy means of subjugating all the states to a foreign, and at that time desppicable, power. The Macedonians, a barbarous nation, lying to the north of the states of Greece, were two years after the death of Epaminondas reduced to the lowest ebb by the Illyrians, another nation of barbarians in the neighbourhood. The king of Macedon being killed in an engagement, Philip his brother departed from Thebes, where he had studied the art of war under Epaminondas, in order to take possession of his kingdom. Being a man of great prudence and policy, he quickly settled his own affairs; vanquished the Illyrians; and being no stranger to the weakened situation of Greece, began almost immediately to meditate the conquest of it. The particulars of this enterprise are related under the article MACEDON: here it is sufficient to take notice, that by first attacking those he was sure he could overcome, by corrupting those whom he thought it dangerous to attack, by sometimes pretending to assist one state and sometimes another, and by imposing upon all as best served his turn, he at last put it out of the power of the Greeks to make any resistance, at least such as could keep him from gaining his end. In 338 B. C. he procured himself to be elected general of the Amphictyons, or council of the Grecian states, under pretence of settling some troubles at that time in Greece; but having once obtained liberty to enter that country with an army, he quickly convinced the states that they must all submit to his will. He was opposed by the Athenians and Thebans; but the intestine wars of Greece had cut off all her great men, and no general was now to be found capable of opposing Philip with success.

The king of Macedon, being now master of all Greece, projected the conquest of Asia. To this he was encouraged by the ill success which had attended the Persians in their expeditions against Greece, the successes of the Greeks in their invasions, and the retreat of the ten thousand under Xenophon. All these events showed the weakness of the Persians, their vast inferiority to the Greeks in military skill, and how easily their empire might be overthrown by a proper union among the states.

Philip was preparing to enter upon his grand design, when he was murdered by some assassins. His son Alexander was possessed of every quality necessary for the execution of so great a plan; and his impetuosity of temper made him execute it with a rapidity unheard of either before or since. It must be confessed, indeed, that the Persian empire was now ripe for destruction, and could not in all probability have withstood an enemy much less powerful than Alexander. The Asiatics have in all ages been much inferior to the European nations in valour and military skill. They were now sunk in luxury and effeminacy; and what was worse, they seem at this period to have been seized with that infatuation and distraction of councils which scarce ever fails to be a forerunner of the destruction of any nation. The Persian ministers persuaded their sovereign to reject the prudent advice that was given him, of distressing Alexander by laying waste the country, and thus forcing him to return for want of provisions. Nay, they even prevented him from engaging the enemy in the most proper manner, by dividing his forces; and persuaded him to put Charidemus the Athenian to death, who had promised with 100,000 men, of whom one-third were mercenaries, to drive the Greeks out of Asia. In short, Alexander met with only two checks in his Persian expedition. The one was from the city of Tyre, which for seven months resisted his utmost efforts; the other was from Memnon the Rhodian, who had undertaken to invade Macedonia. The first of these obstacles Alexander at last got over, and treated the governor and inhabitants with the utmost cruelty. The other was scarce felt; for Memnon died after reducing some of the Grecian islands, and Darius had no other general capable of conducting the undertaking. The power of the Persian empire was totally broken by the victory gained over Darius at Arbela in 331 B. C. and next year a total end was put to it by the murder of the king by Bessus one of his subjects.

The ambition of Alexander was not to be satisfied with the possession of the kingdom of Persia, or indeed of any other on earth. Nothing less than the total subjection of the world itself seemed sufficient to him; and therefore he was now prompted to invade every country of which he could only learn the name, whether it had belonged to the Persians or not. In consequence of this disposition, he invaded and reduced Hyrcania, Bactria, Sogdia, and all that vast tract of country now called Bukharia. At last, having entered India, he reduced all the nations to the river Hyphasis, one of the branches of the Indus. But when he would have proceeded farther, and extended his conquests quite to the eastern extremities of Asia, his troops positively refused to follow him farther, and he was constrained to return. In 323 B. C. this mighty conqueror died of a fever; without having time to settle the affairs of his vast extended empire, or even to name his successor.

While the Grecian empire thus suddenly sprung up in the east, the rival states of Rome and Carthage were making considerable advances in the west. The Romans were establishing their empire on the most solid foundations; to which their particular situation naturally contributed. Being originally little better than a parcel of lawless banditti, they were despised and hated by the neighbouring states. This soon produced wars; in which, at first from accidental circumstances, and afterwards from their superior valour and conduct, the Romans proved almost constantly victorious. The jealousies which prevailed among the Italian states, and their ignorance of their true interest, prevented them from combining against that aspiring nation, and crushing it in its infancy, which they might easily have done; while in the mean time the Romans being kept in a state of continual warfare, became at last such expert soldiers, that no other state on earth could resist them. During the time of their kings they had made a very considerable figure among the Italian nations; but after their expulsion, and the commencement of the republic, their conquests became much more rapid and extensive. In 509 B. C. they subdued the Sabines; eight years after, the Latins; and in 399 B. C. the city city of Veii, the strongest in Italy, exceeding Rome itself, was taken after a siege of ten years. But in the midst of their successes a sudden irruption of the Gauls had almost put an end to their power and nation at once. The city was burnt to the ground in 383 B. C. and the capitol on the point of being surprised, when the Gauls, who were climbing up the walls in the night, were accidentally discovered and repelled*. In a short time Rome was rebuilt with much greater splendor than before, but now a general revolt and combination of the nations formerly subdued took place. The Romans, however, still got the better of their enemies; but, even at the time of the celebrated Camillus's death, which happened about 352 B. C. their territories scarce extended fix or seven leagues from the capital. The republic from the beginning was agitated by those dissensions which at last proved its ruin. The people had been divided by Romulus into two classes, namely, Patricians and Plebeians, answering to our nobility and commonalty. Between these two bodies were perpetual jealousies and contentions; which retarded the progress of the Roman conquests, and revived the hopes of the nations they had conquered. The tribunes of the people were perpetually opposing the consuls and military tribunes. The senate had often recourse to a dictator endowed with absolute power; and then the valour and experience of the Roman troops made them victorious; but the return of domestic seditions gave the subjugated nations an opportunity of shaking off the yoke. Thus had the Romans continued for near 400 years, running the same round of wars with the same enemies, and reaping very little advantage from their conquests, till at last matters were compounded by choosing one of the consuls from among the plebeians; and from this time chiefly we may date the prosperity of Rome, so that by the time that Alexander the Great died they were held in considerable estimation among foreign nations.

The Carthaginians in the mean time continued to enrich themselves by commerce; but, being less conversant in military affairs, were by no means equal to the Romans in power, though they excelled them in wealth. A new state, however, makes its appearance during this period, which may be said to have taught the Carthaginians the art of war, and, by bringing them into the neighbourhood of the Romans, proved the first source of contention between these two powerful nations. This was the island of Sicily. At what time people were first settled on it, is not now to be ascertained. The first inhabitants we read of were called Sicani, Siculi, Leptiugones, &c. but of these we know little or nothing. In the second year of the 17th Olympiad, or 710 B. C. some Greek colonies are said to have arrived on the island, and in a short time founded several cities, of which Syracuse was the chief. The Syracusans at last subdued the original inhabitants; though it doth not appear that the latter were ever well affected to their government, and therefore were on all occasions ready to revolt. The first considerable prince, or (as he is called by the Greeks) tyrant of Syracuse, was Gelon, who obtained the sovereignty about the year 483 B. C. At what time the Carthaginians first carried their arms into Sicily is not certainly known; only we are assured, that they possessed some part of the island as early as 505 B. C. For in the time of the first consuls, the Romans and Carthaginians entered into a treaty chiefly in regard to matters of navigation and commerce; by which it was stipulated, that the Romans who should touch at Sardinia, or that part of Sicily which belonged to Carthage, should be received there in the same manner as the Carthaginians themselves. Whence it appears, that the dominion of Carthage already extended over Sardinia and part of Sicily: but in 28 years after, they had been totally driven out by Gelon; which probably was the first exploit performed by him. This appears from his speech to the Athenian and Spartan ambassadors who desired his assistance against the forces of Xerxes king of Persia. The Carthaginians made many attempts to regain their possessions in this island, which occasioned long and bloody wars between them and the Greeks, as related under the articles Carthage and Sicily. This island also proved the scene of much slaughter and bloodshed in the wars of the Greeks with one another†. Before the year 323 B. C. however, the Carthaginians had made themselves masters of a very considerable part of the island; from whence all the power of the Greeks could not dislodge them. It is proper also to observe, that after the destruction of Tyre by Alexander the Great, almost all the commerce in the western part of the world fell to the share of the Carthaginians. Whether they had at this time made any settlements in Spain is not known. It is certain, that they traded to that country for the sake of the silver, in which it was very rich; as they probably also did to Britain for the tin with which it abounded.

6. The beginning of the sixth period presents us with a state of the world entirely different from the preceding. We now behold all the eastern part of the world, from the confines of Italy to the river Indus, and beyond it, newly united into one vast empire, and at the same time ready to fall to pieces for want of a proper head; the western world filled with fierce and savage nations, whom the rival republics of Carthage and Rome were preparing to enslave as fast as they could. The first remarkable events took place in the Macedonian empire.—Alexander, as already observed, had not distinctly named any successor; but he had left behind him a victorious, and, we may say, invincible army, commanded by most expert officers, all of them ambitious of supreme authority. It is not to be supposed that peace could long be preserved in such a situation. For a number of years, indeed, nothing was to be seen or heard of but the most horrid slaughters, and wickedness of every kind, until at last the mother, wives, children, brothers, and even sisters, of Alexander, were cut off; not one of the family of that great conqueror being left alive. When matters were a little settled, four new empires, each of them of no small extent, had arisen out of the empire of Alexander. Cassander, the son of Antipater, had Macedon and all Greece; Antigonus, Asia Minor; Seleucus had Babylon and the eastern provinces; and Ptolemy Lagus, Egypt and the western ones. One of these empires, however, quickly fell; Antigonus being defeated and killed by Seleucus and Lysimachus at the battle of Ipsus, in 301 B. C. The greatest part of his dominions then fell to Seleucus; but several pro- vinces took the opportunity of these confusions to shake off the Macedonian yoke altogether: and thus were formed the kingdoms of Pontus, Bithynia, Pergamus, Armenia, and Cappadocia. The two most powerful and permanent empires, however, were those of Syria founded by Seleucus, and Egypt by Ptolemy Lagus. The kings of Macedon, though they did not preserve the same authority over the Grecian states that Alexander, Antipater, and Cassander, had done, yet effectually prevented them from those outrages upon one another, for which they had formerly been so remarkable. Indeed, it is somewhat difficult to determine, whether their condition was better or worse than before they were conquered by Philip; since, though they were now prevented from destroying one another, they were most grievously oppressed by the Macedonian tyrants.

While the eastern parts of the world were thus deluged with blood, and the successors of Alexander were pulling to pieces the empire which he had established, the Romans and Carthaginians proceeded in their attempts to enslave the nations of the west. The Romans, ever engaged in war, conquered one city and state after another, till about the year 253 B. C. they had made themselves masters of almost the whole of Italy. During all this time they had met only with a single check in their conquests, and that was the invasion of Pyrrhus, king of Epirus. That ambitious and fickle prince had projected the conquest of Italy, which he fancied would be an easy matter. Accordingly in 271 B. C. he entered that country, and maintained a war with the Romans for six years, till at last, being utterly defeated by Curius Dentatus, he was obliged to return.

The Romans had no sooner made themselves masters of Italy, than they wanted only a pretence to carry their arms out of it, and this pretence was soon found out. Being invited into Sicily to assist the Mamertines against Hiero king of Syracuse and the Carthaginians, they immediately commenced a war with the latter, which continued with the utmost fury for 23 years. The war ended greatly to the disadvantage of the Carthaginians, chiefly owing to the bad conduct of their generals, none of whom, Hamilcar Barcas alone excepted, seem to have been possessed of any degree of military skill; and the state had suffered too many misfortunes before he entered upon the command, for him or any other to retrieve it at that time. The consequence of this war was the entire loss of Sicily to the Carthaginians; and soon after, the Romans seized on the island of Sardinia.

Hamilcar perceiving that there was now no alternative, but that in a short time either Carthage must conquer Rome, or Rome would conquer Carthage, bethought himself of a method by which his country might become equal to that haughty republic. This was by reducing all Spain, in which the Carthaginians had already considerable possessions, and from the mines of which they drew great advantages. He had, therefore, no sooner finished the war with the mercenaries, which succeeded that with the Romans, than he set about the conquest of Spain. This, however, he did not live to accomplish, though he made great progress in it. His son Adrûbal continued the war with success; till at last the Romans, jealous of his progress, persuaded him to enter into a treaty with them, by which he engaged himself to make the river Iberus the boundary of his conquests. This treaty probably was never ratified by the senate of Carthage, nor, though it had, would it have been regarded by Hannibal, who succeeded Adrûbal in the command, and had sworn perpetual enmity with the Romans. The transactions of the second Punic war are perhaps the most remarkable which the history of the world can afford. Certain it is, that nothing can show more clearly the flight foundations upon which the greatest empires are built. We now see the Romans, the nation most remarkable for their military skill in the whole world, and who, for more than 500 years, had been constantly victorious, unable to resist the efforts of one single man. At the same time we see this man, though evidently the first general in the world, lost solely for want of a flight support. In former times, the republic of Carthage supplied her generals in Sicily with hundreds of thousands, though their enterprises were almost constantly unsuccessful; but now Hannibal, the conqueror of Italy, was obliged to abandon his design, merely for want of 20 or 30,000 men. That degeneracy and infatuation, which never fails to overwhelm a falling nation, or rather which is the cause of its fall, had now infected the counsels of Carthage, and the supplies were denied. Neither was Carthage the only infatuated nation at this time.—Hannibal, whose prudence never forsook him either in prosperity or adversity, in the height of his good fortune had concluded an alliance with Philip king of Macedon. Had that prince sent an army to the assistance of the Carthaginians in Italy immediately after the battle of Cannae, there can be no doubt but the Romans would have been forced to accept of that peace which they so haughtily refused †; and indeed, § See Carthage, N° this offer of peace, in the midst of so much success, is that, an instance of moderation which perhaps does more honour to the Carthaginian general than all the military exploits he performed. Philip, however, could not be roused from his indolence, nor fee that his own ruin was connected with that of Carthage. The Romans had now made themselves master of Sicily; after which they recalled Marcellus, with his victorious army, to be employed against Hannibal; and the consequence at last was, that the Carthaginian armies, unfurnished in Italy, could not conquer it, but were recalled into Africa, which the Romans had invaded. The southern nations seem to have been as blind to their own interest as the northern ones. They ought to have seen, that it was necessary for them to preserve Carthage from being destroyed; but instead of this, Massinissa king of Numidia allied with the Romans, and by his means Hannibal was overcome at the battle of Zama ‡, which finished the second Punic war, § See Zamas in 188 B. C.

The event of the second Punic war determined the fate of almost all the other nations in the world. All and Syria, this time, indeed, the empires of Egypt, Syria, and Greece, had been promoting their own ruin by mutual wars and intestine divisions. The Syrian empire was now governed by Antiochus the Great, who seems to have had little right to such a title. His empire, though diminished by the defection of the Parthians, was still very powerful; and to him Hannibal Hannibal applied, after he was obliged to leave his country, as related under CARTHAGE, No 152. Antiochus, however, had not sufficient judgment to see the necessity of following that great man's advice; nor would the Carthaginians be prevailed upon to contribute their assistance against the nation which was soon to destroy them without any provocation. The pretence for war on the part of the Romans was, that Antiochus would not declare his Greek subjects in Asia to be free and independent states; a requisition which neither the Romans nor any other nation had a right to make. The event of all was, that Antiochus was everywhere defeated, and forced to conclude a peace upon very disadvantageous terms.

In Europe, matters went on in the same way; the states of Greece, weary of the tyranny of the Macedonians, entered into a resolution of recovering their liberties. For this purpose was framed the Achaean League *; but as they could not agree among themselves, they at last came to the imprudent determination of calling in the Romans to defend them against Philip king of Macedon. This produced a war, in which the Romans were victorious. The Macedonians, however, were still formidable; and as the intention of the Romans to enslave the whole world could no longer be doubted, Perseus, the successor of Philip, renewed the war. Through his own cowardice he lost a decisive engagement, and with it his kingdom, which submitted to the Romans in 167 B. C.

Macedon being thus conquered, the next step was utterly to exterminate the Carthaginians; whose republic, notwithstanding the many disasters that had befallen it, was still formidable. It is true, the Carthaginians were giving no offence; nay, they even made the most abject submissions to the republic of Rome: but all was not sufficient. War was declared a third time against that unfortunate state; there was now no Hannibal to command their armies, and the city was utterly destroyed 146 B. C. The same year the Romans put an end to the liberties they had pretended to grant the cities of Greece, by the entire destruction of CORINTH. See that article.

After the death of Antiochus the Great, the affairs of Syria and Egypt went on from bad to worse. The degenerate princes which filled the thrones of those empires, regarding only their own pleasures, either spent their time in oppressing their subjects, or in attempting to deprive each other of their dominions, by which means they became a more easy prey to the Romans. So far indeed were they from taking any means to secure themselves against the overgrown power of that republic, that the kings both of Syria and Egypt sometimes applied to the Romans as protectors. Their downfall, however, did not happen within the period of which we now treat.—The only other transaction which makes any considerable figure in the Syrian empire is the oppression of the Jews by Antiochus Epiphanes. After their return from the Babylonish captivity, they continued in subjection to the Persians till the time of Alexander.—From that time they were subject to the kings of Egypt or Syria, as the fortune of either happened to prevail. Egypt being reduced to a low ebb by Antiochus Epiphanes, the Jews fell under his dominion; and being severely treated by him, imprudently showed some signs of joy on a report of his death. This brought him against them with a powerful army; and in 170 B. C. he took Jerusalem by storm, committing the most horrid cruelties on the inhabitants, insomuch that they were obliged to hide themselves in caverns and in holes of rocks to avoid his fury. Their religion was totally abolished, their temple profaned, and an image of Jupiter Olympus set up on the altar of burnt-offerings: which profanation is thought to be the abomination of desolation mentioned by the prophet Daniel. This revolution, however, was of no long continuance. In 167 B. C. Mattathias restored the true worship in most of the cities of Judea; and in 168 the temple was purified, and the worship there restored by Judas Maccabeus. This was followed by a long series of wars between the Syrians and Jews, in which the latter were almost always victorious; and before these wars were finished, the destruction of Carthage happened, which puts an end to the fifth general period formerly mentioned.

7. The beginning of the seventh period presents us with a view of the ruins of the Greek empire in the declining states of Syria and Egypt; both of them much circumcised in bounds. The empire of Syria at first comprehended all Asia to the river Indus, and beyond it; but in 312 B. C. most of the Indian provinces were by Seleucus ceded to one Sandrocottus, or Androcottus, a native, who in return gave him 500 elephants. Of the empire of Sandrocottus we know nothing farther than that he subdued all the countries between the Indus and the Ganges; so that from this time we may reckon the greatest part of India independent on the Syro-Macedonian princes. In 250 B. C. however, the empire sustained a much greater loss by the revolt of the Parthians and Bactrians from Antiochus Theus. The former could not be subdued; and as they held in subjection to them the vast tract which now goes under the name of Persia, we must look upon their defection as an irreparable loss. Whether any part of their country was afterwards recovered by the kings of Egypt or Syria, is not very certain; nor is it of much consequence, since we are assured that in the beginning of the seventh period, i. e. 146 B. C. the Greek empires of Syria and Egypt were reduced by the loss of India, Persia, Armenia, Pontus, Bithynia, Cappadocia, Pergamus, &c. The general state of the world in 146 B. C. therefore was as follows. In Asia were the empires of India, Parthia, and Syria, with the lesser states of Armenia, Pontus, &c. above mentioned; to which we must add that of Arabia, which during the fifth period had grown into some consequence, and had maintained its independency from the days of Ishmael the son of Abraham. In Africa were the kingdoms of Egypt and Ethiopia; the Carthaginian territories, now subject to the Romans; and the kingdoms of Numidia, Mauritania, and Getulia, ready to be swallowed up by the fame ambitious and infatiable power, now that Carthage was destroyed, which served as a barrier against it. To the south lay some unknown and barbarous nations, secure by reason of their situation and insignificance, rather than their strength, or distance from Rome. In Europe we find none to oppose the progress of the Roman arms, except the Gauls, Germans, mans, and some Spanish nations. These were brave indeed; but through want of military skill, incapable of contending with such matters in the art of war as the Romans then were.

The Spaniards had indeed been subdued by Scipio Africanus in the time of the second Punic war; but, in 153 B. C. they revolted; and, under the conduct of one Viriathus, formerly a robber, held out for a long time against all the armies the Romans could send into Spain. Him the consul Cepio caeful to be murdered about 138 B. C. because he found it impossible to reduce him by force. The city of Numantia defied the whole Roman power for fix years longer; till at last, by dint of treachery, numbers, and perseverance, it was not taken, but the inhabitants, reduced to extremity by famine, set fire to their houses, and perished in the flames or killed one another, so that not one remained to grace the triumph of the conqueror: and this for the present quieted the rest of the Spaniards. About the fame time Attalus, king of Pergamus, left by will the Roman people heirs to all his goods; upon which they immediately feized on his kingdom as part of those goods, and reduced it to a Roman province, under the name of Asia Proper. Thus they continued to enlarge their dominions on every side, without the least regard to justice, to the means they employed, or to the miseries they brought upon the conquered people. In 122 B. C. the Balearic islands, now called Majorca, Minorca, and Iuica, were subdued, and the inhabitants exterminated; and soon after, several of the nations beyond the Alps were obliged to submit.

In Africa the crimes of Jugurtha soon gave this ambitious republic an opportunity of conquering the kingdoms of Numidia and Mauritania: and indeed this is almost the only war in which we find the Romans engaged where their pretensions had the least colour of justice; though in no case whatever could a nation show more degeneracy than the Romans did on this occasion. The particulars of this war are related under the articles NUMIDIA and ROME. The event of it was the total reduction of the former about the year 105 B. C. but Mauritania and Getulia preserved their liberty for some time longer.

In the east, the empire of Syria continued daily to decline; by which means the Jews not only had an opportunity of recovering their liberty, but even of becoming as powerful, or at least of extending their dominions as far, as in the days of David and Solomon. This declining empire was still farther reduced by the civil dissensions between the two brothers Antiochus Grypus and Antiochus Cyzicenus; during which the cities of Tyre, Sidon, Ptolemais, and Gaza, declared themselves independent, and in other cities tyrants started up who refused allegiance to any foreign power. This happened about 100 B. C.; and 17 years after, the whole was reduced by Tigranes king of Armenia. On his defeat by the Romans, the latter reduced Syria to a province of their empire. The kingdom of Armenia itself, with those of Pontus, Cappadocia, and Bithynia, soon shared the same fate; Pontus, the most powerful of them all, being subdued about 64 B. C. The kingdom of Judea also was reduced under the same power much about this time. This state owed the loss of its liberty to the same cause that had ruined several others, namely, calling in the Romans as arbitrators between two contending parties. The two sons of Alexander Jannaeus (Hyrcanus and Aristobulus) contended for the kingdom. Aristobulus, being defeated by the party of Hyrcanus, applied to the Romans. Pompey the Great, who acted as ultimate judge in this affair, decided it against Aristobulus, but at the same time deprived Hyrcanus of all power as a king; not allowing him even to assume the regal title, or to extend his territory beyond the ancient borders of Judca. To such a length did Pompey carry this last article, that he obliged him to give up all those cities in CoeloSyria and Phoenicia which had been gained by his predecessors, and added them to the newly acquired Roman province of Syria.

Thus the Romans became masters of all the eastern parts of the world, from the Mediterranean sea to the borders of Parthia. In the west, however, the Gauls were still at liberty, and the Spanish nations bore the Roman yoke with great impatience. The Gauls infested the territories of the republic by their frequent incursions, which were sometimes very terrible; and though several attempts had been made to subdue them, they always proved insufficient till the time of Julius Caesar. By him they were totally reduced, from the river Rhine to the Pyrenean mountains, and many of their nations almost exterminated. He carried his arms also into Germany and the southern parts of Britain; but in neither of these parts did he make any permanent conquests. The civil wars between him and Pompey gave him an opportunity of seizing on the kingdom of Mauritania and those parts of Numidia which had been allowed to retain their liberty. The kingdom of Egypt alone remained, and to this nothing belonged except the country properly so called. Cyrenaica was bequeathed by will to the Romans about 58 B. C.; and about the same time the island of Cyprus was seized by them without any pretence, except a desire of possessing the treasure of the king.—The kingdom of Egypt continued for some time longer at liberty; which in some measure must be ascribed to the internal diffusions of the republic, but more especially to the amours of Pompey, Julius Caesar, and Mark Antony, with the famous Cleopatra queen of Egypt. The battle of Actium, however, determined the fate of Antony, Cleopatra, and Egypt itself; which last was reduced to a Roman province about 9 B. C.

While the Romans thus employed all means to re-originate the world to their obedience, they were made progress of one another feel the same miseries at home which they inflicted upon other nations abroad. The first civil dissensions took their rise at the siege of Numantia in Spain. We have already observed, that this small city resisted the whole power of the Romans for six years. Once they gave them a most terrible and shameful defeat, wherein 30,000 Romans fled before 4000 Numantines. Twenty thousand were killed in the battle, and the remaining ten thousand to shut up, that there was no possibility of escaping. In this extremity they were obliged to negotiate with the enemy, and a peace was concluded upon the following terms: 1. That the Numantines should suffer the Romans to retire unmolested; and, 2. That Numantia should maintain maintain its independence, and be reckoned among the Roman allies.—The Roman senate, with an injustice and ingratitude hardly to be matched, broke this treaty, and in return ordered the commander of their army to be delivered up to the Numantines; but they refused to accept of him, unless his army was delivered along with him; upon which the war was renewed, and ended as already related. The fate of Numantia, however, was soon revenged. Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, brother in law to Scipio Africanus the second, had been a chief promoter of the peace with the Numantines already mentioned, and of consequence had been in danger of being delivered up to them along with the commander in chief. This disgrace he never forgot; and, in order to revenge himself, undertook the cause of the plebeians against the patricians, by whom the former were greatly oppressed. He began with reviving an old law, which had enacted that no Roman citizen should possess more than 500 acres of land. The overplus he designed to distribute among those who had no lands, and to reimburse the rich out of the public treasury. This law met with great opposition, bred many tumults, and at last ended in the death of Gracchus and the persecution of his friends, several hundreds of whom were put to cruel deaths without any form of law.

The disturbances did not cease with the death of Gracchus. New contests ensued on account of the Sempronian law, and the giving to the Italian allies the privilege of Roman citizens. This last not only produced great commotions in the city, but occasioned a general revolt of the states of Italy against the republic of Rome. This rebellion was not quelled without the utmost difficulty; and in the mean time, the city was deluged with blood by the contending factions of Sylla and Marius; the former of whom fided with the patricians, and the latter with the plebeians. These disturbances ended in the perpetual dictatorship of Sylla, about 80 B. C.

From this time we may date the loss of the Roman liberty; for though Sylla resigned his dictatorship two years after, the succeeding contests between Caesar and Pompey proved equally fatal to the republic. These contests were decided by the battle of Pharsalia, by which Caesar became in effect master of the empire in 43 B. C. Without loss of time he then crossed over into Africa; totally defeated the republican army in that continent; and, by reducing the country of Mauritania to a Roman province, completed the Roman conquests in these parts. His victory over the sons of Pompey at Munda 49 B. C. secured him from any further apprehensions of a rival. Being therefore sole master of the Roman empire, and having all the power of it at his command, he projected the greatest schemes; tending, according to some, not less to the happiness than to the glory of his country: when he was affianced in the senate-house, in the 56th year of his age, and 39 B. C.

Without investigating the political justice of this action, or the motives of the perpetrators, it is impossible not to regret the death of this great man, when we contemplate his virtues, and the designs which he is said to have formed: (See ROME). Nor is it possible to justify, from ingratitude at least, even the most virtuous of the conspirators, when we consider the obligations under which they lay to him. And as to the measure itself, even in the view of expediency, it seems to be generally condemned. In fact, from the transactions which had long preceded, as well as those which immediately followed, the murder of Caesar, it is evident, that Rome was incapable of preserving its liberty any longer, and that the people had become unfit for being free. The efforts of Brutus and Cassius were therefore unsuccessful, and ended in their own destruction and that of great numbers of their followers in the battle of Philippi. The defeat of the republicans was followed by numberless disturbances, murders, procriptions, &c. till at last Octavianus, having cut off all who had the courage to oppose him, and finally got the better of his rivals by the victory of Actium, put an end to the republic in the year 27 B. C.

The destruction of the Roman commonwealth proved advantageous to the few nations of the world who still retained their liberty. That outrageous desire of conquest which had so long marked the Roman character, now in a great measure ceased; because there was now another way of satisfying the desires of ambitious men, namely, by courting the favour of the emperor. After the final reduction of the Spaniards, therefore, and the conquest of the countries of Maeta, Pannonia, and some others adjacent to the Roman territories, and which in a manner seemed naturally to belong to them, the empire enjoyed for some time a profound peace.

The only remarkable transactions which took place during the remainder of the period of which we treat, were the conquest of Britain by Claudius and Agricola, and the destruction of Jerusalem by Vespasian and Titus. The war with the Jews began A. D. 67; and was occasioned by their obstinately claiming the city of Caesarea, which the Roman had added to the province of Syria. It ended in 73, with the most terrible destruction of their city and nation; since which time they have never been able to assemble as a distinct people. The southern parts of Britain were totally subdued by Agricola about ten years after.

In the 98th year of the Christian era, Trajan was created emperor of Rome; and being a man of great valour and experience in war, carried the Roman conquests to their utmost extent. Having conquered the Dacians, a German nation beyond the Danube, and who had of late been very troublesome, he turned his arms eastward; reduced all Mesopotamia, Chaldea, Assyria; and having taken Ctesiphon, the capital of the Parthian empire, appointed them a king, which he thought would be a proper method of keeping that warlike people in subjection. After this he proposed to return to Italy, but died by the way; and with his reign the seventh general period above mentioned is concluded.

8. The beginning of the eighth period presents us with a view of one vast empire, in which almost all the nations of the world were swallowed up. This empire comprehended the best part of Britain, all Spain, France, the Netherlands, Italy, part of Germany, Egypt, Barbary, Bildulgerid, Turkey in Europe, Turkey in Asia, and Persia. The state of India at this time is unknown. The Chinese lived in a remote part of the world, unheard of and unmolested by the western nations. nations who struggled for the empire of the world. The northern parts of Europe and Asia were filled with barbarous nations, already formidable to the Romans, and who were soon to become more so. The vast empire of the Romans, however, had no sooner attained its utmost degree of power, than, like others before it, it began to decline. The provinces of Babylonia, Mesopotamia, and Assyria, almost instantly revolted, and were abandoned by Adrian the successor of Trajan in the empire. The Parthians having recovered their liberty, continued to be very formidable enemies, and the barbarians of the northern parts of Europe continued to increase in strength; while the Romans, weakened by intestine divisions, became daily less able to resist them. At different times, however, some warlike emperors arose, who put a stop to the incursions of these barbarians; and about the year 215, the Parthian empire was totally overthrown by the Persians, who had long been subject to them. This revolution proved of little advantage to the Romans. The Persians were enemies still more troublesome than the Parthians had been; and though often defeated, they still continued to infest the empire on the east, as the barbarous nations of Europe did on the north. In 260, the defeat and captivity of the emperor Valerian by the Persians, with the disturbances which followed, threatened the empire with utter destruction. Thirty tyrants seized the government at once, and the barbarians pouring in on all sides in prodigious numbers ravaged almost all the provinces of the empire. By the vigorous conduct of Claudius, Aurelian, Tacitus, Probus, and Carus, the empire was restored to its former lustre; but as the barbarians were only repelled, and never thoroughly subdued, this proved only a temporary relief. What was worse, the Roman soldiers, growing impatient of restraint, commonly murdered those emperors who attempted to revive among them the ancient military discipline, which alone could ensure them victory over their enemies. Under Diocletian, the disorders were so great, that though the government was held by two persons, they found themselves unable to bear the weight of it, and therefore took other two partners in the empire. Thus was the Roman empire divided into four parts; which by all historians is said to have been productive of the greatest mischiefs. As each of these four sovereigns would have as many officers both civil and military, and the same number of forces that had been maintained by the state when governed only by one emperor, the people were not able to pay the sums necessary for supporting them. Hence the taxes and imposts were increased beyond measure, the inhabitants in several provinces reduced to beggary, the land left untilled for want of hands, &c. An end was put to these evils when the empire was again united under Constantine the Great; but in 330 a mortal blow was given it, by removing the imperial seat to Byzantium, now Constantinople, and making it equal to Rome. The introduction and establishment of Christianity, already corrupted with the grossest superstitions, proved also a most grievous detriment to the empire. Instead of that ferocious and obstinate valour in which the Romans had so long been accustomed to put their trust, they now imagined themselves secured by signs of the cross, and other external symbols of the Christian religion. These they used as a kind of magical incantations, which undoubtedly proved at all times ineffectual; and hence also in some measure proceeded the great revolution which took place in the next period.

9. The ninth general period shows us the decline and miserable end of the western part of the Roman empire, riod. We see that mighty empire, which formerly occupied almost the whole world, now weakened by division, western and surrounded by enemies. On the east, the Persians; empire on the north, the Scythians, Sarmatians, Goths, and a multitude of other barbarous nations, watched all occasions to break into it; and miscarried in their attempts, rather through their own barbarity, than the strength of their enemies. The devastations committed by these barbarians when they made their incursions are incredible, and the relation shocking to human nature. Some authors seem much inclined to favour them; and even intimate, that barbarity and ignorant ferocity were their chief if not their only faults: but from their history it plainly appears, that not only barbarity and the most shocking cruelty, but the highest degrees of avarice, perfidy, and disregard to the most solemn promises, were to be numbered among their vices. It was ever a sufficient reason for them to make an attack, that they thought their enemies could not resist them. Their only reason for making peace, or for keeping it, was because their enemies were too strong: and their only reason for committing the most horrid massacres, rapes, and all manner of crimes, was because they had gained a victory. The Romans, degenerate as they were, are yet to be esteemed much better than these savages; and therefore we find not a single province of the empire that would submit to the barbarians while the Romans could possibly defend them.

Some of the Roman emperors indeed withstood this inundation of savages; but as the latter grew daily more numerous, and the Romans continued to weaken themselves by their intestine divisions, they were at last obliged to take large bodies of barbarians into their pay, and teach them their military discipline, in order to drive away their countrymen, or others who invaded the empire. This at last proved its total destruction; for, in 476, the barbarians who served in the Roman armies, and were dignified with the title of allies, demanded the third part of the lands of Italy as a reward for their services: but meeting with a refusal, they revolted, and made themselves masters of the whole country, and of Rome itself, which from that time ceased to be the head of an empire of any consequence.

This period exhibits a most unfavourable view of General the western parts of the world: The Romans, from state of the height of grandeur, sunk to the lowest slavery, world may, in all probability, almost exterminated; the provinces they formerly governed, inhabited by human beings scarce a degree above the brutes; every art and science lost; and the savage conquerors even in danger of starving for want of a sufficient knowledge of agriculture, having now no means of supplying themselves by plunder and robbery as before. Britain had long been abandoned to the mercy of the Scots and Picts; and in 450 the inhabitants had called in the Saxons to their assistance, whom they soon found worse enemies than those against whom they had im- plored their aid. Spain was held by the Goths and Suevians; Africa (that is Barbary and Bildulgerid) by the Vandals; the Burgundians, Goths, Franks, and Alans, had erected several small states in Gaul; and Italy was subjected to the Heruli under Odoacer, who had taken upon him the title of king of Italy. In the east, indeed, matters wore an aspect somewhat more agreeable. The Roman empire continued to live in that of Constantinople, which was still very extensive. It comprehended all Asia Minor and Syria, as far as Persia; in Africa, the kingdom of Egypt; and Greece in Europe. The Persians were powerful, and rivalled the emperors of Constantinople; and beyond them lay the Indians, Chinese, and other nations, who, unheard-of by the inhabitants of the more western parts, enjoyed peace and liberty.

The Constantinopolitan empire continued to decline by reason of its continual wars with the Persians, Bulgarians, and other barbarous nations; to which also superstition and relaxation of military discipline largely contributed. The Persian empire also declined from the same causes, together with the intestine broils from which it was seldom free more than that of Constantinople. The history of the eastern part of the world during this period, therefore, consists only of the wars between these two great empires, of which an account is given under the articles Constantinople and Persia; and which were productive of no other consequence than that of weakening them both, and making them a more easy prey to those enemies who were now as it were in embryo, but shortly about to erect an empire almost as extensive as that of the Greeks or Romans.

Among the western nations, revolutions, as might naturally be expected from the character of the people, succeeded one another with rapidity. The Heruli under Odoacer were driven out by the Goths under Theodoric. The Goths were expelled by the Romans; and, while the two parties were contending, both were attacked by the Franks, who carried off an immense booty. The Romans were in their turn expelled by the Goths: the Franks again invaded Italy, and made themselves masters of the province of Venetia; but at last the superior fortune of the emperor of Constantinople prevailed, and the Goths were finally subdued in 553. Narves, the conqueror of the Goths, governed Italy as a province of the eastern empire till the year 568, when Longinus his successor made considerable alterations. The Italian provinces had ever since the time of Constantine the Great been governed by con- lares, correctores, and praefecti; no alteration having been made either by the Roman emperors, or the Gothic kings. But Longinus, being invested with absolute power by Justinian, suppressed those magistrates; and, instead of them, placed in each city of note a governor, whom he distinguished with the title of duke. The city of Rome was not more honoured than any other; for Longinus, having abolished the very name of senate and consuls, appointed a duke of Rome as well as of other cities. To himself he assumed the title of exarch; and, residing at Ravenna, his government was styled the exarchate of Ravenna. But while he was establishing this new empire, the greatest part of Italy was conquered by the Lombards.

In France a considerable revolution also took place. In 487, Clovis, the founder of the French monarchy, possessed himself of all the countries lying between the Rhine and the Loire. By force or treachery, he conquered all the petty kingdoms which had been erected in that country. His dominions had been divided, reunited, and divided again; and were on the point of being united a second time, when the great impostor Mahomet began to make a figure in the world.

In Spain, the Visigoths erected a kingdom ten years before the conquest of Rome by the Heruli. This kingdom they had extended eastward, about the same time that Clovis was extending his conquests to the west; so that the two kingdoms met at the river Loire. The consequence of this approach of such barbarous conquerors towards each other was an immediate war. Clovis proved victorious, and subdued great part of the country of the Visigoths, which put a final stop to their conquests on that side.

Another kingdom had been founded in the western parts of Spain by the Suevi, a considerable time before the Romans were finally expelled from that country. In 499, this kingdom was entirely subverted by Theodoric king of the Goths; and the Suevi were so pent up in a small district of Lusitania and Galicia, that it seemed impossible for them to recover themselves. During the above-mentioned period, however, while the attention of the Goths was turned another way, they had found means again to erect themselves into an independent state, and to become masters of considerably extended territories. But this success proved of short duration. In 584, the Goths attacked them; totally destroyed their empire a second time; and thus became masters of all Spain, except some small part which still owned subjection to the emperors of Constantinople. Of this part, however, the Goths became masters also in the year 623; which concludes the 9th general period.

Africa, properly so called, had changed its masters three times during this period. The Vandals had expelled the Romans, and erected an independent kingdom, which was at last overturned by the emperors of Constantinople; and from them the greatest part of it was taken by the Goths in 620.

10. At the commencement of the tenth general period (which begins with the flight of Mahomet in oral pe- Tenh period the year 622, from whence his followers date their con- cera called the Hegira), we see everything prepared for the great revolution which was now to take place: cens. the Roman empire in the west annihilated; the Persian empire and that of Constantinople weakened by mutual wars and intestine divisions; the Indians and other eastern nations unaccustomed to war, and ready to fall a prey to the first invader; the southern parts of Europe in a distracted and barbarous state; while the inhabitants of Arabia, from their earliest origin accustomed to war and plunder, and now united by the most violent superstition and enthusiastic desire of conquest, were like a flood pent up, and ready to overwhelm the rest of the world.—The northern nations of Europe and Asia, however formidable in after times, were at present unknown, and peaceable, at least with respect to their southern neighbours; so that there was in no quarter of the globe any power capable of opposing the conquests of the Arabs. With amazing celerity, therefore, they overran all Syria, Palestine, Persia, Bukharia, and India, extending their conquests farther to the eastward than ever Alexander had done. On the west side, their empire extended over Egypt, Barbary, and Spain, together with the islands of Sicily, Sardinia, Majorca, Minorca, &c. and many of the Archipelago islands; nor were the coasts of Italy itself free from their incursions; nay, they are even said to have reached the distant and barren country of Iceland. At last this great empire, as well as others, began to decline. Its ruin was very sudden, and owing to its internal divisions. Mahomet had not taken care to establish the apostleship in his family, or to give any particular directions about a successor. The consequence of this was, that the caliphate, or succession to the apostleship, was seized by many usurpers in different parts of the empire; while the true caliphs, who resided at Bagdad, gradually lost all power, and were regarded only as a kind of highpriests. Of these divisions the Turks took advantage to establish their authority in many provinces of the Mohammedan empire; but as they embraced the same religion with the Arabs, and were filled with the same enthusiastic desire of conquest, it is of little consequence to distinguish between them; as indeed it signified little to the world in general whether the Turks or Saracens were the conquerors, since both were cruel, barbarous, ignorant, and superstitious.

While the barbarians of the east were thus grasping at the empire of the whole world, great disturbances happened among the no less barbarous nations of the west. Superstition seems to have been the ruling motive in both cases. The Saracens and Turks conquered for the glory of God, or of his apostle Mahomet and his successors; the western nations professed an equal regard for the divine glory, but which was only to be perceived in the respect they paid to the pope and clergy. Ever since the establishment of Christianity by Constantine, the bishops of Rome had been gradually extending their power; and attempting not only to render themselves independent, but even to assume an authority over the emperors themselves. The destruction of the empire was so far from weakening their power, that it afforded them opportunities of greatly extending it, and becoming judges of the sovereigns of Italy themselves, whose barbarity and ignorance prompted them to submit to their decisions. All this time, however, they themselves had been in subjection to the emperors of Constantinople; but on the decline of that empire, they found means to get themselves exempted from this subjection. The principal authority in the city of Rome was then engrossed by the bishop; though of right it belonged to the duke appointed by the exarch of Ravenna. But though they had now little to fear from the eastern emperors, they were in great danger from the ambition of the Lombards, who aimed at the conquest of all Italy. This aspiring people the bishops of Rome determined to check; and therefore, in 726, when Luitprand king of the Lombards had taken Ravenna and expelled the exarch, the pope undertook to restore him. For this purpose he applied to the Venetians, who are now first mentioned in history as a state of any consequence; and by their means the exarch was restored. Some time before, a quarrel had happened between the pope (Gregory II.) and Leo emperor of the east, about the worship of images. Leo, who it seems, in the midst of so much barbarism, had still preserved some share of common sense and reason, reproached the worship of images in the strongest terms, and commanded them to be destroyed throughout his dominions. The pope, whose cause was favoured by the most absurd superstitions, and by these only, refused to obey the emperor's commands. The exarch of Ravenna, as a subject of the emperor, was ordered to force the pope to a compliance, and even to seize or assassinate him in case of a refusal. This excited the pious zeal of Luitprand to assist the pope, whom he had formerly designed to subdue: the exarch was first excommunicated, and then torn in pieces by the enraged multitude: the duke of Naples shared the same fate; and a vast number of the iconoclasts, or image-breakers, as they were called, were slaughtered without mercy: and to complete all, the subjects of the exarchate, at the instigation of the pope, renounced their allegiance to the emperor.

Leo was no sooner informed of this revolt than he ordered a powerful army to be raised, in order to reduce the rebels, and take vengeance on the pope. Alarmed at these warlike preparations, Gregory looked round for some power on which he might depend for protection. The Lombards were possessed of sufficient force, but they were too near and too dangerous neighbours to be trusted; the Venetians, though zealous Catholics, were as yet unable to withstand the force of the empire; Spain was overrun by the Saracens: the French seemed, therefore, the only people to whom it was advisable to apply for aid; as they were able to oppose the emperor, and were likewise enemies to his edict. Charles Martel, who at that time governed France as mayor of the palace, was therefore applied to; but before a treaty could be concluded, all the parties concerned were removed by death. Constantine Copronymus, who succeeded Leo at Constantinople, not only persisted in the opposition to image-worship begun by his predecessor, but prohibited also the invocation of saints. Zachary, who succeeded Gregory III. in the pontificate, proved as zealous an adversary as his predecessor. Pepin, who succeeded Charles Martel in the sovereignty of France, proved as powerful a friend to the pope as his father had been. The people of Rome had nothing to fear from Constantinople; and therefore drove out all the emperor's officers. The Lombards, awed by the power of France, for some time allowed the pope to govern in peace the dominions of the exarchate; but in 752, Astolphus king of Lombardy not only reduced the greatest part of the pope's territories, but threatened the city of Rome itself. Upon this an application was made to Pepin, who obliged Astolphus to restore the places he had taken, and gave them to the pope, or, as he said to St Peter. The Greek emperor to whom they of right belonged, remonstrated to no purpose. The pope from that time became possessed of considerable territories in Italy; which, from the manner of their donation, go under the name of St Peter's Patrimony. It was not, however, before the year 774 that the pope was fully secured in these new dominions. This was accomplished when the kingdom of the Lombards was totally destroyed by by Charlemagne, who was thereupon crowned king of Italy. Soon after this, the monarch made himself master of all the Low Countries, Germany, and part of Hungary; and in the year 800, was solemnly crowned by the pope emperor of the west.

Thus was the world once more divided into three great empires. The empire of the Arabs or Saracens extended from the river Ganges to Spain; comprehending almost all of Asia and Africa which has ever been known to Europeans, the kingdoms of China and Japan excepted. The eastern Roman empire was reduced to Greece, Asia Minor, and the provinces adjoining to Italy. The empire of the west, under Charlemagne, comprehended France, Germany, and the greatest part of Italy. The Saxons, however, as yet possessed Britain unmolested by external enemies, though the seven kingdoms erected by them were engaged in perpetual contests. The Venetians also enjoyed a nominal liberty; though it is probable that their situation would render them very much dependent on the great powers which surrounded them. Of all nations on earth, the Scots and Picts, and the remote ones of China and Japan seem to have enjoyed, from their situation, the greatest share of liberty; unless, perhaps, we except the Scandinavians, who, under the names of Danes and Normans, were soon to infest their southern neighbours. But of all the European potentates, the popes certainly exercised the greatest authority; since even Charlemagne himself submitted to accept the crown from their hands, and his successors made them the arbiters of their differences.

Matters, however, did not long continue in this state. The empire of Charlemagne was on the death of his son Lewis divided among his three children. Endless disputes and wars ensued among them, till at last the sovereign power was seized by Hugh Capet in 987. The Saxon heptarchy was dissolved in 827, and the whole kingdom of England reduced under one head. The Danes and Normans began to make depredations, and infest the neighbouring states. The former conquered the English Saxons, and seized the government, but were in their turn expelled by the Normans in 1066. In Germany and Italy the greatest disturbances arose from the contests between the popes and the emperors. To all this if we add the internal contests which happened through the ambition of the powerful barons of every kingdom, we can scarce form an idea of times more calamitous than those of which we now treat. All Europe, nay, all the world, was one great field of battle; for the empire of the Mahometans was not in a more settled state than that of the Europeans. Caliphs, sultans, emirs, &c. waged continual war with each other in every quarter; new sovereignties every day sprung up, and were as quickly destroyed. In short, through the ignorance and barbarity with which the whole world was overspread, it seemed in a manner impossible that the human race could long continue to exist; when happily the crusades, by directing the attention of the Europeans to one particular object, made them in some measure suspend their slaughters of one another.

11. The crusades originated from the superstition of the two grand parties into which the world was at that time divided, namely, the Christians and Mahometans. Both looked upon the small territory of Palestine, which they called the Holy Land, to be an invaluable acquisition, for which no sum of money could be an equivalent; and both took the most unjustifiable methods to accomplish their desires. The superstition of Omar the second caliph had prompted him to invade this country, part of the territories of the Greek emperor, who was doing him no hurt; and now when it had been so long under the subjection of the Mahometans, a similar superstition prompted the pope to send an army for the recovery of it. The crusaders accordingly poured forth in multitudes, like those with which the kings of Persia formerly invaded Greece; and their fate was pretty similar. Their impetuous valour at first, indeed, carried every thing before them; they recovered all Palestine, Phoenicia, and part of Syria, from the infidels; but their want of conduct soon lost what their valour had obtained, and very few of that vast multitude which had left Europe ever returned to their native countries. A second, a third, and several other crusades, were preached, and were attended with a like success in both respects: vast numbers took the cross, and repaired to the Holy Land; which they polluted with the most abominable massacres and treacheries, and from which very few of them returned. In the third crusade Richard I., of England was embarked, who seems to have been the best general that ever went into the east: but even his valour and skill were not sufficient to repair the faults of his companions; and he was obliged to return even after he had entirely defeated his antagonists, and was within sight of Jerusalem.

But while the Christians and Mahometans were thus superstitiously contending for a small territory in the western parts of Asia, the nations in the more easterly guls were threatened with total extermination. Jenghiz Khan, the greatest as well as the most bloody conqueror that ever existed, now makes his appearance. The rapidity of his conquests seemed to emulate those of Alexander the Great; and the cruelties he committed were altogether unparalleled. It is worth observing, that Jenghiz Khan and all his followers were neither Christians nor Mahometans, but strict deists. For a long time even the sovereign had not heard of a temple, or any particular place on earth appropriated by the deity to himself, and treated the notion with ridicule when it was first mentioned to him.

The Moguls, over whom Jenghiz Khan assumed the sovereignty, were a people of East Tartary, divided into a great number of petty governments as they are at this day, but who owned a subjection to one sovereign, whom they called Vang Khan, or the Great Khan. Temujin, afterwards Jenghiz Khan, was one of these petty princes; but unjustly deprived of the greatest part of his inheritance at the age of 13, which he could not recover till he arrived at that of 40. This corresponds with the year 1201, when he totally reduced the rebels; and as a specimen of his lenity caused 70 of their chiefs to be thrown into as many cauldrons of boiling water. In 1202, he defeated and killed Vang Khan himself (known to the Europeans by the name of Prefter John of Asia); and possessing himself of his vast dominions, became from thenceforward altogether irresistible. In 1206, having still continued to enlarge his dominions, he was declared khan of the Moguls and Tartars; and took upon him the title of Jenghiz Khan, or The most Great Khan of khans. This was followed by the reduction of the kingdom of Hya in China, Tangut, Kitay, Turkestan, Karazm (the kingdom of Gazna founded by Mahmud Gazni), Great Bukharia, Persia, and part of India; and all these vast regions were reduced in 26 years. The devastations and slaughters with which they were accomplished are unparalleled, no fewer than 14,470,000 persons being computed to have been massacred by Jenghiz Khan during the last 22 years of his reign. In the beginning of 1227 he died, thereby freeing the world from a most bloody tyrant. His successors completed the conquest of China and Korea; but were foiled in their attempts on Cochin-China, Tong-king, and Japan. On the western side the Tartar dominions were not much enlarged till the time of Hulaku, who conquered Media, Babylonia, Mefopotamia, Assyria, Syria, Georgia, Armenia, and almost all Asia Minor; putting an end to the empire of the Saracens by the taking of Bagdad in 1258.

The empire of Jenghiz Khan had the fate of all others. Being far too extensive to be governed by one head, it split into a multitude of small kingdoms, as it had been before his time. All these princes, however, owned allegiance to the family of Jenghiz Khan till the time of Timur Bek, or Tamerlane. The Turks, in the mean time, urged forward by the inundation of Tartars who poured in from the east, were forced upon the remains of the Greek empire; and at the time of Tamerlane above mentioned, they had almost confined this once mighty empire within the walls of Constantinople.

In the year 1335, the family of Jenghiz Khan becoming extinct in Persia, a long civil war ensued; during which Timur Bek, one of the petty princes among which the Tartar dominions were divided, found means to aggrandize himself in a manner similar to what Jenghiz Khan had done about 150 years before. Jenghiz Khan, indeed, was the model whom he proposed to imitate; but it must be allowed that Timur was more merciful than Jenghiz Khan, if indeed the word can be applied to such inhuman tyrants. The plan on which Jenghiz Khan conducted his expeditions was that of total extermination. For some time he utterly extirpated the inhabitants of those places which he conquered, defigning to people them anew with his Moguls; and in consequence of this revolution, he would employ his army in beheading 100,000 prisoners at once. Timur's cruelty, on the other hand, seldom went farther than the pounding of 3000 or 4000 people in large mortars, or building them among bricks and mortar into a wall. We must observe, however, that Timur was not a deist, but a Mahometan, and conquered expressly for the purpose of spreading the Mahometan religion; for the Moguls had now adopted all the superstitions and absurdities of Mahomet. Thus was all the eastern quarter of the world threatened anew with the most dreadful devastations, while the western nations were exhausting themselves in fruitless attempts to regain the Holy Land. The Turks were the only people who seem at this period to have been gathering strength, and by their perpetual encroachments threatened to swallow up the western nations as the Tartars had done the eastern ones.

In 1362, Timur invaded Bukharia, which he reduced in five years. He proceeded in his conquests, though not with the same celerity as Jenghiz Khan, till the year 1387, when he had subdued all Persia, Armenia, Georgia, Karazm, and great part of Tartary. After this he proceeded westward, subduing all the countries to the Euphrates; made himself master of Bagdad; and even entered Ruffia, where he pillaged the city of Moscow. From thence he turned his arms to the east, and totally subdued India. In 1393, he invaded and reduced Syria; and having turned his arms against the Turks, forced their sultan Bajazet to raise the siege of Constantinople. This brought on an engagement, in which Bajazet was entirely defeated and taken prisoner; which broke the power of the Turks to such a degree, that they were not for some time able to recover themselves. At last this great conqueror died in the year 1405, while on his way to conquer China, as Jenghiz Khan had done before him.

The death of Timur was followed almost immediately by the dissolution of his empire. Most of the nations he had conquered recovered their liberty. The Turks had now no further obstacle to their conquest of Constantinople. The western nations having exhausted themselves in the holy wars, as they were called, had lost that infatiable thirst after conquest which for so long time possessed the minds of men. They had already made considerable advances in civilization, and began to study the arts of peace. Gunpowder was invented, and its application to the purposes of war already known; and, though no invention threatened to be more destructive, perhaps none was ever more beneficial to the human race. By the use of fire-arms, nations are put more on a level with each other than formerly they were; war is reduced to a regular system, which may be studied with as much success as any other science. Conquests are not now to be made with the same ease as formerly; and hence the last ages of the world have been much more quiet and peaceable than the former ones. In 1453, the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks fixed that wandering people to one place; and though now they possess very large regions both in Europe, Asia, and Africa, an effectual stop hath long been put to their further progress.

About this time, also, learning began to revive in Europe, where it had been long lost; and the invention of printing, which happened about the same time, rendered it in a manner impossible for barbarism ever to take place in such a degree as formerly. All nations of the world, indeed, seem now at once to have laid aside much of their former ferocity; and, though wars have by no means been uncommon, they have not been carried on with such circumstances of fury and savage cruelty as before. Instead of attempting to enrich themselves by plunder, and the spoils of their neighbours, mankind in general have applied themselves to commerce, the only true and durable source of riches. This soon produced improvements in navigation; and these improvements led to the discovery of many regions formerly unknown. At the same time, the European European powers, being at last thoroughly sensible that extensive conquests could never be permanent, applied themselves more to provide for the security of those dominions which they already possessed, than to attempt the conquest of one another: and this produced the policy to which so much attention was lately paid, namely, the *preferring of the balance of Europe*; that is, preventing any one of the nations from acquiring sufficient strength to overpower another.

In the end of the 15th century, the vast continent of America was discovered; and, almost at the same time, the passage to the East Indies by the Cape of Good Hope. The discovery of these rich countries gave a new turn to the ambition of the Europeans. To enrich themselves either by the gold and silver produced in these countries, or by traffic with the natives, now became the object. The Portuguese had the advantage of being the first discoverers of the eastern, and the Spaniards of the western countries. The former did not neglect so favourable an opportunity of enriching themselves by commerce. Many settlements were formed by them in the East India islands, and on the continent; but their avarice and perfidious behaviour towards the natives proved at last the cause of their total expulsion. The Spaniards enriched themselves by the vast quantities of the precious metals imported from America, which were not obtained but by the most horrid massacres committed on the natives, and of which an account is given under the different names of the American countries. These possessions of the Spaniards and Portuguese soon excited other European nations to make attempts to share with them in their treasures, by planting colonies in different parts of America, and making settlements in the East Indies: and thus has the rage of war in some measure been transferred from Europe to these distant regions; and, after various contests, the British at last obtained a great superiority both in America and the East Indies.

In Europe the only considerable revolutions which happened during this period, were, The total expulsion of the Moors and Saracens from Spain, by the taking of Granada in 1491; the union of the kingdoms of Arragon and Castile, by the marriage of Ferdinand and Isabella; and the revolt of the states of Holland from the Spaniards. After much contention and bloodshed, these last obtained their liberty, and were declared a free people in 1609; since which time they have continued an independent and very considerable nation of Europe.

In Asia nothing of importance hath happened since the taking of Constantinople by the Turks. That continent is now divided among the following nations. The most northerly part, called Siberia, extending to the very extremity of the continent, is under the power of Russia. To the southward, from Asia Minor to China and Korea, are the Tartars, formidable indeed from their numbers, but, by reason of their barbarity and want of union, incapable of attempting anything. The Turks possess the western part of the continent, called Asia Minor, to the river Euphrates. The Arabs are again confined within their own peninsula; which they possess, as they have ever done, without owning subjection to any foreign power. To the east of Turkey in Asia lies Persia, now more confined in its limits than before; and to the eastward of Persia lies India, or the kingdom fate of the Mogul, comprehending all the country from the Indus to the Ganges, and beyond that river. Still farther to the east lie the kingdoms of Siam, Pegu, Thibet, and Cochin-China, little known to the Europeans. The vast empire of China occupies the most easterly part of the continent; while that of Japan comprehends the islands which go by that name, and which are supposed to lie at no great distance from the western coasts of America.

In Africa the Turks possess Egypt, which they conquered in 1517, and have a nominal jurisdiction over the states of Barbary. The interior parts are filled with barbarous and unknown nations, as they have always been. On the western coasts are many settlements of the European nations, particularly the British and Portuguese; and the southern extremity is possessed by the Dutch. The eastern coasts are almost totally unknown. The Asiatic and African islands are either possessed by the Europeans, or inhabited by savage nations.

The European nations at the beginning of the 17th century were Sweden, Mulcovy, Denmark, Poland, Britain, Germany, Holland, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Turkey in Europe. Of these the Ruffians, though the most barbarous, were by far the most considerable, both in regard to numbers and the extent of their empire; but their situation made them little feared by the others, who lay at a distance from them. The Kingdom of Poland, which was first set up in the year 1000, proved a barrier between Ruffia and Germany; and at the same time the policy above mentioned, of keeping up the balance of power in Europe, rendered it probable that no one European nation, whatever wars it might be engaged in, would have been totally destroyed, or ceased to exist as a distinct kingdom. The late dismemberment of Poland, however, or its partition between the three powers Russia, Hungary, and Prussia, was a step very inconsistent with the above political system; and it is surprising with what tameness it was acquiesced in by the other powers. Subsequent circumstances, particularly the passiveness with which the ambitious designs of Russia against the Porte have been so long beheld, seem to indicate a total dereliction of that scheme of equilibrium, formerly so wisely, though perhaps sometimes too anxiously, attended to.

The revolt of the British colonies in America, it was hoped by the enemies of Britain, would have given a fatal shock to her strength and wonted superiority. The consequences, however, have been very different. Those colonies, it is true, have been disjoined from the mother-country, and have attained an independent rank among the nations. But Britain has had no cause to repine at the separation. Divested only of a splendid encumbrance, an expensive and invidious appanage, she has been left to enjoy the undivided benefits of her native vigour, and to display new energies, which promise her mild empire a long and prosperous duration. On the other hand, it has been said, the flame which was to have blazed only to her prejudice, has brought confusion on her chief foe; and the ambition and tyranny of that branch of the house of Bourbon which has been long the pest of Europe, now lie humbled in the dust. The French, indeed, have thus become a nation of freemen as well as ourselves, and as well as the Americans; who, by the way, were never otherwife, nor ever knew what oppression was except in inflicting it upon their African brethren. But neither is the French revolution an event which Britons, as lovers of liberty and friends to the rights of mankind, should regret; or which, even in a political view, if duly considered, ought to excite either their jealousy or apprehension. The papal power, too, is declining; and the period seems to be approaching when the Roman pontiff will be reduced to his original title of bishop of Rome. Such was the language held for some years during the progress of the French revolution. But the extraordinary events which have since occurred, have totally changed the views and sentiments of mankind. The fair prospect of liberty which the friends of humanity hoped had begun to dawn on France, has quite vanished; and unfortunately the most powerful despot, as well as the most capricious tyrant, has seated himself on the throne of her ancient kings. The prediction with regard to the pope was more than verified by this usurper, at whose nod the head of the catholic church holds his authority; and at this moment (December 1806) the continent of Europe seems to be threatened with universal subjugation to the same restless and ambitious power.

Sect. II. Ecclesiastical History.

The history of religion, among all the different nations that have existed in the world, is a subject no less important and interesting than that of civil history. It is, however, less fertile of great events, affords an account of fewer revolutions, and is much more uniform, than civil history. The reason of this is plain. Religion is conversant about things which cannot be seen, and which of consequence cannot suddenly and strongly affect the senses of mankind, as natural things are apt to do. The expectation of worldly riches can easily induce one nation to attack another; but it is not easy to find any thing which will induce a nation to change its religion. The invisible nature of spiritual things, the prejudice of habit and of early education, all stand in the way of changes of this kind. Hence the revolutions in religion have been but few, and the duration of almost any religion of longer standing than the most celebrated empires; the changes which have happened, in general, have required a long time to bring them about, and history scarce affords an instance of the religion of any nation being essentially and suddenly changed for another.

With regard to the origin of religion, we must have recourse to the Scriptures; and are as necessarily constrained to adopt the account there given, as we are to adopt that of the creation given in the same book; namely, because no other hath made its appearance which seems in any degree rational, or consistent with itself.—In what manner the true religion given to Adam was falsified or corrupted by his descendants before the flood, doth not clearly appear from Scripture. Idolatry is not mentioned; nevertheless we are assured that the inhabitants of the world were then exceedingly wicked; and as their wickedness did not consist in worshipping false gods, it may be concluded that they worshipped none at all; i.e. that the crime of the antediluvians was deism or atheism.

After the flood, idolatry quickly made its appearance; but what gave rise to it is not certainly known. This superstition indeed seems to be natural to man, especially when placed in such a situation that he hath little opportunity of instruction, or of improving his rational faculties. This seems also probable from a caution given to the Jews, lest, when they looked up to the sun, moon, and stars, and the rest of the host of heaven, they should be driven to worship them. The origin of idolatry among the Syrians and Arabians, and also in Greece, is therefore accounted for with great probability in the following manner by the author of the Ruins of Balbeck. "In those uncomfortable deserts, where the day presents nothing to the view but the uniform, tedious, and melancholy prospect of barren lands, the night discloses a most delightful and magnificent spectacle, and appears arrayed with charms of the most attractive kind. For the most part unclouded and serene, it exhibits to the wondering eye the host of heaven in all their variety and glory. In the view of this stupendous scene, the transition from admiration to idolatry was too easy to un instructed minds; and a people whose climate offered no beauties to contemplate but those of the firmament, would naturally look thither for the objects of their worship. The form of idolatry in Greece was different from that of the Syrians; which perhaps may be attributed to that smiling and variegated scene of mountains, valleys, rivers, woods, groves, and fountains, which the transported imagination, in the midst of its pleasing astonishment, supposed to be the seats of invisible deities."

A difficulty, however, arises on this supposition; for if idolatry is naturally produced in the mind of un instructed and savage man from a view of the creation, why hath not idolatry of some kind or other taken place among all the different nations of the world? This certainly hath not been the case; of which the most striking examples are the Persians of old, and the Moguls in more modern times. Both these nations were strict deists; so that we must allow some other causes to concur in producing idolatry besides those already mentioned; and of these causes an imperfect and obscure notion of the true religion seems to be the most probable.

Though idolatry, therefore, was formerly very prevalent, it neither extended over the whole earth, nor count were the superstitions of the idolaters all of one kind, the Heaven nation had its respective gods, over which one then super more excellent than the rest was said to preside; yet in such a manner, that this supreme deity himself was controwled by the rigid empire of the fates, or by what philosophers called eternal necessity. The gods of the east were different from those of the Gauls, the Germans, and the other northern nations. The Grecian divinities differed widely from those of the Egyptians, who deified plants, animals, and a great variety of the productions both of nature and art. Each people also had their own particular manner of worshipping and appealing their respective deities, entirely different from the sacred rites of other countries. All this variety of religions, however, produced neither wars nor differences among the different nations; each nation suffered its neighbours to follow their own method of worship, without discovering any displeasure on that account. There There is nothing surprising in this mutual toleration, when we consider, that they all looked upon the world as one great empire, divided into various provinces, over each of which a certain order of divinities presided; for which reason they imagined that none could behold with contempt the gods of other nations, or force strangers to pay homage to theirs.—The Romans exercised this toleration in the most ample manner; for though they would not allow any change to be made in the religions that were publicly professed in the empire, nor any new form of worship to be openly introduced, yet they granted to their citizens a full liberty of observing in private the sacred rites of other nations, and of honouring foreign deities as they thought proper.

The heathen deities were honoured with rites and sacrifices of various kinds, according to their respective natures and offices. Their rites were absurd and ridiculous; while the priests, appointed to preside over this strange worship, abused their authority, by deceiving and imposing upon the people in the grossest manner.

From the time of the flood to the coming of Christ, idolatry prevailed among almost all the nations of the world, the Jews alone excepted; and even they were on all occasions ready to run into it, as is evident from their history in the Old Testament. At the time of Christ's appearance, the religion of the Romans, as well as their empire, extended over a great part of the world. Some people there were among the heathens who perceived the absurdities of that system; but being destitute of means, as well as of abilities, to effect a reformation, matters went on in their old way. Though there were at that time various sects of philosophers, yet all of them proceeded upon false principles, and consequently could be of no service to the advancement or reformation of religion. Nay, some, among whom were the Epicureans and Academics, declared openly against every kind of religion whatever.

Two religions at this time flourished in Palestine, viz. the Jewish and Samaritan; between whose respective followers reigned the most violent hatred or contempt. The difference between them seems to have been chiefly about the place of worship; which the Jews would have to be in Jerusalem, and the Samaritans on Mount Gerizim. But though the Jews were certainly right as to this point, they had greatly corrupted their religion in other respects. They expected a Saviour indeed, but they mistook his character; imagining that he was to be a powerful and warlike prince, who should set them free from the Roman yoke, which they bore with the utmost impatience. They also imagined that the whole of religion consisted in observing the rites of Moses, and some others which they had added to them, without the least regard to what is commonly called morality or virtue; as is evident from the many charges our Saviour brings against the Pharisees, who had the greatest reputation for sanctity among the whole nation. To these corrupt and vicious principles, they added several absurd and superstitious notions concerning the divine nature, invisible powers, magic, &c. which they had partly imbibed during the Babylonian captivity, and partly derived from their neighbours in Arabia, Syria and Egypt. The principal sects among them were the Essenes or Essenians, Pharisees, and Sadducees. The Samaritans, according to the most general opinion, had corrupted their religion still more than the Jews.

When the true religion was preached by the Saviour of mankind, it is not to be wondered at if he became on that account obnoxious to a people so deeply sunk in corruption and ignorance as the Jews then were. It is not here requisite to enter into the particulars of the doctrine advanced by him, or of the opposition he met with from the Jews; as a full account of these things, and likewise of the preaching of the gospel by the apostles, may be found in the New Testament.—The rapid progress of the Christian religion, under these faithful and inspired ministers, soon alarmed the Jews, and railed various persecutions against its followers. The Jews, indeed, seem at first to have been everywhere the chief promoters of persecution; for we find that they officiously went from place to place, wherever they heard of the increase of the gospel, and by their calumnies and false suggestions endeavoured to excite the people against the apostles. The Heathens, however, though at first they showed no very violent spirit of persecution against the Christians, soon came to hate them as much as the Jews themselves. Tacitus acquaints us with the causes of this hatred, when speaking of the first general persecution under Nero. "That inhuman emperor having, as was supposed, set fire to the city of Rome, to avoid the imputation of this wickedness, transferred it on the Christians. Our author informs us that they were already abhorred on account of their many and enormous account of crimes. 'The author of this name (Christians),' says the Tactius, 'was Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was executed under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea. The pestilent superstition was for a while suppressed: but it revived again, and spread, not only over Judea, where this evil was first broached, but reached Rome, whither from every quarter of the earth is constantly flowing whatever is hideous and abominable amongst men, and is there readily embraced and practised. First, therefore, were apprehended such as openly avowed themselves to be of that sect; then by them were discovered an immense multitude; and all were convicted, not of the crime of burning Rome, but of hatred and enmity to mankind. Their death and tortures were aggravated by cruel derision and sport; for they were either covered with the skins of wild beasts and torn in pieces by devouring dogs, or fattened to crosses, or wrapped up in combustible garments, that, when the day-light failed, they might, like torches, serve to dispel the darkness of the night. Hence, towards the miserable sufferers, however guilty and deserving the most exemplary punishment, compassion arose; seeing they were doomed to perish not with a view to the public good, but to gratify the cruelty of one man.'"

That this account of Tacitus is downright misrepresentation and calumny, must be evident to every one who reads it. It is impossible that any person can be convicted of hatred and enmity to mankind, without specifying a number of facts by which this hatred showed itself. The burning of Rome would indeed have been a very plain indication of enmity to mankind; but of this Tacitus himself clears them, and and mentions no other crime of which they were guilty. It is probable, therefore, that the only reason of this charge against the Christians, was their absolute refusal to have any share in the Roman worship, or to countenance the absurd superstitions of Paganism in any degree.

The persecution under Nero was succeeded by another under Domitian; during which the apostle John was banished to Patmos, where he saw the visions, and wrote the book called his Revelation, which completes the canon of Scripture. This persecution commenced in the 95th year of the Christian era; and John is supposed to have written his Revelation the year after, or in the following one.

During the first century, the Christian religion spread over a great number of different countries; but as we have now no authentic records concerning the travels of the apostles, or the succels which attended them in their ministry, it is impossible to determine how far the gospel was carried during this period. We are, however, assured, that even during this early period many corruptions were creeping in, the progress of which was with difficulty prevented even by the apostles themselves. Some corrupted their profession by a mixture of Judaism, others by mixing it with the oriental philosophy; while others were already attempting to deprive their brethren of liberty, setting themselves up as eminent pastors, in opposition even to the apostles, as we learn from the epistles of St Paul, and the third epistle of St John. Hence arose the sects of the Gnostics, Cerinthians, Nicolaitans, Nazarenes, Ebionites, &c. with which the church was troubled during this century.

Concerning the ceremonies and method of worship used by the Christians of the first century, it is impossible to lay any thing with certainty. Neither is the church order, government, and discipline, during this period, ascertained with any degree of exactness. Each of those parties, therefore, which exist at this day, contends with the greatest earnestness for that particular mode of worship which they themselves have adopted; and some of the most bigotted would willingly monopolize the word church in such a manner as to exclude from all hope of salvation every one who is not attached to their particular party. It doth not however appear that, excepting baptism, the Lord's supper, and anointing the sick with oil, any external ceremonies or symbols were properly of divine appointment. According to Dr Molheim, "there are several circumstances which incline us to think, that the friends and apostles of our blest Lord either tolerated through necessity, or appointed for wise reasons, many other external rites in various places. At the same time, we are not to imagine, that they ever conferred upon any person a perpetual, indelible, pontifical authority, or that they enjoined the same rites in all churches. We learn, on the contrary, from authentic records, that the Christian worship was from the beginning celebrated in a different manner in different places; and that, no doubt, by the orders, or at least with the approbation, of the apostles and their disciples. In those early times, it was both wise and necessary to show, in the establishment of outward forms of worship, some indulgence to the ancient opinions, manners, and laws, of the respective nations to whom the gospel was preached."

The second century commences with the third year of the emperor Trajan. The Christians were still persecuted; but as the Roman emperors were for the most part of this century princes of a mild and moderate turn, they persecuted less violently than formerly. Marcus Aurelius, notwithstanding the clemency and philosophy for which he is so much celebrated, treated the Christians worse than Trajan, Adrian, or even Severus himself did, who was noted for his cruelty. This respite from vigorous persecution proved a very favourable circumstance for the spreading of the Christian religion; yet it is by no means easy to point out the particular countries through which it was diffused. We are, however, assured, that in the second century, Christ was worshipped as God almost through the whole east; as also among the Germans, Spaniards, Celtes, and many other nations; but which of them received the gospel in the first century, and which in the second, is a question unanswerable at this distance of time. The writers of this century attribute the rapid progress of Christianity chiefly to the extraordinary gifts that were imparted to the first Christians, and the miracles which were wrought at their command; without supposing that any part of the succels ought to be ascribed to the intervention of human means, or secondary causes. Many of the moderns, however, are so far from being of this opinion, that they are willing either to deny the authenticity of all miracles said to have been wrought since the days of the apostles, or to ascribe them to the power of the devil. To enter into the particulars of this controversy is foreign to our present purpose; for which reason we must refer to the writers of polemic divinity, who have largely treated of this and other points of a similar nature.

The corruptions which had been introduced in the first century, and which were almost coeval with Christianity itself, continued to gain ground in the second. Ceremonies, in themselves futile and useless, but which must be considered as highly pernicious when joined to a religion incapable of any other ornament than the upright and virtuous conduct of its professors, were multiplied for no other purpose than to please the ignorant multitude. The immediate consequence of this was, that the attention of Christians was drawn aside from the important duties of morality; and they were led to imagine, that a careful observance of the ceremonies might make amends for the neglect of moral duties. This was the most pernicious opinion that could possibly be entertained; and was indeed the very foundation of that enormous system of ecclesiastical power which afterwards took place, and held the whole world in slavery and barbarism for many ages.

Another mischief was the introduction of mysteries, as they were called, into the Christian religion; that is, infinishing that some parts of the worship in common use had a hidden efficacy and power far superior to the plain and obvious meaning assigned to them by the vulgar: and by paying peculiar respect to these mysteries, the pretended teachers of the religion of Jesus accommodated their doctrines to the taste of their heathen neighbours, whose religion consisted in a heap of mysteries, of which nobody knew the meaning. By these, and other means of a similar kind, the Christian pastors greatly abridged the liberty of their flock. Being masters of the ceremonies and mysteries of the Christian religion, they had it in their power to make their followers worship and believe whatever they thought proper; and this they did not fail to make use of for their own advantage. They persuaded the people, that the ministers of the Christian church succeeded to the character, rights, and privileges, of the Jewish priesthood; and accordingly the bishops considered themselves as invested with a rank and character similar to that of the high-priest among the Jews, while the presbyters represented the priests, and the deacons the Levites. This notion, which was first introduced in the reign of Adrian, proved a source of very considerable honour and profit to the clergy.

The form of ecclesiastical government was in this century rendered permanent and uniform. One inspector or bishop presided over each Christian assembly, to which office he was elected by the voices of the whole people. To assist him in his office, he formed a council of presbyters, which was not confined to any stated number. To the bishops and presbyters the ministers or deacons were subject; and the latter were divided into a variety of classes, as the different exigencies of the church required. During a great part of this century, the churches were independent of each other; nor were they joined together by association, confederacy, or any other bonds but those of charity. Each assembly was a little state governed by its own laws, which were either enacted, or at least approved of, by the society. But in process of time all the Christian churches of a province were formed into one large ecclesiastical body, which, like confederate states, assembled at certain times, in order to deliberate about the common interests of the whole. This institution had its origin among the Greeks; but in a short time it became universal, and similar assemblies were formed in all places where the gospel had been planted. These assemblies, which consisted of the deputies or commissioners from several churches, were called synods by the Greeks, and councils by the Latins; and the laws enacted in these general meetings were called canons, i.e. rules.

These councils, of which we find not the smallest trace before the middle of this century, changed the whole face of the church, and gave it a new form; for by them the ancient privileges of the people were considerably diminished, and the power and authority of the bishops greatly augmented. The humility, indeed, and prudence, of these pious prelates hindered them from assuming all at once the power with which they were afterwards invested. At their first appearance in these general councils, they acknowledged that they were no more than the delegates of their respective churches, and that they acted in the name and by the appointment of their people. But they soon changed this humble tone; imperceptibly extended the limits of their authority; turned their influence into dominion, their counsels into laws; and at length openly asserted, that Christ had empowered them to prescribe to his people authoritative rules of faith and manners. Another effect of these councils was the gradual abolition of that perfect equality which reigned among all bishops in the primitive times; for the order and decency of these assemblies required, that some one of the provincial bishops met in council should be invested with a superior degree of power and authority; and hence the rights of metropolitans derive their origin. In the mean time, the bounds of the church were enlarged; the custom of holding councils was followed wherever the sound of the gospel had reached; and the universal church had now the appearance of one vast republic formed by a combination of a great number of little states. This occasioned the creation of a new order of ecclesiastics, who were appointed in different parts of the world as heads of the church, and whose office it was to preserve the confixture and union of that immense body, whose members were so widely dispersed throughout the nations. Such was the nature and office of the Patriarchs; among whom, at length, ambition, being arrived at its most insolent period, formed a new dignity, investing the bishop of Rome with the title and authority of the Prince of the Patriarchs.

During the second century, all the sects continued which had sprung up in the first, with the addition of several others; the most remarkable of which were the Aæcetics. These owed their rise to an error propagated by some doctors of the church, who asserted that Christ had established a double rule of sanctity and virtue for two different orders of Christians. Of these rules, one was ordinary, the other extraordinary; the one of a lower dignity, the other more sublime: the first for persons in the active scenes of life; the other for those who, in a sacred retreat, aspired after the glory of a celestial state. In consequence of this system, they divided into two parts all those moral doctrines and instructions which they had received either by writing or tradition. One of these divisions they called precepts, and the other counsels. They gave the name of precepts to those laws that were universally obligatory upon all orders of men; and that of counsels to those which related to Christians of a more sublime rank, who proposed to themselves great and glorious ends, and breathed after an intimate communion with the Supreme Being.—Thus were produced all at once a new set of men, who made pretensions to uncommon sanctity and virtue, and declared their resolution of obeying all the precepts and counsels of Christ, in order to their enjoyment and communion with God here, and also that, after the dissolution of their mortal bodies, they might ascend to him with the greater facility, and find nothing to retard their approach to the centre of happiness and perfection. They looked upon themselves as prohibited from the use of things which it was lawful for other Christians to enjoy; such as wine, flesh, matrimony, and commerce. They thought it their indispensable duty to extenuate their body by watchings, abstinence, labour, and hunger. They looked for felicity in solitary retreats, and desert places; where, by severe and arduous efforts of sublime meditation, they raised the soul above all external objects, and all sensual pleasures. They were distinguished from other Christians, not only by the titles of Aæcetics, Σπουδαῖοι, Εὐλείπτοι, and philosophers, but also by their garb. In this century, indeed, those who embraced such an austere kind of life, submitted themselves to all these mortifications in private, without breaking asunder their social bands, or withdrawing themselves from mankind; but in process of time they retired into deserts, and, after the example of the Essenes and Therapeutae, they formed themselves into certain companies.

This austere sect arose from an opinion which has been more or less prevalent in all ages and in all countries, namely, that religion consists more in prayers, meditations, and a kind of secret intercourse with God, than in fulfilling the social duties of life in acts of benevolence and humanity to mankind. Nothing can be more evident than that the Scripture reckons the fulfilling of these infinitely superior to the observance of all the ceremonies that can be imagined: yet it somehow or other happens, that almost every body is more inclined to observe the ceremonial part of devotion than the moral; and hence, according to the different humours or constitutions of different persons, there have been numberless forms of Christianity, and the most virulent contentions among those who professed themselves followers of the Prince of Peace. It is obvious, that if the moral conduct of Christians was to be made the standard of faith, instead of speculative opinions, all these divisions must cease in a moment; but while Christianity, or any part of it, is made to consist in speculation, or the observance of ceremonies, it is impossible there can be any end of sects or heresies. No opinion whatever is so absurd, but some people have pretended to argue in its defence; and no ceremony so insignificant, but it hath been explained and sanctified by hot-headed enthusiasts; and hence ceremonies, sects, and absurdities, have been multiplied without number, to the prejudice of society and of the Christian religion. This short relation of the rise of the Aesthetic sect will also serve to account for the rise of any other; so that we apprehend it is needless to enter into particulars concerning the rest, as they all took their origin from the same general principle variously modified, according to the different dispositions of mankind.

The Aesthetic sect began first in Egypt, from whence it passed into Syria and the neighbouring countries. At length it reached the European nations; and hence that train of austere and superstitious vows and rites which totally obscured, or rather annihilated, Christianity; the celibacy of the clergy, and many other absurdities of the like kind. The errors of the Aesthetics, however, did not stop here: In compliance with the doctrines of some Pagan philosophers, they affirmed, that it was not only lawful, but even praiseworthy to deceive, and to use the expedient of a lie, in order to advance the cause of piety and truth; and hence the pious frauds for which the church of Rome hath been so notorious, and with which she hath been so often and justly reproached.

As Christians thus deviated more and more from the true practice of their religion, they became more zealous in the external profession of it. Anniversary festivals were celebrated in commemoration of the death and resurrection of Christ, and of the effusion of the Holy Ghost on the apostles. Concerning the days on which these festivals were to be kept, there arose violent contests. The Asiatic churches in general differed in this point from those of Europe; and towards the conclusion of the second century, Victor bishop of Rome took it in his head to force the eastern churches to follow the rules laid down by the western ones.—This they absolutely refused to comply with: upon which Victor cut them off from communion with the church of Rome; though, by means of the intercession of some prudent people, the difference was made up for the present.

During most of the third century, the Christians were allowed to enjoy their religion, such as it was, without molestation. The emperors Maximinus and Decius, indeed, made them feel all the rigours of a severe persecution; but their reigns were short, and from the death of Decius to the time of Diocletian the church enjoyed tranquillity. Thus vast multitudes were converted; but, at the same time, the doctrine grew daily more corrupt, and the lives of professed Christians more wicked and scandalous. New ceremonies were invented in great numbers, and an unaccountable passion now prevailed for the oriental superstitions concerning demons, whence proceeded the whole train of exorcisms, spells, and fears for the apparition of evil spirits, which to this day are nowhere eradicated. Hence also the custom of avoiding all connections with those who were not baptized, or who lay under the penalty of excommunication, as persons supposed to be under the dominion of some evil spirit. And hence the rigour and severity of that discipline and penance imposed upon those who had incurred, by their immorality, the censure of the church. Several alterations were now made in the manner of celebrating the Lord's supper. The prayers used on this occasion were lengthened, and the solemnity and pomp with which it was attended were considerably increased. Gold and silver vessels were used in the celebration; it was thought essential to salvation, and for that reason administered even to infants. Baptism was celebrated twice a-year to such as, after a long course of trial and preparations, offered themselves candidates. The remission of sins was thought to be its immediate consequence; while the bishop, by prayer and imposition of hands, was supposed to confer those sanctifying gifts of the Holy Ghost that were necessary to a life of righteousness and virtue. An evil demon was supposed naturally to reside in every person, who was the author and source of all the corrupt dispositions and unrighteous actions of that person. The driving out of this demon was therefore an essential requisite for baptism; and in consequence of this opinion, the baptized persons returned home clothed in white garments, and adorned with crowns, as sacred emblems, the former of their inward purity and innocence, and the latter of their victory over sin and the world.—Fasting began now to be held in more esteem than formerly. A high degree of sanctity was attributed to this practice; it was even looked upon as indispensably necessary, from a notion that the demons directed their force chiefly against those who pampered themselves with delicious fare, and were less troublesome to the lean and hungry who lived under the severities of a rigorous abstinence.—The sign of the cross also was supposed to administer a victorious power over all sorts of trials and calamities; and was more especially considered as the surest defence against the snares and stratagems of malignant spirits; for which reason, no Christian undertook any thing of moment, "without arming himself, as he imagined, with the power of this triumphant sign. The heresies which troubled the the church during this century, were the GNOSTICS, (whose doctrines were new-modelled and improved by Manes, from whom they were afterwards chiefly called Manicheans), the HIERACITES, NOETIANS, SABELLIANS, and NOVATIANS; for a particular account of which, see those articles.

The fourth century is remarkable for the establishment of Christianity by law in the Roman empire; which, however, did not take place till the year 324. In the beginning of the century, the empire was governed by four chiefs, viz. Diocletian, Maximian, Constantius Chlorus, and Galerius, under whom the church enjoyed a perfect toleration. Diocletian, though much addicted to superstition, had no ill-will against the Christians; and Constantius Chlorus, having abandoned polytheism, treated them with condescension and benevolence. This alarmed the Pagan priests, whose interests were so closely connected with the continuance of the ancient superstitions; and who apprehended, not without reason, that the Christian religion would at length prevail throughout the empire. To prevent the downfall of the Pagan superstition, therefore, they applied to Diocletian and Galerius Caesar, by whom a most bloody persecution was commenced in the year 303, and continued till 311. An asylum, however, was opened for the Christians in the year 304. Galerius having dethroned Diocletian and Maximian, declared himself emperor in the east; leaving all the western provinces, to which great numbers of Christians resorted to avoid the cruelty of the former, to Constantius Chlorus. At length Galerius, being overtaken with an incurable and dreadful disease, published an edict ordering the persecution to cease, and restoring freedom to the Christians, whom he had most inhumanly oppressed for eight years. Galerius died the same year; and in a short time after, when Constantine the Great ascended the throne, the Christians were freed from any farther uneasiness, by his abrogating all the penal laws against them; and afterwards issuing edicts, by which no other religion than the Christian was tolerated throughout the empire.

This event, however, so favourable to the outward peace of the church, was far from promoting its internal harmony, or the reformation of its leaders. The clergy, who had all this time been augmenting their power at the expense of the liberty of the people, now set no bounds to their ambition. The bishop of Rome was the first in rank, and distinguished by a sort of pre-eminence above the rest of the prelates. He surpassed all his brethren in the magnificence and splendour of the church over which he presided, in the riches of his revenues and possessions, in the number and variety of his ministers, in his credit with the people, and in his sumptuous and splendid manner of living. Hence it happened, that when a new pontiff was to be chosen by the prebys ters and people, the city of Rome was generally agitated with diffusions, tumults, and cabals, which often produced fatal consequences. The intrigues and disturbances which prevailed in that city in the year 366, when, upon the death of Liberius, another pontiff was to be chosen in his place, are a sufficient proof of what we have advanced. Upon this occasion, one faction elected Damasus to that high dignity; while the opposite party chose Ursicinus, a deacon of the vacant church, to succeed Liberius. This double election gave rise to a dangerous schism, and to a sort of civil war within the city of Rome; which was carried on with the utmost barbarity and fury, and produced the most cruel massacres and desolations. The inhuman contest ended in the victory of Damasus; but whether his cause was more just than that of Ursicinus, is not so easily determined.

Notwithstanding the pomp and splendour which surrounded the Roman see, it is certain that the bishops of Rome had not yet acquired that pre-eminence of power and jurisdiction which they afterwards enjoyed. In the ecclesiastical commonwealth, indeed, they were the most eminent order of citizens; but still they were citizens as well as their brethren, and subject, like them, to the laws and edicts of the emperors. All religious causes of extraordinary importance were examined and determined either by judges appointed by the emperors, or in councils assembled for that purpose; while those of inferior moment were decided in each district by its respective bishop. The ecclesiastical laws were enacted either by the emperor or councils. None of the bishops acknowledged that they derived their authority from the permission and appointment of the bishop of Rome, or that they were created bishops by the favour of the apostolic see. On the contrary, they all maintained that they were the ambassadors and ministers of Jesus Christ, and that their authority was derived from above. It must, however, be observed, that even in this century several of those steps were laid by which the bishops of Rome mounted afterwards to the summit of ecclesiastical power and despotism. This happened partly by the imprudence of the emperors, partly by the dexterity of the Roman prelates themselves, and partly by the inconsiderate zeal and precipitate judgment of certain bishops. The imprudence of the emperor, and precipitation of the bishops, were remarkably discovered in the following event, which favoured extremely the ambition of the Roman pontiff. About the year 372, Valentinian enacted a law, empowering the bishop of Rome to examine and judge other bishops, that religious disputes might not be decided by any profane or secular judges. The bishops assembled in council at Rome in 378, not considering the fatal consequences that must arise from this imprudent law both to themselves and to the church, declared their approbation in the strongest terms, and recommended the execution of it in their address to the emperor Gratian. Some think, indeed, that this law empowered the Roman bishop to judge only the bishops within the limits of his jurisdiction; others, that his power was given only for a certain time, and for a particular purpose. This last notion seems the most probable; but still this privilege must have been an excellent instrument in the hands of a-cerdotal ambition.

By the removal of the seat of empire to Constantinople, the emperor raised up, in the bishop of this new metropolis, a formidable opponent to the bishop of Rome, and a bulwark which threatened a vigorous opposition to his growing authority. For as the emperor, in order to render Constantinople a second Rome, enriched it with all the rights and privileges, honours and ornaments, of the ancient capital of the world; world; so its bishop, measuring his own dignity and rank by the magnificence of the new city, and its eminence as the residence of the emperor, assumed an equal degree of dignity with the bishop of Rome, and claimed a superiority over the rest of the episcopal order. Nor did the emperors disapprove of these high pretensions, since they considered their own dignity as connected in a certain measure with that of the bishop of their imperial city. Accordingly, in a council held at Constantinople in the year 381, by the authority of Theodosius the Great, the bishop of that city was, during the absence of the bishop of Alexandria, and against the consent of the Roman prelate, placed by the third canon of that council in the first rank after the bishop of Rome, and consequently above those of Alexandria and Antioch. Nectarius was the first bishop who enjoyed these new honours accumulated upon the see of Constantinople. His successor, the celebrated John Chrysostom, extended still farther the privileges of that see, and submitted to its jurisdiction all Thrace, Asia, and Pontus; nor were the succeeding bishops of that imperial city destitute of a fervent zeal to augment their privileges and extend their dominion. By this unexpected promotion, the most disagreeable effects were produced. The bishops of Alexandria were not only filled with the most inveterate hatred against those of Constantinople, but contention was excited between the bishops of Rome and Constantinople; which, after being carried on for many ages, concluded at last in the separation of the Greek and Latin churches.

Constantine the Great, in order to prevent civil commotions, and to fix his authority on a stable and solid foundation, made several changes not only in the laws of the empire, but also in the form of the Roman government. And as there were many important reasons which induced him to suit the administration of the church to these changes in the civil constitution, this necessarily introduced among the bishops new degrees of eminence and rank. The four bishops, of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria, were distinguished by a certain degree of pre-eminence over the rest. These four prelates answered to the four praetorian prefects created by Constantine; and it is possible, that even in this century they were distinguished by the Jewish title of patriarchs. After these followed the exarchs, who had the inspection of several provinces, and answered to the appointment of certain civil officers who bore the same title. In a lower class were the metropolitans, who had only the government of one province; under whom were the archbishops, whose inspection was confined to certain districts. In this gradation the bishops brought up the rear; but the sphere of their authority was not in all places equally extensive; being in some considerably ample, and in others confined within narrow limits. To these various ecclesiastical orders we might add that of the chor-episcopi, or superintendents of the country churches; but this last order was in most places suppressed by the bishops, with a design to extend their own authority, and enlarge the sphere of their power and jurisdiction. The administration of the church itself was divided by Constantine into an external and internal inspection. The latter, which was committed to bishops and councils, related to religious controversies, the forms of divine worship, the offices of priests, the vices of the ecclesiastical orders, &c. The external administration of the church the emperor assumed to himself. This comprehended all those things which related to the outward state and discipline of the church; it likewise extended to all contests that should arise between the ministers of the church, superior as well as inferior, concerning their possessions, their reputation, their rights and privileges, their offences against the laws, &c., but no controversies that related to matters purely spiritual were cognizable by this external inspection. In consequence of this artful division of the ecclesiastical government, Constantine and his successors called councils, presided in them, appointed the judges of religious controversies, terminated the differences which arose between the bishops and the people, fixed the limits of the ecclesiastical provinces, took cognizance of the civil causes that subsisted between the ministers of the church, and punished the crimes committed against the laws by the ordinary judges appointed for that purpose; giving over all causes purely ecclesiastical to the bishops and councils. But this famous division of the administration of the church was never explained with sufficient accuracy; so that both in the fourth and fifth centuries, there are frequent instances of the emperors determining matters purely ecclesiastical, and likewise of bishops and councils determining matters which related merely to the external form and government of the church.

After the time of Constantine many additions were made by the emperors and others to the wealth and lives of the honours of the clergy; and these additions were followed by a proportional increase of their vices and luxury, particularly among those who lived in great and opulent cities. The bishops, on the one hand, contended with each other in the most scandalous manner concerning the extent of their respective jurisdictions; while, on the other, they trampled on the rights of the people, violated the privileges of the inferior ministers, and imitated in their conduct and in their manner of living the arrogance, voluptuousness, and luxury of magistrates and princes. This pernicious example was soon followed by the several ecclesiastical orders. The prebendaries, in many places, assumed an equality with the bishops in point of rank and authority. Many complaints are also made by the authors of this century about the vanity and effeminacy of the deacons. Those more particularly of the presbyters and deacons who filled the first stations of these orders, carried their pretensions to an extravagant length, and were offended at the notion of being placed on an equality with their colleagues. For this reason they not only assumed the titles of arch-presbyters, and arch-deacons, but also claimed a degree of authority and power much superior to that which was vested in the other members of their respective orders.

In the fifth century, the bishops of Constantinople having already reduced under their jurisdiction all the Asiatic provinces, began to grasp at still further accessions of power. By the 28th canon of the council held at Chalcedon in 451, it was resolved, that the fame and rights and honours which had been conferred on the bishop of Rome were due to the bishop of Constantinople, on account of the equal dignity and lustre of the two cities in which these prelates exercised their authority. authority. The same council confirmed also, by a solemn act, the bishop of Constantinople in the spiritual government of those provinces over which he had usurped the jurisdiction. Leo the Great, bishop of Rome, opposed with vehemence the passing of these laws; and his opposition was seconded by that of several other prelates. But their efforts were vain, as the emperors threw in their weight into the balance, and thus supported the decisions of the Grecian bishops. In consequence, then, of the decisions of this famous council, the bishop of Constantinople began to contend obstinately for the supremacy with the Roman pontiff, and to crush the bishops of Antioch and Alexandria. About the same time, Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem, attempted to withdraw himself and his church from the jurisdiction of the bishop of Caesarea, and aspired after a place among the first prelates of the Christian world. The high degree of veneration and esteem in which the church of Jerusalem was held among all other Christian societies (on account of its rank among the apostolical churches, and its title to the appellation of mother-church, as having succeeded the first Christian assembly formed by the apostles), was extremely favourable to the ambition of Juvenal, and rendered his project much more practicable than it would otherwise have been. Encouraged by this, and likewise by the protection of Theodosius the younger, this aspiring prelate not only assumed the dignity of patriarch of all Palestine, a rank which rendered him independent of all spiritual authority; but also invaded the rights of the bishop of Antioch, and usurped his jurisdiction over the provinces of Phoenicia and Arabia. Hence arose a warm contest between Juvenal and Maximus bishop of Antioch; which the council of Chalcedon decided, by referring to the latter the provinces of Phoenicia and Arabia, and confirming the former in the spiritual possession of all Palestine and in the high rank which he had assumed in the church.

In 588, John, bishop of Constantinople, surnamed the Faster, either by his own authority or that of the emperor Mauritius, summoned a council at Constantinople to inquire into an accusation brought against Gregory, bishop of Antioch; and upon this occasion assumed the title of ecumenical or universal bishop. This title had been formerly enjoyed by the bishops of Constantinople without any offence; but now, Gregory the Great, at that time bishop of Rome, suspecting that John was aiming at the supremacy over all the churches, opposed his claim with the greatest vigour. For this purpose he applied by letters to the emperor, and others, whom he thought capable of assisting him in his opposition; but all his efforts were without effect; and the bishops of Constantinople were allowed to enjoy the disputed title, though not in the sense which had alarmed the Roman pontiff.

Gregory, however, adhered tenaciously to his purpose, raised new tumults and dissensions among the clergy, and aimed at nothing less than an unlimited supremacy over the Christian church. This ambitious design succeeded in the west; while in the eastern provinces, his arrogant pretensions were scarcely respected by any but those who were at enmity with the bishop of Constantinople. How much the people were at this time deluded by the Roman pontiffs, appears from the expression of Ennodius, one of the flatterers of Symmachus (who was a prelate of but ambiguous fame), that the Roman pontiff was constituted judge in the place of God, which he filled as the vicegerent of the Most High. On the other hand, it is certain, from a variety of the most authentic records, that both the emperors and the nations in general were far from being disposed to bear with patience the yoke of servitude which the see of Rome was arrogantly imposing on the whole church.

In the beginning of the seventh century, according to the most learned historians, Boniface III. engaged the Phocas, emperor of Constantinople, to take from the bishop of that metropolis the title of ecumenical or universal bishop, and to confer it upon the Roman pontiff; and thus was first introduced the supremacy of the pope. The Roman pontiffs used all methods to maintain and enlarge this authority and pre-eminence, which they had acquired from one of the most odious tyrants that ever disgraced the annals of history.

In the eighth century, the power of the bishop of Rome, and of the clergy in general, increased prodigiously. The chief cause of this, besides the superstition of the people, was the method at that time used by the European princes to secure themselves on their thrones. All these princes being then employed either in usurpation or in self-defence, and the whole continent being in the most unsettled and barbarous condition, they endeavoured to attach warmly to their interests those whom they considered as their friends and clients. For this purpose they distributed among them extensive territories, cities, and fortresses, with the various rights and privileges belonging to them; reserving only to themselves the supreme dominion, and the military service of these powerful vassals. For this reason it was by the European princes reckoned a high instance of political prudence to distribute among the bishops and other Christian doctors the same sort of donations which had formerly been given to their generals and clients. By means of the clergy, they hoped to check the seditions and turbulent spirits of their vassals; and to maintain them in their obedience by the influence and authority of their bishops, whose commands were highly respected, and whose spiritual thunderbolts, rendered formidable by ignorance, struck terror into the boldest and most resolute hearts.

This prodigious accession to the opulence and authority of the clergy in the west, began at their head, viz. the Roman pontiff; from whence it spread gradually among the inferior sacerdotal orders. The barbarous nations who had received the gospel, looked up on the bishop of Rome as the successor of their chief druid or high priest: and as this tremendous druid had enjoyed, under the darkness of Paganism, a kind of boundless authority; so these barbarous nations thought proper to confer upon the chief bishop the same authority which had belonged to the chief druid. The pope received these august privileges with great pleasure; and left, upon any change of affairs, attempts should be made to deprive him of them, he strengthened his title to these extraordinary honours by a variety of passages drawn from ancient history, and, what is still more astonishing, by arguments of a religious nature. This swelled the Roman druid to an enormous size; and gave to the see of Rome that high pre-eminence and despotic authority in civil and political matters, that were unknown to former ages. Hence, among other unhappy circumstances, arose that monstrous and pernicious opinion, that such persons as were excluded from the communion of the church by the pontiff himself, or any of the bishops, thus forfeited, not only their civil rights and advantages as citizens, but even the common claims and privileges of humanity. This horrid opinion, which was a fatal source of wars, massacres, and rebellions without number, and which contributed more than any thing else to confirm and augment the papal authority, was borrowed by the clergy from the Pagan superstitions.—Though excommunication, from the time of Constantine the Great, was in every part of the Christian world attended with many disagreeable effects; yet its highest terrors were confined to Europe, where its effect was truly formidable and hideous. It acquired also, in the eighth century, new accessions of terror; so that from that period the excommunication practised in Europe differed entirely from that which was in use in other parts of Christendom. Excommunicated persons were indeed considered in all places as objects of hatred both to God and man; but they were not, on that account, robbed of the privileges of citizens, nor of the rights of humanity; much less were those kings and princes, whom an insolent bishop had thought proper to exclude from the communion of the church, supposed to forfeit on that account their crowns or their territories. But from this century it was quite otherwise in Europe. Excommunication received that infernal power which dissolved all connexions; so that those whom the bishops, or their chief, excluded from church communion, were degraded to a level with the beasts. The origin of this unnatural and horrid power was as follows. On the conversion of the barbarous nations to Christianity, these ignorant profelytes confounded the excommunication in use among Christians with that which had been practised in the times of Paganism, and which was attended with all the dreadful effects above mentioned. The Roman pontiffs, on the other hand, were too artful not to encourage this error; and therefore employed all sorts of means to gain credit to an opinion so well calculated to gratify their ambition, and to aggravize in general the episcopal order.

The annals of the French nation furnish us with the following instance of the enormous power which was at this time vested in the Roman pontiff. Pepin, who was mayor of the palace to Childeric III. king of France, and who in the exercise of that high office was possessed in reality of the royal power and authority, aspired to the titles and honours of majesty also, and formed a scheme of dethroning his sovereign. For this purpose he assembled the states in 751; and though they were devoted to the interests of this ambitious usurper, they gave it as their opinion that the bishop of Rome was previously to be consulted whether the execution of such a scheme was lawful or not. In consequence of this, ambassadors were sent by Pepin to Zachary, the reigning pontiff, with the following question, "Whether the divine law did not permit a valiant and warlike people to dethrone a pu- fillanimous and indolent prince who was incapable of discharging any of the functions of royalty; and to substitute in his place one more worthy to rule, and who had already rendered most important services to the state?" The situation of Zachary, who stood much in need of the succours of Pepin against the Greeks and Lombards, rendered his answer such as the usurper desired; and when this favourable decision of the Roman oracle was published in France, the unhappy Childeric was stripped of his royalty without the least opposition; and Pepin, without the smallest resistance, stepped into the throne of his master and his sovereign. This decision was solemnly confirmed by Stephen II. the successor of Zachary; who undertook a journey into France in the year 754, in order to solicit assistance against the Lombards. The pontiff at the same time dissolved the obligation of the oath of fidelity and allegiance which Pepin had sworn to Childeric, and violated by his usurpation in the year 751; and to render his title to the crown as sacred as possible, Stephen anointed and crowned him, with his wife and two sons, for the second time. This complaisance of the pope was rewarded with the exarchate of Ravenna and all its dependencies, as we have already related. See Civil History, No 44. supra; and History of Italy.

In the succeeding centuries, the Roman pontiffs continued to increase their power by every kind of artifice and fraud which can dishonour the heart of man; and, still increasing, by continually taking advantage of the civil diffusions which prevailed throughout Italy, France, and Germany, their influence in civil affairs rose to an enormous height. The increase of their authority in religious matters was not less rapid. The wisest and most impartial among the Roman Catholic writers acknowledge, that from the time of Louis the Meek the ancient rules of ecclesiastical government were gradually changed in Europe by the counsels and instigation of the church of Rome, and new laws substituted in their place. The European princes suffered themselves to be divested of the supreme authority in religious matters, which they had derived from Charlemagne; the power of the bishops was greatly diminished, and even the authority of both provincial and general councils began to decline. The popes, elated with their overgrown prosperity, and become arrogant beyond measure by the daily accessions that were made to their authority, were eagerly bent upon establishing the maxim, That the bishop of Rome was constituted and appointed by Jesus Christ supreme legislator and judge of the church universal; and that therefore the bishops derived all their authority from him. This opinion, which they inculcated with the utmost zeal and ardour, was opposed in vain by such as were acquainted with the ancient ecclesiastical constitutions, and the government of the church in the earlier ages. In order to gain credit to this new ecclesiastical code, and to support the pretensions of the popes to supremacy, it was necessary to produce the authority of ancient deeds, in order to stop the mouths of such as were disposed to set bounds to their usurpations. The bishops of Rome were aware of this; and as those means were looked upon as the most lawful that tended best to the accomplishment of their purposes, they employed some of their most ingenious and zealous partisans in forging conventions, acts of councils, epistles, and such like records, by which it might appear, that in the first ages of the church the Roman pontiffs were clothed with the same spiritual majesty and supreme authority which they now assumed. There were not, however, wanting among the bishops some men of prudence and sagacity, who saw through these impious frauds, and perceived the chains that were forging both for them and the church. The French bishops distinguished themselves eminently in this respect: but their opposition was soon quashed; and as all Europe was sunk in the grossest ignorance and darkness, none remained who were capable of detecting these odious impostures, or disposed to support the expiring liberty of the church.

This may serve as a general specimen of the character and conduct of the pretended viceregents of Jesus Christ to the 16th century. In the 11th century, indeed, their power seems to have risen to its utmost height. They now received the pompous titles of Masters of the World, and Popes, i.e. universal fathers. They presided everywhere in the councils by their delegates, assumed the authority of supreme arbiters in all controversies that arose concerning religion or church-discipline, and maintained the pretended rights of the church against the encroachments and usurpations of kings and princes. Their authority, however, was confined within certain limits: for, on the one hand, it was restrained by sovereign princes, that it might not arrogantly aim at civil dominion; and on the other, it was opposed by the bishops themselves, that it might not arise to a spiritual despotism, and utterly destroy the privileges and liberty of synods and councils. From the time of Leo IX. the popes employed every method which the most artful ambition could suggest to remove those limits, and to render their dominion both despotic and universal. They not only aspired to the character of supreme legislators in the church, to an unlimited jurisdiction over all synods and councils whether general or provincial, to the sole distribution of all ecclesiastical honours and benefices, as divinely authorised and appointed for that purpose; but they carried their insolent pretensions so far, as to give themselves out for lords of the universe, arbiters of the fate of kingdoms and empires, and supreme rulers over the kings and princes of the earth. Hence we find instances of their giving away kingdoms, and looting subjects from their allegiance to their sovereigns; among which the history of John, king of England, is very remarkable. At last they plainly assumed the whole earth as their property, as well where Christianity was preached as where it was not; and therefore, on the discovery of America and the East Indies, the pope, by virtue of this spiritual property, granted to the Portuguese a right to all the countries lying eastward, and to the Spaniards all those lying to the westward, of Cape Non in Africa, which they were able to conquer by force of arms; and that nothing might be wanting to complete their character, they pretended to be lords of the future world also, and to have a power of restraining even the divine justice itself, and remitting that punishment which the Deity hath denounced against the workers of iniquity.

All this time the powers of superstition reigned triumphant over those remains of Christianity which had escaped the corruptions of the first four centuries. In the fifth century began the invocation of the happy souls of departed saints. Their affluence was increased by many fervent prayers, while none stood up to oppose this preposterous kind of worship. The images of those who during their lives had acquired the reputation of uncommon sanctity, were now honoured with a particular worship in several places; and many imagined that this drew into the images the propitious presence of the saints or celestial beings which they were supposed to represent. A singular and irresistible efficacy was attributed to the bones of martyrs, and to the figure of the cross, in defeating all the attempts of Satan, removing all sorts of calamities, and in healing not only the diseases of the body, but also those of the mind. The famous Pagan doctrine concerning the purification of departed souls by means of a certain kind of fire, i.e. purgatory, was also confirmed and explained more fully than it had formerly been; and every one knows of how much consequence this absurd doctrine hath been to the wealth and power of the Romish clergy.

In the sixth century, Gregory the Great advanced an opinion, That all the words of the sacred writings were images of invisible and spiritual things; for which reason he loaded the churches with a multitude of ceremonies the most insignificant and futile that can be imagined; and hence arose a new and most difficult science, namely, the explication of these ceremonies, and the investigation of the causes and circumstances whence they derived their origin. A new method was contrived of administering the Lord's Supper, with a magnificent assemblage of pompous ceremonies. This was called the canon of the mass. Baptism, except in cases of necessity, was administered only on the great festivals. An incredible number of temples was erected in honour of the saints. The places set apart for the public worship were also very numerous: but now they were considered as the means of purchasing the protection and favour of the saints; and the ignorant and barbarous multitude were persuaded, that these departed spirits defended and guarded against evils and calamities of every kind, the provinces, lands, cities, and villages in which they were honoured with temples. The number of these temples was almost equalled by that of the festivals, which seem to have been invented in order to bring the Christian religion as near the model of Paganism as possible.

In the seventh century, religion seemed to be altogether buried under a heap of superstitious ceremonies; the worship of the true God and Saviour of the increase world was exchanged for the worship of bones, bits of wood (said to be of the cross), and the images of saints. The eternal state of misery threatened in Scripture to the wicked was exchanged for the temporary punishment of purgatory; and the expressions of faith in Christ by an upright and virtuous conduct, for the augmentation of the riches of the clergy by donations to the church, and the observance of a heap of idle ceremonies. New festivals were still added; one in particular was instituted in honour of the true cross on which our Saviour suffered; and churches were declared to be sanctuaries to all such as fled to them, whatever their crimes might have been.

Superstition, it would seem, had now attained its highest pitch; nor is it easy to conceive a degree of ignorance and degeneracy beyond what we have already mentioned. If any thing can possibly be imagined more contrary to true religion, it is an opinion which prevailed in the eighth century, namely, That Christians might appease an offended Deity by voluntary acts of mortification, or by gifts and oblations lavished on the church; and that people ought to place their confidence in the works and merits of the saints. The piety in this and some succeeding ages consisted in building and embellishing churches and chapels; in endowing monasteries and basilics; hunting after the relics of saints and martyrs, and treating them with an absurd and excessive veneration; in procuring the intercession of the saints by rich oblations, or superstitious rites; in worshipping images; in pilgrimages to those places which were esteemed holy, particularly to Palestine, &c. The genuine religion of Jesus was now utterly unknown both to clergy and people, if we except a few of its general doctrines contained in the creed. In this century also, the superstitious custom of solitary masses had its origin. These were celebrated by the priest alone in behalf of souls detained in purgatory, as well as upon some other occasions. They were prohibited by the laws of the church, but proved a source of immense wealth to the clergy. Under Charlemagne they were condemned by a synod assembled at Mentz, as criminal effects of avarice and sloth. A new superstition, however, still sprung up in the tenth century. It was imagined, from Rev. xx. 1, that Antichrist was to make his appearance on the earth, and that soon after the world itself would be destroyed. An universal panic ensued; vast numbers of people, abandoning all their connections in society, and giving over to the churches and monasteries all their worldly effects, repaired to Palestine, where they imagined that Christ would descend from heaven to judge the world. Others devoted themselves by a solemn and voluntary oath to the service of the churches, convents, and priesthood, whose slaves they became, in the most rigorous sense of that word, performing daily their heavy tasks; and all this from a notion that the supreme judge would diminish the severity of their sentence, and look upon them with a more favourable and propitious eye, on account of their having made themselves the slaves of his ministers. When an eclipse of the sun or moon happened to be visible, the cities were deserted, and their miserable inhabitants fled for refuge to hollow caverns, and hid themselves among the craggy rocks, and under the bending summits of steep mountains. The opulent attempted to bribe the saints and the Deity himself by rich donations conferred upon the sacerdotal tribe, who were looked upon as the immediate vicegerents of heaven. In many places, temples, palaces, and noble edifices both public and private, were suffered to decay, nay, were deliberately pulled down, from a notion that they were no longer of any use, as the final dissolution of all things was at hand. In a word, no language is sufficient to express the confusion and despair that tormented the minds of miserable mortals upon this occasion. The general delusion was indeed opposed and combated by the discerning few, who endeavoured to dispel these terrors, and to efface the notion from which they arose in the minds of the people. But their attempts were ineffectual; nor could the dreadful apprehensions of the superstitious multitude be removed before the end of the century, and this terror became one of the accidental causes of the CROISADES.

That nothing might now be wanting to complete that antichristian system of religion which had overspread all Europe, it was in the 11th century determined that divine worship should be celebrated in the Latin tongue, though now unknown throughout the whole continent. During the whole of this century, also, Christians were employed in the rebuilding and ornamenting their churches, which they had destroyed through the superstitious fears already taken notice of.

In much the same way with what is above related, or worse if possible, matters went on till the time of the reformation. The clergy were immersed in crimes of the deepest dye; and the laity, imagining themselves able to purchase pardon of their sins for money, followed the examples of their pastors without remorse. The absurd principle formerly mentioned, namely, that religion consists in acts of austerity, and an ungracious behaviour towards God, produced the most extravagant and ridiculous behaviour in the repeated devotees and reputed saints. They not only lived among the wild beasts, but also after the manner of these savage animals: they ran naked through the lonely deserts with a furious aspect, and all the agitations of madness and frenzy; they prolonged their wretched life by grass and wild herbs, avoided the sight and conversation of men, remained almost motionless in certain places for several years, exposed to the rigour and inclemency of the seasons, and towards the conclusion of their lives shut themselves up in narrow and miserable huts; and all this was considered as true piety, the only acceptable method of worshipping the Deity and attaining a share in his favour.—But of all the instances of superstitious frenzy which disgraced the times we now speak of, none was held in higher veneration, or excited more the wonder of the multitude, than that of a certain order of men who were called Stylites by the Greeks, and Sancti Columnares, or Pillar Saints, by the Latins. These were persons of a most singular and extravagant turn of mind, who stood motionless on the tops of pillars expressly raised for this exercise of their patience, and remained there for several years amidst the admiration and applause of the stupid populace. The inventor of this strange discipline was one Simeon a Syrian, who began his follies by changing the agreeable employment of a shepherd for the austerities of a monkish life. He began his devotion on the top of a pillar fix cubits high; but as he increased in sanctity, he also increased the height of his pillar, till, towards the conclusion of his life, he had got up on the top of a pillar 40 cubits in height. Many of the inhabitants of Syria and Palestine, seduced by a false ambition and an utter ignorance of true religion, followed the example of this fanatic, though not with the same degree of austerity. This superstitious practice began in the fifth century, and continued in the east for 600 years. The Latins, however, had too much wisdom and prudence to imitate the Syrians and Orientals in this whimsical superstition; and when a certain fanatic, or impostor, named Wulfilaicus, erected one of these pillars in the country of Treves, and proposed to live on it after the manner of Simeon, the neighbouring bishops ordered it to be pulled down.

The practices of austere worship and discipline in other respects, however, gained ground throughout all parts of Christendom. Monks of various kinds were to be found in every country in prodigious numbers. But though their discipline was at first exceedingly severe, it became gradually relaxed, and the monks gave into all the prevailing vices of the times. Other orders succeeded, who pretended to fill greater degrees of sanctity, and to reform the abuses of the preceding ones; but these in their turn became corrupted, and fell into the same vices they had blamed in others. The most violent animosities, disputes, and hatred, also reigned among the different orders of monks; and, indeed, between the clergy of all ranks and degrees, whether we consider them as classed in different bodies, or as individuals of the same body. To enter into a detail of their wranglings and disputes, the methods which each of them took to aggrandize themselves at the expense of their neighbours, and to keep the rest of mankind in subjection, would require many volumes. We shall only observe, therefore, that even the external profession of the austere and absurd piety which took place in the fourth and fifth centuries, continued gradually to decline. Some there were, indeed, who boldly opposed the torrent of superstition and wickedness which threatened to overflow the whole world: but their opposition proved fruitless, and all of these towards the era of the reformation had been either silenced or destroyed: so that, at that time, the pope and clergy reigned over mankind without control, had made themselves masters of almost all the wealth in every country of Europe, and may truly be said to have been the only sovereigns; the rest of the human race, even kings and princes, being only their vassals and slaves.

While the Popish superstition reigned thus violently in the west, the absurd doctrines of Mahomet overspread all the east. The rise of this impostor is related under the article Arabia. His successors conquered in order to establish the religion of their apostle; and thus the very name of Christianity was extinguished in many places where it had formerly flourished. The conquests of the Tartars having intermingled them with the Mahometans, they greedily embraced the superstitions of that religion, which thus almost entirely overspread the whole continents of Asia and Africa; and, by the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453, was likewise established throughout a considerable part of Europe.

About the beginning of the 16th century, the Roman pontiffs lived in the utmost tranquillity; nor had they, according to the appearance of things at that time, any reason to fear an opposition to their authority in any respect, since the commotions which had been raised by the Waldenses, Albigenses, &c. were now entirely suppressed. We must, not, however, conclude, from this apparent tranquillity and security of the pontiffs and their adherents, that their measures were universally applauded. Not only private persons, but also the most powerful princes and sovereign states, exclaimed loudly against the tyranny of the popes, and the unbridled licentiousness of the clergy of all denominations. They demanded, therefore, a reformation of the church in its head and members, and a general council to accomplish that necessary purpose. But these complaints and demands were not carried to such a length as to produce any good effect; since they came from persons who never entertained the least doubt about the supreme authority of the pope in religious matters, and who, of consequence, instead of attempting themselves to bring about that reformation which was so ardently desired, remained entirely inactive, or looked for redress to the court of Rome, or to a general council. But while the so much desired reformation seemed to be at such a great distance, it suddenly arose from a quarter whence it was not at all expected. A single person, Martin Luther, a monk of the order of St Augustine, ventured to oppose himself to the whole torrent of papal power and despotism. This bold attempt was first made public on the 31st of Sept. 1517; and notwithstanding all the efforts of the pope and his adherents, the doctrines of Luther continued daily to gain ground. Others, encouraged by his success, lent their assistance in the work of reformation; which at last produced new churches, founded upon principles quite different from that of Rome, and which still continue. But for a particular account of the transactions of the first reformers, the opposition they met with, and the final settlement of the reformed churches in different nations in Europe, see the articles Luther and Reformation.

The state of religion in other parts of the world seems as yet to be but little altered. Asia and Africa are sunk in the grossest superstitions either of the Mahometan or Pagan kinds. The southern continent of America, belonging to the Spaniards, continues immersed in the most absurd superstitions of Popery. The northern continent, being mostly peopled with colonies from Great Britain, professes the reformed religion. At the same time it must be owned, that some kind of reformation hath taken place even in Popery and Mahometanism themselves. The popes have no longer that authority over states and princes, even those most bigoted to Popery, which they formerly had. Neither are the lives either of the clergy or laity so corrupt as they were before. The increase of learning in all parts of the world has contributed to cause men open their eyes to the light of reason, and this hath been attended with a proportional decrease of superstition. Even in Mahometan countries, that furious enthusiasm which formerly emboldened their inhabitants to face the greatest dangers, hath now almost vanished; so that the credit of Mahomet himself seems to have sunk much in the estimation of his followers. This is to be understood even of the most ignorant and bigoted multitude; and the sensible part of the Turks are said to incline much towards deism. With regard to those nations which still profess Paganism, the intercourse of Europeans with them is so small, that it is impossible to say anything concerning them. As none of them are in a state of civilization, however, it may be conjectured, that their religion is of the same unpolished cast with their manners; and that it consists of a heap of barbarous superstitions which have been handed down among them from time immemorial, and which they continue to observe without knowing why or wherefore. Sect. III. Of the Composition of History.

Cicero has given us the whole art of composing history, in a very short and comprehensive manner. We shall first transcribe what he says, and then consider the several parts of it in their proper order.

"No one is ignorant (says he), that the first law in writing history is, Not to dare to say any thing that is false; and the next, Not to be afraid to speak the truth: that on the one hand there be no fulpicion of affection, nor of prejudice on the other. These foundations are what all are acquainted with. But the superstructure consists partly in things, and partly in the style or language. The former require an order of times, and descriptions of places. And because in great and memorable events, we are desirous to know first their causes, then the actions themselves, and lastly their consequences; the historian should take notice of the springs or motives that occasioned them; and, in mentioning the facts themselves, should not only relate what was done or said, but likewise in what manner; and, in treating upon their consequences, show if they were the effects of chance, wisdom, or imprudence. Nor should he only recite the actions of great and eminent persons, but likewise describe their characters. The style ought to be fluent, smooth, and even, free from that harshness and pomposity which is usual at the bar." Thus far Cicero. A history written in this manner, and furnished with all these properties, must needs be very entertaining, as well as instructive. And perhaps few have come nearer this plan than Tacitus; though his subject is attended with this unhappy circumstance, or at least unpleasant one, that it affords us examples rather of what we ought to avoid than what to imitate. But it is the business of the historian, as well as of the philosopher, to represent both virtues and vices in their proper colours; the latter doing it by precepts, and the former by examples. Their manner is different; but the end and design of both is, or should be, the same: And therefore history has not improperly been said by some to be moral philosophy exemplified in the lives and actions of mankind.

We shall reduce these several things mentioned by Cicero to three heads, Matter, Order, and Style; and treat upon each of them separately. But as Truth is the basis and foundation of all history, it will be necessary to consider that in the first place.

Art. I. Of Truth in History.

Truth is, as it were, the very life and soul of history, by which it is distinguished from fable or romance. A historian therefore ought not only to be a man of probity, but void of all passion or bias. He must have the steadiness of a philosopher, joined with the vivacity of a poet or orator. Without the former, he will be insensibly swayed by some passion to give a false colouring to the actions or characters he describes, as favour or dislike to parties or persons affect his mind. Whereas he ought to be of no party, nor to have either friend or foe while writing; but to preserve himself in a state of the greatest indifference to all, that he may judge of things as they really are in their own nature, and not as connected with this or that person or party. And with this firm and sedate temper, a lively imagination is requisite; without which his descriptions will be flat and cold, nor will he be able to convey to his readers a just and adequate idea of great and generous actions. Nor is the affinitance of a good judgment less necessary than any of the former qualities, to direct him what is proper to be said and what to be omitted, and to treat every thing in a manner suitable to its importance. And since these are the qualifications necessary for a historian, it may perhaps seem the less strange that we have so few good histories.

But historical truth consists of two parts; one is, Not to say any thing we know to be false: Though it is not sufficient to excuse a historian in relating a falsehood that he did not know it was so when he wrote it, unless he first used all the means in his power to inform himself of the truth; for then, undoubtedly, an invincible error is as unpardonable in history as in morality. But the generality of writers in his kind content themselves with taking their accounts from hearsays, or transcribing them from others, without duly weighing the evidence on which they are founded, or giving themselves the trouble of a strict inquiry. Few will use the diligence necessary to inform themselves of the certainty of what they undertake to relate. And as the want of this greatly abates the pleasure of reading such writers, while persons read with diffidence; so nothing more recommends an historian than such industry. Thus we are informed of Thucydides, that when he wrote his history of the Peloponnesian war, he did not satisfy himself with the best accounts he could get from his countrymen the Athenians, fearing they might be partial in their own cause; but spared no expense to inform himself how the same facts were related by their enemies the Lacedaemonians; that, by comparing the relations of both parties, he might better judge of the truth. And Polybius took greater pains than he, in order to write his history of the Roman affairs; for he travelled into Africa, Spain, and Gaul, and other parts of the world, that by viewing the several scenes of action, and informing himself from the inhabitants, he might come at a greater certainty of the facts, and represent them in a juster light. But as an historian ought not to assert what he knows to be false; so he should likewise be cautious in relating things which are doubtful, and acquaint his readers with the evidence he goes upon in such facts, from whence they may be able to judge how far it is proper to credit them. So Herodotus tells us what things he saw himself in his travels, and what he heard from the information of the Egyptian priests and others with whom he conversed. And Curtius, in the life of Alexander, speaking of the affairs of India, ingeniously confesses, that he wrote more than he fully believed. "For (says he) I neither dare to affirm positively what I doubt of, nor can I think it proper to omit what I have been told." By such a conduct the author secures his credit, whether the things prove really true or false; and gives room for further inquiry, without imposing on his readers.

The other branch of historical truth is, Not to omit any thing that is true, and necessary to let the matter treated of in a clear and full light. In the actions of past ages or distant countries, wherein the writer has no personal concern. He can have no great inducement to break in upon this rule. But where interest or party is engaged, it requires no small candour, as well as firmness of mind, constantly to adhere to it. Affection to some, aversion to others, fear of disobliging friends or those in power, will often interpose and try his integrity. Besides, an omission is less obvious to confute than a false assertion: for the one may be easily ascribed to ignorance or forgetfulness; whereas the other will, if discovered, be commonly looked upon as design. He therefore who, in such circumstances, from a generous love to truth, is superior to all motives to betray or stifle it, justly deserves the character of a brave as well as honest man. What Polybius says upon this head is very well worth remarking: "A good man ought to love his friends and his country, and to have a like disposition with them, both towards their friends and enemies. But when he takes upon him the character of a historian, they must all be forgot. He must often speak well of his enemies, and commend them when their actions deserve it; and sometimes blame, and even upbraid his greatest friends, when their conduct makes it necessary. Nor must he forbear sometimes to reprove, and at other times to commend the same persons; since all are liable to mistake in their management, and there are scarce any persons who are always in the wrong. Therefore, in history, all personal considerations should be laid aside, and regard had only to their actions."

What a different view of mankind and their actions should we have were these rules observed by all historians? Integrity is undoubtedly the principal qualification of a historian; when we can depend upon this, other imperfections are more easily pallied over. Suetonius is said to have written the lives of the first twelve Roman emperors with the same freedom wherever they themselves lived. What better character can be given of a writer? The same ingenious temper appears in the two Grecian historians above mentioned, Thucydides and Polybius: The former of whom, though banished by his countrymen the Athenians, yet expresses no marks of resentment in his history, either against them in general, or even against the chief authors of it, when he has occasion to mention them; and the latter does not forbear censuring what he thought blameable in his nearest relations and friends. But it is often no easy matter to know whether a historian speaks truth or not, and keeps up to the several characters here mentioned; though it seems reasonable upon the common principles of justice due to all mankind, to credit him where no marks of partiality or prejudice appear in his writings. Sometimes, indeed, a judgment may in a good measure be formed of the varacity of an author from his manner of expressing himself. A certain candour and frankness, that is always uniform and consistent with itself, runs through their writings who have nothing in view but truth, which may be justly esteemed as a very good evidence of their sincerity. Whereas those who have partial designs to answer are commonly more close and covert; and if at other times they assume an air of openness and freedom, yet this is not constant and even, but soon followed again with the appearance of some bias and reserve: for it is very difficult to act a part long together without lying open to a discovery. And therefore, though craft and design is exceeding various, and, Proteus-like, assumes very different shapes, there are certain characters by which it may often be perceived and detected. Thus, where things are uncertain by reason of their being reported various ways, it is partiality in a historian to give into the most unfavourable account, where others are as well known and equally credible. Again, it is a proof of the same bad temper, when the facts themselves are certain and evident, but the design and motives of those concerned in them are unknown and obscure, to assign some ill principle, such as avarice, ambition, malice, interest, or any other vicious habit, as the cause of them. This conduct is not only unjust to the persons whose actions they relate; but hurtful to mankind in general, by endeavouring to destroy the principal motive to virtue, which springs from example. Others, who affect to be more covert, content themselves with suspicions and fly insinuations; and then endeavour to come off, by intimating their unwillingness to believe them, though they would have their readers do so. And to mention no more, there are others, who, when they have loaded persons with unjust calumnies and reflections, will allow them some slight commendations, to make what they have said before look more credible, and themselves less partial. But the honest and faithful historian contemns all such low and mean arts; he considers things as they are in themselves, and relates them as he finds them without prejudice or affection.

ART. II. THE SUBJECT OR ARGUMENT OF HISTORY.

The subject in general is facts, together with such things as are either connected with them, or may at least be requisite to set them in a just and proper light. But although the principal design of history be to acquaint us with facts, yet all facts do not merit the regard of an historian; but such only as may be thought of use and service for the conduct of human life. Nor is it allowable for him, like the poet, to form the plan and scheme of his work as he pleases. His business is to report things as he finds them, without any colouring or disguise to make them more pleasing and palatable to his reader, which would be to convert his history into a novel. Indeed some histories afford more pleasure and entertainment than others, from the nature of the things of which they consist; and it may be esteemed the happiness of an historian to meet with such a subject, but it is not his fault if it be otherwise. Thus Herodotus begins his history with showing, that the barbarians gave the first occasion to the wars between them and the Greeks, and ends it with an account of the punishment which, after some ages, they suffered from the Greeks on that account. Such a relation must not only be very agreeable to his countrymen the Grecians, for whose sakes it was written; but likewise very instructive, by informing them of the justice of Providence in punishing public injuries in this world, wherein societies, as such, are only capable of punishment. And therefore those examples might be of use to caution them against the like practices. On the contrary, Thucydides begins his history with the unhappy state of his countrymen the Athenians; and in the course of it plainly intimates, that they were the cause of the calamitous war between them and the Lacedaemonians. Whereas, had he been more inclined to please and gratify his countrymen than to write the truth, he might have set things in such a light as to have made their enemies appear the aggressors. But he scorned to court applause at the expense of truth and justice, and has set a noble example of integrity to all future historians. But as all actions do not merit a place in history, it requires no small judgement in an historian to select such only as are proper. Cicero observes very justly, that history "is conversant in great and memorable actions." For this reason, an historian should always keep posterity in view; and relate nothing which may not, upon some account or other, be worth the notice of after-ages. To descend to trivial and minute matters, such as frequently occur in the common affairs of life, is below the dignity of history. Such writers ought rather to be deemed journalists than historians, who have no view or expectation that their works should survive them. But the skilful historian is fired with a more noble ambition. His design is to acquaint succeeding ages with what remarkable occurrences happened in the world before them; to do justice to the memory of great and virtuous men; and at the same time to perpetuate his own. Pliny the younger has some fine reflections upon this head, in a letter to a friend. "You advise me (says he) to write a history; and not you only, for many others have done the fame, and I am myself inclined to it. Not that I believe myself qualified for it, which would be rash to think till I have tried it; but because I esteem it a generous action not to suffer those to be forgotten whose memory ought to be eternalized; and to perpetuate the names of others, together with one's own. For there is nothing I am so desirous or ambitious of, as to be remembered hereafter; which is a thing worthy of a man, especially of one who, conscious of no guilt, has nothing to fear from posterity. Therefore I am thinking day and night by what means, as Virgil says,

—— My name To raise aloft: That would suffice me; for it is above my wish to add with him, —— and wing my flight to fame.

But oh!

However, this is enough, and what history alone seems to promise." This was Pliny's opinion with regard to the use and advantage of history; the subjects of which are generally matters of weight and importance. And therefore, when a prudent historian thinks it convenient to take notice of things in themselves less considerable, he either does it with brevity, or for some apparent reason, or accounts for it by some just apology. So Dion Cassius, when he has mentioned some things of less moment in the life of Commodus (as indeed that emperor's life was chiefly filled up with cruelty and folly), makes this excuse for himself: "I would not have it thought that I defend below the gravity of history in writing these things: For, as they were the actions of an emperor, and I was present and saw them all, and both heard and conversed with him, I did not think it proper to omit them." He seems to think those actions, when performed by an emperor might be worth recording, which, if done by a person of inferior rank, would scarce have deserved notice. Nor does he appear to have judged amiss, if we consider what an influence the conduct and behaviour of princes, even in the common circumstances of life, have upon all beneath them; which may sometimes render them not unworthy the regard of an historian, as examples either for imitation or caution.

But although facts in general are the proper subject of history, yet they may be differently considered with regard to the extent of them, as they relate either to particular persons or communities of men. And from this consideration history has been distinguished into three sorts, viz. biography, particular and general history.

The lives of single persons is called biography. By particular history is meant that of particular states, whether for a shorter or longer space of time. And general history contains an account of several states existing together in the same period of time.

1. The subjects of biography are the lives either of public or private persons; for many useful observations in the conduct of human life may be made from just accounts of those who have been eminent and beneficial to the world in either station. Nay, the lives of vicious persons are not without their use, as warnings to others, by observing the fatal consequences which sooner or later generally follow such practices. But for those who exposed their lives, or otherwise employed their time and labour, for the service of their fellow-creatures, it seems but a just debt that their memories should be perpetuated after them, and posterity acquainted with their benefactors. The expectation of this was no small incentive to virtue in the Pagan world. And perhaps every one, upon due reflection, will be convinced how natural this passion is to mankind in general. And it was for this reason, probably, that Virgil places not only his heroes, but also the inventors of useful arts and sciences, and other persons of distinguished merit, in the Elysian Fields, where he thus describes them:

Here patriots live, who, for their country's good, In fighting fields were prodigal of blood; Priests of unblemish'd lives here make abode, And poets worthy their inspiring god; And searching wits of more mechanic parts, Who grac'd their age with new invented arts; Those who to worth their bounty did extend, And those who knew that bounty to commend: The heads of these with holy fillets bound, And all their temples were with garlands crown'd.

AENEID, vi. 66.

In the lives of public persons, their public characters are principally, but not solely, to be regarded. The world is inquisitive to know the conduct of princes and other great men, as well in private as public. And both, as has been said, may be of service, conferring the influence of their examples. But to be over-inquisitive in searching into the weaknesses and infirmities of the greatest or best of men, is, to say no more of it, but a needless curiosity. In the writers of this kind, Plutarch is justly allowed to excel.

But it has been a matter of dispute among the learned, learned, whether any one ought to write his own history. It may be pleaded in favour of this, that no one can be so much matter of the subject as the person himself; and besides, there are many instances both ancient and modern, to justify such a conduct. But on the other hand it must be owned, that there are many inconveniences which attend it; some of which are mentioned by Cicero. "If (says he) there is anything commendable, persons are obliged to speak of themselves with greater modesty, and to omit what is blameable in others. Besides, what is said is not so soon credited, and has less authority; and after all, many will not stick to censure it." And Pliny says very well to the same purpose, "Those who proclaim their own virtues, are thought not so much to proclaim them because they did them, as to have done them that they might proclaim them. So that which would have appeared great if told by another, is lost when related by the party himself. For when men cannot deny the fact, they reflect upon the vanity of its author. Wherefore, if you do things not worth mentioning, the actions themselves are blamed; and if the things you do are commendable, you are blamed for mentioning them." These reflections will be generally allowed to be very just; and yet considering how natural it is for men to love themselves, and to be inclined in their own favour, it seems to be a very difficult task for any one to write an impartial history of his own actions. There is scarce any treatise of this kind that is more celebrated than Caesar's Commentaries. And yet Suetonius tells us, that "Afinius Pollio (who lived at that time) thought they were neither written with due care nor integrity; that Caesar was often too credulous in his accounts of what was done by other persons; and misrepresented his own actions, either defensibly, or through forgetfulness; and therefore he supposes he would have revised and corrected them." However, at some times it may doubtless be justifiable for a person to be his own historian. Plutarch mentions two cases wherein it is allowable for a man to commend himself, and be the publisher of his own merits. These are, when the doing of it may be of considerable advantage either to himself or others. It is indeed less invidious for other persons to undertake the province. And especially for a person to talk or write of his own virtues, at a time when vice and a general corruption of manners prevails, let what he says be ever so true, it will be apt at least to be taken as a reflection upon others. "Anciently (says Tacitus), many wrote their own lives, rather as a testimony of their conduct, than from pride." Upon which he makes this judicious remark: "That the more virtue abounds, the sooner the reports of it are credited." But the ancient writers had a way of taking off the reader's attention from themselves in recording their own actions, and so rendering what they said less invidious; and that was, by speaking of themselves in the third person, and not in the first. Thus Caesar never says, "I did," or "I said, this or that;" but always, "Caesar did, or said, so and so." Why the moderns have not more chosen to follow them in this, we know not, since it seems less exceptionable.

2. In a continued history of particular states, some account may be given of their original, and founders; the nature of their soil, and situation; what advantages they have for their support or improvement, either within themselves, by foreign traffic, or conquest; with the form of their government. Then notice should be taken of the methods by which they increased in wealth or power, till they gradually advanced to their highest pitch of grandeur; whether by their virtue, the goodness of their constitution, trade, industry, wars, or whatever cause. After this the reasons of their declension should be shewn; what were the vices that principally occasioned it (for that is generally the case); whether avarice, ambition, luxury, discord, cruelty, or several of these in conjunction. And lastly, where that has been their unhappy fate, how they received their final ruin and subversion. Most of these things Livy had in view when he wrote his History of the Roman State, as he acquaints his readers in the preface. "The accounts (says he) of what happened either before or while the city was building, consisting rather of poetical fables than any certain records of facts, I shall neither affect nor confute them. Let antiquity be allowed to make the origin of their cities more venerable, by uniting things human and divine. But if any nation may be suffered to fetch their origin from the gods, such is the military glory of the Romans, that when they represent Mars as the father of their founder, other nations may as easily acquiesce in this as they do in their government. But I lay no great stress upon these things, and others of the like nature, whatever may be thought of them. What I am desirous every one should carefully attend to, are our lives and manners: by what men, and what arts, civil and military, the empire was both acquired and enlarged: then let him observe, how our manners gradually declined with our discipline; afterwards grew worse and worse; and at length so far degenerated, that at present we can neither bear with our vices nor suffer them to be remedied. This is the chief benefit and advantage to be reaped from history, to fetch instruction from eminent examples of both kinds; in order to imitate the one, which will be of use both to yourself and your country, and avoid the other, which are equally base in their rise and event." Thus far Livy. And how well he has executed this design must be acknowledged by all who will be at the pains to peruse his work.

3. But as a particular history consists in a number of facts relating to the same state, suitably connected and laid together in a proper series; to a general history is made up of several particular histories, whose separate transactions within the same period of time, or part of it, should be so distinctly related as to cause no confusion. Such was the history of Diodorus Siculus, which contained an account of most of the eminent states and kingdoms in the world, though far the greatest part of it is now unhappily lost. Of the same nature is the history of Herodotus, though not so extensive; to whom we are especially indebted for the Persian affairs. And to this kind may likewise be referred Justin's history, though it be only the epitome of a larger work written by another hand. The rules proper for conducting such histories are much the same as those above mentioned concerning particular histories; excepting what relates to the order, of which we shall have occasion to speak hereafter.

But the histories both of particular states and those which are more general frequently contain only the affairs of some short period of time. Thus the history of the Peloponnesian war, written by Thucydides, comprises only what was done in the first 20 years of that war, which lasted seven years longer than his account reaches; though indeed the reason of that might be, because Thucydides died before the war was finished, otherwise he would very probably have continued his history to the conclusion of it. But the history of the war between the Romans and King Jugurtha in Africa, given us by Sallust, as also Caesar's histories of the Gallic and civil wars, are all confined within a much less number of years than that of Thucydides. Nay, sometimes one single transaction is thought sufficient to furnish out a history. Such was the conspiracy of Catiline to subvert the Roman state, written likewise by Sallust. As to more general histories, Xenophon's history of Greece may be esteemed as such; which in order of time succeeds that of Thucydides, and contains the affairs of 48 years. And Polybius called his a general history; which, though it principally contained the Roman affairs, yet took in the most remarkable transactions of several other states, for the space of 53 years: though it has met with the same hard fate as that of Diodorus Siculus, so that only the first five books out of forty, of which it consisted at first, now remain entire. And to mention no more, the celebrated history of Thuanus is another instance of this sort, in which the principal transactions of Europe for about 65 years, chiefly in the 16th century, are described with that judgment and fidelity, and in a manner so accurate and beautiful, that he has been thought scarcely inferior to any of the ancient historians. Now, in such histories as these, to go farther back than is necessary to set the subject in a just light, seems as improper as it is unnecessary.

The general subject or argument of history, in its several branches, may be reduced to these four heads; narration, reflections, speeches, and digressions.

I. By narration is meant a description of facts or actions, with such things as are necessarily connected with them; namely, persons, time, place, design, and event.

As to actions themselves, it is the business of the historian to acquaint his readers with the manner in which they were performed; what measures were concerted on all sides, and how they were conducted, whether with vigilance, courage, prudence, and caution, or the contrary, according to the nature of the action; as likewise, if any unforeseen accidents fell out, by which the designed measures were either promoted or broken. All actions may be referred to two sorts, military and civil. And as war arises from injustice and injuries received on one side or the other, it is fit the reader should be informed who were the aggressors. For though war is never to be desired, yet it is sometimes necessary. In the description of battles, regard should be had equally to both parties; the number of forces, conduct of the generals, in what manner they engaged, what turns and chances happened in the engagement, either from accidents, courage, or stratagem, and how it issued. The like circumstances should all be observed in sieges and other actions. But the most agreeable scene of history arises from a state of peace. Here the writer acquaints us with the constitution of states, the nature of their laws, the manners and customs of the inhabitants, the advantages of concord and unanimity, with the disadvantages of contention and discord; the invention of arts and sciences, in what manner they were improved and cultivated, and by whom; with many other things, both pleasant and profitable in the conduct of life.

As to persons, the characters of all those should be described who act any considerable part in a history. This excites the curiosity of the reader, and makes him more attentive to what is said of them; as one is more inquisitive to hear what relates to others in proportion to his knowledge of them. And it will likewise be of use to observe, how their actions agree with their characters, and what were the effects of their different qualifications and abilities.

The circumstances of time and place are carefully to be regarded by an historian, without which his accounts of facts will be frequently very lame and imperfect. And therefore chronology and geography seem not improperly to have been called the two eyes of history. Besides, they very much assist the memory: for it is much easier to remember any thing said to be done at such a time, and in such a place than if only related in general; nay, the remembrance of these often recalls those things to mind which otherwise had been obliterated. By time is meant not only the year of any particular era or period; but likewise the season, as summer or winter; and the age of particular persons. For it is oftentimes from hence that we are principally enabled to make a just estimate of facts. Thus Cicero commends Pompey for undertaking and finishing the Piratic war at a season of the year when other generals would not have thought it safe to venture out at sea. This double danger, as well from the weather as the enemy, considering the necessity of the case, heightens Man. c. 12, the glory of the action; since to have done the same thing in summer would not have been an equal proof of the courage and intrepidity of the general. And there is nothing more surprising in the conquests of Alexander than that he should subdue so large a part of the world by the time he was little more than 30 years old; an age at which few other generals have been much distinguished. Had we not known this, a considerable part of his character had been lost.

The like advantages arise from the other circumstances of place. And therefore in marches, battles, and other military actions, the historian should take notice of the nature of the country, the passes, rivers, distances of places, situation of the armies, and strength of the towns either by nature or art; from which the reader may the better form a judgment of the difficulties and greatness of any enterprise. Caesar is generally very particular in these things, and seems to have thought it highly requisite in order to give his readers a just idea of his actions. The descriptions of countries, cities, and rivers, are likewise both useful and pleasant; and help us to judge of the probability of what is related concerning the temper and genius of the inhabitants, their arts, traffic, wealth, power, or whatever else is remarkable among them.

But an accurate historian goes yet further, and con- fiders the causes of actions, and what were the designs and views of those persons who were principally concerned in them. Some, as Polybius has well observed, are apt to confound the beginnings of actions with their springs and causes, which ought to be carefully separated. For the causes are often very remote, and to be looked for at a considerable distance from the actions themselves. Thus, as he tells us, some have represented Hannibal's besieging Saguntum in Spain, and passing the Ebro, contrary to a former agreement between the Romans and Carthaginians, as causes of the second Punic war. But these were only the beginnings of it. The true causes were the jealousies and fears of the Carthaginians from the growing power of the Romans; and Hannibal's inveterate hatred to them, with which he had been imprinted from his infancy. For his father, whom he succeeded in the command of the Carthaginian army, had obliged him, when but nine years old, to take a most solemn oath upon an altar never to be reconciled to the Romans: and therefore he was no sooner at the head of the army, than he took the first opportunity to break with them. Again, the true springs and causes of actions are to be distinguished from such as are only feigned and pretended. For generally the worse designs men have in view, the more fictitious they are to cover them with specious pretences. It is the historian's business, therefore, to lay open and expose to view these arts of politicians. So, as the same judicious historian remarks, we are not to imagine Alexander's carrying over his army into Asia to have been the cause of the war between him and the Persians. That had its being long before. The Grecians had formerly two armies in Asia, one under Xenophon and the other commanded by Agæaus. Now the Asiatics did not venture to oppose or molest either of these armies in their march. This made King Philip, Alexander's father, who was an ambitious prince, and aspired after universal monarchy, think it might be a practicable thing to make a conquest of Asia. Accordingly, he kept it in his view, and made preparations for it; but did not live to execute it. That was left for his son. But as King Philip could not have done this without first bringing the other states of Greece into it, his pretence to them was only to avenge the injuries they had all suffered from the Persians; though the real design was an universal government, both over them and the Persians, as appeared afterwards by the event. But in order to our being well assured of a person's real designs, and to make the accounts of them more credible, it is proper we should be acquainted with his disposition, manners, way of life, virtues, or vices; that by comparing his actions with these, we may see how far they agree and suit each other. For this reason Sallust is so particular in his description of Catiline, and Livy of Hannibal; by which it appears credible, that the one was capable of entering into such a conspiracy against his country, and the other of performing such great things as are related concerning him. But if the causes of actions lie in the dark, and unknown, a prudent historian will not trouble himself or his readers with vain and trifling conjectures, unless something very probable offers itself.

Lastly, an historian should relate the issue and event of the actions he describes. This is undoubtedly the most useful part of history; since the greatest advantage arising from it is to teach us experience from what has happened in the world before us. When we learn from the examples of others the happy effects of wisdom, prudence, integrity, and other virtues, it naturally excites us to an imitation of them, and to pursue the fame measures in our own conduct. And, on the contrary, by perceiving the unhappy consequences which have followed from violence, deceit, rashness, or the like vices, we are deterred from such practices. But since the wisest and most prudent measures do not always meet with the desired success, and many cross accidents may happen to frustrate the best concerted designs; when we meet with instances of this nature, it prepares us for the like events, and keeps us from too great a confidence in our own schemes. However, as this is not commonly the case, but in the ordinary course of human affairs like causes usually produce like effects; the numerous examples of the happy consequences of virtue and wisdom recorded in history are sufficient to determine us in the choice of our measures, and to encourage us to hope for an answerable success, though we cannot be certain we shall in no instance meet with a disappointment. And therefore Polybius very justly observes, that "he who takes from history the causes, manner, and end of actions, and omits to take notice whether the event was answerable to the means made use of, leaves nothing in it but a bare amusement, without any benefit or instruction." These, then, are the several things necessary to be attended to in historical narrations; but the proper disposition of them must be left to the skill and prudence of the writer.

II. Reflections made by the writers. Some have condemned these, as having a tendency to bias the readers; who should be left to draw such conclusions from the accounts of facts as he sees proper. But since all readers are not capable of doing this for themselves, what disadvantage is it for the author to suggest to them such observations as may assist them to make the best use of what they read? And if the philosopher is allowed to draw such inferences from his precepts as he thinks just and proper, why has not the historian an equal right to make reflections upon the facts he relates? The reader is equally at liberty to judge for himself in both cases, without danger of being prejudiced. And therefore we find, that the best historians have allowed themselves this liberty. It would be easy to prove this by a large number of instances, but one or two here may suffice. When Sallust has given a very distinct account of the designs of Catiline, and of the whole scheme of the conspiracy, he concludes it with this reflection: "All that time the empire of the Romans seems to me to have been in a very unhappy state. For when they had extended their conquests through the whole world from east to west, and enjoyed both peace and plenty, which mankind esteem their greatest happiness; some persons were obstinately bent upon their own ruin, and that of their country. For notwithstanding two decrees were published by the senate, not one out of so great a multitude was prevailed with, by the rewards that were offered, either to discover the conspiracy or to leave the army of Catiline. So desperate a disease, and as it were infection, had seized the minds of most people!" And it is a very handsome observation observation that Livy makes upon the ill-conduct of Hannibal in quartering his army in Capua after the battle of Cannae; by which means they lost their martial vigour through luxury and ease. "Those (says he) who are skilled in military affairs reckon this a greater fault in the general, than his not marching his army immediately to Rome after his victory at Cannae; for such a delay might have seemed only to defer the victory, but this ill step deprived him of the power to gain it." The modesty of the historian in this passage is worth remarking, in that he does not represent this as his own private opinion, and by that means undertake to censure the conduct of so great a general as Hannibal was, but as the sense of those who were skilled in such affairs. However, a historian should be brief in such remarks; and consider, that although he does not exceed his province by applauding virtue, expressing a just indignation against vice, and interposing his judgment upon the nature and consequences of the facts he relates; yet there ought to be a difference between his reflections and the encomiums or declamations of an orator.

III. Speeches inserted by historians. These are of two sorts, oblique and direct. The former are such as the historian recites in his own person, and not in that of the speaker. Of this kind is that of Hannibal in Justin; by which he endeavours to persuade King Antiochus to carry the seat of the war against the Romans into Italy. It runs thus: "Having desired liberty to speak, he said none of the present counsels and designs pleased him; nor did he approve of Greece for the seat of the war, which might be managed in Italy to greater advantage: because it was impossible to conquer the Romans but by their own arms, or to subdue Italy but by its own forces; since both the nature of those men, and of that war, was different from all others. In other wars, it was of great importance to gain an advantage of place or time, to ravage the countries and plunder the towns; but though you gain some advantage over the Romans, or defeat them, you must still fight with them when beaten. Wherefore, should any one engage with them in Italy, it was possible for him to conquer them by their own power, strength, and arms, as he himself had done; but should he attempt it out of Italy, the source of their power, he would be as much deceived, as if he endeavoured to alter the course of a river, not at the fountain-head, but where its streams were largest and deepest. This was his judgment in private, and what he had offered as his advice, and now repeated in the presence of his friends; that all might know in what manner a war ought to be carried on against the Romans, who were invincible abroad, but might be conquered at home. For they might sooner be driven out of their city than their empire, and from Italy than their provinces; having been taken by the Gauls, and almost subdued by himself. That he was never defeated till he withdrew out of their country; but upon his return to Carthage, the fortune of the war was changed with the place." He seems to intimate by this speech, that the Romans were like some fierce and impetuous animals, which are no otherwise to be subdued than by wounding them in some vital part. In speeches related after this manner, we are not necessarily to suppose the historian gives us the very words in which they were at first delivered, but only the sense. But in direct speeches, the person himself is introduced as addressing his audience; and therefore the words as well as the sense are to be suited to his character. Such is the speech of Eumenes, one of Alexander's captains and successors made to his soldiers when they had traiterously bound him in chains, in order to deliver him up to his enemy Antigonus, as we have it in the same writer. "You see, soldiers (says he), the habits and ornaments of your general, which have not been put upon me by mine enemies; that would afford me some comfort: it is by you, that of a conqueror I am become conquered, and of a general a captive; though you have sworn to be faithful to me four times within the space of a year. But I omit that, since reflections do not become persons in calamity. One thing I intreat, that, if Antigonus must have my life, you would let me die among you. For it no way concerns him how or where I suffer, and I shall escape an ignominious death. If you grant me this, I free you from your oath, with which you have been so often engaged to me. Or, if shame restrains you from offering violence to me at my request, give me a sword, and suffer your general to do that for you without the obligation of an oath which you have sworn to do for your general."

But this likewise is a matter in which critics have been divided in their sentiments; whether any, or what kind of speeches ought to be allowed in history. Some have thought all speeches should be excluded; and the reason given for that opinion is this; that it breaks the thread of the discourse, and interrupts the reader, when he is desirous to come to the end of an action, and know how it issued. This is true, indeed, when speeches are either very long or too frequent; but otherwise they are not only entertaining, but likewise instructive. For it is of service to know the springs and reasons of actions; and these are frequently opened and explained in the speeches of those by whom they were performed. Others therefore have not been against all speeches in general, but only direct ones. And this was the opinion of Trogus Pompeius, as Justin informs us; though he did not think fit to follow him in that opinion, when he abridged him, as we have seen already by the speech of King Eumenes. The reason offered against direct speeches is, because they are not true; and truth is the foundation of all history, from which it never ought to depart. Such speeches, therefore, are said to weaken the credit of the writer; since he who will tell us that another person spoke such things which he does not know that he ever did speak, and in such language as he could not use, may take the same liberty in representing his actions. Thus, for example, when Livy gives us the speeches of Romulus, the Sabine women, Brutus, and others, in the first ages of the Roman state, both the things themselves are imaginary, and the language wholly disagreeable to the times in which those persons lived. Accordingly we find, that when several historians relate some particular speech of the same person, they widely differ both in the subject-matter and expressions. So the speech of Veturia, by which she dissuaded her son Coriolanus from besieging Rome when he came against it with an army of Volscians to avenge the injuries he had received, is very differently related by Livy, Dionysius of Halicarnasus, and Plutarch. Such fictitious speeches therefore are judged more fit for poets, who are allowed a greater liberty to indulge their fancy than historians. And if any direct speeches are to be inserted, they should be such only as were really spoken by the persons to whom they are ascribed, where any such have been preferred. These have been the sentiments of some critics both ancient and modern. However, there is scarce an ancient historian now extant, either Greek or Latin, who has not some speeches, more or less, in his works; and those not only oblique, but also direct. They seem to have thought it a necessary ornament to their writings: and even where the true speeches might be come at, have chosen rather to give them in their own words; in order, probably, to preserve an equality in the style. Since therefore the best and most faithful historians have generally taken this liberty, we are to distinguish between their accounts of facts and their speeches. In the former, where nothing appears to the contrary, we are to suppose they adhere to truth, according to the best information they could get; but in the latter, that their view is only to acquaint us with the causes and springs of actions, which they choose to do in the form of speeches, as a method most ornamental to the work, and entertaining to the reader: Though the best historians are cautious of inserting speeches, but where they are very proper, and upon some solemn and weighty occasions. Thucydides is said to have been the first who brought complete and finished speeches into history, those of Herodotus being but short and imperfect. And though Dionysius of Halicarnasus, in his censure upon Thucydides, seems then to have disliked that part of his conduct; yet he afterwards thought fit to imitate it in his Antiquities of Rome, where we find many not only oblique, but also direct speeches.

What has been said of speeches, may likewise be understood of letters, which we sometimes meet with in histories; as that of Alexander to Darius in Quintus Curtius, those of Tiberius and Drusus in Tacitus, and many others. Some letters are wholly fictitious; and in others perhaps the historian represents the substance of what was really said, but gives it his own dress. Thus we find that short letter of Lentulus to Catiline at the time of his conspiracy differently related by Cicero and Sallust. The reason of which seems to be this: That as Cicero recited it publicly to the people of Rome in his third oration against Catiline, it is reasonable to imagine he did it in the very words of the letter, which he had by him; whereas Sallust, as an historian, might think it sufficient to give the sense of it in his own words.

IV. Digressions. These if rightly managed, afford the reader both delight and profit. Like speeches, they should neither be too long nor frequent; lest they interrupt the course of the history, and divert the reader from the main design of the work. But now and then to introduce a beautiful description, or some remarkable incident, which may give light to the subject, is so far from an interruption, that it is rather a relief to the reader, and excites him to go on with greater pleasure and attention. See further on this head, ORATORY, No 37.

ART. III. Of Order.

Since most histories consist of an introduction and the body of the work, in each of which some order is requisite, we shall discuss them separately.

1. The design of the introduction is the same here as in orations. For the historian proposes three things by his introduction, which may be called its parts; to give his reader some general view of the subject, to engage his attention, and to possess him with a candid opinion of himself and his performance. Some have thought this last unnecessary for an historian. But if we consider how differently mankind are apt to judge of the same persons and actions, it seems as requisite for an historian to be well esteemed as an orator. And therefore we find some of the best historians have not omitted this part. Livy's introduction has been very much applauded by the learned, as a masterpiece in its kind. It begins with an account of his design. "Whether (says he) it may answer any valuable end for me to write the history of the Roman affairs from the beginning of the city, I neither am certain, nor if I was should I venture to declare it." Soon after he endeavours to prepare the reader's attention, by representing the grandeur and usefulness of the subject in the following words: "Either I am prejudiced in favour of my subject, or there never was any state greater, more virtuous, and fruitful of good examples, or in which avarice and luxury had a later admittance, or poverty and thriftiness were either more highly or longer esteemed, they always coveting less the less they enjoyed." And then he presently proceeds to ingratiate himself with his readers, and gain their favourable opinion: "Although my name is obscure in so great a number of writers, yet it is a comfort that they cloud it by their fame and character. But I shall gain this advantage by my labour, that I shall be diverted for a time from the prospect of those evils which the age has seen for many years; while my mind is wholly intent upon former times, free from all that care which gives the writer an uneasiness, though it cannot bias him against the truth." In this passage we see he endeavours to gain the good esteem of his readers from two very powerful motives, modesty and a strict regard to truth. It may scarce seem necessary to observe, that those introductions are esteemed the best which are most natural; that is, such as are taken from the subject-matter of the history itself, and closely connected with it. Such are those of Herodotus, Thucydides, Livy, Tacitus, and others. And therefore Sallust is greatly blamed by Quintilian on the account of his introductions, which are so general that they might suit other histories as well as those to which they are prefixed. Introductions should likewise be proportioned to the length of the work. We meet with some few histories, in which the writers immediately enter upon their subject, without any introduction; as Xenophon in his Expedition of the younger Cyrus, and Caesar in his Commentaries of the Gallic and Civil Wars. But the latter does not profess to write a just history; and therefore left himself more at liberty, as well in this respect as in some others.

2. But order is principally to be regarded in the body of the work. And this may be managed two ways; either by attending to the time in a chronological cal series, or the different nature and circumstances of the things contained in the history. However, as these two methods do not equally suit all subjects, we shall a little consider what kind of histories each of them seems more properly adapted. All history then, as we have observed already, may be reduced to three sorts; biography, the history of particular states, and the general history of several states existing at the same time.

In biography, or the lives of particular persons, most writers follow the order of time; though some reduce them to certain general heads, as their virtues and vices, or their public and private character. Plutarch and Cornelius Nepos have taken the former method, and Suetonius the latter.

As to the history of particular states, the order of time is generally best, as being most natural and easy. And therefore it has usually been observed by the best historians, as Thucydides, Livy, and others. Tacitus, indeed, wrote two distinct works; one of which he called Annals, and the other Histories. And as in both he has kept to the order of time, critics have been at a loss to assign any other reason for these different titles, unless that in the former work he confines himself more closely to the facts themselves, and does not treat so largely upon the causes, manner, or event of them, as he has done in the latter. And even in the circumstances of facts, there is a certain order proper to be observed, for rendering the account more plain and intelligible. Thus, for instance, in the description of a battle or siege, the time should first be known, then the chief person or persons who conducted it, then the number of forces, and other requisites, afterwards the nature of the place, then the action itself, and lastly the event. But sometimes it is necessary to add the time in which several of the other circumstances happened, especially in actions of any considerable length. Where the order of these circumstances is confounded, it perplexes the account, and renders it both less entertaining to the reader, and more difficult to remember.

In a general history, the order of time cannot always be preserved; though, where the actions of different communities have respect to one as the principal, they should all, as far as possible, be referred to the transactions of that state. But even here the several affairs of those different states ought to be related separately, which will necessarily occasion the anticipating some things, and postponing others, so that they cannot all stand in the order of time in which they were performed. However, Velleius Paterculus says very justly with regard to this subject, "That every entire action placed together in one view, is much better apprehended than if divided by different trifles." In this case, therefore, for better preserving the chronology, it is usual with historians, when they have finished any particular narrative, in passing to the next, to express the time by some short and plain transition; and sometimes to apologize for themselves, by assigning the reasons of their conduct. So Polybius, whose history is of this kind, says concerning himself: "As in writing the actions of each year, in the order of time, I endeavour to represent the affairs of the same nation together in one summary view, it is plain that inconvenience must of course attend this way of writing." Curtius professes only to write the actions of Alexander king of Macedon; but his history contains in it the principal affairs of the greatest states in the world during that period. Now although, in the course of those transactions, the war between Archelaus governor of Macedonia, and Agis king of Sparta, happened before the battle of Alexander at Arbela; yet the historian not only relates that battle first, but carries on the account of Alexander's affairs in Asia to the death of Darius without interruption; for which he gives this reason: "If I should relate Lib. 8. the affairs of Alexander, which happened in the mean time, either in Greece or Illyricum and Thrace, each in their proper order and time, I must interrupt the affairs of Asia; which it is much better to represent together in one continued series as they fell out, to the flight and death of Darius." Such anachronisms, therefore, are nothing more than what necessarily arise sometimes from the nature of the subject: As every thing, the more complex it is, and contains under it a great number of parts, is more difficult to be digested in a regular order. But in a history composed of several states, whose affairs are independent of one another, the actions of each nation must necessarily be separated, in order to represent them in a just view, and prevent confusion. This is the method which Herodorus has taken, as likewise Diodorus Siculus and Justin. Now both the pleasure and benefit which such histories afford, arise from observing the conduct of each state separately in the course of their affairs, and then comparing one with the other. And as the order of time must frequently be interrupted, it is not unusual to continue the chronology at proper distances in relating the affairs of each nation; which preserves an unity in the whole, and connects it in one consilient body.

The division of histories into books was designed only for the better distinction of the subject and ease of the reader. And the dividing these books again into chapters, is rather a practice of later editors (founded, as they have thought, on the same reasons), than countenanced by the example of ancient writers.

ART. IV. Of Style.

An historical style is said to be of a middle nature, of style, between that of a poet and an orator, differing from both not only in the ornamental parts, but likewise in the common idioms and forms of expression.

Cicero observes, that "nothing is more agreeable in De Clar. history than brevity of expression, joined with purity Orat. c. 7. and perspicuity." Purity indeed is not peculiar to history, but yet it is absolutely necessary; for no one will ever think him fit to write a history who is not master of the language in which he writes: and therefore when Albinus had written a history of the Roman affairs in Greek, and apologized for any slips or improprieties that might be found in the language upon the account of his being a Roman, Cato called him a trifler, for choosing to do that which, after he had done it, he was obliged to ask pardon for doing. Nor is perspicuity less requisite in an historical style. The nature of Gell. xii. 5. the subject plainly directs to this. For as history consists principally in narration, clearness and perspicuity are nowhere more necessary than in a relation of facts. But these two properties are to be accompanied with brevity, since nothing is more disagreeable than a long and tedious narrative. And in this respect an historical style differs both from that of poetry and oratory. For the poet frequently heightens and enlarges his descriptions of facts, by dwelling upon every circumstance, placing it in different views, and embellishing it with the finest ornaments of wit and language, to render his images more agreeable; and the orator often does the like, with a design to strike the passions. But such colouring is not the business of an historian, who aims at nothing more than a just and faithful representation of what he relates, in a way best suited to its nature, and in such language as is most proper to set it in a plain and easy light.

Again, Cicero, treating of an historical style, says: "It ought to be fluent, smooth, and even, free from that harshness and poignancy which is usual at the bar." The properties here mentioned distinguish this style from that of judicial discourses, in which the orator often finds it necessary to vary his manner of speaking, in order to answer different views, either of pursuing an argument, pressing an adversary, addressing a judge, or recommending the merits of his cause. This occasions an inequality in his style, while he speaks sometimes directly, at other times by way of question, and intermixes short and concise expressions with round and flowing periods. But the historian has no necessity for such variations in his style. It is his province to espouse no party, to have neither friend nor foe, but to appear wholly disinterested and indifferent to all; and therefore his language should be smooth and equal in his relations of persons and their actions.

But further: Dionysius makes "decency a principal virtue in an historian;" which he explains by saying, that "he ought to preserve the characters of the persons and dignity of the actions of which he treats." And to do this it seems necessary that an historical style should be animated with a good degree of life and vigour; without which neither the characters of eminent persons, nor their remarkable actions, which make up the main business of history, can be duly represented: for even things in themselves great and excellent, if related in a cold and lifeless manner, often do not affect us in a degree suitable to their dignity and importance. And this seems particularly necessary in speeches, in order to represent what every one says, according to his different country, age, temper, and situation of life, in the same manner we may suppose he either really did, or would have spoken himself on that occasion. Besides there are some scenes of action which require very pathetic and moving language to represent them agreeably to their nature. And in descriptions, the most beautiful tropes and lively figures are often necessary to set the ideas of things in a proper light. From whence it appears, that painting and imagery make up no small part of the historian's province, though his colours are not so strong and glittering as those either of the poet or orator. He ought therefore to be well acquainted with the manners of men and the nature of the passions, since he is often obliged to describe both; in the former of which Herodotus excels, and Thucydides in the latter, as Dionysius has observed.

Now from these several properties laid down by ancient writers, as requisite for an historical style, it seems upon the whole to agree best with the middle character. And this will further appear, by what they say relating to the ornamental parts of style; namely, composition and dignity. As to the former of these, which respects the structure of sentences, and the several parts of them, Demetrius remarks, that "An historical period ought neither to rise very high, nor sink very low, but to preserve a medium." Thus simplicity (he says) "becomes the gravity and credit of history; and distinguishes it from oratory on the one hand, and dialogue on the other." His meaning is, that historical periods should neither be so full and honourous as is frequent in oratory: nor yet so short and flat as in dialogue: the former of which, as he says, require a strong voice to pronounce them; and the latter have scarce the appearance of periods. So that, according to this judicious writer, the periods best suited for history are those which, being of a moderate length, will admit of a just rise and cadence, and may be pronounced with ease. And Dionysius tells us, that "History should flow smooth and even, everywhere consistent with itself, without roughness or chasms in the sound." This relates to the harmony of periods, which arises from such a position of the words as renders the sound pleasant and agreeable, and as he thinks ought to be attended to in history. And as to dignity, which respects the use of tropes and figures, the same author says, that "History should be embellished with such figures as are neither vehement nor carry in them the appearance of art." This is agreeable to what Cicero observes, in comparing Xenophon and Callisthenes, two Greek historians. "Xenophon the Socratic (says he) was the first philosopher, and after him Callisthenes the scholar of Aristotle, who wrote an history: the latter almost like a rhetorician: but the style of the former is more moderate, and has not the force of an orator, less vehement perhaps, but in my opinion more sweet and pleasant." The difference between these two writers, with De Orat. regard to their style, consisted chiefly in the choice of their figures: which in Xenophon were more gentle c. 14. and moderate, and therefore in the judgment of Cicero more agreeable to history. Now these several properties relating to the ornaments of language, as well as those before mentioned, which by ancient writers have been thought requisite for history, are all suited to the middle style, as we have elsewhere shown at large. See ORATORY, No 99—121.

But notwithstanding this general account of the several properties which constitute an historical style, it admits of considerable varieties from the different nature and dignity of the subject. The lives of particular persons do not require that strength and majesty of expression, nor all those ornaments of language, as an history of the Roman empire. And accordingly we find the style of Nepos and Suetonius very different from that of Livy. The former is smooth and easy, scarce rising above the low character; but the latter often approaches near to the sublime. And other historians again have kept a medium between these. Upon the whole, therefore, we may conclude, that the middle style is the proper character for history; though historians may sometimes sink into the low character, and at other times rise to the grandeur and magnificence of the sublime, from the different nature of their subject, or some particular parts of it. For that is to be esteemed the proper character of any writing which in the general best suits it. And this distinction may help us in some measure to reconcile the sentiments of writers upon this head, who seem to attribute different characters to an historical style, or at least to judge where the truth lies; since a variety of style is not only requisite in different subjects, but likewise in different parts of the same work.

HIT