72 



In a word, does a simple date comprehend an history of 

 misfortunes and anarchies, that the sacred historian should 

 fear to announce any thing unfavourable to his nation in 

 marking an epocli or an interval ? Surely, this conjecture 

 affords no solution to the alledged difUculty, or iio argument 

 for introducing an arbitrary calculus. Tlic authorities of 

 Vossius himself bear out the conclusion against his principle: 

 for the name of a Consul alone affords the requisite series of 

 chronology. But, what shall we alledge against the temerity 

 of an author, who forgets that he is commenting on the history 

 of truth — that this history " was written for our instruction," 

 and that, containing the dreadful denunciations of the ven- 

 geance of the Almighty, it should also contain a record of 

 those punishments, which are at once the completion, and the 

 sanction, of his commination and his law. Surely, he should 

 have rerrfembered, that the ereat and sinoular characteristic 

 of the scriptural history — that, Avhich distinguishes it, and 

 distinguishes it to its honour, from the history of every other 

 people, is the inflexible impartiality', both in respect to person 

 and to circumstance, that marks its narration. In the ver^' 

 Book of Kings, to the author of which he ascribes this dis- 

 ingenuous suppression, he will find every instance of intiiction, 

 and calamity, referred to the national disobedience and guilt. 

 Yide 2 Kings, 17-7, & seq. 



, The second class, or those who contend for an alteration of 

 the text, or an error of the copyists, is more formidable, and 



their 



