\ 



Caesarea, whose authority, in questions of history and chro- 

 nology, is deservedly respectable. The translation of his 

 Chronicon by Hieronymus or Jerome, which is to us the ori- 

 ginal, (as the Greek Eusebius of Scaliger is rather a monu- 

 ment of the genius and industry of the editor than an original 

 ^v■ork;) made his opinion familiar to the Latin Church, which 

 iniiversally adopting the Vulgate translation from the Hebrew, 

 was induced, from a respect to its authority, to receive the 

 computation of Eusebius in this point, while it differed from 

 him in almost every other. The great Scaliger supported it with 

 all the earnestness and zeal of an editor, and an host of learned 

 names bowed to his chronological supremacy ; until in the 

 seventeenth century, the Vossii, the Capelli, Louis, and James ; 

 and in general the French critics and chronologists, began to 

 sound the trumpet of sedition, or enquiry, against the autho- 

 rity of Scaliger, and the authenticity or interpretation of the 

 text; fortifying their doubts and hesitation by the arguments 

 already recited, and more particularly by the evidence of the 

 Greek Fathers. Yet the antient faith of chronology did not 

 want its advocates, in this hour of historic heresy and dissent: 

 and Usher and Marsham stepped forward, with no mean ap- 

 paratus of solution and reasoning, in its defence. 



The grand principle on which they proceed, is to include 

 the terms of servitude and oppression in the years of repose, 

 or in the several periods assigned to the government of the 

 Judges ; and by this expedient, they endeavour to adhere to 



the 



