91 



years." Here sovereignty is distinctly separated from repose, 

 and it is sufficiently remarkable that the same terms are used 

 in the Book of Judges, 8-28, in relating the repose immedi- 

 atel}' succeeding the conquest of Midian. 



There are, indeed, but two modes by which a rational or 

 judicious critic can attempt to reconcile or to correct an 

 author on whom he comments. He must either adhere to 

 the strictness of the letter, and invent a method of account^ 

 ing for apparent inconsistencies and contradictions, amend- 

 ing with judgment and altering with cautious and deliberate 

 investigation. Or, conceiving the true spii'it and meaning of 

 the author, the system he pursues, and the method he d eve- 

 lopes, to be inconsistent with the strict expression of the 

 letter, he must reject its authority, where it fetters and con- 

 strains him, refer its errors to the mistakes of a copyist, and 

 endeavour by a bold, and hardy, or a subtle, delicate, and 

 discriminating criticism, to derive from the author himself, or 

 from sources collateral and extrinsic, evidence and grounds 

 to correct and to alter his original; to justify his doubts of 

 the authenticity of a passage, or to afford him lights whereby 

 to restore and to amend it. Usher and Marsham are willing 

 to enrol themselves among the first class, whenever it is pos- 

 sible, and the former explicitly declares, speaking of an error 

 in the copyists, " Quidvis potius dicendum fuerat quam ad 

 hoc desperatum remedium recurrendum." (Chron. p. 87-6.) 

 While the numerous hosts who combat their authority and 



interpretation. 



