92 



interpretation, find no difficulty in ranging themselves with 

 the latter class, and aspire rather to the praise of ingenuity 

 in the critic, than tliat of zeal or fidelity in the commentator. 

 It is surprising, that Usher and Marsham, who display an 

 anxiety so laudable to uphold the authenticity of the text, in 

 a single point, should have overlooked or neglected to ob- 

 serve its incomparable accuracy in many orhers, should have 

 agreed to convict the historian of an inconsistency of ex- 

 pression unknown to the sacred writings, and without reason 

 or authority presume, that repose, and jurisdiction, are 

 synonymous, and this, when every passage in which the term 

 " repose," occurs is directly contradictory to their sentiment, 

 and at variance with their hypothesis. It may seem, that 

 the system of Usher is not immediately subjected to the se- 

 verity of this censure, since, on grounds nearly similar to my 

 own, he holds the terms to bear a different construction. Yet 

 a consideration of the objections I have (after his adversaries) 

 urged against his theory, will clearly demonstrate, that he is 

 obnoxious to this censure in substance and spirit, if not in 

 letter and expression, because he arbitrarily rejects the au- 

 thority of the text, and substitutes intervals and periods un- 

 known and unrecognized. He attempts to define, where the 

 sacred historian affords him no data even to describe ; he as- 

 signs periods without evidence, and limits epochs on as- 

 sumptions, perfectly gratuitous, (vide objection 3. above) ; 

 and all this on the principle of adhering to the literal fidelity 



of 



