219 



Philistine oppression, contrary to the sense, the spirit, and 

 very expression of Scripture, (Jud. c. 13- 14 and 15.) and 

 consequently he cannot justly be accused of an undue par- 

 tiality for the authenticity of the passage; or a weak bias 

 to the supposed traditional interpretation of the Jews — he 

 has even in the two preceding chapters, quoted with ap- 

 plause, the chronological systems of Josephus and Clemens 

 of Alexandria, who we know, on grounds apparently similar, 

 neglected the authority of the book of kings. 



Besides, it is plain that Eusebius was, in chronology, the 

 strict disciple of Africanus, who wrote in the beginning of 

 the second century, and that he found himself constrained to 

 desert the opinion of his master, in this epoch, on grounds 

 that he held to be irrefragable. From this, it is evident, that 

 the contested passage was known to, and acknowledged by 

 Africanus, since Syncellus, his zealous follower, and the con- 

 tinual adversary of Eusebius, on every question of the He- 

 brew chronology, defending the system of Africanus and 

 his own in neglecting the authority of this verse, pleads 

 " that it excludes the servitudes and oppressions," " that it 

 is inconsistent with the supputation of St. Paul," so much 

 relied upon in a later age, and " that it is deserted by other 



chronologists 



Interval of the text : besides, it is evident, that in the Praep. Evang. he is only delivering 

 a summary of the Hebrew records from the sacred books, without exercising the criticism 

 of enquiry, or the salutary philosophy of doubt. The passage of Syncellus has been 

 quite overlooked by ihose who wish to consider Eusebius as a proselyte. 



