5

\

Of the S's u D Y of H i s t o r y.

Iutius Africanus , Eusebius , and Georgethe monk opened the principal sources of ail thisscience ; but they corrupted the waters. Their pointof view was to make profane history and chrono-logy agréé vvith sacred ; though the latter chronologyis very far from being eíìablilhed with the clearnessand certainty neceffary to make ita rule. For thispurpose, the ancient monuments, that these writersconveyed to posterity, vvere digested by them ac-cording to the íystem they were to maintain : andnone of these monuments were delivered down intheir original form, and genuine purity. TheDynasties of Manetho , for instance, are brókento pieces by Eusebius ; and fuch fragments ofthem as fuited his design , are struck into his work.Wehave, we knovv, no more of them. The CodexAlexandrinus we owe to George the monk. Wehâve no other authority for it : and one cannotsee without amazement fuch a man as Sir JohnMarsham undervaluing this authority in one page,and building his íystem upon it in the next. Heseems even by the lightnefs of'his expressions, if Iremember well, for it is long silice I looked intohis canon, not to be much concerned what foun-dation his fy stem liad, though he fhowed his fkillin forming one, and in reducing the immense anti-quity of the Egyptians within the limits 6f theHebraic calculation. In short, my lord, ail thesesystems are fo many enchanted castles ; they appearto be fomething , they are nothing but appearances:like them too, dissolve the charm, and they vanilhfrom the sight. To dissolve the charm, we muíì

B 3