venture for the fubject of the Piece, in order to give their poem its due dignity and weight. And yet, which is very furprifing, the Writers on both fides, as well those who fuppofe the Book of Job to be dramatical, as those who hold it to be hiftorical, have fallen into this paralogism, That, if dramatical, then the Perfon and Hiftory of Job are fillitious. Which nothing but inattention to the nature of a dramatic Work, and to the practice of dramatic Writers, could have occafioned. Lactantius had a much better idea of this fpecies of compofition. Totum autem, quod referas, fingere, id eft, ineptum effe, et Mendacem potius quam Poetam.

But this fallacy is not of late ftanding. Maimonides, where he speaks of those whose opinion he seems to incline to, that fays the book of Job. is parabolical, expreffes himself in this manner. You know, there are certain men who fay, that fuch a man as JOB never exifted. And that his HISTORY is nothing else but a parable. These certain men were (we know) the Talmudifts. Now, as, by his Hif tory, he means this book of Job, it is evident he fuppofed the fabulofity of the book concluded against the existence of the Patriarch. Nay, fo infenfibly does this inveterate fallacy infinuate itself into our reafonings on this fubject, that even GROTIUS himself appears not to be quite free from the entanglement. Who, although he faw these two things, (a real Job and a dramatic reprefentation of him) fo reconcileable, that he supposed both; yet will not allow the book of Job to be later than

• Nófti quofdam effe, qui dicunt Jobum nunquam fuiffe, neque creatum effe; fed HISTORIAM illius nihil aliud esse quàm Parabolam.

Ezekiel,

Ezekiel, because that Prophet mentions Job. Which argument, to have any strength, must suppofe Job to be unknown until this Book was written; confequently that his Perfon was fictitious; contrary to his own fuppofition, that there was a real Job living in the time of Mofes". After this, it is no wonder, that the Author of the Archeologia Philofopbice, whofe talent was not critical acumen, Thould have reasoned fo grofly on the same fallacious principle. Thefe learned men, we fee, would infer a vifionary Job from a vifionary History, Nor is the mistake of another celebrated Writer lefs grofs, who would, on the contrary, infer a real history from a real Job. Ezekiel and St. James (fays Dr. Middleton, in his effay on the Creation and Fall of Man) refer to the BOOK OF JOB in the fame manner as if it were a real biftory. Whereas the truth is, they do not refer to the BOOK OF JOB at all,

Job.

Chap. xiv. ver. 14.

" Vid. Grotii Præf. in Librum

This Writer endeavouring to prove the high age of Job, or of the Book of Job, for thefe two things, after better reafoners, he all along confounds, closes his arguments in this manner, Denique poft formatam rempublicam Judaicam, fecretamque à cæteris gentibus, per inftituta propria & legem à Deo datam: non facile, credo, banc fanctam gentem, ejufdem temporis & fæculi alienigenam, vel bominem Gentilem, in exemplum pietatis propofituram, aut ipfius aca & hiftoriam in facros eorum codices relaturam. Archæol. Philof. p. 266. ed. 8vo, 1728. The Reader fees, all the ftrength of the argument refts on this falfe fuppofition, that the book muft needs be as old as its fubject. For if Job were of the Patriarchal times, he was a fit example of piety, let his history be written when it would; and, if written by a facred Author, it was worthy to be inferted into the Canon of Scripture and was likely to be fo inferted, if compofed (as we shall see it was by a Jewish Prophet.

II. The

II. The fecond question to be confidered, is in what Age this book was compofed,

1. First then we fay in general, that it was written fome time under the Mofaic Difpenfation. But to this it is objected, that, if it were compofed in thofe Times, it is very ftrange that not a single word of the Mofaic Law, nor any diftant allufion to the Rites or Ceremonies of it, nor any hiftorical circumstance under it, nor any species of idolatry in ufe during its period, fhould be found in it'.

I apprehend the objection refts on one or other of thefe fuppofitions, Either that the book is not a Work of the dramatic kind; or that the Hero of the Piece is fictitious. But both these fuppofitions have been fhewn to be erroneous; fo that the objection falls with them. For to observe DECORUM is one of the most effential rules of dramatic writing. He therefore who takes a real Perfonage for the fubject of his poem will be obliged to fhew him in the customs and fentiments of his proper Age and Country; unmixed with the manners of the Writer's later Time and Place. Nature and

• Jobus Arabs πολυκλειτὸς καὶ πολυμαθής, in cujus hiftoria multa Occurrunt antiquæ fapientiæ veftigia, antiquior habetur Mofe. Idque multis patet indiciis: Primo, quòd nullibi meminerit rerum à Mofe geftarum, five in Ægypto, five in exitu, five in deferto. Secundo, quòd, cùm vir pius & veri numinis cultor fuerit, legi Mofaicæ contraiverit, in facrificiis faciendis.-Tertio, ex ætatis & vitæ fuæ menfura, in tertio, plus minus, à Diluvio fæculo collocandus effe videtur: vixit enim ultra ducentos annos. - Cùm de Idololatria loquitur, memorat primum ipfius genus Solis & Lunæ adorationem. Neque Sabbathi neque ullius legis factitiæ meminit. His omnibus adducor ut credam, Mofi Jobum tempore anteiffe. Archeol. Philof. p. 265, 266.

the reason of the thing fo evidently demand this conduct, and the neglect of it has fo ungracious an effect, that the polite Roman Historian thought the Greek tragic Writers were to blame even for mentioning the more modern name of Theffaly, in their pieces of the Trojan War. And he gives this good reafon for his cenfure, Nihil enim ex Perfona Poëtæ fed omnia fub eorum, qui illo tempore vixerunt, dixerunt

But to lay no greater ftrefs on this argument than it will bear; I confefs ingenuously, that were there not (as the objection fuppofes) the leaft diftant relation or allufion to the Jewish Law or Hiftory throughout the whole book, it might reasonably create fome fufpicion that the Author lived before thofe times. For though this rule of decorum be fo effential to dramatic writing, yet, as the greatest Masters in that art frequently betrayed their own Times and Country in their fictitious

z Vell. Pater. Hift. 1. i. c. 3. Had Dr. R. Grey known but juft fo much of the nature of these Compofitions, he had never fallen into the ridiculous miftake I am going to take notice of. This learned Critic, to confute the fyftem I advance, that the subject of the argumentative part of the book of Job was, Whether, and why, the good are fometimes unhappy and the bad profperous; and that the question was debated for the fake of the Ifraelites in the time of Ezra; obferves as follows, Zopher fays, c. xx. 4, 5. Knoweft thou not this of old, fince man was placed upon earth, that the triumphing of the wicked is short, and the joy of the hypocrite but for a moment? Now lay your hand upon your heart, Sir, and ask yourself seriously, "whether this can relate to an extraordinary Providence over the Jews only. p. 111." He is fo pleafed with the force of this obfervation that he repeats it, p. 116. To which I need only reply, Lay your hand, Sir, on your head, and reflect upon this rule of good writing, Nihil enim ex Perfona Poeta, fed omnia fub eorum, qui illa tempore vixerunt, dixerunt.

Works,

Works, we can hardly suppose a Jewish Writer more exact in what only concerned the critical perfection of his Piece. But as DECORUM is one of the plainest and simplest principles of Compofition, we cannot fuppofe a good writer ignorant of it; and fo are not to look for fuch glaring abfurdities as are to be found in the dramatic writings of late barbarous ages; but fuch only as might easily ef cape the most exact and best instructed Writer.

Some flight indecorums therefore we may reasonably expect to find, if the Author were indeed a Jew and fuch, if I am not much mistaken, we fhall find. Job speaking of the wicked man, fays: He that fpeaketh flattery to his friends, even the eyes of his children fhall fail GOD layeth up iniquity for his children cd. And in the course of the dif

pute,

2 From amongst many inftances which might be given of thefe flips, take the following of Euripides, in his Iphigenia in Aulis, A&t. 3. where he makes the Chorus fay, Troy perishes. And for whom? For you, cruel Helen, who, as they fay, are the daughter of Jupiter, who, under the form of a Swan had commerce with Leda. So far is well: because we may fuppofe the Chorus alluded to the popular tale concerning Helen's birth, spread abroad in her life-time. But when the Chorus goes on and fays, If at leaft the writings of the Poets be not fabulous, the Author had forgot himfelf; for the Poets who embellifhed her ftory, lived long afterwards.

b

Chap. xvii. ver. 5.

c

Chap. xxi. ver. 19.

Here the Cornish anfwerer affirms, "that this method of "punishment was not peculiar to the Jewish Policy, but was "obferved, in fome degree at least, with refpect to all man"kind." For which he quotes Ifaiah's threatenings on the Children of the king of Babylon, chap. 14, 20, & feq. That is, in order to prove that God punished the crimes of the fathers on the children in fome degree at least, with respect to all mankind, he quotes an inftance, not of the general providence of God to all mankind, but a particular dispensation to the Babylonians :

and