ever come into difpute. This deserves to be con→ fidered.

The queftion, a very foreign one to us, and therefore no wonder it should have been fo little attended

The best and ableft Critics are generally agreed, and have as generally taken it for granted, that this question is the fubject of debate between the feveral difputants in the book of Job. It would be abufing the reader's patience to produce a long train of Authorities. Though it may not be improper to give the fentiments of the laft, though not the least able of them, on this head.-Operæ pretium eft admonere te, amice Lector, quid nobis de tota hujus Libri materia cogitandum effe videatur. Primum quidem amici Job fic ftatuunt, quandoquidem tot tantifque cladibus Deus amicum ipforum Job afflixit, ei Deum effe iratum; eum igitur poenas tales aliquo fcelere, vel aperto, vel occulto commeruiffe. Cujus fuæ fententiæ teftes adhibent generationes hominum priores, in quibus inauditum eft, inquiunt, Deum vel integros viros afpernatum, vel impios manu apprehendiffe. Si quis noftræ ætatis homo fic difputaret, nemo effe quin ejus temeritatem atque audaciam miraretur, qui rem aperte falfam fumeret, cum fæpiffimè eveniat et fummas miferias experiri hac in mortali vita viros bonos, et florentiffimam fortunam, flagitiofos. Tamen Job, id quod eft maxime confiderandum, redargutione tali non utitur. Non 'id negat, quod fui amici, Patrum memoria tefte confirmabant; quod tamen Job, fi falfum id fibi videretur, uno verbo, Mentiris, poterat confutare. Atque etiam idem job alterum negans, tales fe miferias crimine aliquo fuo fuiffe commeritum, alterum tamen non diffimulat, Deum fibi adverfari; in quâ ipfa fancti viri confeffione adverfariorum caufa ex parte vincebat, cum fuas clades Job fic acciperet, ut iræ divinæ confueta figna, cumque inde non parum animo æftuaret. Quæ cum ita fint, nos fic exiftimamus, non falfos fuiffe memoriæ teftes Job amicos; atque adeo, PRIMIS MUNDI TEMPORIBUS, homines impios fuiffe, præter folitum naturæ curfum, divinâ irâ percuffos, iifque acceptos plagis, quarum fancti homines effent immunes; Deo opt. max. humanas res ita moderante, ut Religionem in terris tueretur, et ut homines, cum talia exempla paterentur cogitarent effe in cœlo Deum juftum, a quo mortales ut recte factorum præmium fperare deberent, fic fcelerum ultionem timere. HOUBIGANT in librum Job, lectori,

But

tended to, is, Whether God adminifters his govern ment over men here with an equal providence, fo as that the

But fince the writing of my Differtation, the language of the rabbinical men has been greatly changed. And, partly to keep up the antiquity of the book, but principally to guard against an extraordinary Providence, feveral of them, in defiance of their fenfes, have denied that this, which this honeft Prieft of the Oratory makes to be the fubject of the book of Job, has indeed any thing at all to do with it. Amongst the foremost of thefe is Dr. Richard Grey the epitomifer of Albert Schultens' Comment on this book. In the preface to his Abstract, amongst other things, he has criticifed my opinion of the fcope of the book in the following manner. - Nam quod dicit vir clariff. id præcipue in hoc libro difceptari, nempe an bonis femper bona, malifque mala, an utrifque utraque promifcue obtingent; hanc autem quæftionem (a nobis quidem alienam, minus ideo perpenfam) nufquam alibi gentium præterquam in Judæa nec apud ipfos Judæos alio quovis tempore, quam quod affignat, moveri potuiffe, id omne ex veritate fuæ hypothefeos pendet, et mea quidem fententia, longe aliter fe habet. Præf. p. 10-15. For as to what this writer [the author of the D. L.] says, that the main question handled in the book of Job is whether good happens to the good, and evil to evil men, or whether both happen ot promiscuously to both; and that this question (a very foreign one to us, and therefore the less attended to) could never be the Subject of difputation any where but in the land of Judæa, nor there neither at any other time than that which he affigns; all this, I jay, depends on the truth of his hypothefis, and is, in my opinion, far otherwife. That which depends on the truth of an hypothefis has, indeed, generally fpeaking, a very flender foundation t and I am partly of opinion it was the common prejudice against this fupport which difpofed the learned Prefacer to give my notions no better a name. But what I have fhewn to be the fubject of the book is fo far from depending on the truth of my hypothefis, that the truth of my hypothefis depends on what I have fhewn to be the fubject of the book and very fitly fo, as every reasonable hypothefis should be fup ported on a fact. Now I might appeal to the learned world, whether it be not as clear a fact that the fubject of the book of Job is whether good happens to the good, and evil to evil men, or whether both happen not promiscuously to both; as that the fubject of the first book of Tufculan Difputations is de contemnenda morte. On this I founded my hypothefis, that the book of Job must have been written about the time of Efdras, be

cause

the good are always profperous, and the bad unhappy; or whether, on the contrary, there be not fuch apparent inequali

caufe no other affignable time could at all fuit the fubject. But 'tis poffible I may mistake in what he calls my hypothefis: for ought I know he may understand not that of the book of Job, but that of the Divine Legation. And then, by my hypothefis, he muft mean the great religious principle I endeavoured to evince, THAT THE JEWS WERE IN REALITY UNDER AN EXTRAORDINARY PROVIDENCE. But it will be paying me a very unusual compliment to call that my hypothefis which the Bible was not only divinely written, but was likewife divinely preferved, to teftify; which all Believers profefs to believe; and which none but Unbelievers and Anfwerers to the Divine Legation directly deny. However, if this be the hypothefts he means, I need defire no better a fupport. But the truth is, my interpretation of the book of Job seeks fupport from nothing but thofe common rules of grammar and logic on which the fenfe of all kind of writings are or ought to be ing terpreted.

He goes on in this manner. Nempe id unum voluiffe mihi videtur facer Scriptor, ut iis omnibus, utcunque afflictis, humilitatis et patientiæ perpetuum extaret documentum ex contemplatione gemina, hinc infinitæ Dei perfectionis, fapientiæ & potentiæ; illinc humanæ, quæ in fanctiffimis quoque viris inest, corruptionis, imbecillitatis & ignorantiæ. For the SOLE purpafe of the facred writer feems to me to be this, to compofe a work that should remain a perpetual document of humility and fatience to all good men in affliction from this two-fold confidera tion, as on the one hand of the infinite perfection, power, and wisdom of God; fo on the other, of buman corruption, imbecillity, and ignorance, difcoverable even in the best of men. Such talk in a popular difcourfe, for the fake of a moral application, might not be amifs: but to speak thus to the learned world, is furely out of feafon. The Critic will be apt to tell him, he hath mistaken the Ador for the Subject; and that he might on the fame principle as well conclude that the purpose of Virgil's poem is not the establishment of an empire in Italy, but the perfonal piety of Æneas. But to be a little more explicit. The book of Job confifts of two diftinét parts; the narrative, contained in the prologue and epilogue; and the argumentative, which compofes the body of the work. Now when the question is of the subject of a book, who means any other than the body of it? yet the learned Doctor mistaking the narrative part

for

inequalities, as that profperity and adverfity often happen indifferently to good and bad. Job maintains

the

for the argumentative, gives us the fubject of the introduction and conclufion for that of the work itself. And it is very true that the beginning and the end do exhibit a perpetual document of humility and patience to all good men in affliction. But it is as true that the body of the work neither does nor could exhibit any fuch document. Firft it does not; for, that humility and patience, which Job manifefts before his entering into difpute, is fucceeded by rage and oftentation when he becomes heated with unreasonable oppofition. Secondly, it could not; because it is altogether argumentative; the fubject of which must needs be a propofition debated, and not a document exemplified. A precept may be conveyed in hiftory, but a difputation can exhibit only a debated question. I have fhewn what that question is; and he, inftead of proving that I have affigned a wrong one, goes about to perfuade the reader, that there is no question at all.

He proceeds. Quamvis enim in fermonibus, qui in eo habentur, de religione, de virtute, de providentia, Deiqué in mundo gubernando fapientia, juftitia, fanctitate, de uno rerum omnium principio, aliifque graviffimis veritatibus differtetur, hunc tamen quem dixi unicum effe libri fcopum, tam ex initio et fine, quam ex univerfa ejus œconomiâ cuivis opinor manifeftum erit. Ea enim, ut rem omnem fummatim complectar, jobum exhibet, primo quidem querentem, expoftulantem, affiæni luctui indulgentem; mox (quum, ut facri dramatis natura poftulabat, amicorum contradictione, finiftrifque fufpicionibus magis magifque irritatus et faceffitus effet) imprudentius Deum provocantem, atque in juftitia fua gloriantem; ad debitam tandem fummiffionem fuique cognitionem revocatum, tum demum, nec antea, integritatis fuæ tam præmium, quam teftimonium a Deo reportantem. For although in the Speeches that occur, there be much talk of religion, virtue, and providence, of God's wisdom, juflice, and holiness in the government of the world, of one principle of all things, and other most important truths, yet that this which I have affigned is the only scope of the book will appear manifeft to every one, as well from the beginning and the end as from the economy of the whole. For to Jay all in a word, it first prefents Job complaining, expoftulating, and indulging himself in an ungovernable grief: but foon after (when, as the nature of the facred drama required, by the contradiction of bis friends, and their finifter fufpicions, he became more and more

teized and irritated) rafhly challenging God, and glorying in his own integrity yet at length brought back to a due fubmiffion and knowledge of himself. The reader fees that all this is just as pertinent as if I fhould fay, Mr. CHILLINGWORTH's famous book against Knot the Jefuit, was not to prove the religion of Proteftants a fafe way to falvation, but to give the picture of an artful Caviller and a candid Difputer. For, although, in the arguments that occur, there be much talk of proteftantifm, popery, infallibility, a judge of controverfies, fundamentals of faith, and other moft important matters, yet that this which I have affigned is the only fcope of the book, will appear manifeft to every one, as well from the beginning and the end, as from the Economy of the whole. For it first of all prefents the fophift quibbling, chicaning, and indulging himfelf in all the imaginable methods of falfe reafoning: and foon after, as the course of disputation required, refting on his own authority, and loading his adversary with perfonal calumnies; yet at length, by the force of truth and good logic, brought back to the point; confuted, expofed, and put to filence." Now if I fhould fay this of the book of Chillingworth, would it not be as true, and as much to the purpose, as what our author hath faid of the book of Job? The matters in the discourse of the Religion of Proteftants could not b treated as they are without exhibiting the two characters of a Sophift and a true Logician. Nor could the matters in the book of Job be treated as they are without exhibiting a good man in afflictions, complaining and expoftulating; impatient under the contradiction of his friends, yet at length brought back to a due fubmiffion, and knowledge of himself. But therefore, to make this the fole or chief Scope of the book, (for in this it varies) is perverting all the rules of interpretation. But what mifled him we have taken notice of above. And he himself points to it, where he fays,—the fubject I have assigned to the book of Job appears the true both from the BEGINNING and the END. It is true, he adds, and from the Geconomy of the whole likewife.

Which he endeavours to prove in this manner: For it firft prefents Job complaining, expoftulating, and indulging himself in an ungovernable grief: but foon after (when, as the nature of the facred drama required, by the contradiction of his friends, and their finifter fufpicions, he became more and more teised and irritated) rafhly challenging God, and glorying in his own integrity: yet at length brought back to a due fubmiffion and knowledge of himself; and then at last, and not before, receiving from God both the reward and teftimony of his uprightness. This is indeed a fair account of the CONDUCT of the drama. And from this it VOL. V.

appears,