50 appears, first, that that which he affigns for the SOLE SCOPE OF the book cannot be the true. For if its defign were to give a perpetual document of humility and patience, how comes it to pafs, that the author, in the execution of this defign, reprefents Job complaining, expoftulating, and indulging himself in an ungovernable grief, rafhly challenging God, and glorying in bis own integrity? Could a painter, think you, in order to reprefent the eafe and fafety of navigation, draw a veffel getting with much pains and difficulty into harbour, after having loft all her lading and been miferably torn and fhattered by a tempelt? and yet you think a writer, in order to give a document of humility and patience, had fufficiently discharged his plan, if he made Job conclude refigned and fubmiffive, though he had drawn him turbulent, impatient, and almost blafphemous throughout the whole piece. Secondly, it appears from the learned Author's account of the conduct of the drama, that that which I have affigned for the fole Scope of the book is the true. For if, in Job's diftrefsful circumftances, the question concerning an equal or unequal providence were to be debated: His friends, if they held the former part, must needs doubt of his integrity; this doubt would naturally provoke Job's indignation; and, when it was perfifted in, cause him to fly out into the intemperate exceffes so well defcribed by the learned Doctor; yet confcious innocence would at length enable patience to do its office, and the conclufive argument for his integrity would be his refignation and submission.

The learned Writer fums up the argument thus. Ex his inquam apparet, non primario agi in hoc libro de providentia, five æquali, five inæquali, fed de perfonali Jobi integritate. From all this, I say it appears, that the perfonal integrity of Job, and not the question concerning an equal or unequal Providence is the principal Subject of the book. He had before only told us his opinion; and now, from his opinion, he says it appears. But the appearances we fee, are deceitful; and fo they will always be, when they arife only out of the fancy or inclination, of the Critic, and not from the nature of things.

But he proceeds. Hanc enim (quod omnino obfervandum eft) in dubium vocaverant amici, non ideo tantum quod affictus effet, fed quod afflictus impatientius fe gereret, Deique juftitiæ obmurmuraret: et qui ftrenuus videlicet aliorum hortator fuerat ad fortitudinem et conftantiam, quum ipfe tentaretur, victus labafceret. For that [i. e. his perfonal integrity] it was which his friends doubted of, not so much on account of his affliction, as for the not bearing his affliction with patience, but murmuring at the justice of God. And that be,

who was a firenuous adviser of others to fortitude and conftancy, Should, when his own trial came, fink under the froke of his difafters. But why not on account of his afflictions? Do not we find that even now, under this unequal diftribution of things, cenforious men (and fuch doubtlefs he will confefs Job's comforters to have been) are but too apt to fufpect great afflictions for the punishment of fecret fins. How much more prone to the fame fufpicion would fuch men be in the time of Job, when the ways of Providence were more equal? As to his impatience in bearing affliction, that fymptom was altogether ambiguous, and might as likely denote want of fortitude as want of innocence; and proceed as well from the pain of an ulcerated body as the anguish of a distracted confcience.

Well, our Author has brought the Patriarch thus far on his way, to expofe his bad temper. From hence he accompanies him to his place of reft; which, as many an innocent man's is, he makes to be in a bad argument. Quum accefferat fanctiffimi viri malis, hæc graviffima omnium tentatio, ut tanquam improbus et hypocrita ab amicis damnaretur, et quod unicum ei fupererat, confcientiæ fuæ teftimonio ac folatio, quantum ipfi potuerunt, privandus foret, quid mifero faciendum erat? Amicos perfidiæ et crudelitatis arguit: Deum integritatis fuæ teftem vindicemque appellat: quum autem nec Deus interveniret, ad innocentiam ejus vindicandam, nec remitterent quicquam amici de acerbis fuis cenfuris, injuftifque criminationibus, ad SUPREMUM ILLUD JUDICIUM provocat, in quo REDEMPTOREM fibi affuturum, Deumque a fuis partibus ftaturum, fumma cum fiducia fe noviffe affirmat. Now when (fays the learned Writer) the most grievous trial of all was added to the other evils of this holy perfon; to be condemned by his friends as a profligate, and an hypocrite, and to be deprived, as much as in them lay, of his only remaining Support, the Teftimony of a good confcience, What was left for the unhappy man to do? He accufes bis friends of perfidy and cruelty; he calls upon God as the witnefs and avenger of his integrity: But when neither God interpofed to vindicate his innocence, nor his friends forbore to urge their harsh cenfures and unjust accufations, he appeals to that LAST JUDGMENT, in which with the utmost confidence he affirms that he knew that his REDEEMER would be prefent to him, and that God would declare in his favour. To understand the force of this representation, we must have in mind this unquestionable truth; That, be the subject of the book what it will, yet if the facred Writer bring in the perfons of the drama difputing, he will take care that they talk with decorum and to the purpofe." Now we both agree that Job's friends had pretended at least to fufpect his integrity. This fufpicion it was Job's bufinefs

E 2

BOOK VI. bufinefs to remove; and, if the Doctor's account of the fubject, be right, his only bufinefs. To this end he offers various arguments, which failing of their effect, he, at laft, (as the Doctor will have it) appeals to the SECOND COMING OF THE REDEEMER OF MANKIND. But was this likely to fatisfy them? They demand a prefent folution of their doubts, and he fends them to a future judgment. Nor can our Author fay, (though he would infinuate) that this was fuch a fort of appeal as difputants are fometimes forced to have recourse to, when they are run aground and have nothing more to offer : For Job, after this, proceeds in the difpute; and urges many other arguments with the utmost propriety. Indeed there is one way, and but one, to make the appeal pertinent: and that is, to fuppose our Author mistaken, when he faid that the perfonal integrity of Job, and not the question concerning an equal or unequal Providence, was the main fubject of the book: And we may venture to fuppofe fo, without much danger of doing him wrong for, the doctrine of a future judgment affords a principle whereon to determine the question of an equal or unequal Providence; but it leaves the perfonal integrity of Job just as it found it. But the learned Author is fo little folicitous for the pertinency of the argument, that he makes, as we shall now fee, its impertinence to be one of the great fupports of his fyftem. For thus he concludes his argument. Jam vero fi cardo controverfiæ fuiffet, utrum, falva Dei juftitia, fancti in hac vita, adfligi poffent, hæc ipfa declarati litem finire debuerat. Sin autem de perfonali Jobi innocentia difceptetur, nil mirum quod veterem canere cantilenam, Jobumque ut fecerant, condemnare pergerent focii, quum Dei folius erat, qui corda hominum explorat, pro certo fcire; an jure merito fibi Jobus hoc folamen attribueret, an falfam fibi fiduciam vanus arrogaret. But now if the hinge of the controverfy had turned on this, Whether or no, confiftently with God's juftice, good men could be afflicted in this life, this declaration ought to have finished the debate: but if the question were concerning the perfonal innocence of Job, it was no wonder that they still fung their old fong, and went on as they had begun, to condemn their much afflicted friend; fince it was in the power of God alone to explore the hearts of men, and to know for certain whether it was Job's piety that rightly applied a confulation, or whether it was his vanity that arrogated a fulfe confidence to himself. This is a very pleafant way of coming to the fenfe of a difputed paffage: Not, as of old, by fhewing it fupports the Writer's argument, but by fhewing it fupports the Critic's hypothefis. I had taken it for granted that Job reafoned to the purpofe, and therefore urged this argument against understanding him as fpeaking of the Refurrection in the xixth chapter. "The difputants (fay I) are all equally "imbaraffed

the latter part, and his three friends the former. They argue thefe points throughout the whole book,

"imbaraffed in adjusting the ways of Providence. Job affirms "that the good man is fometimes unhappy; the three friends "pretend that he never can be fo; becaufe fuch a fituation "would reflect upon God's juftice. Now the doctrine of a ReJurrection fuppofed to be urged by Job cleared up all this em"barras. If therefore his friends thought it true, it ended the "difpute; if falfe, it lay upon them to confute it. Yet they "do neither: They neither call it into question, nor allow it "to be decifive. But without the leaft notice that any fuch "thing had been urged, they go on as they begun, to inforce "their former arguments, and to confute that which they "feem to understand was the only one Job had urged against "them, viz. the confcioufnefs of his own innocence."-Now what fays our learned Critic to this? Why, he says, that if I be mistaken, and he be right in his account of the book of Job, the reason is plain why the three friends took no notice of Job's appeal to a Refurrection; namely, because it deferved none. As to his being in the right, the reader, I fuppofe, will not be greatly folicitous, if it be one of the confequences that the facred Reafoner is in the wrong. However, before we allow him to be right, it will be expected he fhould answer the following questions. If, as he fays, the point in the book of Job was only his perfonal innocence, and this, not (as I fay) upon the PRINCIPLE of no innocent perfon being miferable, I would afk how it was poffible that Job's friends and intimates fhould be fo obftinately bent on pronouncing him guilty, the purity of whofe former life and converfation they were fo well acquainted with? If he will fay, the difputants went upon that PRINCIPLE, I then ask how came Job's appeal to a Refurrection not to filence his oppofers? as it accounted for the justice of God in the prefent unequal diftribution of things.

This is one thing (fays Job) therefore I faid it, HE DE STROYETH THE PERFECT WITH THE WICKED, chap. ix. 22. as much as to fay, this is the point or general queftion between us, and I ftick to the affirmative, and infift upon its truth. The words which follow are remarkable. It had been objected. that when the good man fuffered it was for a tryal; to this Job replies: If the Scourge flay fuddenly, he will laugh at the trial of the innocent, ver. 23. Suddenly, or indifcriminately as Schultens rightly understands it; as much as to fay, when the fword devours the innocent and the wicked man without distinction, if

E 3

the

book, and each party sticks firm to his first opi

nion.

Now this could never have been made matter of difpute, from the most early fuppofed time of Job's existence', even to ours, in any place out of the land

the innocent will diftinguish his ill hap from the wicked man's and call it a tryal, the wicked man will mock at him; and indeed not without fome fhew of reafon.

t 66 Suppofing (fays the Cornifh Anfwerer) we fhould allow "fuch an equal Providence to have been administered in Judæa; 66 yet, fince he himself reckons it the utmost extravagance "to fuppofe it any where else; what an idea does he give 66 us of the talents of Ezra ? who according to him has introduced perfons who were no Jews debating a queftion fo pal"pably abfurd as that it NEVER entered into the head of any one man living to make a question of it out of the land of Judea? confequently could not with the leaft probability or propriety be handled by any but Jews. Is this like one "who, he would make us to believe, was a careful obferver "of Decorum? certainly the rule of Decorum would have

¢་

obliged him reddere perfonæ, &c. as Horace speaks — either "to look out for proper perfons to debate his Queftions, or to "fit his question to the perfons." I fhould have reafon to complain of this infolence of Language, fo habitual to these Anfwerers, did it not always carry its own punishment along with it. For, look, in proportion to their rudeness, is generally their folly, or ill faith. Suppofing (fays this man) we should allow fuch an equal Providence, &c. Now, when the Reader confiders I am only contending for the actual administration of fuch a providence as the Bible, in almost every page, represents to have been adminiftered, will he not naturally fuppofe this to be fome infidel-writer making a gracious conceffion even at the expence of his own caufe? But when he is told that the writer is a minister of the Gospel, will he not conclude that his head is turned with the rage of Answering?

He tells his Reader that I fay, "That the debated quef"tion in the book of Job could NEVER enter into the head "of any man living out of the land of Judea." Now, the very words from whence he pretends to deduce this propofition, convict him of imposture, - This (fay I) could never

have