the east,) and that it was committed by him to the cuftody of the Jewish church, like those other antient oracles which compofe the old Teftament. And in the fame manner may fome others have judged, tho' all who have approved his leading fentiment, may not have agreed with him in every notion about the time or author of the piece. This scheme, however, is not at all our author's, otherwise the parag a h quoted from him, might have been allowed to pafs without reprehenfion. For he says, without diftinguishing between the book in its firft ftamina or elements, and in its now finished and perfect fhape, that it was written originally in Arabic; that the Hebrew copy is as much a version as the Greek copy; and is pofitive that it is not a Jewish book, as we faw before he was for excluding it from the writings of the Hebrew canon. And what is the great argument upon which he founds this important conclufion, and by which he would perfwade us of its indubitable certainty? It is no more than that fome Arabic terms are retained in it; an argument which is by no means fufficient to justify the afsertion, and to make us profelytes to his opinion. Nevertheless, that we may fhew the weakness and futility of it the more fully, it will be requifite to confider the age in which Job lived.

Of the age in which Fob lived.

Now, as to the age of Job, he seems to have lived in a pretty early period. Some indeed have fuppofed him to have lived about the time of the Babylonifh

Part I. fect. 6. page 30, 31.

captivity, because he is mentioned by God himself, in Ezekiel's prophecy, two different times after Da niel, who was one of the Jewish prisoners whom Nebuchadnezzar carried away in Jehoiakim's time; as this Daniel again, is likewife mentioned twice, according to the real order of his birth, after Noah, chap. xiv. 14, 20. But fpecious as this plea is at first view, it hath little force in it. For the order ob served in enumerating perfons in scripture, so often varies from that which the time of their nativity into the world required, that no conclufion can be drawn from preference of recital, to preference or precedence of living. Thus, Gen. vi. 10. Noah is faid to have begot three fons, Shem, Ham and Ja phet. But were they born into the world in the order in which they stand in this catalogue? No. For Ham was his youngest son, and Japhet the eldeft, Gen. ix. 24. X. 21. Again we are told, ' Terah liv⚫ed seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor and HaC ran,' Gen. xi. 27. But was Abraham older than these two brothers in the lift? Far otherwife. For the facred hiftorian is exprefs, that he was only seventyfive years old at his removal from Charran, after his

See ibid, page 32. where, however, hath been, through inadvertence, an omiffion of a short clause, which the tenor of the reasoning required, and even the truth of the fact did claim. For, though Grotius, Codurcus, and the learned bishop of Gloucester were of opinion, that the book of Job was written about the age of the captivity, not they, but others imagined Job lived but a little before that event.— The fentence should have run, both to compleat the argument, and to be agreeable to fact, after mentioning the judgment of these persons about the date of the book of Job, as follows, And might fancy that ⚫ Job lived when that calamity was at no great distance, as some others have thought, among whofe arguments, &c.'

D d

father Terah's death; though this happened not till he was two hundred and five years old, or had furvived the 70th year of his life, in which he is here faid to have begot these fons, one hundred and thirty-five years. Abraham * must therefore have been younger than the reft, and not born till Terah was much more advanced in age. Once more; is not Mofes often mentioned before Aaron, in the history of their atchievements? Exod. iv. 29. v. 1, &c. Yet Aaron was fenior, as is evident from comparing Num. xxxiii. 38, 39. and Deut. xxxiv. 5,-7. In like manner then, Job might be of a far fuperior age to Daniel, though poftponed to him in Ezekiel's catalcue; and he might be mentioned laft for

It must be allowed, the hiftorian never intended to point out Abraham as Terah's eldest son, by placing him first in the lift of those whom he begat when he was 70 years old, unless we will be fo unreasonable as to make him a perfon fo deftitute of all understanding and attention, as, within the compass of a few lines, to give accounts first of the season of life when Terah begat Abraham, and of the length of his years when he died, and then of Abraham's age at this last event, which are obviously and plainly incompatible with one another. Besides, the history itself leads us to believe, that Haran, though laft mentioned among Terah's fons, like Japhet among Noah's, was the first born, instead of Abraham. For we are expressly told, Nahor, Abraham's brother, married his daughter Milcah; as Ifcah, his other daughter, is thought to be the Sarai whom Abraham took; wherefore, Jonathan adds, in his Targum on Gen. xii. 29. The fame Ifcah is Sarai.' and Jofephus calls Sarai, in one place, Haran's daughter; in another, Abram's niece; in another, the sister of Lot, his brother Haran's fon. Antiq 1.6, 5. and 7. 1. Now this being the cafe, all Voltaire's ridicule, founded on reprefenting Abram 135 years old at Terah, or Tharaeus's death, in the 1 6th chapter of his Philofophy of History, page 74. falls to the ground. On which account, I have dwelt longer on this example.

his transcendent piety and virtue, or because he was not of the feed of Jacob, as Daniel was. But though fome have fuppofed Job fo late as the captivity, it is not the general fenfe of those who have accounted him a real perfon, nor even of those, which is remarkable, who have made the book itfelf the compofition of an age confiderably posterior to that in which he lived. Much the greater part of fuch have placed him before the exodus, or the departure of the children of Ifrael from Egypt. And this opinion they think strongly favoured by many things in the book itself; for inftance, the inventory of his wealth, which is described to confist in multitudes of cattle of various kinds, like Abraham's, Lot's, Ifaac's, Laban's, Efau's and Jacob's;-The resemblance between his facrifices and the patriarchal ones, Gen. xii. 7. 8. xiii. 18. xxii. 3. &c;-And there being no mention of any kind of idolatry in it, except the worship of the fun, and moon, and stars, that is, of the idolatry which was more antient than any other, Job, xxxi. 26, 27, 28. They remark also, with the fame view, the omiffion of the method of God's declaring his will to Mofes, when Elihu enumerates the different ways by which he was accustomed to discover himself to men, xxxiii. 14, 1 5. and many of them at least, the entire filence which is obferved by the speak

‡ I express myself thus, because it is not the opinion of all who place Job before the Exodus, that there is no reference or allusion to these wonders, and to the Jewish law and history after them. For the learned Dr. Warburton and Mr. Heath &c. fuppofe fome touches at fuch things, whereby the writer of the book, whom they make of an age far posterior to Job, violated the strict rules of decorum, which fhould have been obferved to the critical perfection of his piece, and

4

kers about the miracles in Egypt and at the Red sea, how pertinent foever they were to be urged, for fhew

betrayed, like fome of the greatest masters in dramatic writing, his own real time and country. However, many of the advocates for Job's fuperior antiquity, perhaps the greatest number of them, have thought, there is not any allusion in the dialogue to any event about or after the departure from Egypt, or to any ftatute of the Mofaic code.-Nor, if I may prefume to give my fentiments upon this fubject, am I fatisfied there is. In general, it is unreasonable, unless we are compelled by clear evidence, to suppose the author puts into the mouths of the speakers whom he introduces, thoughts unfuitable to the time in which they lived, and the more skilful and exact he appears to be in that sort of writing, it is in proportion more unreasonable; what then must be said, when the author of this book, who is allowed to be on the whole very cautious that his interlocutors talk in a way agreeable to their re al circumstances and age, is reprefented at other times, to make them deviate from the notions and language thereof, in a manner the most palpable and grofs, and eafily detected; yea to do fo with a frequency far beyond what any other writer inftructed in the nature of fuch compofition, can be charged with even in a work of greater length? This confideration itself muft incline me to think there are not so many improprieties here as are fuppofed.---As to the instances that are pointed out, it would fwell this note too much to examine them all. I will therefore only take notice of fome which have been regarded as more decifive. Thus the parting of the Red sea, and the destruction of Pharaoh, have been said to be referred to, where Job fays xxvi. 12.' He ⚫ divideth the fea with his power, and by his understanding he fmiteth through the proud;' for, fay they, this laft word 2 Rahhab, is put to fignify, the king of Egypt, or that country itself. But is this translation of the first clause, and expofition of the second at all certain? While fome turn the former period, he ftilleth, smootheth, or calmeth the fea by his strength,' for which we may compare the ufe of the verb y ragang in Hiphil, Ifai. xxxi. 2. xxxiv. 14. xlvii. 6. li. 4. Jerem. 1 34. Deut. xxviii. 65 and obferve that they have the concurrence of the 7o with them, ισχυι κατέπαυσε την Baxacar; others, as Mercer, Schultens, Taylor, understand it of

his railing, agitating, and tofling the fea, in which way they alfo in