where they confefs the truth of them, do not admit the juftice of their reafoning from them, it will be

fion of the fame, 1 Chron. xxi. 1. Job, i. ii. and Zechariah, iii. 1, 2. where the patrons of the latest date of Job's book allow the prince of fallen angels to be intended. However, though no example could be produced of fuch use of it prior to the times of the captivity, from a book of so small size as the more early scriptures, where little mention is made of evil spirits, it would be rash to affirm, the word which signifies an enemy in general, was never before employed to mark him out among the Jews, when it had such an aptitude to fignify him by way of eminence, who is the great adversary of the honour of God, and the happiness of men.-In particular, it hath been urged against them who bring the book fo low as the captivity, and make the ground of it mere traditionary accounts of Job's character, circumftances, and behaviour, who lived in the patriarchal times, that these accounts must at fo great a distance as 1000 years, have appeared of too uncertain credit to be the foundation of such a fuperftructure as is here, and of fuch veneration for Job as the declaration in Ezekiel's prophecy fupposes. That there is no likelihood the book was written for the end affigned, for what tendency could it trave, either to comfort the Jews under their removal to Babylon, and their hardships there, fince they were fubjected to it for their idolatry and other crimes, (as were the Edomites,) Dan. ix. 4—13. Ezra, ix. 6. 7. or to folace them after they came back to their own country cured of their biafs to serve falfe gods, under their injurious treatment by their neighbours there? fince they were then chargeable with general and flagrant offences against their law by intermarriages with heathens, by exaction of usury from their brethren, by violation of the fabbath, and by neglect of the house of God, and of the instituted services of worship in it, as appears from Ezra, ix. 1. x. 1. Nehem. v. 13. ix. 1. &c. xiii. throughout, and the reproaches of God's prophets Haggai, Malachi, and Zechariah, in that period.-Nor furely were the Jews to learn then only, that though good they might be misfortunate, and though wicked they might be profperous. Dr. Lowth hath also observed, that Ezra's stile, to whom this book hath been afcribed by fome, who date it fo late as the return of the Jews from the Babylonifh captivity into their own land, is very different from that of the historical narrative at its beginning and end.

eafy to fhew, that the confequence does not hold from our finding Arabic words in our Hebrew book of Job, to its being a version of an Arabic original.

Do we suppose it a work of Mofes, amidst his greater leifure in the land of Midian, built upon most authentic accounts which he had received of Job's character and condition? and indeed this hath been a very common opinion both among Jews and Chriftians.

* It hath been reckoned the most common, although Jofephus did not look upon it as a compofition of Mofes. To this purpose fpeak the authors of the Antient Universal History; for they say, 'it hath ⚫ been attributed to Moses by the majority of learned men,' and add, "That his poetic genius was equal to this excellent performance, those ' few canticles he has left us in the Pentateuch will not permit us to 'doubt,' though at the fame time they feem to have thought another wrote the three or four last verses of the book, which give an account of Job's death and numerous posterity, as they did not suppose Mofes to have outlived him fo long, as to be able to relate these facts, vol. 3. P. 353. Nor is there perhaps any exaggeration in their affertion. It is the fense of the Talmudists in Bava Bathra, and of David Kimchi with many other Rabbis; it is the judgment of feveral Christian fathers, as of Methodius, of the authors of the commentaries on Job,commonly afcribed to Origen, of Jerome,&c. it is the opinion of Huetius,bishop Patrick, Schmidius, the present learned bishop of Oxford, the author of Obfervationes Miscellaneae in Jobum, &c. And the favourers of it do, or may observe, that there is a great agreement in ftile between the profe parts of this book, and the profe parts of his acknowledged books, and between the poetical parts of this book, and the fongs and predictions which he hath recorded through the Pentateuch; or if there is any difference, there is none but what may be accounted for by his writing them in different periods of life, in one of which the imagination was more warm and lively, but in the other its heat and vivacity were a bated. That Job an Arabian, might be described by a writer in Midian, as well as a writer in Canaan, as a man of the east, because Arabia lay on the east of the former, as well as of the latter That the separation of it from Mofes's allowed works in the Bible, is

Whether it was composed by him to

teach the Ifralites patience under the miseries of their fervitude and oppreffion under the Egyptians, and to folace them with hope of deliverance, or whether it was framed by him to inculcate that great truth, that no evidence he was not the writer of it; for, not to mention that in one antient catalogue, I mean that of Jerome's letter to Paulinus, (of which before, Part 1. fect 6. pp. 32. 33.) the book of Job is mentioned next after the five books of Mofes, we find books are separated from one another in the order of arrangement which had the fame author. Thus in the Hebrew bible and in Jewish lifts, the book of Job is placed between the Proverbs and the Song; Ruth and Lamentations again intervene between the Song and Ecclesiastes; yet Proverbs, Song, and Ecclefiaftes are the works of Solomon; Ruth and Lamentations are the production of perfons very diftant in age from him, as well as from one another.

* This hath been generally believed the defign of it by them who attribute it to Mofes, and the person who writes the commentaries upon this book under the name of Origen, tells us he found fuch an account of its view in the fayings of the antients. See Patrick's preface 8vo. pp. 17, 18. where a long story of this kind is quoted thence, and in fupport of it it may be said, If Job an upright worshipper of God was so patient under his troubles, it much more became the Ifraelites to acquiefce in their fufferings under the tyranny of Pharaoh, who were tainted with the idolatries and other vices of Egypt.- -Further, tho' they could not with reafon entertain hopes of deliverance and redemption, from Job's recovery to a profperous state in itself confidered, because their character was far different from his; yet such an instance of divine interpofition in his behalf, criminal as their behaviour was, might ftrengthen their expectations, that he would extend mercy to them alfo, as it was a blessing promised in his covenant with Abraham.

†This is fuggefted by Bp Sherlock in his Second Differtation, where indeed as will be afterwards observed. he supposes the book to be written by a different perfon from Mofes, and more antient. Suitably, Satan the evil being is reprefented there unable to afflict Job, till he hath God's allowance; and Job adores God there as the fupreme Lord and Sovereign, by whofe direction all his diftreffes and loffes befell him.

there was one fupreme ruler of the univerfe, by whose will all calamity, as well as all profperity happened, in oppofition to the very antient error of two independent and coordinate principles, the one the author of all good, the other the author of all evil, is not material here. Upon this fuppofition, that it is a production of Mofes, it cannot seem strange, that there fhould be words or forms of words in it, which + though then in use among, or known to his countrymen, afterwards fell into disuse, so that they are only to be read in Arabic pieces, and not in the other books of the Bible, as indeed in fome of them alfo, there are words in vain fearched for through it any where else.

Again, do we suppose it, as some of distinguished fame for oriental learning*have done, a composition

If any should incline to think Mofes had any affiftance in this work by written memoirs in the Arabic dialect, the fame being formed before that time, in contradiftinction to the Hebrew, he may account for the Arabic terms by their occurrence in them, while yet they were not unintelligible to the Ifraelites.

*This was the opinion of the celebrated Albert Schultens, a very able judge in eastern writings, with regard to that part of the book which reaches from the iii. chapter to the 6 verse of the xlii. as may be seen in his preface; of Cocceius likewife, and Carpzovius, and Hinckelman, and, if I mistake not, of Golius, and Walton, and Bochart, as it was that of Suidas of old. To this alfo, Bishop Sherlock seems to have inclined, who fays, there is all the appearance that can arise from internal characters, that it was written before any of the books of Moses; wherefore he confiders its teftimony to religious doctrine, as distinct from the authority of Mofes. And in favour of this opinion, it hath been, or may be remarked, it seems very reasonable to fuppofe that Job, in fome of his happy and unmolested years, wrote the piece. For who could be better prepared to transmit to pofterity an account of the difcourfes of himself and his friends, and of the addrefs of the Almighty upon the occafion, than he who was always present at, and bore fo great

of Job himself, in the fame language in which it is now extant? I mean this with exception of the introduction and conclufion, which appear rather to have been written by a Jewish prophet, when it was admitted into the canon of his church, (whether it was Mofes, or Samuel, or another, is not important) on account of the difference of stile therein, and in particular the frequent ufe of the name Jehovah, the impropriety of Job's recording his own praises, and the impoffibility of his giving a relation of his own death. In this case, it seems very natural that there fhould be Arabisms in it, or terms and modes of fpeech, occurring in no other part of the Bible, but found among Arabian authors. They might be, in Job's age, common to all the pofterity of Heber,but become afterwards obfolete in the Jewish branch, at least not appear

a fhare in the original dialogue? And who again could be better difpofed to edify mankind by the relation in future ages, than he who so eminently reverenced God, and must have been very solicitous to promote his honour and glory in the world? Further, hath not the piece itself, the air and appearance of being penned by one who was an agent in the scene? Doth it not carry the stamp and impreffion of such a hand in these ardent affections, thefe daring expreffions, which are obfervable through it? And if Job wrote the fame, why should it be thought he wrote it in another language, fo that we have only a tranflation of his compofition, when there is no reason to suppose the language of Abraham's posterity by Jacob, and of the inhabitants of Arabia from the fame stock with them, was, in that early period, fo different, that they would be unintelligible to one another; and when there does not appear any fuch want of emphasis and force, or of dignity and majefty, or of grace and beauty, as points out a verfion? Are not the names which Job gave his daughters, Hebrew? And why should any fancy Job called his children by words of the Hebrew language, but spoke in common life, or wrote, in a language quite distinct, which could not be comprehended by them that used that ?