fettled the Canon, and added in Several places throughout the books of his edition, what appeared neceffary for the illuftrating, connecting, or

pleating of them. He is reasonably supposed to be the author of the two books of Chronicles and the book of Efther. It was a common tradition too amongst the Jews that he was the fame with Malachi. And his great reputation as a ready fcribe in the Law of Mofes, apparently gave birth to that wretched fable of the deftruction of the Scriptures in the Babylonian captivity, and Ezra's re-production of them by divine infpiration.

Thus is our interpretation of the BOOK OF JOB fo far from taking away any dignity, or authenticity it was before poffeffed of, that it establishes and enlarges both. The fhewing it principally refpected a whole People highly ennobles the fubject and the fixing an anonymous writing on one of the most eminent of God's Prophets greatly ftrengthens its authority. But the chief advantage of my interpretation, I prefume, lies in this, That it renders one of the most difficult and obfcure books in the whole Canon, the most easy and intelligible; reconciles all the characters to Nature, all the arguments to Logic, and all the doctrines to the courfe and order of GoD's Difpenfations. And these things fhewing it fuperior, in excellence, to any human Compofition, prove, what univerfal Tradition hath always taught, that it is of divine Original.

II.

Having brought down the date of this book fo low, it is of little importance to our subject, whe

z Prideaux's Conn. P. i. b. 5.

ther

ther the famous paffage in the nineteenth chapter be understood of a RESURRECTION from the dead, or only of TEMPORAL DELIVERANCE from afflictions a. Yet as our interpretation affords new affistance for determining this long debated queftion, it will not be improper to fift it to the bot

tom.

I make no fcruple then to declare for the opinion of those who say that the words, [I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall ftand at the latter

a Indeed, had the book of Job the high antiquity which the common fyftem fuppofes, the contending at the fame time for the Spiritual fenfe of this text, would be followed with infuperable difficulties: but thefe, let the fupporters of that Syftem look to. The very learned Author of the argument of the Divine Legation fairly ftated, &c. hath fet thefe difficulties in a light which, I think, fhews them to be infuperable: "Thofe men,

(fays this excellent writer) who maintain this fyftem, [of "the high antiquity of the book, and the Spiritual fenfe of "the text] muft needs regard the text to be direct and "literal, not typical or figurative. But then this difficulty

occurs, How came MOSES (if he was the Author) to be fo "clear in the book of Job, and fo obfcure in the Pentateuch? "Plain expreffion and typical adumbration are the contrary of

66

one another. They could not both be fit for the fame people, "at the fame time. If they were a fpiritualized People they "had no need of carnal covers, fuch as Types; and if they "were a carnal-minded people, the light of fpiritual things "would only ferve to dazzle, not to aid their fight.

"Nor is the matter mended, but made worfe, by fuppofing "the book to be written by Joв himfelf, or any other Patriarch "earlier than Mofes: That wou'd be only transferring the

46

Charge from Mofes, to the God of Mofes: For while the book of "Job was defigned by Providence, for part of the Jewish Canon, "it is the fame unaccountable conduct tho' removed thither, "The RESURRECTION is open and expofed to all in the book of Job; and it is hid and covered under types and figures "in the Pentateuch. From whence arifes this noble truth worthy of its inventers, That the fame doctrine may, at one and the fame time, be the proper object both of clear and manifeft, and of dark and uncertain contemplation, to the fame Perfons." p. 134.

day upon the earth. And though after my skin, worms deftroy this body, yet in my flesh fhall I fee God. Whom I fball fee for myself, and mine eyes fhall bebold, and not another,] can fignify no more than JOB's confidence in a TEMPORAL DELIVERANCE; as all agree they may fignify. And therefore Í fhall the lefs infift upon a common observation, "That our Tranflators, who were in the other opinion, have given a force to their expreffion which the Original will by no means bear."

I

My reasons are thefe, 1. To understand the words, of a Refurrection, is repugnant to the whole tenor of the Argument: and to understand them of a temporal deliverance is perfectly agreeable thereto. 2. The end and defign of the Compofition, as explained above, abfolutely requires this latter fense, and disclaims the former. 3. The former sense is repugnant to Job's own exprefs declaration in other places.

I. We must obferve that the book of Job is ftrictly argumentative: and though fententious, and abounding with poetic figures, yet they are all fubfervient to the matter in difpute. In this refpect, much unlike the writings of David and Solomon, which treat of divine or moral matters in fhort and detached fentences. On which account, the ableft of thofe, who go into the fenfe of a Refurrection, have found the neceffity of reconciling it to the Context. Thus much being granted, we argue against the fenfe they put upon it, from thefe confiderations. 1. First the Difputants are all equally embaraffed in adjusting the ways of Providence. Job affirms that the Good man is fometimes

Chap. xix. ver. 25, & feq.

unhappy :

unhappy: yet he appears to regard that Dispensation as a new thing and matter of wonder, upright men fhall be aftonished at this; which, our interpretation well accounts for. The three friends contend that the Good man can never be unhappy, because fuch a fituation would reflect difhonour on God's attributes. Now the doctrine of a Refurrection, fupposed to be here urged by Job, cleared up all this embarras. 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 least notice that any fuch thing had been urged, they go on, as they began, to inforce their former arguments, and to confute that which, they seem to understand, was the only one Job had urged against them, viz. The consciousness of his own innocence. But to be a little more particular. It fell to Zophar's part to answer the argument contained in the words in queftion, which I understand to be this" Take, fays Job, this proof of "my innocence, I believe, and confidently expect, "that God will vifit me again in mercy, and re"ftore me to my former condition." To this Zophar, in effect, replies: But why are you fo miferable now? For he goes on, in the twentieth chapter, to defcribe the punishment of the Wicked to be just such a state as Job then laboured under. He does not directly fay, The Good are not miferable; but that follows from the other part of the Propofition, (which he here inforces as being a little more decent) The bad are never happy. Now fuppofe Job fpoke of the Resurrection, Zophar's aniwer is wide of the purpose. 2. But what is ftill more unaccountable, Job, when he refumes the

VOL. V.

Chap. xvii. ver. 8.

I

difpute,

difpute, fticks to the argument he first set out with; and, tho' he found it gave his Friends little fatisfaction, yet he repeats it again and again. But this other argument of a Refurrection, fo full of Piety and Conviction, which they had never ventured to reply to, he never once refumes; never upbraids his Adverfaries for their filence; nor triumphs, as he well might, in their inability to answer it. But, if ever it were the object of their thoughts, it paffed off like a Dream or Reverie to which neither fide gave any attention. In a word, the Difpute between Job and his Friends ftands thus: They hold, that if God afflicted the Good man: it would be unjuft; therefore the Good man was not afflicted. Job fays, that God did afflict the Good man; but that Reafon muft here fubmit, and own God's ways to be infcrutable. Could he poffibly rest in that anfwer, how pious foever, if he had the more fatiffactory folution of a FUTURE STATE? To this let me add, that if Job spoke of a Refurrection, he not only contradicts the general tenor of his argument, maintained throughout the whole difputation, but likewife what he says in many places concerning the irrecoverable diffolution of the body". It is true, that even in the fenfe of a temporal deliverance he contradicts what he had faid, in his defpair, in the feventeenth chapter: But there is

See chap. vii. ver. 9, 21. Chap. x. ver. 21. Chap. xvi. ver. 22. Chap. xiv. ver. 7, & feq. Could one who faid, For there is hpe of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will Sprout again, &c. But man dieth, &c. could fuch a one (I speak of the perfonated character) think of the body like him who faid, But Some man will fay, How are the dead raised up, and with what body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou fowest is not quickned except it die. And that which thou fowift thou fowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat or fome other grain, &c.

3

a mani