In the first place, I have shewn this Ode not to be of the nature of an allegory, where the story is only the cover and vehicle to the moral: but of the nature of a relation containing a double sense, primarily and secondarily : in which an information is conveyed in both senses: consequently there ought not to be a single stroke in it that can be understood of a republic and not of a ship: But this is a species of writing entirely distinct from the allegory in question; so that the urging it was impertinent: and the following observation is made with his usual insolence:-this might shew him his mistake in applying passages of the book of Job to the Jewish People MERELY because they cannot be understood of Job! but not with insolence only, but with fraud: For I do not apply passages in the book of Job, MERELY for this reason; no nor principally; but only as one of many

reasons.

However, contending for such discordant circumstances in the vehiclestory, he says, is directly annihilating the allegory. Now I understood it was the establishing it; as it is the only means of getting to the knowledge of its being an allegory. He goes on,-For it is as plain that in an allegory two things or persons must be concerned, as that two and two must go to make four. What he means by this jargon of two's being concerned, I know not. If he means that the fable and the moral must go to the making up the allegory, nobody will dispute it with him. But if he means, that all the personages in the fable must have all the qualities, attributes, and adventures of the personages in the moral, all Æsop's fables will confute this profound reasoner on allegories. However, something, to be sure, he did mean: He had a notion, I suppose, that there was a right and wrong in every thing he only wanted to know where they lie: Therefore, to make these cursory notes as useful as I can, I will endeavour to explain his meaning. It is certain then, that though the justice of allegoric writing does not require that the facts in the fable do in reality correspond exactly with the facts in the moral, yet the truth of things requires the possibility of their so corresponding. Thus, though the Ass perhaps never actually covered himself with a Lion's skin, and was betrayed by his long ears, as Esop relates; yet we have an example before us, sufficient to convince us that he might have done so, without much expence of instinct. But when Dryden made his Hind and Panther dispute about the doctrine and discipline of particular Churches; as they never possibly could have done so, this (to take his own words, instead of better) is directly annihilating the allegory he would establish; for it is as plain that in an allegory two things or persons must be concerned, 'as that two and two must go to make four. But I fancy I ascribe more to his sagacity than it deserves, in supposing, that he understood, what kind of allegory the book of Job must needs be, if it be any allegory at all. I now begin to suspect he took it to be of the same kind with the Ode of Horace, not indeed because he compares it to that Ode ; for such kind of Writers are accustomed to make, as the Poet says, comparisons unlike; but because this suspicion may give some light to his cloudy observation, that two things or persons must be concerned: For in that sort of allegory, which is of the nature of a relation containing a double sense primarily and secondarily, every thing said must agree exactly both to the primary and to the secondary subject. Which perhaps is what this man means by his clumsy precept, of two things or persons concerned. The reason of this distinction, in these two sorts of allegory, is this,-In that sort of allegory, which is of the nature of the book of Job, or of the APOLOGUE, the cover has no moral import: But in that sort which is of the nature of a NARRATIVE WITH A DOUBLE SENSE, the cover has a moral import.

P. 82. F. To this, the Cornish Critic-"What a happy way is here of reconciling contradictions! It seems truth may become falshood, if it be necessary to support the allegory. The moral and the fable may disagree as widely as you please, and the conclusion by a new sort of logic have something in it very different from the premisses." p. 19.-If his kind Reader knows what to make of this jargon of truth becoming falshood, and the conclusion having more in it than the premisses, he may take it for his pains. All that the Author of the Divine Legation asserts to be here done, and which may be done according to nature and good sense, is no more than this, that a dramatic Writer, when he fetches his subject from History, may alter certain of the circumstances, to fit it to his Plot; which all dramatic Writers, antient and modern, have done. Much more reasonable is this liberty, where the work is not only dramatic but allegorical. Now I will suppose, that, together with Job's patience under the hand of God, tradition had brought down an account of his further sufferings under the uncharitable censure of three friends: Was not the Maker of this allegoric work at liberty, for the better carrying on his purpose, to represent them as false ones. Yet, this liberty, our wonderful Critic calls reconciling contradictions, making truth become falshood, and I can't tell what nonsense besides of premisses and conclusions.

P. 82. G. Maimonides having given a summary of the dispute, draws this inference from it: Vide et perpende, quâ ratione hoc negotium confusos reddiderit homines, et ad sententias illas de providentiâ Dei erga creaturas quas exposuimus permoverit. Yet, when he comes to speak of the solution of these difficulties, he could find none. But not to say nothing (the thing most dreaded by Commentators) he pretends to discover, from the obscurity in which things are left, the true scope of the book of Job: Hic fuit scopus totius libri Jobi, ut scilicet constituatur hic articulus fidei, et doceatur, à rebus naturalibus discendum esse, ut non erremus, aut cogitemus scientiam ejus [Dei sc.] ita se habere ut scientiam nostram; intentionem, providentiam, et gubernationem ejus, sicut intentionem, providentiam, et gubernationem nostram. Mor. Nev. p. 3. c. xxiii.

P. 82. H. Here Dr. Grey exclaims-" How, Sir, no wiser? Is God introduced to unfold the mysterious ways of his Providence, and yet the knot is left untied, because the Writer, though speaking in the person of God, and by his inspiration, was not wise enough to untie it? Is that a speech to the purpose, which in a Controversy, as you will have it, where the disputants have much perplexed the question, and a superior Wisdom was wanted to determine it, clears up no difficulties? Or is it language fit to be made use of, when speaking of a book dictated by the Spirit of God, that the writer of it has recourse to the common expedient of dramatic writers to help him out of his straits?" Answer to Remarks, p. 125. Softly, good Doctor! In determining a dispute concerning the ways of Providence, though God himself had indeed interposed, we can conceive but two ways of doing it: The one to SATISFY us, by explaining the end and means of that Providence, where the explanation is useful to us, and adequate to our capacities: The other, to SILENCE us, by an argument to our modesty, drawn from the incomprehensible nature and government of the Deity, where an explanation is not useful to us, and inadequate to our capacities. Both these Determinations, the one by explanation, the other by authority, attended by their respective circumstances, are equally reasonable and the last is here employed for the reason hinted at, to put an end to this embarrassed dispute. Let this serve in answer to the Doctor's question, Is that a speech to the purpose, which in a controversy where the

disputants have much perplexed the question, and a superior wisdom was wanted to determine it, clears up no difficulties?

Indeed, though there was no untying the knot, there was a way to cut it, which would have done full as well; and that was by revealing the doctrine of a future state. Why it was not done, I leave the learned Critic and all in his sentiments, to give us some good account, since they are not disposed to receive that which the author of the Divine Legation has given. For this Doctor tells us, it is but small comfort that arises from resolving all into submission to the almighty power of God. p. 107. St. Paul indeed tells us, it is the greatest comfort, as well as wisdom, to resolve all into submission to the almighty power of God.-But Doctors differ.

From the MATTER of the D. L. the Doctor proceeds (as we see) to the LANGUAGE. Is it language fit to be made use of when speaking of a book dictated by the spirit of God?-The language hinted at, I suppose, is what he had quoted above, that the sacred writer was no wiser when he spoke poetically in the person of God, &c. I think it not unfit, and for these reasons; a Prophet speaking or writing by inspiration is just so far and no further enlightened than suits the purpose of his Mission. Now the clearing up the mysterious ways of Providence being reserved amongst the arcana of the Deity, a Prophet (though employed to end the foolish and hurtful disputes about it, amongst men, by an appeal to the incomprehensible nature of the Deity) was certainly, when he made this appeal in the person of God, no wiser in the knowledge of this arcanum, than when he spoke in the person of Job or his friends.

P. 83. I. This Writer endeavouring to prove the high age of Job or of the Book of Job, for these two things, after better reasoners, he all along confounds, closes his arguments in this manner, Denique post formatam rempublicam Judaicam, secretamque à cæteris gentibus, per instituta propria et legem à Deo datam: non facile, credo, hanc sanctam gentem, ejusdem temporis et sæculi alienigenam, vel hominem Gentilem, in exemplum pietatis proposituram, aut ipsius acta et historiam in sacros eorum codices relaturam. Archæol. Philos. p. 266. ed. 8vo, 1728. The Reader sees, all the strength of the argument rests on this false supposition, that the book must needs be as old as its subject. For if Job were of the Patriarchal times, he was a fit example of piety, let his history be written when it would: and, if written by a sacred Author, it was worthy to be inserted into the Canon of Scripture and was likely to be so inserted, if composed (as we shall see it was) by a Jewish Prophet.

P. 84. K. Vell. Paterc. Hist. 1. i. c. 3. Had Dr. R. Grey known but just so much of the nature of these Compositions, he had never fallen into the ridiculous mistake I am going to take notice of. This learned Critic, to confute the system I advance, that the subject of the argumentative part of the book of Job was, Whether, and why, the good are sometimes unhappy and the bad prosperous; and that the question was debated for the sake of the Israelites in the time of Ezra ; observes as follows. "Zopher says, c. xx. 4, 5. Knowest thou not this of old, since man was placed upon earth, that the triumphing of the wicked is short, and the joy of the hypocrite but for a moment? Now lay your hand upon your heart, Sir, and ask yourself seriously, whether this can relate to an extraordinary Providence over the Jews only." p. 111. He is so pleased with the force of this observation that he repeats it, p. 116. To which I need only reply, Lay your hand, Sir, on your head, and reflect upon this rule of good writing, Nihil enim ex Persona Poetæ, sed omnia sub eorum, qui illo tempore vixerunt, dixerunt. P. 84. L. From amongst many instances which might be given of these

slips, take the following of Euripides, in his Iphigenia in Aulis, Act. 3. where he makes the Chorus say, Troy perishes. And for whom? For you, cruel Helen, who, as they say, are the daughter of Jupiter, who, under the form of a Swan, had commerce with Leda.-So far is well: because we may suppose the Chorus alluded to the popular tale concerning Helen's birth, spread abroad in her life-time. But when the Chorus goes on and says,If at least the writings of the Poets be not fabulous, the Author had forgot himself; for the Poets who embellished her story, lived long afterwards.

P. 85. M. Here the Cornish answerer affirms, "that this method of punishment was not peculiar to the Jewish Polity, but was observed, in some degrees at least, with respect to all mankind." For which he quotes Isaiah's threatenings on the Children of the king of Babylon, chap. xiv. 20, et seq. That is, in order to prove that God punished the crimes of the fathers on the children in some degree at least, with respect to all mankind, he quotes an instance, not of the general providence of God to all mankind, but a particular dispensation to the Babylonians: and not a particular punishment, which selects out the children of transgressing parents, but a general one, which in the nature of things necessarily attends the total overthrow of a State or Community.

P. 85. N. Mr. LOCKE thought this so decisive a proof that the book of Job was written after the giving of the Law, that he says, THIS PLACE ALONE, WERE THERE NO OTHER, is sufficient to confirm their opinion who con clude that book to be writ by a Jew.-Third Letter for Toleration, p. 81, 82. Let those Critics reflect upon this, who think there is no footstep nor shadow of allusion to any thing relating to the people of Israel.

P. 87. O. Ver. 21. evidently taken from these words of the Psalmist, Thou shalt keep them secretly in a pavilion from the strife of tongues, Ps. xxxi. 20. For which was the copy and which the original can here admit no doubt, since the image was an obvious one in the Psalmist, who lived in a great city, less natural in Job who lived in a desert, as we have observed above.

P. 93. P. The best and ablest Critics are generally agreed, and have as generally taken it for granted, that this question is the subject of debate between the several disputants in the book of Job. It would be abusing the reader's patience to produce a long train of Authorities. Though it may not be improper to give the sentiments of the last, though not the least able of them, on this head." Operæ pretium est admonere te, amice Lector, quid nobis de tota hujus Libri materia cogitandum esse videatur. Primum quidem amici Job sic statuunt, quandoquidem tot tantisque cladibus Deus amicum ipsorum Job afflixit, ei Deum esse iratum ; eum igitur pœnas tales aliquo scelere, vel aperto, vel occulto commeruisse. Cujus suæ sententiæ testes adhibent generationes hominum priores, in quibus inauditum est, inquiunt, Deum vel integros viros aspernatum, vel impios manu apprehendisse. Si quis nostræ ætatis homo sic disputaret, nemo esset quin ejus temeritatem atque audaciam miraretur, qui rem aperte falsam sumeret, cum sæpissimè eveniat et summas miserias experiri hac in mortali vita viros bonos, et florentissimam fortunam, flagitiosos. Tamen Job, id quod est maxime considerandum, redargutione tali non utitur. Non id negat, quod sui amici, Patrum memoria teste confirmabant ; quod tamen Job, si falsum id sibi videretur, uno verbo, Mentiris, poterat confutare. Atque etiam idem Job alterum negans, tales se miserias crimine aliquo suo fuisse commeritum, alterum tamen non dissimulat, Deum sibi adversari; in qua ipsa sancti viri confessione adversariorum causa ex parte vincebat, cum suas clades Job sic acciperet, ut iræ divinæ consueta signa, cumque inde non parum animo æstuaret. Quæ cum ita sint, nos sic existimamus, non falsos

fuisse memoriæ testes Job amicos; atque adeo, PRIMIS MUNDI TEMPORIBUS, homines impios fuisse, præter solitum naturæ cursum, divinâ irâ percussos, iisque acceptos plagis, quarum sancti homines essent immunes; Deo Opt. Max. humanas res ita moderante, ut Religionem in terris tueretur, et ut homines, cum talia exempla paterentur, cogitarent esse in cœlo Deum justum, a quo mortales ut recte factorum præmium sperare deberent, sic scelerum ultionem timere." HoUBIGANT in librum Job, lectori.

But, since the writing of my Dissertation, 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, several of them, in defiance of their senses, have denied that this, which this honest Priest of the Oratory makes to be the subject of the book of Job, has indeed any thing at all to do with it. Amongst the foremost of these is Dr. Richard Grey, the epitomiser of Albert Schultens' Comment on this book. In the preface to his Abstract, amongst other things, he has criticised my opinion of the scope of the book in the following manner."Nam quod dicit vir clariss. id præcipue in hoc libro disceptari, nempe an bonis semper bona, malisque mala, an utrisque utraque promiscue obtingent; hanc autem quæstionem (a nobis quidem alienam, minus ideo perpensam) nusquam alibi gentium præterquam in Judæa nec apud ipsos Judæos alio quovis tempore, quam quod assignat, moveri potuisse, id omne ex veritate suæ hypotheseos pendet, et mea quidem sententia, longe aliter se 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 not 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 disputation any where but in the land of Judæa, nor there neither at any other time than that which he assigns; all this, I say, depends on the truth of his hypothesis, and is, in my opinion, far otherwise.-That which depends on the truth of an hypothesis has, indeed, generally speaking, a very slender foundation: and I am partly of opinion it was the common prejudice against this support which disposed the learned Prefacer to give my notions no better a name. But what I have shewn to be the subject of the book is so far from depending on the truth of my hypothesis, that the truth of my hypothesis depends on what I have shewn to be the subject of the book: and very fitly so, as every reasonable hypothesis should be supported on a fact. Now I might appeal to the learned world, whether it be not as clear a fact that the subject 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 subject of the first book of Tusculan Disputations is de contemnenda morte. On this I founded my hypothesis, that the book of Job must have been written about the time of Esdras, because no other assignable time could at all suit the subject. But 'tis possible I may mistake in what he calls my hypothesis: for aught I know, he may understand not that of the book of Job, but that of the Divine Legation. And then, by my hypothesis, he must 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 hypothesis which the Bible was not only divinely written, but was likewise divinely preserved, to testify; which all Believers profess to believe; and which none but Unbelievers and Answerers to the Divine Legation directly deny. However, if this be the hypothesis he means, I need desire no better a support. But the truth is, my interpretation of the book of Job seeks