ed for, by supposing it to have been the usage of the language in its earliest period, and which, though it did not descend later than the writings of Moses, yet might have been common to that and the preceding ages.

But admitting even a similarity of style, one great difficulty still hangs upon the hypothesis,

that these books came from the same writer." (Remarks, &c. pp. 153, 154.)

In the criticism here advanced, this distinguished scholar has not exercised his usual caution and research. The fact differs most widely from his assertion. For it is certain, as we have been most truly told in a late ingenious publication, that throughout the whole Hebrew scriptures, the perfect tense is most generally expressed by the converted future; so that it is clearly the proper idiom of the language. And it is with justice added, that this is a peculiarity of a nature so extraordinary as to be highly deserving of attention; because the regularity of its changes will bear the strictest examination, whereby may be demonstrated the great grammatical accuracy and propriety of expression that has been observed by all the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures for so many years, from Moses to Malachi. This position is substantiated by a wide range of examples in the Letter on certain particularities of the Hebrew Syntax, written by Mr. Granville Sharp, whose acute and valuable philological enquiries as well in that and his other Letters on the same subject, as in his investigations of the Greek text, cannot be too highly commended. The labours of this learned layman reflect honour upon himself, and, what he appears to have much more at heart, light and intelligence upon the sacred text.-Lowth in his Lectures, vol. i. p. 336—345. has treated of the above peculiarity of the Ilebrew tenses.

that Moses was the author of the book: namely, that as he must have intended it for the Israelites, it is scarcely possible to conceive, that, although relating an Idumæan history, he should not have introduced something referring to the peculiar state and circumstances of the people, for whose use it was destined; of which no trace whatever appears in the work. The common subjects touched upon in both, too, we should expect to find similarly handled; and yet, if Peters's remark be just, the manner in which the creation, the fall, the deluge, and other points of antient history, are treated in the book of Job, is widely different from that, in which they are spoken of in the books of Moses. See Crit. Diss. p. 126.

There seems, then, upon the whole, sufficient ground for the conclusion, that this book was not the production of Moses, but of some earlier age: and there appears no good reason to suppose, that it was not written by Job himself. Lowth favours this idea, and Peters urges some arguments, of no inconsiderable weight, in its support. (Crit. Diss. p. 123-125.) The objections against it, from Arabia being called THE EAST, (which, according to Grotius and Le Clerc, marks the writer to be a Hebrew,) and from the account given of the death of Job in the conclusion, create no difficulty. Peters has shewn, that not only did other nations, beside

the Hebrews, call Arabia the East; but that it was customary even with the Arabians themselves and that the writer was an Arabian, het infers with much ingenuity, from the manner in which he speaks of the North wind. As for the addition of a few lines at the conclusion, made by some other hand, for the purpose of completing the history; this should no more invalidate Job's title to the work, than a similar addition at the conclusion of Deuteronomy, should invalidate that of Moses to the Pentateuch. (See Crit. Diss. pp. 127, 128, and pref. p. xvi.)

But, whether we suppose Job the author of the book, or not; its great antiquity, and even its priority to the age of Moses, seems to stand on strong grounds. And upon the whole, perhaps we may not unreasonably conjecture the history of the book to be this.-The poem, being originally written either by Job, or some cotemporary of his, and existing in the time of Moses, might fall into his hands, whilst residing in the land of Midian, or afterwards when in the neighbourhood of Idumæa; and might naturally be made use of by him, to represent to the Hebrews, either whilst repining under their Egyptian bondage, or murmuring at their long wanderings in the wilderness, the great duty of submission to the will of God. The encouragement which this book holds out, that every

good man suffering patiently will finally be rewarded, rendered it a work peculiarly calculated to minister mingled comfort and rebuke, to the distressed and discontented Israelites, and might therefore well have been employed by Moses for this purpose. We may also suppose, that Moses, in transcribing, might have made some small and unimportant alterations, which will sufficiently account for occasional and partial resemblances of expression between it and the Pentateuch, if any such there be.

This hypothesis both furnishes a reasonable compromise between the opinions of the great critics, who are divided upon the point of Moses being the author; and supplies an answer to a question of no small difficulty, which hangs upon almost every other solution: namely, when, and wherefore, a book treating manifestly of the con> cerns of a stranger, and in no way connected with their affairs, was received by the Jews into their sacred canon? For Moses having thus applied the book to their use, and sanctioned it by his authority, it would naturally have been enrolled among their sacred writings: and from the antiquity of that enrolment, no record would consequently appear of its introduction. This hypothesis satis fies the 3d query in the Theol. Repos. vol. i p. 72. I have the satisfaction also to find, that this notion is not without support from many respectable authorities. The antient commentator on Job,

under the title of Origen, has handed down a piece of traditional history, which perfectly accords with it. See Patrick's Preface to Job. Many of the most respectable early writers seem to have adopted the same idea, as may be seen in Huet, (Dem. Evang. p. 226.) and, with some slight variation, it has been followed by that learned author. Patrick also and Peters, speak of it as a reasonable hypothesis. (Crit. Diss. pref. pp. xxxiv. xxxv.) And certainly it possesses this decided advantage, that it solves all the pheno

mena.

One observation more remains to be offered: and that is, that there is good reason to pronounce the book of Job an inspired work. Its reception into the Jewish canon; the recognition of the history, and, as Peters has abundantly proved, (Crit. Diss. pp. 21. 145-148.) consequently of the book itself, by the prophet Ezechiel; a similar admission of it, by another inspired writer, St. James; and the express reference made to it by St. Paul, (1 Cor. iii. 19.) who prefaces his quotation from it by the words, it is written, agreeably to the common form of quoting from other parts of inspired Scripture:-all these fully justify the primitive fathers, and early councils, in their reception of it as a canonical and inspired book. (See Gregor. pref. in Job.)

The intrinsic matter of the work also strengthens this idea. Job appears, from xxxviii. 1. and K

VOL. II.