to the other world by an invisible hand; what are all these but the circumstances recorded by

I find, in his explanation of Sheól, describes the notion entertained of it by the Jews thus; "Nw, purgatorii locum existimant, ex quo redduntur superis animæ, exantlatis quibus erant obnoxiæ pœnis." (Crit. Sacr. tom. iii. p. 3318.)Windet also mentions, that to the Sheôl of the Hebrews, corresponds the Amenthes of the Egyptians, which Plutarch, comparing it with the Hades of the Greeks, expounds by, τον λαμβάνοντα και δίδοντα, in his book of Isis and Osiris. (De vita functorum statu, p. 24. also Peters, p. 320.)— Windet likewise informs us, that the Jews hold Gehenna, or the place of perdition, to be the lowest part of Sheôl, the general receptacle of departed souls :-and that in order to express the great depth, to which they conceive it to be sunk, they are used to describe it as beneath the waters: their idea being, that the waters are placed below the earth, and that the earth floats upon them like a ship. De vitâ functorum statu, pp. 242, 243. Tartarus, in like manner, he says (p. 245.) the Greeks made the lowest part of Hades.

On the Jewish notions of Sheôl, compared with the Greek notions of Hudes, I would refer the reader to the entire of the last named work; to Peters's Crit. Diss. as before noticed; to Bishop Lowth's Lectures, vol. i. p. 156-166 (Greg. edit.) and Mr. Henley's note in ditto, p. 213; to Mich. Not. et Epim. pp. 27, 28. and to Bishop Horsley's Hosea, pp, 46. 157-160. 200, 201. He may consult also with advantage the Sermon of this last writer, upon Christ's descent into Sheól: and upon the same subject, he will find a good dis course by Johnson of Cranbrook, in the 2d volume of his Sermons.

Were I now, upon the whole, to offer my own rendering, of the passage in Job out of which this long discussion has arisen, I would venture the following.

Moses in Exodus, xii. 29, of the destruction of the first-born of the Egyptians? Pharaoh likewise is the king, to whom God is said just before to have given the title of Belial. We have here of course another proof, that the writer of this poem was posterior in time to Moses."*

The souls of the dead tremble;

[The places] below the waters, and their inhabitants.

The seat of spirits is naked before him;

And the region of destruction hath no covering.

Here I take the souls of the dead, and the inhabitants of the places below the (abyss of) waters, to bear to each other the same proportion, that is found, in the next verse, to subsist between the seat of spirits, and the region of destruction : those of the dead who were sunk in the lowest parts of Sheôl, 'being placed in the region of destruction, or the Gehenna of the later Jews. So that the passage, on the whole, conveys this; that nothing is, or can be concealed from the all-seeing eye of God: that the souls of the dead tremble under his view, and the shades of the wicked sunk to the bottom of the abyss, can even there find no covering from his sight.

Heath, who is extremely anxious to lower the antiquity of the Book of Job, has gone before the Bishop, in the notion that the slaughter of the first-born is here alluded to; although his Lordship has mentioned this, as one of the notes of time, which had escaped all the commentators. To make the reference appear more probable, that author has rendered the word 12, in such a manner, as to imply the passing on of the destroying angel, as described by Moses. In doing so, he has undoubtedly improved the resemblance to the account of the transaction in Exodus. But to make this point out, he is compelled either to violate grammar, or to pluralize the Angel. These things, however, avail nothing, as the hypo

Now undoubtedly, if this supplies a proof, of the point proposed, the matter of demonstration is easier than has been commonly imagined. In the original passage here referred to, it must be remembered, that the Bishop does not pretend to thesis must be supported.-Warburton, with the same resolute determination to modernize Job, discovers, in the passage before us, not only the transaction in Egypt, but also another of a nature entirely different. The words, he says, " plainly refer to the destruction of the first-born in Egypt, AND Senna. cherib's army ravaging Judæa.”—Div. Leg. vol. ii. p. 498. -What now becomes of that appropriate term, " midnight," which, with the Bishop, singled out the transaction in Egypt from every other; and of that other significant word, 172, "pass through," which has so completely satisfied Heath, that no other than that transaction could have been intended: -neither of these words being found in the history of the destruction of Sennacherib's army.-Codurcus has, with true propriety and good sense, suggested the use which is to be made of the two events alluded to by Warburton: namely, that they are facts, to which the mind is naturally led, as tending to exemplify and confirm the observation on the ways of Providence, which is laid down in this part of Job: and that had these events taken place before the composition of the poem, it would not be unnatural to suppose, that the writer had them, with others of the same kind, in his view. These are the reflections of a sober judgment, which, it were much to be wished, was more frequently to be met with in our commentators and translators. I should mention indeed, that Holden and Scott have taken the same judicious view of the subject. To prove how wide in its application this passage in Job has been found, I shall add only one instance more of its appropriation. The Chaldee has discovered in it an allusion to the destruction of Sodom.

have discovered any one expression, which is to be found in the description of the slaughter of the first-born in Egypt, excepting the single term, "midnight." This almost total diversity of phrase is surely no part of the proof, that the description in Job is taken from that which was given by Moses. But although there be not an identity of expressions, yet may there not be a general similarity to justify the Bishop's assertion? On the contrary, there is nothing more requisite than his Lordship's own statement of the case, to overturn every idea of a reference to Moses's account of the above transaction. For, in the first place, according to that statement, God is here represented as having given to Pharaoh the title of Belial.*-Now this is a

*His Lordship has here created a difficulty against himself. For, as it is stated above, were Pharaoh supposed to be in this place intended under the title of Belial, this would disprove the Bishop's position that the writer alludes to the history in Exodus. But that Pharaoh is intended here, there is not the slightest ground to imagine. In this I will be judged even by the Bishop's own translation:

"Shall even the hater of justice give laws?

And wilt thou condemn the eminently just One?

Who saith unto a king, Thou art Belial!

Ye are wicked! unto princes:

Who accepteth not the persons of nobles,

Neither is the rich man," &c.

Now where is Pharaoh? Is it in the word Belial? That name was never given to him.-But he deserved such a name, Why? Is it because Belial implics wickedness; and was

piece of information, with which Moses does not appear to have been acquainted; of which at least he has left behind him no record. Again, as his Lordship reminds us, and with the additional emphasis of Italics, the passage in Job describes those who were taken away, as "the strong ones." Now what does Moses tell us? That, "the Lord smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharaoh that sat on his throne, unto the first-born of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the first-born of the cattle."In other words, he informs us, that the first-born, of both man and beast, was indiscriminately destroyed; and this, the Bishop thinks, is significantly conveyed by the phrase strong ones, or rather (as our common version more properly reads) the mighty. But again, his Lordship sees plainly in, "the invisible hand," (or as he himself

Pharaoh the only wicked king? We might also demand to be informed who were those Princes of Pharaoh's court, who are at the same time denominated wicked. In truth the Bishop's argument might on the whole be put thus: Pharaoh, it is true, is not by Moses called Belial, but he ought to have been so called by him, and therefore we may consider him as actually having been so called.-Again; Pharaoh is not named here, but as the word Belial is used, which denotes wickedness, Pharaoh ought to have been named, and therefore we may consider him as having been actually named.-Really this is too extravagant.-N. B the word Belial, simply signifies worthless, wicked, axguns, nequam: from a non, and profuit.