then let him tell me fairly, whether he does not find as much difference between these two writers, as between Sallust and William of Malmsbury. Let him next look into the poetical parts of Job, and let him compare them with any part of Ezra's undoubted writings, and I would then ask him, whether he would not as soon pitch upon Geoffry of Monmouth for the author of the Eneid, if that were a doubtful point, as Ezra for the author of the poem of Job: and I should not much doubt of his answering in the affirmative."(Letter to Warb. pp. 96, 97.)

Bishop Lowth does not stand single in these opinions. For the evidence supplied to the antiquity of the book of Job from the nature of its language, I refer the reader to p. 113-115. 119-121. 123–126, of this volume: and in the subjoined note, the opinions of some of the

* On the idea that Ezra could have written in that pure and poetic style, which is to be found in the Mosaic writings, the Psalms, and the book of Job, Michaelis makes the follow. ing remarks. Nihil Ezrâ inornatius; ut mirer, quo erroris portento Mosaica illi scripta tribui potuerint: quanquam non est, quod mirer, cum facinus simillimum ausus sit Harduinus." (Præf. in Not. et Epim. p. ix.) Again, "Comparet cui lubet, quæ ante et post exilium Babylonis Hebraice scripta supersunt; nec minorem inveniet labem ac ruinam quam in linguâ Latina. Quapropter est mihi veri dissimillimum, grande ac poeticum spirantes psalmos post reditum ex Babylone scriptos fuisse-Ezræ certe, cujus hebraismo nihil est humilius et ingratius, psalmos nobilissimos tribuere, peccato

most distinguished Hebrew critics will be found in a more detailed state to yield confirmation to the above positions. In speaking of Le Clerc,

vicinum est Harduini, odas Horatianas infimæ linguæ Latina ætati tribuentis." (p. 196.)-Again, speaking particularly of the book of Job, he says, "Totius poematis ea est puritas, elegantia, sublimitas, quâ nihil majus perfectiusque in toto Hebraico codice superest.-Hocne poema, auream ubique linguæ Hebraicæ et Mosaicam ætatem spirans, ad ferrea illa tempora detrudamus, quæ extincto uno bono poetâ, Jeremia, nihil perfecti ac ne quidem mediocriter pulcri, fuderunt?" (pp. 187, 188.)-Schultens is not less strong in his remarks upon the language and antiquity of Job. "Nullus inter sacros codices tam genuinum remotissimæ antiquitatis præfert characterem.-Multo facilius Ennianæ linguæ venerandum decus et pondus, expressisset scriptor aliquis ferreæ ætatis, quam Hebræus ab exilio Babylonico redux grandissimum illud, magnificum, intemeratum, ultimæ vetustatis notâ eminentissimâ impressum, quod é sublimi hacce, tam materiâ, quam stylo, compositione relucet. Hoc qui discernere non valet, næ ille vel dissipate, vel imperite, judicare censendus." (Præf. * * * 3.)—Warburton, who was not suspected of very deep knowledge of the Hebrew language, was little qualified to feel, and less disposed to admit the force of such reasoning as the above. He therefore made no reply to the arguments so powerfully pressed upon him from these sources, by Bishop Lowth in his Letter: although, as appears from a private communication to his friend Hurd, he found himself most sorely galled by his more critical adversary. See p. 369 of Letters from a Late eminent Prelate.

Having adverted to these Letters, I cannot avoid transcribing an extraordinary passage, relating to the Book of Job; as an instance of the whimsical originality, for which that extraordinary man conceived his superior talents to have

who has led the way to the reduction of the date of this poem to the age of Ezra, Schultens has made the following observations." Dolenda est conditio linguarum orientalium, prout eæ a multis tractantur. Unus, alter, tertius ad summum annus iis percipiendis datur. Analysis satis prompta. Explicatio ad receptam versionem non omnino impedita. Placent profectus; et jam metam se tenere credunt, qui carceribus vix egressi. Quid causæ? Tum alia, de quibus alias, tum hoc vel maxime, quod qui in Græcis, Latinisve, non satis subactus, sibi aliquid arroget, mox in ordinem cogatur, atque ad subsellia relegetur: qui in Orientalibus, etiam in re pauperi ditissimus, non sibi tantum, sed et reliquis, videatur, si modo ope Lexici aliquid in medium proferre, mercesque suas venditare queat." Are our Commentators of the present day more conversant in Hebrew literature, and more cautious in giving

afforded him a licence." Poor Job! It was his eternal fate to be persecuted by his friends. His three comforters passed sentence of condemnation upon him, and he has been execut ing in effigie ever since. He was first bound to the stake by a long catena of Greek Fathers; then tortured by Pineda ; then strangled by Caryl; and afterwards cut up by Wesley, and anatomized by Garnet. Pray don't reckon me amongst his hangmen. I only acted the tender part of his wife, and was for making short work with him. But he was ordained, I think, by a fate like that of Prometheus, to lie still upon his dunghill and have his brains sucked out by owls." pp. 29, 30.

to the public their interpretations of the Hebrew Scriptures, than Le Clerc?

We have now seen how indefensible, in the opinion of the most distinguished Hebrew critics, that hypothesis appears, which, reducing the book of Job to the period of the captivity, ascribes its production to such an author as Ezra. In embracing this hypothesis, however, the Bishop of Killalla has but trodden in the steps of others. But what shall we say to that, which reduces Job himself to so late a date? This, I apprehend, is a discovery that has been entirely reserved for his Lordship: at least I know of no Commentator, who is entitled to dispute with him the honour, whatever it may be, that belongs to the invention. It cannot indeed be affirmed, that he has laboured directly and specially to establish this point. But has he not so conducted his reasoning, as that it must follow by necessary implication? In the observations, which have been offered at the outset of these remarks, p. 137-144, we havé seen, that the time of Job, and the date of the Book, are treated by him as in all respects the If therefore his Lordship has succeeded,

*same.

It is possible, that his Lordship may, to the justness of the assertion which I have here repeated from the place referred to, object the following words, which will be found, quoted from his preface in p. 133.-" Bat, if it were ever so difficult to ascertain the portion of time when the patriarch lived, it may not be impossible from the internal marks in the poem

in bringing down the latter below the Babylonish captivity; he must be considered, on his own principles, as having done the same by the former. The last note of the Translation explicitly affirms, that Job must have lived after the time of David. The entire scheme of the reasoning pronounces, that he must have lived in the time of Ezra.

*

On this result I think it not necessary to offer any comment. And indeed it is not without some pain, that I have been led to comment upon his Lordship's work at all. There are many reasons why I could have wished to forbear: and among these is not the least forcible, the circumstance of its having issued from a member of that distinguished order in the Church, to which I feel at all times disposed, from inclination not less than duty, to pay the utmost deference and respect. This last consideration, however, upon reflexion, seemed to render it the more necessary that I should undertake the unpleasing task, in which I have been engaged throughout the latter

itself, to conjecture with tolerable certainty the era of its author."-I do not deny, that the Bishop has here spoken of the times of Job himself and of the author of the book, as not necessarily connected; nor do I assert that he deliberately intended to consider them as the same: I only affirm, that in his reasoning (whether intentionally or not,) they are completely confounded.

* If any were requisite on a point so perfectly untenable, the observations in the first part of this Number would abun dantly supply it.