from those which have of late been most approved amongst us, has arisen from a different understanding of a text, which has been hitherto considered as a key to the interpretation of the whole book, viz., the seventh verse of the last chapter-"The Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee and against thy two friends, for you have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath." This has been considered as applying to the different conversations between Job and his friends, which comprise the larger portion of the book; accordingly the most favourable turn has everywhere been given to the language of Job, to the utmost, and beyond what it will bear; and the arguments of the friends have been too unfavourably stated, and even the address of Elihu has been pronounced as "bearing too hard upon poor Job"-" His reproofs" to have been "too harsh and severe." "Where he endeavours to repeat what Job had said," he is charged with giving it," for the most part, a wrong turn, or setting it in some very disadvantageous light."

This hypothesis has also induced expositors much to

no argument to the contrary. How, again, comes , or, to be translated "to the charge," and xx," introspection." It is far more natural to translate," and by the command of the HOLY ONES 'is' this requisition," or "perhaps" is this thing*..

a Mr. Peter's Critical Dissertation, p. 437.

The late Rev. Thomas Scott, in his valuable Commentary, observes on this text, "it is not unlikely that some readers have been ready to conclude, whilst we have gone through the preceding chapters, that the discourses of Job have been too favourably, and those of his friends, too unfavourably explained. But this chapter was all along considered as the clue of the whole narration; without which it would have been presumptuous to have decided positively and without hesitation. It is, however, evident, that the general doctrine of Job was more honourable to God, and consistent with the truth, than that of his friends." Mr. Scott says, that Elihu 'bore too hard upon Job,' and “in some instances, put also harsh constructions on his words."

*So Schultens.

с

lower the meaning of the language in which the Almighty himself addresses Job, and in which he condemns his errors. And I am afraid the thus upholding the character of Job has greatly defeated, or at least has much weakened, one most important practical effect designed by the Spirit of Inspiration in this book of Scripture-the prostration of the pride of all human goodness before the God of grace. And this is a pride which may not only gather in the heart of a moralist, or of a pharisee, and render them hostile to the gospel, and unsubmissive to the righteousness of God by faith, as being 'themselves whole, and needing not a physician;' but, until temptation and the rod of affliction has broken its spirit, it may gather in the hearts of the real followers of Christ, among the most useful and eminent for Christian virtues. And this pride, though little suspected, may have hurt considerably the entire dependence of the heart upon gratuitous mercy and help-may have injured, too, the humility of the man; and, notwithstanding many splendid works, have impaired the delineation of that character upon the soul, which St. Paul describes in the thirteenth chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians: which he not only sets before knowledge and utterance, and every spiritual gift; before charity to the poor, and the martyr's zeal; but even pronounces to be greater than faith and hope. This CHARITY, it is plain, from the apostle's description of the heavenly gift, cannot be portrayed on the heart of man, without an entire prostration of self. So long as a partial reception of the doctrine of grace, and our experimental feeling of it, leaves anything for flesh to boast in, the deceived heart will be too apt to seize the occasion.

The effect of his trial, and the issue of the disputation and decision on his case, upon the mind of Job, even of Job, to whom there was none like, for practical piety, in all

the earth, was, that he saw himself vile, and abhorred himself, and repented in dust and ashes. But the effect likely to be produced upon the mind of the reader, by some expositions of the Book of Job, hardly reaches to this. The learned Mr. Peters considers that the great question in debate betwixt Job and his friends was, whether this miserably-afflicted man were innocent or guilty. In the conclusion God himself pronounces him innocent. "The sufferer is crowned with all the praise and the reward due to the conqueror." He almost concludes "that God restores Job to all his temporal prosperity and happiness, and gives him a long enjoyment and increase of it, as a recompense for his having so well defended the doctrine of a future state." Mr. Scott speaks of the controversy as decided in favour of Job. "Though Job had irreverently and impatiently vindicated himself, yet, on the whole, his sentiments were true, and his arguments conclusive." He describes him as receiving a testimony of "his superior piety."

Now, I believe it may be asserted, without hesitation, that this key for opening the meaning of the Book of Job, which is supposed to be found in the seventh verse of the last chapter, and which, in truth, has much obscured it, is entirely grounded upon an unquestionably wrong translation; that the expression rendered, " ye have not spoken of me," is never used as speaking of, or concerning, or before, but uniformly of speaking to, or addressing a person, and consequently, in this passage, can only refer to Job's humble address to the Almighty after his trial, which Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar had omitted; though, in the eyes of the Omniscient, it behoved them to make the same confession". This verse, therefore, in the

a I was the more confirmed in this, by the manner in which the very learned Mr. Peters attempts to defend the sense of" speak of," as at

In pursuing the investigation, to determine at what period, before the age of Moses, the Book of Job was written, the same reasoning, which demonstrates its priority to the Exodus of the children of Israel, deduced from the total silence which it observes respecting the wonders of that great event, occurring so near the spot where the scene of the poem is laid, equally proves, as has been already intimated, that Job could not have been posterior to the call of Abraham, and the covenant which God made with him respecting HIS SEED;' at least, that if Job was contemporary with Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, or posterior to them, he must have been of a different branch of the family of Shem, uninfluenced by this new dispensation. Because, if we suppose Job to have been descended from, or connected with the Father of the faithful, it seems impossible to imagine that his religious prospects would not have been in some measure affected by the Abrahamic covenant-an event which formed a new epocha in the history of the church, and, as it were, concentrated and gave a special direction to the religious hopes of believers in all subsequent ages. In the Book of Job, however, we have no allusion to this transaction, any more than to the Exodus, or to the law of Moses; we

understood, which commentators are constantly led to explain from these several languages; not because the words strictly belong to them, but because there are more books, and better understood, in these languages than in Hebrew."-Mich. Not. et Epim. pp. 194, 195. See Magee, vol. ii. 194.

Peters also remarks, (Crit. Dis., p. 143,) " there are expressions in this book of a stamp so ancient, that they are not to be met with in the Chaldeac, Syriac, or any other language at present known; and many which rarely occur elsewhere, and are difficult to be explained, are here to be found in their primitive and most simple forms." But of all others, as might well be supposed, the investigation of the Arabic language, though few of its ancient documents, beyond the time of Mohammed, have been preserved, has thrown great light upon many obscurities in this ancient work. See the works of the two Schultens, Reiske, and Good.

find nothing but such rites of sacrifice as Noah observed, and such a knowledge of the covenant of Elohim as he might have conveyed to his posterity. Nothing, but such a general knowledge of the expected Redeemer, as the primeval promise of the woman's seed' to bruise the serpent's head,' or as the

prophecies of an Enoch, might

have imparted to the early patriarchial church.

It seems very evident too, that, in the time of Abraham, the worship of strange gods" was not only known, but had already contaminated his fathers. But when Job would number up every crime that could be committed against God, he can only mention one species of idolatry, the adoration of the sun and moon. This is an argument of considerable weight, for the priority of Job to Abraham; and another is, the length of days to which Job attained, compared with the ages at which Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob died. Abraham was promised a good old age; he died at the age of an hundred and seventy-five, Isaac died at an hundred and eighty. Jacob was a hundred and forty-seven when he died. But by every probable calculation, the age of Job must have extended considerably beyond these fathers of the Hebrew race. We are told, that Job survived his restoration from his calamities a hundred and forty years. But when his troubles came upon him, he must have been advanced in life. His ten children were evidently all grown up, and the sons had their separate establishments. He distinguishes his life of pious observances from his youth, His friends who visited him are described as possessing 'days' and multitude of years'-the probability is, that Job was about their standing.

It is remarkable, however, that there are several observations made, in the discussions of Job and his friends.

a Joshua xxiv. 2.