Nor will the fourth objection, derived from the mention of Satan, be found to have greater weight. The Evil Being, it is contended both by Heath and Warburton, was not known to the Jews in early days; and the word Satan never occurs until a late period of their history, as a proper name; in which fight it is said to be here necessarily used, as being preceded by the emphatic article, Jon, i. e. THE ADVERSARY. But that the doctrine of an evil spirit was not unknown to the Jews at an early day, is evident from the history of Ahab, in which mention is made of it as a thing familiar, and in a manner precisely similar to the present case. Indeed the history of the fall could scarcely be made intelligible to them without that doctrine: and Warburton himself admits, (B. vi. § 2. vol. ii. p. 533.) that the notion of an evil principle, had probably arisen " from

pref. to Crit. Diss. p. xii.-xvi. and Bishop Kidder's Comm. on the Five Books of Moses, vol. i. p. 297. The last named learned expositor, agreeably to the idea suggested above, explains the passage in Exodus thus. "JEHOVAH denotes not only God's eternal being, but his giving of being to other things, and espe cially the performing his promise. Now Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, had received promises, but enjoyed not the thing pro mised. The time was now come in which God would bring to pass what he had promised; and now they should know that he is the Lord. Isai. xlix. 23. liii. 6. lx. 16. The knowing him by his name Jehovah, implies the receiving from him what he had promised before," &c. This view of the matter ought to have saved Dr. Geddes from the very laborious discussion of the point into which he has entered in his Critical Remarks, and finally from the necessity of pronouncing, that we must either suppose the writer of Exodus in contradiction with the writer of Genesis, or allow that the name JEHOVAH has been put in the mouths of the patriarchs prior to Moses, and in the mouth of God himself, by some posterior copyer, corrupting the original passages by substituting for on, the word, which had in later times become the peculiar name of God among the Hebrews. See other equally profound and pious observations of this writer upon this subject, quoted in p. 495 of this volume.

the history of Satan misunderstood, or imperfectly told, in the first ages of mankind." In the next place the word, SATAN,* was clearly not unknown to the early Jews, as appears from the use of it in Numb. xxii. 22. in the story of Balaam. We find it also in 2 Sam. xix. 22. 1 Kings v. 4. xi. 14. 23. 25. Psal. lxxi. 13. cix. 20. 29. But if it be asserted, that it is used in those several places, but as a common appellative, yet still, neither will it follow, that the name might not have been used, as the Being was certainly known, amongst the early Jews; nor does it even appear, that the word is here used as a proper name, as the article may be employed only to mark out that adversary, or accusing spirit amongst the angelic tribe, who had undertaken the office of putting the virtue of Job to trial; so that no part of the objection is valid. See Mich. Not. et Epim. pp. 193. 199. and Dath. as referred to p. 324: and on this entire objection consult Warb. Div. Leg. vol. ii. p. 530-535. and Peters' Crit. Diss. p.

88-92.

But 5. it is argued, and upon this point Heath and most other objectors principally rely, that the book of Job abounds with Chaldaisms, Syriasms, and Arabisms, which clearly prove the lateness of its production. Now in opposition to this, we have the authority of the most distinguished scholars and eritics, Schultens, and Michaelis, in pronouncing that the charge of Chaldaisms is totally erroneous. Those Chaldaisms, on which Le Clerc so confidently relies, by which the plural termination in is put for im, Schultens asserts to be "Hebraicæ et Arabicæ ditionis, atque vetustissimæ moneta: (Dr. Grey's Job, præf. p. xii.) and Michaelis affirms, that of such Chaldaisms as by their present use might

* See on this word Taylor's Scheme of Script. Div. ch. xi.

evince the lateness of a Hebrew work, not one is to be discovered in this book. (Not. et. Epim. p. 193.) The prefix of 2, in ch. xv. 30. supposed to be a Chaldaism from, he proves is not so. And, even were it so used, this is shewn by Kennicot, (Remarks, &c. p. 153.) to supply no argument against the antiquity of the book, that will not equally affect the book of Genesis. That expressions of Syriac and Arabic affinity frequently occur, there can indeed be no question. This stands upon the authority of the most distinguished scholars, Bochart, Pocock, Hottinger and Walton. (See Wits. Misc. Sac. Lib.i. cap. xvi. § 28.) Nor is this denied by Schultens, Kennicot, and Michaelis. But from this they infer the remote antiquity of the work; since, says Michaelis, the Hebrew, Syriac, and Arabic, are not to be considered so much different languages, as dialects of one radical language, originally common to the descendants of Abraham; and the higher we ascend, the more resemblance we shall consequently find. But besides, Michaelis adds that one principal reason for our attributing to the book of Job, Chaldaic, Syriac, and Arabic expressions, may be its very great antiquity, and uncommon sublimity of elevation, occasioning a greater number of anaž 2ɛyouɛva, and expressions difficult to be understood: λεγόμενα, which commentators are consequently led to explain from those several languages; not because the words strictly belong to them, but because there are more books, and better understood in those languages, than in the Hebrew; and hence it is supposed, that the expressions actually belong to those languages.*

* Mich. Not. et Epim. pp. 194. 195. See Peters' Crit. Diss. p. 133-137. and 141-143. see also Codurc. præf. ad. Job. where the necessity of consulting Targums, &c. is urged in a way which fully justifies this solution of Michaelis.

VOL. I.

60

On this topic perhaps so much need not have been said, had not the high authority of Bishop Law given to the objection more consequence than truly belongs to it, by the hint conveyed in his ingenious work on the Theory of Religion, (p. 74.) that the subject of it had been "two slightly passed over." Since the time of the Bishop it has received more ample discussion: and from that discussion there seems to arise the strongest argument in favour of the antiquity of the book of Job. So that we may see the justness of Bishop Lowth's remark, that "from the language, and even from the obscurity of the work," no less than from its subject, it may fairly be inferred, " to be the most ancient of all the sacred books." Præl. Hebr. xxxii. -But not only do these criticisms bear upon the age of the poem but on the country of its author. For does not the mixture of foreign expressions rather prove that the author was not a Jew; and does not that of the Arabic particularly with which it is considered most to abound, indicate its Arabic extraction, which perfectly agrees with the supposition of Job having been its author? And it deserves to be noticed, that even Codurcus, who supposes it to be the work of one of the later prophets, yet conjectures from the style, that the prophet might have been originally from Idumæa, the very country of Job. (Præf. ad Job.)

6. It is objected by Codurcus, Grotius, and Le Clerc, that there are passages in the Book of Job, which so strongly resemble some in the Psalms and Proverbs, that we may fairly suppose them to have been taken from those writings. But to this Warburton has well replied, that " if the sacred writers must needs have borrowed trite moral sentences from one another, it may be as fairly said, that the authors of the Psalms borrowed from the book of

Job, as that the author of Job borrowed from the book of Psalms :" Div. Leg. vol. ii. p. 499. See also Peters's Crit. Diss. p. 139-141. And had the learned Bishop been disposed to exercise as unbiassed a criticism upon himself, as he has done upon Grotius and Le Clerc, he would have felt the same argument bearing with equal force against the objection which he has attempted to deduce from the supposed adoption of certain phrases, which are found in other books of the Old Testament. That, however, which the Bishop has not done for himself, Peters has done for him; by shewing that those few phrases, which he has instanced, have no peculiar stamp of age or country, and bear no marks whatever of being borrowed from other parts of Scripture. (Crit. Diss. p. 26-29.) It should also be observed, that, in opposition to the above-mentioned objection of Grotius, Le Clerc, &c. Bishop Hare has endeavoured to shew, that there is internal evidence, that the Psalmist has borrowed from Job, not Job from the Psalmist. And Chappelow (Comment. on Job. v. 16. viii. 10. and pref. p. 10.) represents the passages, which are common to Job with the writers of the Psalms, Proverbs, &c. as proverbial forms of speech, sentences of instruction, or, millim, as they are peculiarly called in Job, transmitted from one age to another. It therefore is not necessary to suppose that either borrowed from the other.

I have now enumerated all the arguments deserving any notice, which have been urged against the antiquity of the book of Job. How conjectural, unfounded, and futile most of them are, and how inconclusive others, it is not difficult to discover. This indeed they tend to shew, that the more the objections against the antiquity of this book are examined, the stronger will the arguments be found