Again; If Job bears teftimony to the doctrine of the refurrection, he not only bears teftimony against the common honesty of Paul, but against the common fenfe of Mofes. For the Jewish Lawgiver must have been perfectly infatuated, in aiming to fecrete a doctrine from his people, which was plainly revealed to them by Job. It is happy, therefore, for religion, that his Lordship fucceeded no better in his attempt to establish the high antiquity of this book, and his particular interpretation of the paffage in queftion. His Lordship is very folicitous to remove the objection, which charges his intérpretation with containing a degree of knowledge in the great mystery of the Gofpel, beyond the proportion of light communicated to the age in which Job lived. He owns, indeed, that the objection feems confiderable. To prove that it really is fo, we need only recapitulate the principal arguments explained and inforced in this chapter. 1ft, The paffages, quoted from the Difcourfes on Prophecy, imply, that fuch a revelation must have been premature, as it would have carried men beyond those bounds of knowledge, which God had prescribed to the more early ages of the world. world. 2dly, The fame appears from the paffages cited out of the New Teftament, which, according to my Lord Bishop's own interpretation, speak of this doctrine as a mystery, referved to be revealed in the Gofpel. 3dly, The notion of a gradual and fucceffive chain of Prophecies, throws this revelation at a great distance from the period in queftion. 4thly, It appears not to be conformable to the methods and œconomy of divine Providence, to reveal this mystery more plainly to the Arabians, than to the Jewish church; 5thly, It feems irreconcileable to common fenfe, to veil and cover it under types in the Law, while it was clearly mentioned in the book of Job: For furely his Lordfhip will not venture to fay, that it was difproportionate to the age of the Law, and yet fuitable to the age of Job. 6thly, If the plain revelation of this mystery was adapted to the age of Job, there was no need of its being conveyed in the Law, under temporal and carnal images. As little need was there, that the Meffiah should be defcribed as a temporal deliverer in the Law and the Prophets, if his fpiritual character was opened and revealed in the time of Job. 7thly, There would have been no occafion for an extraordinary Providence under the Law; 8thly, There 8thly, There could be no need of fo many Prophecies relating to the temporal affairs of the Jewish nation, if the doctrine of the refurrection was revealed to them in the book of Job: For my Lord Bishop attributes the neceffity of fuch a Providence, and the expediency of Prophecies thus circumstanced, to the abfence and omiffion of this doctrine. 9thly, It was very unfuitably recorded by fob, and brought into the Jewish canon, because the previous knowledge of the grand article of the final and ultimate Religion, must have prejudiced the Jews against the Law, and have induced them to treat it with indifference and contempt, othly, The faithful would never have been put under, and fo long confined to the rude and beggarly elements of the Law, if they had been fo long ripe for the reception of the grand article of the final and ultimate Religion. 11thly, If the doctrine was delivered in the book of Job, it was delivered with a purpose to account for the fufferings of the righteous, and the profperity of the wicked, in the prefent life: But if fo, the fubfequent writers under the Law, could not have been embarraffed (as they greatly were) by any appearance of this fort. Thefe These are the reasons which induced me to conclude, that the objection is not only confiderable, as his Lordship owns it to be, but abfolutely unfurmountable. Many of thefe arguments will hold equally against his expofitions of fome other texts, produced to hew, that Job had the knowledge of a future ftate, and will prove, that they are as little to the purpose, as this we have here examined". • The learned Mr. Coftard has obferved, that the book of Job was composed * about the captivity; and that the point in difpute, was, whether the afflictions of the righteous, and the profperity of the wicked, were confiftent with the divine attributes +. He has obferved alfo, that the famous text in the nineteenth chapter, does not relate to a refurrection, but to a temporal deliverance t. However, he contends warmly, that the Jews, (tho' they knew nothing of a refurrection) must have had the fame belief of future rewards and punishments with the ancient Pagans ||. As I am only enquiring, whether the promise of life and immortality was REVEALED to the ancient Jews, it is of no importance whether they had, or had not the fame doctrine of another life with the Pagans. I fhall not, therefore, declare any opinion of my own, but only propose a quære to the learned writer. He owns, that the author of this piece does not attempt to folve the unequal diftribution of good and evil in this life, on the principle of a future ftate, but only appeals to inftances of the divine power **. Now, if he believed the common doctrine of a future ftate, why did he not apply it to the present argument, as it would have effectually cleared up the grand difficulty? • Observations on the book of Job, p. 18. 1 lbid. **P. 34. It feems furprising to the learned writer, that they fhould not have had this doctrine. And may it not feem furprising to others, that their most able and enlightened writers, fhould not know how to use it, if they had it, by applying it to account for the appearances of an unequal Providence. Is their inability to account for this appearance, more natural on the fuppofition that they had, than on the fuppofition that they had not this doctrine? Dr. Law has efpoufed le Clerc's interpretation of this text, which fuppofes, that Job and his friends knew nothing of a future ftate, and fo were unable to juftify the difpenfations of Providence in the prefent life. I fhall here argue on his own conceffions, and point out the conclufions to which they naturally lead He fays, "The notions of this book are fuited to "the patriarchal times." If fo, he must own, that the patriarchal religion was not eftablished on the fanction of a future ftate. For what fo abfurd, as to imagine, that Job and his friends were not acquainted with the fanctions of the common religion of their own times? And why might not religion be able to fubfift, without this fanction, after the establishment of the Law, as well as before? He obferves, and very juftly, that an extraordinary providence was administered in the patriarchal ages. But he will own, that Job and his friends faw fome inequalities in this adminiftration. I ask, therefore, why they did not infer a future ftate from thefe inequalities? We have been told, that the worshipers of the true God ought not to have been left without the knowledge of a future state, as fome inequalities occurred in the difpenfation of the extraordinary providence. We will suppose the objection addreffed, as it fairly may be, to the learned Doctor, who contends, that Job and his friends faw these inequalities, and yet knew nothing of a futurity. And in doing this, I have no other view, than to fhew, that he is equally concerned with many other writers, to provide a proper answer to this objection. • Confiderations, p. 68. + Ibid. "We |