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 reflection, seemed to render it the more necessary that I should undertake the unpleasing task in which I have been engaged throughout the latter part of this Number. I had already given to the public, in a former edition of this work, those remarks on the history and book of Job, which are contained in the former part of the Number. I had upon grounds which appeared to me satisfactory, maintained the antiquity both of the book and of its subject: and from this had derived an argument in favour of the antiquity and wide extent of the sacrificial rite. I had also, proceeding in a way directly opposite to that which the Bishop has in his preface described himself to have pursued, spared neither pains nor time to acquire the best information, and from the best interpreters, before I presumed to offer my ideas to the public. Soon after I had done so, the Bishop's work appeared, carrying with it the authority of his station, and by a single dictum, levelling the whole of my laborious structure in the dust. That my observations were not thought worthy of notice by his Lordship, could not cause even to the feelings of an author much uneasiness; as the works of the most learned and celebrated Commentators on Job were left not only unnoticed, but confessedly unperused. What remained under these circumstances to be done? Silence might be construed into an admission, that what I had before advanced, had been unadvisedly offered, and could not be maintained: and on the other hand, in treating of the Bishop's perform ance, justice required that I should speak of it in terms remote from those of commendation. Executed with a haste that nothing can excuse, abounding with errors both of rea soning and interpretation, presuming upon slight and fancied

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

theories to new mould the original text, and withal setting the seal of Episcopal authority to the entire congeries of precipitancies, mistakes, and mutilations-a due regard to my

• Bishop Stock prides himself on a list of conjectural alterations of the Hebrew text, contained in an Appendix to his translation:-by which it appears, as he pronounces, that there are more than sixty places in Job, in which the text has been corrupted. By much the greater number of these alterations is proposed upon the reading of a single MS. or of a couple at the most; and what deserves yet more to be remarked is, that for not fewer than twenty-three, no authority of any MS. or version whatever is pretended, but the name of STOCK alone is annexed, as a sufficient justification! To this, it must be remembered, that we are to add the rejection of the two last verses of the Book upon the same unsupported dictum.-These, one would think, are tolerable exercises of the conjectural faculty, and yet strange to say, they are far exceeded by one which yet remains to be noticed and which will be found contained in the notes on ch. xli. 11, 12.

"I am strongly of opinion, that in the original of this fine poem, the speech attributed to God ended here," (viz. end of verse 12.) not only because it forms a fuller and more dignified conclusion than that which now closes the chapter; but because it assigns a satisfactory answer to the question, With what view was this laboured description introduced, of the two formidable works of the Creator, the river-horse, and the crocodile? Answer that question yourselves, saith the Almighty; if ye shrink with terror before my works, how will ye dare to set yourselves in array against their Maker-But to whom then shall we ascribe the Appendix contained in the last two and twenty verses of the forty-first chapter? Either to the author himself of the poem, who, in his second, but not better thoughts, conceived he might add something valuable to his picture of the crocodile; or, which is more likely, to some succeeding genius, impatient to lengthen out by his inventive powers what had justly obtained possession of the public esteem.-After enclosing therefore in brackets a superfetation that might well have been spared, we will go on, however, to give light to it.-Observe how the Appendix is ushered in; [12. I will not be silent, &c ] Is this language for the Omnipotent? Is it at all suitable to the grandeur of concep tion manifested in the rest of the poem? the thread is too visible by which the purple patch, of more show than utility, is fastened on "

Here indeed is critical amputation with a vengeance. And here we have a large portion of the original at one stroke scored off, and rejected as a "superfetation," (so his Lordship is pleased to call it,) exactly in the same manner as we find the history of the birth of Christ, in the beginning of Matthew and Luke scored off, as a superfetation, by the Editors of the Unitarian New Testament.-Heath had indeed transposed the first 14 verses of the xlth chapter, and inserted them between the 6th and 7th verses of the xliid. For this too he had assigned a reason not deficient in plausibility. But to reject altogether an entire portion of the book, and this upon the merely fanciful and figurative ground of a "thread too visible," and a purple patch," has been reserved for a Bishop of the Established

Church.

Having adverted to the subject of conjectural emendation of the sacred text, I cannot but enter my protest most decidedly against the spirit which has of late years so mischievously infected the translators of the books of scripture in that particular respect. The Bishop of Killalla unfortunately has had no small degree of countenance in such practices. By others, and those too critics of no small repute, this spirit has been too much indulged. The late Bishop of St. Asaph has well observed, that considering the matter only as a problem in the doctrine of chances, the odds are always infinitely against conjecture. (Horsley's Hosea, pref. p. xxxiv.)-The conse quences growing out of the habit of altering the original Hebrew accord

own credit, but infinitely more, a due regard to the cause of truth, demanded that such a work should not be allowed to pass upon the world, as a faithful exposition of a part of sacred writ. In my observations upon the individual defects of this work, I have not thought it necessary to travel beyond the course which the Bishop's remarks upon the date of Job unavoidably prescribed. But I cannot dismiss the subject finally, without saying, that in my opinion, the necessity for a new English version of the Book of Job, (if any be supposed previously to have existed) has in no particular been diminished by that which has been given to the world by the Bishop of Killalla.*

As a matter of curiosity, and as supplying some relief from the tædium controversiæ, I annex a short account of the history of Job, as it has been handed down amongst the Arabians.

JOB, or AIUB, (as he is called in Arabic, agreeably to the Hebrew name, ar,) is reported by some of their historians to have been descended from Ishmael; it being held, that from Isaac, through Jacob, all the prophets had sprung, excepting three, Job, Jethro, (the father-in-law of Moses, call. ed by the Arabians, Schoaib,) and Mahomet; which three had come of the line of Ishmael, and were Arabians. By others, his descent is traced from Isaac, through Esau, from whom he was the third, or at most the fourth, in succession. And in the history given by Khendemir, who distinguishes him by the title of the Patient, it is stated, that by his mother's side, he was descended from Lot:-that he had been

ing to conjecture, must be, that we shall cease altogether to possess a standard text, and that for the word of God, we shall ultimately have only the word of man. Bishop Pocock justly cbserves upon this practice, that every one, for introducing any where such a meaning as pleased him best, might alter the words as he pleased, of which there would be no end; and it would be a matter of very ill consequence indeed. We must, (he adds) fit our meaning to the words, and not the words to our meaning." {Pocock's Works, vol. ii. p. 493.)-That the MSS. and ancient versions are not to be called in, to assist in rectifying the Hebrew text, where confusion has manifestly arisen, I am very far indeed from contendi g: but that, what is properly called conjecture, should be permitted to interfere, and now especially, after the immense labours of Kennicot and De Rossi, in their collation of the various copies of the Hebrew, is, I think, wholly inadmissible. This is not the place to enlarge upon such a subject. I would strongly recommend to the perusal of the reader, the judicious observations of Bishop Horsley, in his preface, as before referred to, and at p. xxxix. See also Dothii Opuscula, p. 135—137.

* His Lordship has, since the publication of the second edition of this work, been advanced to the See of Waterford. To avoid confusion, however, I have continued to designate him by the title under which he is known to the public as the translator of Job.

commissioned by God to preach the faith to a people of Syria:-that although no more than three had been converted by his preaching, he was notwithstanding rewarded for his zeal by immense possessions;-that his wealth and prosperity excited the envy of the Devil; who, presenting himself before God, charged Job with motives of self-interest in his religious obedience, and asserted that if the Almighty would deprive him of his substance, his boasted allegiance would not hold out for a single day :-that the Devil obtained permission to strip him of his wealth, but that Job's fidelity remain. ed unshaken:-that having received still further permission to afflict him in his person, the Devil infused by a pestilential breath such infection, as to render Job's entire body one putrid ulcer, and of a nature so offensive, as to repel from him every attendant, and to force the inhabitants to drive him out of the city, into a remote and solitary place, whither his wife carried every day what was necessary for his subsistence that the Devil constantly stole from her whatever she had provided for this purpose; and that having reduced her to such a condition, that she had nothing remaining for her husband's relief, he appeared to her in the form of a bald old woman, and offered, upon condition of her giving two tresses of hair that hung upon her neck, to furnish her every day with what she might require for her husband's subsistence that Job's wife having agreed to the proposal, and parted with the tresses, the Devil produced the hair to Job, affirming that it had been cut from his wife's head when caught in the act of matrimonial unfaithfulness-that Job, enraged against his wife, was led to swear, that if he recovered his health, he would most severely punish her for her offence--that the Devil having thus got the better of Job's patience, transformed himself to an angel of light, and published to the people of the surrounding country, that Job had forfeited the favour of God, and that they should no longer permit him to abide among them: that Job, being informed of what had passed, had recourse to God by prayer, who in a moment put an end to all his sufferings; for that the Angel Gabriel descended to the place where he was, and striking the earth with his foot, caused a fountain of the purest water to spring up, wherein Job having washed his body, and drank of it, was suddenly and perfectly restored to health-and that after this, God multiplied his riches in such a manner, that, to express the abundance of it, the Arabian authors say, that a shower of gold fell upon him. See D'Herbelot, Bibl. Orient. tom. i. pp. 75, 76, 432, 458. also Sale's Koran, vol. ii. p. 162. in which latter place the story is given with some minute variations.

The reader will of course consider these fables as introOne fact howduced here principally for his amusement. ever, they unequivocally speak; the belief of the Arabians, that there was in reality such a person as Job, who lived in the patriarchal age, and was distinguished above all men by his sufferings and his patience. The reverence for the name of Job, has been in truth from the earliest times, and to this day continues to be, through all Arabia, extremely great: so that many of the noblest families among the Arabians have gloried in being descended from that patriarch. The famous dynasty of the great Saladin have been known by the name of Aioubites, or Jobites: their illustrious founder being called by the name of Job. D'Herb. Bib. Orient. tom. i. p. 76.-The reverence for this name has, I am sorry to say, been carried still farther amongst Christians: the worship of Job being (as Broughton tells us) of great antiquity both amongst the Greek and Latin Churches; the Greeks having chosen the 6th of May for celebrating the festival of SAINT JOB, and the Latins keeping it on the 10th.-Diction. of all Relig. vol. i. p. 538.

No. LX.-ON GROTIUS'S STRANGE MISCONCEPTION OF THE NATURE OF ABEL'S SACRIFICE.

PAGE 43. (0)-Grotius, followed by Le Clerc, interprets the words in Gen. iv. 4. which we translate the firstlings, as signifying the best, and finest; and will have this to relate only to the wool, which is known to have been offered to the gods in later times. That also which we render the fat thereof, he considers to mean no more than the milk, and appeals to the Seventy, who in numerous instances have certainly translated the word, here used, by yada.

But first, as to □, it cannot be denied, that, in relation to man or beast, it is never found in any part of the bible, in any other sense than that of first-born. So appropriate is this meaning, that 2 is used absolutely to express primogeniture, and the right resulting from it, as in Gen. xxv. 31, 32, 33, 34. and xliii. 33. It is indeed applied to firstfruits, or fruits first ripe, but this evidently refers to its radical signification of first-born: nor can any instance be adduced of the application of the term in the figurative sense of finest and best, contended for by Grotius, unless such a signification be tacitly supposed to attach in all cases to the idea of the first, or earliest, in its kind. He has indeed referred us to the expression in Job xviii. 13. to the use of the word, applied to the fruit of the fig-tree; and to the force of the term ", employed to denominate the species