STACK ANNEX 063 089 - -77? A N APPENDIX T O T H E Critical Diflertation O N T H E BOOK of JOB-, Giving a farther Account of the BOOK of E CCLESIdSTES. To which is added> A R E P L Y to fome NOTES of the late D n of B 1, in his new Edition of the DIVINE LEGATION, &c. Vol. II. Part II. nai By the Author of the CRITICAL DISSERTATION. ade ' J rr>. LONDON: Printed for W. JOHNSTON, in Ludgate-Street ; and P. DAVE* and B. LAW, in Ave-Mary. Lane. M DCCLX. fee* A N APPENDIX,^. W N the Preface to the Critical Difiertation on the Book of Job, I have endeavoured to fix the moft JL likely time for the admiffion of that Book into the canon of holy Scripture ; viz. in the reign of Hezekiah, king of Judah. At which time the book of Proverbs was revifed, and a new addition made to it from king Solomon's remains, by the men of He- zekiah (as they are called, Prov. xxv. i . *) or cer- tain perfons commifiloned by this good king for that purpofe. Amongft whom we have reafon to conclude that the prophet Ifaiah, or fome other eminent Pro- phet of that time, muft have been admitted, and ap- pointed to fuperintend,_direct, and give the proper fanction to the whole r as it appears from the Scrip- ture- hi (lory, that no book could be received into the number of thofe which were reputed facred or canoni- cal, but by a Prophetical authority. That the two other books of Solomon were at the fame time added to the canon ; as alfo another, which, for the reafons there given, I fuppofe to be the Book * Prov. xxv. i . Thefe are alfo Proverbs of Solomon, which the zaea of Hezelu'ah, king of Judah, copied out. 4 APPENDIX to the Critical "Dijfertation of Job ; I have likewife endeavoured to mew pro- bable, from a remarkable fymbol to be found amongft the ancient traditions of the Jews, and preferved in the Talmud. The reader, who defires to fee the ar- gument at large, may confult the Preface. But having there obferved, that what is told us, Prov. xxv. gives a ftrong confirmation, a fort of fcripture-teftimony to the tradition conveyed by this fymbo!, I proceed thus : " There is a ftill further confirmation of it to be " had from the book of Ecclefiaftes, which might * 6 well deferve to be enlarged on, would the limits of " this Preface allow it. For if we may judge from " internal characters, (and we have no other light to *' go by where hiftory is filent, and the opinions of " the learned are fo various) I think it will appear " probable to thofe who confider the matter with at- " tendon, that this furprizing book called Eccle- " fiaftes, or the Preacher, and delivered to us in the " form ofafermon, is indeed a fermon preached by " Solomon, but long after his death. I mean, that " it was compofed out of Solomon's remains, and " had this form and title given to it by thofe that " were appointed to revife and publim them. A- " mongft whom the prophet Ifaiah, if I miftake not, '? hath left us a little mark of his own hand-writing, " at the conclufipn of the book, for thofe who are '* capable judges of it. *" This may feem ftrange to thofe who have not been ufed to (Indies and refearches of this kind. But though both Jews and Chriftians agree in the main concerning the canon of the Old Teftament, and the facred authority of every book : I mean, of all thofe that are received by Proteftants, (for the Romanics add feveral of thofe we call Apocryphal to the num- ber ; to which their beft writers however give the mo- deft title of Deutero- canonical) yet the learned both of Jews and Chriftians know, that fome circumftances relating to thefe books, or fome pf them, fuch as the * Pref. p. 4i,4tc A p. 59, 8vo. time on the Bock of J O B. 5 time when, or by whom they were written or compi- led, when they were received into the canon, and the like ; are left as matters undetermined ; and concer- ning which, as we have no authentic hiftory to inform us, the beft lights we can have mufl be fetched from the books themfelves. And here comes in the ufe of a fkill in the lan- guages, grammar, criticifm, &c. together with a happy genius, and a foberand well-poiled judgment, not lightly carried away with an affectation of no- velty, nor yet too fervilely reding in the opinions or authority of thofe who have gone before him. Indeed he that mould incline to do this laft, will fcarce know where to fix : fo .wide is the difference upon thefe points of learned men amongft themfelves. His greateft caution therefore mould be to avoid the other extreme ; to examine the originals with care ; and to beware, above all, not to put a force upon the facrcd text, merely for the pleafure or the vanity of extract- ing from it fomething new. With this difpofition and caution, I apprehend that whoever has applied his fludies this way, may have liberty to offer a conjecture, and fubmit it to the judgment of the learned : as I now do this relating to the book of Ecclefiaftes. The fubject of the book, though it may feem a paradox to the gay or bufy world, is neverthelefs the moft interesting and important, viz. The vanity of human life, with all its cares and toils, refearches* pleafures, and purfuits ^-when feparated from religion, or the fear of God, and the obfervance of his laws. For with this temperament or reflection mufr we underfland it ; as appears from the conclufion of the book, as well as from what is intimated cccafionally in feveral places. And as we have here a fine picture of the things that are done under the fun, drawn from the exacted obfervation and experience : fo a divine providence is all along fuppofed, God's infpecting the affairs of men afTerted, the fear of him inculcated, and the certainty of a future judgment, if not plainly A 3 declared, 6 APPENDIX to tie Critical Differ tat ion declared, yet fairly argued and implied. So that fcarce any one, befide Le Clerc, hath fcrupled to ac- knowledge the two laft verfes to be a fort of recapitu- lation, (as Jerome calls it) of the whole ; or a con- clufion naturally following from what had been dif- eourfed. But this important fubjeclt is handled in a fermon r popular oration : and it is this that gives it the title of Ecclefiaftes, or the Preacher. And as the firft words are as the text to the fermon, " Vanity of " vanities, faith the preacher, vanity of vanities, all " is vanity :" fo it concludes with the fame words with which it begun (chap. xii. 8.) " Vanity of va- 44 nities, faith the preacher, all is vanity." For the few verfes that follow, are plainly an ad- dition made to it by the editors of this difcourfe, (as I have briefly obferved in the preface to the Critical DifTertation) giving fome account of the preacher and his wifdorrr, ver. 9, 10. Of themfelves the col- ledtors of his writings or his fayings, ver. 1 1 . Of the caution with which books are to be ufed, ver. 12. And the drift or defign of this fermon before us, in the laft two verfes. " Let us hear the conclusion of the " whole matter, Fear God," &c. So that it can fcarce be doubted, but that this is in the nature of an Epilogus, added by thofe who had the revifal and the publifhing of this book of Solo- mon's : and who could thefe be, but the fame that revifed his book of Proverbs ? But let us proceed to a farther confideration of this extraordinary book. There is fomething in the tide of it, which is very ^enigmatical, " The words of the preacher, the fon " of David, king of Jerufalem." But the word for Preacher (viz. koheleth) is fceminine. And yet it appears plain, that Solomon is here the preacher or the preacherefs. And this hath greatly embarraffed the interpreters and commentators. Le Clerc fuppofes wifdom (hi the Hebrew, choc- rnah, fcem.) to be luere intended as the fpeaker -, be- cauie en t'be Brtk ef j O B. 'f caufe me is introduced in the book of Proverbs as fpeaking in the publick places or afiemblies, But he might have recollected, that (he is not there con- founded with Solomon himfelf, which muft be the cafe here*, He gets over the firft verfe however pretty well, by inferring the word fepber, book* " The *' words of the preacherefs, the book of Solomon, 3 * " &c. But when he comes to ven 12. " I the ko- " heleth was king over Ifrael in Jerufalem," he is hard put to it, and tranflates it, ego qui concionatri- cem fapientiam fcripfi fui rex Ifraelis, &c. " I who " wrote the preacherefs wifdomwas king over Ifrael." He Ihould have faid the book called fo : but this would have made the fupplement longer flill, which is too large as it is ; for any thing may be proved in this way, if it were allowable to fupply or add what you pleafe. It is ftrange that one who is fo over fcrupulous upon fome other occafions, mould be fo pofitive here. Without doubt, fays he, this muft be the meaning rem expreflimus quse verbis, ani koheleth, fine dubio fignificatur. But have we two preachers here or one ? Is it Wif- dom, or is it Solomon that gives us thefe inftructive leffbns ? If Solomon, it agrees to him throughout. If Wifdom, it is impomble to find any fuch con- gruity. Wifdom, for example, could never fay, " I fought in my heart to give myfelf to wine and " to lay hold on folly," &c. chap* ii. 3. Nay where the words, faith the preacher, are repeated^ it is not always poifible to apply them to Wifdom, as her words. And yet this commentator, without fcruple does fo. For inftance, chap. vii. 27. Vide hoc inveni^ inquit fapientia concionabunda, fmgulas mulieres perfcrutata, &c But certainly Wifdom never put Solomon upon making this dangerous experiment. It was his own great folly, and the fource of all his mif* conduct in his later years. This notion however was not peculiar to Le Clero. Mercier before him had the fame conjecture. But not A 4 teing 8 APPENDIX to tie Critical DiJJertation being over- well fatisfiect with it, he gives another ; wherein he had almoft hit the mark without being aware of it. " IfWifdom (fays he) that is, the Wif- * c dom of Solomon, be not here meant ; yet certain- " ly the foul of Solomon may, the principal part of " the man : and this comes to the fame thing" *. But could not this learned man have gone one ftep farther, and fuppofed the foul of Solomon in his fe- parate ftate to be here introduced as the preacher, and that the good leflbns given in this book muft ftrike with a peculiar force, when taken in this light ? This, in mort, clears up the whole myflery of this title. It is Solomon fubfifting in his feparate foul or fpirit (the nephelh or ruach, both which are foemi- nine, and fo agree with the title koheleth) that is here reprefented as the fpeaker. Nor is there any room to doubt, but that he fpeaks to us, for the moft part, in his own words. For fo wife a man as Solomon muft have made many a cool remark upon the vanity of his own pleafures, even while he was purfuing them. I believe there is fcarce- ly a man of fenfe, but does the fame. The aphorifms and reflections which we meet with here, then, are Solomon's. And the work of the collectors was only to form them into fuch a book as this, and fo give it the title of a publick fermon or oration ; (dibre koheleth, the words of the preacher) wherein this wile king is reprefented as ftill Ipeaking to his people, and instructing them after his death. Something of this kind feems to be not obfcurely hinted to us by the editors themfelves (chap. xii. 9.) " And moreover becaufe the preacher was wife*' (fay they) Jtod limmed adhuc docuit " he hath hitherto " taught (and mail ftill continue to teach,) his peo- " pie knowledge." You have been long inftrucled * Dicendum hie fapientine qua: in ipfo Solomrne erat, rationem haberi vel certe animae ipfius Solomonis, qua; in homine prcecipuas partfs tenec : qnod eodem rccidit. Mtrc. in Ecclef. cap. i . Proam. by on the Book of J O B. 9 by his book of Proverbs. And we new give you another book, compofed out of what we have found among his writings. We have put it into the form of a fer- mon for you, that you may be the more affected with it as you read , and you are to receive it* as if you heard him fpeaking to you himfelf ; and proclaiming from his own experience the vanity of all things undef the fun of all that fplendor and magnificence for which he had been formerly admired of all the pleafures he had enjoyed nay, and of all the re- fearches he had made after wifdom and knowledge, confidered as matter of curiofity or amufement only ; and if they ferved to no religious purpofe In (hort, that there is no true good for man to be found beneath the fun, " all the days of his vain life which *' he fpendeth as a fhadow :" unlefs the mind be fo- lidly fixed on the great author of our beings, who made the world and governs it ; and the observance of whole laws therefore muft needs be the true, the onl ycertain way to happinefs. Taking the thing in this light, it clears off all that mift wherein the learned have found themfelyes invol- ved, when they would endeavour to fix the time for Solomon's writing fuch a book as this: Some fup- pofmg it to have been written after his great defection in his later years, when he had feen his errors and re- pented of them. But there is nothing faid of this re- pentance in the fcripture hiftory : and what is more, there is not the lead hint of it given us in this book of Ecclefmftes ; which -there certainly would, had it been in the nature of~a recantation-fermon, as fome confider it, and publifhed in his life-time. Others fuppofe it to have been written before his defection. But there are many pafTages in the book, that are not to be reconciled with this notion. For it appears that he had gone through his whole round of pleafures ; had tried what enjoyment was to be had in a courfe of madnefs and folly, as well as of wifdom and fo- briety , and we have here the refult of his dear bought experience, io APPENDIX to the Critical Differtation. experience, particularly towards the conclufion of chap. vii. But there are feveral other marks to convince us, that this was a fermon preached by Solomon long after his death. It is obfervable that he fpeaks of himfelf as of one that had formerly exilted, and had reigned in Jeru- falem, chap. i. 12. Ani koheleth hajithi melee, &c. I the preacher was king over Ifrael in Jerufalem. An expreffion that cannot be underflood with any pro- priety of one that was (till reigning. He often tells us of the things that he had feen done under the fun. A phrafe of fpeech the more remarkable, as it occurs near thirty times in this little book, and no where elfe in all the Bible. And no wonder, fince it exactly fuits the ftate of one who had been removed from the bufy fcene of this world, and whofe fun was now gone down upon him. And what a beautiful admonition is given us upon this fubject, and how aptly does it come from Solo- mon in the ftate wherein we now fuppofe him. EC- clef. xi. 7, 8. " Truly the light is fweet, and, a " pleafant thing it is for the eyes to behold the fun. " But if a man live many years, and rejoice in them *' all ; yet let him remember the days of darknefs, " for they fliall be many. Every thing that lets is " vanity." This is the literal rendering of the laft words, Col Jhe-ba hcbel, omne quod occidit vanitas. And it is flrange the interpreters mould miftake the meaning here, where the light of the fun is fpoken of; for it is the very word, that is always ufed for its fetting. Zarach ha-fhemefh, u-ba-ha-memefh , the fun riles and the fun fets fays this fame wile man, chap. i. 5. of this book. As our preiVnt life is paffed under the fan, fo the invifible ftate that muft fucceed it, is here called days of darknefs. Had this been a ftate of utter extinction, or even infenfibility, thofe days which the wife man bids us remember, would not be worth remembering , for they would be abfolutely nothing, and on tit Book of J O B. 1 1 and vanity in the drifted fenfe. But if " every thing ** that fets is vanity ," and thofe days are not fo ; then their importance mud be greatly heightened by this circumftance of their duration. Well therefore might Solomon now call the days which he himfelf had pafled under the fun, and wherein he had rivalled the fun itfelf (as it were) in its meridian fplendor, the days of his vanity. " All " things have I feen (fays he) in the days of my va- " nity:" * And who but would hearken to fuch a preacher as this, who had tried all things for him to his coft , and bids him be wife and happy in a cheaper way ? But I muft not dwell here. There is another little mark, which feems to mew that thefe are obfervations and reflections left by So- lomon, and put into this form by the collectors. And that is, that we have here feveral detached fen- tences -f very instructive in themfelves, but which do not appear to have any great relation to the main fub- ject of the book, nor any vifible connection with what went immediately before or after. Thefe then it is reafonable to fuppofe, might be placed here for their excellency, and merely with an intention to pre- ferve them. However, the vanity of human life, which is the main fubject of the book, is fhewn in a great variety of inftances, with an intent to fix the hearts of men upon that only true remedy for it, that only folid good, which is to be had in the ways of religion and virtue. ?V" There is yet another particular of fome moment, which is cleared up to us by taking the book in this light ; and that is, the referve with which a future date is here fpoken of. For furely it would have been very wrong to have made Solomon give any de- fcription of the condition of fouls in the other world, fince it is left as a thing uncertain what was his own date there. Bifhop Patrick has a pious reflection upon this fubject well worth the confidering, Com. * Ecclef. vii. 16. f See chap, vii, chap. ix. chap. x. on 12 APPENDIX to the Critical Differ tation on i Kings, chap. xi. ver. ult. CalmettoofinhisDicT:*- on the word Ecclefiaftes) tells us, " Some have made " a queftion whether Solomon be faved : and his re- ** pentance is ftill at this day a problem in the church. ji He might, or he might not repent.- The book before us will ftill retain the fame inftructive leffons of the vanity of human life, and afford the fame con- vincing arguments to others to repent. For though there be nothing faid in particular, or to gratify the curious, of the nature of the future ftate either of reward or punifhment ; yet there is enough faid in the general, to fatisfy us of the reality of fuch a ftate : nay, (I think) as fair a demonftration of it given us, as human reafon can form. The certainty and exadnefs of a divine judgment is aflerted fuch a judgment here in this life is denied. Let any one re- concile thefe two things if they can, without conclud- ing for a future judgment. God's difpenfations to the righteous and the wicked here in this life, are repre- fented as oftentimes promifcuous, indifcriminate, nay fo as that it fometimes fares worfe with the good than with the bad. Neverthelefs the fear of God and keep- ing his commandments is declared to be, at all events, thefafe, the wife, the happy courfe ; and impiety and wickednefs the contrary. " Whofo keepeth the commandment (faith this " wife man) Ihall feel no evil thing: and a wife " man's heart difcerneth both time and judgment, " Becaufe to every purpofe there is time and judg- ment." * If ever the point of wifdom was fixed rightly, it is here, in comparing the opportunity of doing things with the judgment that muft follow them when done : a divine judgment long delayed indeed fometimes for wife and gracious purpofes, but in the ifTue certain and inevitable. What follows feems to (hew, that this judgment is to be expected after death. * Ecclef. viii. 5, 6. i< There- en tie book of J O B. 13 ' c Therefore the mifery of man is great upon him ; ** for he knoweth not that which fhall be, for who f< can tell him when it fhall be ? There is no man *' that hath power over the fpirit, to retain the fpirit} *' neither hath he power in the day of death : and ft there is no difcharge in that war, neither lhall * c wickednefs deliver thofe that are given to it."* Therefore the mifery, or the wickednefs of man (for the word rayath fignifies both) is great, becaufe this judgment of God js a thing future, and the time when it lhall come uncertain or unknown. Never- verthelefs death will come, and then, if not before, muft come the judgment: nor will all the power of man, or the wickednefs of man, be able to prevent it. This feems the plain and natural interpretation of this pafl*age. It is evident that the judgment here intended, muft be either death itfelf, or ibmething after death. Now though death may fometimes fall upon a wicked un-s prepared wretch with all the terrors of an execution : yet as it is the common lot of all, it cannot be confi- dered in itfelf as a difcriminating judgment ; and there- fore fomething after death muft needs be meant. And when we are fo often and exprefsly told in this book, that to every purpofe there is time and judgment,-]- that " God fhall judge the righteous and the wick- " ed. ? 'J " Know, thou that for all thefe things God " fhaJl bring thee into judgment." || And at the elofe of all, that at the great moment of the difib- lution of foul and body, when " the duft fhall return *' to the earth as it was, the fpirit fhall return to " (this great Judge, to) God who gave it." Can any one be fo weak, as to fuppofe, that by return- Ing to God was meant, that it mall vanifh into the foft air ; and not rather, that it muft return to give account of the things done in the body, whether the man hath lived up to that law which God hath given him ? * Ecclef. viii. 6 -8. f Chap. viii. 6. J Chap. iii. 17, ijChap.xi. 9. Ch.xii, 7. His if4 APPENDIX to the Critical Differtation His time of life, is emphatically called (Ecclef. viii. 15.) " the days of his life, which God hatb " given him under the fun." And if thofe days have been employed fuitably to the defign of the giver, he will return to him, no doubt, with great hope and comfort. Jf otherwife The greateft fceptic of them all (for this, it feems, is the fafhionable phi'ofophy among us) might do well to think what a hazard he muft run. Even a habit of gaming, as much as it may tend to induce a habit of infenfibility, will fcarce prepare men, when the fatal hour mail come> to bear the mock of this dreadful chance. I have made fo much ufe of this book of Ecclefiaf- tes in the Critical DifTertation (Part III. Seel:. XII.) that this might well excufe me for endeavouring to fet the book in its true light here. Much more when it is confidered what a bad ufe hath been fometimes made of it by rakes and libertines j who have miftaken their own portrait drawn to be expofed, for the very features and complexion of wifdom itfeif. But it is time to proceed to the chief proof I inten- ded, that thefe are obfervations of King Solomon, put into this form by the revifors and editors of his remains. This, I think, will appear from chap. xii. 1 1. when well cleared up ; though it muft be owned that the pafTage looks obfcure at firft, and in our tranQa- tion is a mere riddle. That we may the better find its meaning, and con- nection with the context, it will be proper to confi- der thefe fix laft verfes of the book (viz. from ver. 9. to the I4th.) in their order. Ver. 9. And moreover becaufe the preacher wa* wife, yod limmed dayath eth ha-yam, he hath hi- therto taught the people knowledge. We can fcarce fuppofe this to have been faid by Solomon hknfelf, much lefs by Solomon ftill living : but it comes from the editors with great propriety. Jt follows " Yea he gave good heed, and fought t cu: (and) fet in order many proverbs." This plain- }\ refers to his book of Proverb's : And the different ex- en the Book of J O B. 15 exprefiions here ufed,' fhew, that there is no necefilty of fiippofing Solomon himfelf to have been the ori- ginal author of all the fay ings in that book. It is more reafonable to believe, that fome of them had been tranfmitted down to him from the wife obferva- tions of others ; but were fuch, as for their weight and truth had recommended themfelves to his exqui- fite judgment, and were therefore placed in this col- lection.* And a very fine collection it is, take it in what light you pleafe.- It follows, ver. 10. " The preacher fought to find ** out acceptable words (the Hebrew is, dibre che- *' petz, words of defire or delight) f e-cathub jofher, *' dibre emoth, and a writing (or writings) of rac- *' titude, words of truth." This is the literal rendering. And if we under- ftand by the two latter phrafes, books or writings of a moral kind, either made or collected by king Solo- mon , the former, dibre chepetz, " words of defire " or delight," feem to point us to the Songs, which he is faid to have compofed in great abundance. We may fuppofe they were not all of them upon divine fubjects. There is one therefore, and but one, pre- ferved to us, entitled, by way of eminence, A fong of fongs. And the very preferving it among the fa- cred books, mews evidently in what fenfe it is to be underftood, viz. in the figurative or allegorical. But let us proceed to ver. 1 1. and fee what we can make of it. " The words of the wife are as goads, " and as nails fattened (by) the matters of aflem- *' blies (which) are given from one ihepherd." There is nothing to anfwer to by or which in the original. The distribution of the fentence therefore muft be this, if we keep to the fame words ; " The * They were fuch as his ear had tried, (according to the He- brew) ve izzen, ve-chikker (or rather choker, the participle) tikken mefhalim harbeh Et nuribus percepic et inveftigans dif- j>ofuit parabolas (or paroeinias) mult^s. 44 words 1 6 APPENDIX to tie Critical Differ tat ion " words of the wife are as goads, and as nails faf- ** tened : the mafters of aflemblies are given from ** one fhepherd." But bayale afuppoth does not fignify mafters of af- femblies, but mafters of colle8ions y domini collectio- num. And this is a plain Hebrew phrafe for thofe to whom it belonged to collect, or the collectors. For the matter of a thing, is one to whom that thing be- longs : fo bayal isshah, mafter of a wife, is the ufual phrafe for an husband : bayal-ha-chalometh (Gen. xxxvii. 19 ) a mafter of dreams, is a dreamer ; baya- lath ob, miftrefs of Ob, or of the nicromantick way of divination, is the appellation given to the woman at Endor (i Sam. xxviii. 7.) fo bayale chitzim, mafters of arrows, is the phrafe for archers, Gen. xli*. 23. More in ftances might be produced. Bayale afuppoth then means plainly the cotle&ors, or thofe to whom it belonged to collect thefe words of the wife here mentioned : and thefe collectors are here faid to be given or appointed by one fhepherd. But who this Ihepherd is, the learned, as ufual, difagree. It is Mofes, fay the Jews, who is all in all with them. It is Solomon himfelf, fays Le Clerc, who appointed thofe that mould collect his fayings. It is Zorobabel, fays Grotius: Hezekiah, fays an-, other. They all of them feem to have overlooked the plain drift of the pafTage : for it fpeaks of the words of the wife in general (chacamim, plural) and the col- lectors of them from time to time. So that none car; be meant fo truly here, as the one great fhepherd, roafter, and teacher, God : whofe wifdom is that im-. mcnfe ocean E | JH vmfc; vila.^ whence all the ftreams of 'revelation, thofe living waters, flow; andl who v/as ' the fhepherd of Ifrael" in a more pecu- liar fenfe, vouchfafing to ' lead them like a flock, " and to keep them in the paths, of righteoufnefs for " his name's fake."* * Pf. Ixxx. i, Pf. xxiii. 3. The en the Book of JOB. 17 The divine miflion or infpiration, (infliort) ofthefe collectors of the words of the wife, fuch as were ap- pointed from time to time to revife, and to fill up the canon of holy fcripture ; is here plainly declared. For as we muft fuppoie this declaration to have a re- ference to the occafion, viz. the adding of a book or books to the facred code : it was of importance here to mention that authority by which they acted. So that the expreffion here ufed feems parallel to that of St. Paul, " All fcripture is given by infpira- " tion of God." We are got over the latter .claufe of this verfe then, and have feen how much it is to our purpofe. But there is a greater difficulty in the former claufe, at ' leaft in the Hebrew, which muft not be paflfed by. Dibre chacamim cad-darbanoth, " The words of " the wife are as goads" It follows ]ThJDfeflD31 u-ce-mas-meroth netuyim, (fo it is pointed and read) et tanquam clavi plantati : This is the interlinear ver- fion, which profefTes to be verbal tanquam clavi impafti, fays LeClercj clavi infixi, Mercier; " as " nails faftened," fay our Englifh tranflators. And fo the generality of interpreters. But the word netuyim properly fignifies planted ; and befide that planting of nails is but -an odd ex- preflion, there are two infuperable obftacles to this conftrudtion. For mafmeroth and netuyim are a plain foeminine and mafculine, which can never agree to- gether : and moreover the word, as it is here written, is never ufed for nails ; for that is with a different s, a famech, not a ihin, viz. nnooo. Thefe irregularities fure, could never have gone down with fo many learned men, could they have found a tolerable fenfe in any other way. The Rabbins indeed have a pleafant way of get* ting over difficulties, by faying, when they do not underftand a paffage, that there muft be fome myf- tery in it : and fo they fay here. In midrafh myfte- rium in voce la^ere putant, fays Mercier, He him- B fetf 1 8 APPENDIX to the Critical Dijftrtation felf makes no myftery of it at all. Though it be a word of the foeminine, fays he, it muft have a maf- cuiine figniiication, as you fee. And fo for the change of D into p, one letter for another ; this is a fmall fault with him. Le Clerc too looks at it, and paries by " aiibi fcrihimr nriDDD," fays he : This is all. I own, it is a pleafure to me, when I find that there is no occafion for thefe diflortions of the Hebrew text, but that every thing is regular and grammati- cal ; as I think it is here. For if we only read the word with a different pointing thus, inftead of rrilpjpIMn (u-ce-mafmeroth) flVnOtf 031 fu-ce-mis- fhemiroth) the fenfe will be clear, the conftruc~Uon regular, and the figure beautiful and unforced. The word vip'J mamir, fignifies a briar: and though we meet with no example of it in the plural befide this ; it may have a plural foeminine fhemi- roth *, to diflinguilh it, probably from memarim, which fignifies the lees of wine ; both words being de- rived from the verb mamar, cuftodire, to keep : and I fuppofe a hedge of thorns or briars was always efleemed a good fence. The words u-ce-mis-memiroth netuyim, then, may be rendered literally, et tanquam ex vepribus plan- tata So that the meaning will be this : " The " words of the wife are as goads, or as if planted ct witli briars." The fenfe is enlarged, we fee, by this lail comparifon : and befide the force and pun r gency of thefe words of the wife, fcmething of their perplexed and intricate nature feems here intended; as there is often a great deal of the ^enigmatical defign- ediy interwoven with them, of which we have a re- * So zamir cantus (Cant. ii. 12) has a plural zemiroth, Job xxxv. 10, Tp paries, rn"'p i Kings xvi. 5. fo fhira, fong, has both ihirim and fhiroth. Jt the jodin fhamir be omitted in ftiemi- roth, this can create no difficulty, as there are many examples of the fame kind : nay, it feems 'o be more regular than if it were in- fertcd, ^s :he word has a dcpendancejln. conftruition upon the next that follows, vjz. ne'.uj/im. markable en the Book of J O B. 19 TJI ark able example in the firft fix verfes of this twelfth chapter. Sure I am, that there are feveral paflages in this book of Ecciefiaftes which are like briars in this rjipect, that chey require a wary and a fkilful touch, for every hand is not fit to handle them *. And if this were the general character of Solomon's writings ; there was the more need tor them to pals die examination of perfons, rightly qualified and au- thorized, before their being admitted into the canon of holy Icripture. And probably therefore the collec- tors meant here to give their reafons why they had preferved no more ol this great King's works viz. that fome of them were befide the purpofe of this fa- cred collection that thefe now added might be de- pended on, as of divine authority And (as it fol- lows in the next verfe) that of multiplying books there was no end. We are got over this difficult verfe then, the mean- ing whereof is literally thus " The words of the " wife are as goads, or as if planted with briars : The " collectors (or thofe whole office it is to collect " them) are given from the one Shepherd," viz. God. It follows, ver. 2. " And further by thefe, myfon, " be admonifhed -, of making many books there is no ^ end : and much ftudy is a \vearinefs of the flefh." If thefe collectors bad the revifal of Solomon's li- brary, as well as of his writings ; we may fuppofe them to fpeak here from their own experience. Or however this be, the admonition is wife and good, that a few books, -well chofen, may be fufficient for all the good purpofes of life, and far better than an endlefs variety of them : the reading whereof, and * Mercier, who was a great matter of the Hebrew, (it is Thq- anus's charafter of him nunquam quenquam Chrillhnum felicius Hebraizafle) and \\ ho left behind him feveral valuable commentaries on the books of fcripture, declares th.it this is not only the moft difficult and obfcure of the books of Solomon, but in his judgment of all the facred writings Dtibium non eft, qain inter Solomonis libros, imo vero mea quidem fententia inter oraiiia i'^cra fcripta liber fcic Ipnge fit ob(curiiUmus. Pref. in Ecclef. B 2 much 2O APPENDIX to the Critical Dffirtation much more the making them, muft be attended with great wearinefs and wafte of fpirits ; and unlefs di- rected to a right end, may be juftly reckoned amongft the vanities of human life, which is the great fubject of this book. Then follows the conclufion or refult of the whole, delivered in a fentence that can never be enough ad^ mired ; whether we regard its obvious and ^ apparent truth, or the great weight and importance of it. Ver. 13, 14. " Let us hear the conclufion of the " whole matter : Fear God, and keep his command-* " ments, for this is the all of man (or the concern tc of every man." The words will bear either ren- dering.) " For God fhall bring every work into judgment, " with every fecret thing, whether it be good, or whe- " ther it be evil." Thus I have endeavoured to explain the fix laft verfesof this book. And now to recapitulate what has been obferved From the view that we have ta- ken of thefe verfes, I fuppofe it appears plain, that they are no other than an epilogus added to this fer- mon by the collectors of king Solomon's remains*' That thefe collectors were probably the fame with thofe called the men of Hezekiah, Prov. xxv. i. who made a new addition to the book of Proverbs That thefe men of Hezekiah, befide their being au- thorized or commiffioned by bim^ muft have been qualified for this high office by the one great Shep- herd, mailer and teacher, God One prophet at lead divinely infpired, and well known to be fuch, muft have been joined in the commiffion. And who more likely to be fo, and to have the fuperin tendency of the whole, than that great prophet, who lived and flourished in Hezekiah's reign, and wrote the afts or . hiftory of that king, the prophet Ifaiah? As this fuppofjtion is highly reafonable in itfelf, fo could we fjna any thing to corroborate it in the book before us, but efpeciaily any little mark of the hand- writing of this great j rophet in the epilogus annexed j ;his Oft the Bock of J O 8. 2t t'lis would give a ftrong confirmation to the whole of this conjecture.- Now I think there is one fuch mark, and I fhall fubmit it to the judgment of the learned and the cu- rious. But it depends upon the explication juft now given of that obfcure claufe, ver. 1 1. For if we read ir, u-ce-mis-fhemiroth netu^im, " as if planted with " briars." (and there is no other reading or conflruc- tion, that I can perceive, but what is highly irregular and abfurd) It is very remarkable, that the word Jha- mir occurs no lefs than eight times in the prophecy of Ifaiah, and is conftantly put for a briar : whereas in the other prophets, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Z'cchariah, (for they all three ufe the word, though each but once) it is as conftantly put for another pointed thing, though of a different kind, viz. an adamant or diamond. And whoever defires to fatisfy himfelf in this particular, may confult the texts pointed out to him in the margin below *, and compare his En- glim Bible with the original , or he may turn to Ro- bertfon's Thefaurus Linguse San&as, under the word mamar, p. 1236. col. 2. and have his authority for it likewife. Speaking of the vrotdjhamir, he fays, In folo autem Ifaia accipitur pro fente aut fpina ; in aliis prophetis pro adamante. They who have been ufed to refearches of this kind, I am perfuaded, will fee fomething in this proof which is not to be defpifed. The view that we have taken of this book of Ec- clefiaftes, minds me of a little miftake in the Critical Diflertation, P. 3. Seel. 12. where following the common notion Thave fuppofed the words atthecon- clufion of the book to be Solomon's : whereas accor- ding to the foregoing hypothefis, they are the words of the editors or collectors, giving an account of the true Icope, defign, and ufe of this remarkable fer- mon. * Ifaiah, ch. v. 6. ch. vii. 23, 24, 25. ch. ix. 18. ch. x. 17. ch. xxvii. 4. ch. xxxii. 13. Jeremiah xvii. i. Ezek. iii. t), Zechar. vii. 12. 63 In 22 APPENDIX to tie Critical DijJ'crtatic'rt In either light, the proof will be fufficiently ftiong as to the purpofe there intended, which was to {hew that the Hebrews had fome knowledge and belief of a future judgment and another ftate of life. But if the conjecture here advanced may be admit- ted, viz. that Solomon, in his feparate foul or fpint, is here reprefented as the preacher ; then the thing feems to fpeak itfelf : that the feparate exiftence of the foul, atleaft, muft have been the common belief of that people. From whence the other doctrine of a ftate of happinefs or mifery, of reward or punimrnent, follows fo naturally, that fcarcely any plain man could mifs of feeing the connection. However this be, I cannot but think that the light wherein I have endeavoured to place this book, befide fixing its anthority, muft greatly tend to raife our idea of it: when we recoiled that we have here the obfervations and reflections of the wifeft of men, brought together and put into form by another, no Jefs celebrated for his prophetic fpint, the foremoft in order, as being the moft eminent of God's prophets. As the fubject of this book is philofophical and ar- gumentative, and very different from that of the other books of fcripture, fo the ftyle of it is different : and we meet with feveral words here, which do not occur elfewhere fuch as pinion, negotium a toilfome bu- finefs, properly, (and well exprefied by our old En- glim word travel) ufed about ten times in this book, and no where elfe So cifheron, equity, congruity or fitnefs borrowed from the Chaldee, (fay the lear- ned) though it might be a Hebrew word, compoun- ded by Solomon for his purpofe, from ce-jafhar Not that we can doubt but that he would borrow from the neighbouring languages any apt words, to fupply the deficiencies of his own. So did the Romans from the Greeks, when philofophy grew into falhion with them. King Solomon, we may fuppofe, with all his other wif- dom, was not backward to improve himfelf in the know- ledge of tongues. He might practife it the more, for the pleafure of converfing with his foreign miftreffes. To on fix Book of JO& 23 To this, perhaps, may be owing the frequent ufe, particularly, of the words ihalat, fhilton, -fnaUit, &c. for bearing rule, authority, or power. It is remark- able, that the laft word, mallit, is ufed but once more in the Bible, and that is in Gen. xlii. 6. where Jofeph is called ha-fhallit yal ha-aretz, the gmernour .over the land of Egypt. This then might be ori- ginally an Egyptian \vord} caught by Solomon .from .his favourite queen, and which on this account he might be fond of. There are other little marks of a peculiar^ and perhaps the courtly ftyle, in this book ; owing pro- bably to a fafhion caught which might be in ufe when Solomon wrote this, and not long before or after. Thus we find the two Hebrew words yad hennah (hitherto) contracted (Ecclef. iv. 2i) into yadennah ; and this again, in the very next verfe, to yaden. There is no other inftance in the Bible of this laft contraction, and only one of the former : and this too fo obfcured by a wrong pointing, that it was not likely to be found out till the juft value of thefe points came to be better known. I mall cite the place, becaufe it gives a remarkable turn to the fentence. Gen. xviii. 12. Upon the promife of a fon to Abraham by Sarah, when both were now grown old, it is laid that Sarah laughted within herfelf, and faid achare beiothi hajethah li yednah, ve-adonai zaken? So it is pointed, and tranflated accordingly in ours, and other Bibles : but mould have been pointed, and read thus -Achare bild hajethah li yadennah, &c. that is (what !) " after I have had none hitherto* and " my lord (or hufbandj grown old" ? It may be afked, perhaps, why this latter pointing and reading mould be preferred. The anfwer is eafy : becaufe the former is forced and ungrammatical, turning hejethah fuit into erit without caufe. The other is natural and eafy, does no violence to the Hebrew text, and takes off all the indelicacy of the vulgar reading and tranfiation, B 4 The 24 APPENDIX to tbe Critical Diflertation The conjecture is Ludovicus Cappellus's, who took it from the feptuagint tranflation, but needed not to have gone beyond the Hebrew text, where it is much better exprefTed. And by the way, I know not why this learned man, who in his arcanum punc- tationis, &c. had proved fo well that the points are no part of the original text, mould yet call thefe differences of pointing various leflions. For what va- rious lection can there be, where there is no variation in the Hebrew letters or the text ? If thefe different pointings may be called fo, it can be only in an im- proper fenfe. And yet thefe make a great mew in his famous Critica Sacra, and fwell the number of his various lections greatly. He has a chapter tit eighteen pages * of the various lections of this fort gathered from the feptuagint tranflation only, and tells us at the beginning of ir, that he had only fe- lected a few for the fpecimen's fake, but could have produced an infinite number. Thus thefe learned men fometimes make a very wanton ufe of the words infinita, innumera, and the like. Father Simon (as I remember) when he is upon thefe fubjects, plays them off with great dexterity and fuccefs. But Cap- pel lus was a Proteftant, and a fincere one ; and hap- pily for us, after all his thirty years labour, and more, in collecting various readings of the Hebrew, to quiet the fears of the over-timorous and fcrupu- lous, hath told us (fpeaking of the whole collection, as I take it) funt enim onines illae varietates (etfi mul- tiplices) in rebus nullius aut leviflimi momenti, qui- bus veritas neceflaria non obfcuratur aut oppugna* tur f. That " thefe variations, though manifold, " are in things of none or of the lighted moment, " whereby no neceiTary truth is obfcured or op- " pugned." He adds, that if any fuch truth fliould happen to be obfcured by a falfe reading, its repug- * Crit. Sac. lib. iv. cap. z. p. 216 234. j- Cap. Crit. Sac. lib. iii. cap. 16. pa. 186. nancy on the Book of JOE. 25 nancy to other texts of fcripture will eafily detect the falfehood of it. I have mentioned this in juftice to Cappellus, whofe learned work may be of good ufe, if read with judg- ment. A certain ftudious and ingenious man, who in de- fiance of the contempt thrown by lord Bolinbroke on thofe who make " fair copies of foul manufcripts," * has very laudably turned his ftudies to the laborious fearching of Hebrew manufcripts, and I hope will meet with the encouragement he deferves ; has done another piece of juftice to Cappellus by letting the world know, from his own complaint in a letter to our great Ufher, that an unworthy fon of his, who had gone over to the church of Rome, and who had the charge of printing his father's book at Paris, " thought it his duty to infert fome words, and omit " fome very long paffages, in defiance of his father's " authority, out of zeal for his holy mother the 44 church."f Probably then the infinites and innumerable* I juft now fpoke of, might be fome of thefe additional words. I am glad however, that the pafTage I have cited above, efcaped fo well, and was not among the orTenfive pafiages omitted. The difficulty and obfcurity which there is in many parts of Scripture, but efpecially of the Old Tefta- ment (and we cannot confider the New Teilament as independent of the Old) hath accidentally had thefe bad effects That it has given a handle to the Roma- nifts to exalt their traditions, or the authority of their church at leaft, above the written word of God It has given occafion to thofe who feek occafion, to calumniate thefe facred books, and to fet up their own imperfect reafon as their oracle It has deterred many a ftudious man (I am perfuaded) who never- * Letter I. on hiftory. f See Mr. Kennicott's ftateofthe preftnt Hebrew text, di/Ter- tationthe fecond, pa. 47 8, 9.. thelefs 26 A PP E N D ix to ~lle Critical Differ fatten. thelefe has devoted himfelf with the beft .intenlions to the facred miniftry, from applying himfelf to the ftudy of thefe books in the original ; or after a fhort trial, made him dcfift from putfuing a courfe fo lau- . dable but fo laborious And therefore it is the lefs to -be wondered, if others, who thought themfelves un- der far lefs obligation, though lovers of learning, and well qualified for this, as well as other ftudies, have neverthelefs treated the fludy of thefe facred writings with great contempt and neglect. The confequence of this neglect has been (per- haps) but too vifible and deplorable, in that indif- ference to religion which has long been growing upon the Chriftian world ; and that fuperficial learning fit- ted for entertainment and amufement, which has ufurped the place of what is folid and ferious, and tends to make men wifer and better. I call thefe accidental effects , becaufe they do not naturally or neceflarily follow from the difficulty or obfcurity of the books offcripture: but are in reality owing, like all other moral evils, to the negligence and floth, or the corruption and depravity of men ' themfelves. Were the difficulties of holy fcriptu re much grea- ter than they are, yet as thefe difficulties are not un- furmountable, there can be no excufe for treating with neglect, books which come to us with fuch high authority, and perhaps when well examined, may ap- pear to carry in them clear internal marks of that au- thority. If the books of the Old and New Teftament are a record of the tranfactions of God their maker with mankind, it was of the higher! importance that they fhould be preferved in their original languages. And as they were written at a great diftance of time from us, thofe of the Old Teftament particularly, fome of them above three thoufand years ago, and the lareft above two thoufand j it could fcarce have been otherwife, in the natural courfe of things, but that they mult, in fuch a length of time, have their lan- guage en the 'Book of J O B. 27 'guage grown into difufe, and fo become oblcure and difficult. It is pofiible thefe difficulties *n*y have 'been increafed by the errata of tranfcribefs, which without a conflant miracle could not have been alto- gether prevented. The late lord Bolinbrokc has made this indeed one of his objections to the autho- rity of thefe books. " I think (fays he) that thefe *' accidents would not have happened, or that the *' fcriptures would have been preserved in their gc- " nuine purity notwithstanding thefe accidents, if ** they had been entirely dictated by die Holy " Ghoft."* To which it is fufficient to reply, that thefe books have been preferved (through a peculiar providence proportioned to their high nature and importance,) with fo much care, and fo little damage, that the heft judges of this matter, after the moft diligent enquiry, have pronounced, that thefe errors of tranfcribers, -as formidable as their number may appear, are in reality of little or no moment , as was juft now obfervcd from the equally learned and laborious Cappellus. The chief of them indeed are in names, and numbers, and geneolagies, and fuch things as are of the lead concern to us. But be thefe rubs or difficulties what they will, they will be always growing lefs and lefs to thofe who are endued with a proper meafure of patience and perfeverance, and a competent (hare of other learning : for this muft always be fuppofed as a pre- paratory to the ftudy of the fcriptures. It is (carce pofiible indeed to be a good proficient in thefe ftu- dies, without being a general fcholar. And one great fcandal, perhaps the greatefl of all, which has created fuch a contempt or difguft of this fort of lite- rature, has arilen from men of little learning, and a whimfical turn, fetting themfelves up for interpreters of thefe facred books. Our gentlemen of free thought indeed, or fbme of them, feem of late to think learning and reiigion equally unneceffary. Neverthelefs it may defer ve to be * Let, III. on hiftory, pa. 79, 8vo, 28 APPENDIX to tie Critical Differtdtion be conftdered, whether both of them be not of the higheft neceflity, though not for every particular perfon, yet for the world , or for mankind in general. The idolizers of human reafon mould have confi- dered, that even to reafon well, and efpecially about things of the higheft importance, requires a good mare of the one, as well as the other. And perhaps there ne- ver was an inftance of a perfon of an immoral or an ir- religious turn, and who had not his appetites and paflions iu fubjection, that reafoned upon thefe fub- jects as he mould. We may carry this reflection then a little farther, and confider whether what has been made by fome an objection to the holy fcriptures, and reprefented as unworthy of the divine wifdom and goodnefs, viz. that men mould depend for their religion upon books written in languages that have been long fince dead, and require great pains and fludy, and the helps of learning, to underfland them thoroughly. I fay, it may deferve to be confidered, whether this ought not rather to be regarded as an inftance of a wife and gracious providence, and in reality a benefit to the Chriftian world : as it draws with it a fort of necef- fity, that religion and learning mould go hand in hand, and contribute to the ufefulnefs and perfection of each other , and thereby to the happinefs of hu- man fociety. Whatever may have been the caufe of it, it is ma- nifeft (I think) at prefent, that all the learning in a manner that is now in the world, is confined to thofe parts of it where the true religion is profefled, or where Chriftianity prevails. Is this phenomenon owing to thofe books we treat with fuch contempt ? or to what other caufe mall we afcribe it ? How neceflary to the well being of mankind this unjon betwixt learning and religion is, and what a mutual advantage and fupport they derive from each' Other, if we will furrer the hiftory and experience of the world to teach us, may be learned from two very remarkable periods. When en tie book of JOB. 29 When learning fhone out in its full fplendor, but religion (I mean revealed religion, which alone car- ries with it a proper weight of authority) was loft amongft the heathen nations , we know what a heap of errors and fupei ftitions had crept in upon them, which deflroyed all true piety ; and for which the beft endeavours of their learnedft men could find no re- medy ; till a better light aroie upon the world in the revelation of the gofpel. And again, iince the fpreading of Chriftianity, what a cloud of errors were introduced, and had overfpread this weftern world in ages of darknefs and iliiterature ? which a revival of learning neverthelefs foon diiTipated in part, as it brought the fiudy of the holy fcriptures into fafhion again, and contributed to reftore religion to its purity ; which, probably, it might have done more effectually, and more widely, had not ambition and a falfe policy (which is feldom friendly either to learning or religion) interpofed to fruftrate thefe good ends, I leave it to thofe who are moft concerned, to make the proper ufe of thefe two facts--for it is time to put an end to thefe reflections. I muft now addrefs myfelf to a much more difa- greeable talk, which I fli-nild gladly have declined had it been poflible. But neceffity (they fay) has no Jaw. A REPLY TO SOME ^ NOTES OF r DR, W. D~N of B. Jn the new Edition of the DIVINE LEGATION, &c. Vol. II. Part. II, T O T H E Right Reverend MY LORD; TH B following meets were drawn up for the prefs, and wanted little more than the transcribing, when the news-papers brought us an account of your advancement to the fee of G; This put me to a ftand at firft, as knowing the intimate relation and connection between the D ri of B. and yourfelf. But I foon re- collected, that a Bifhop^ after confecration, is quite another perfon than he was before : and that, abstracted as your Lordfhip now muft needs be from all fecular biafs, I might freely plead my caufe before you, though it fhould touch your nearefl friend, or even yourfelf, Without DEDICATION. Without farther preface therefore, I {hall proceed to lay before your Lordfhip my com- plaint, not doubting, but that, as I take you for my judge, you will regard with the fame indifferent and impartial eye the late D n of B 1 and myfelf. For though the delicacy and warmth of friendmip may be great, the love of truth, in virtuous minds, is always greater et ponet perfonam amici, quiiaduitjudicis. Cic. A R E P L Y, WHEN I firft publilhed the Critical Dictation on the book of Job, I was apprehenfive that I might draw upon me the refentment of the author of the Divine Legation of Mofes demonftrated, &c. for prefuming to offer my objections to the new and fmgular account which he had given us of that highly valuable book of fcripture : and therefore took all the care I could, and all that was confiftent with that decent freedom wherewith men of letters have a right to treat each other, to avoid giving him offence. But I was at length freed from my apprehenfions, having learned that Dr. W n defpifed my book, and difdained to anfwer it. It is well for me, (thought I with myfelf) I mall then efcape his lam : and fince this gentleman is fo wife and cautious, let me learn a little wifdom from him. When therefore a new edition of the book was called for, to Hum all appearance of any inten- tion to provoke him, I was refolved to fay nothing in the preface, either of, or to him. But whether my filence was interpreted by him. as proceeding from difdain, (for I fuppofe none muft be allowed the privilege even of difdaining but him- felf) or whether he obferved that the preface to this fecond edition of the Critical Diflertation had been received by equal judges, with as much favour as the book the dorm broke out at lail ; and that with vio- lence enough to blow away me and the book too had we been made of feathers. Neverthelefs, here I am as yet -, and it is to be hoped the ftorm is over. For certainly the D of B 1, in his cooler thoughts, could never juftify to himfelf the peevifh treatment he had given me, and with which he hath fwelled a few notes in vol. IT, C 2 pare 36 A Reply to tie Notes part II, of his new edition of the Divine Legation.-* A work which he intends (no doubt) mould live as long as time itfelf mall laft. And would he chufe to have the author's picture fet before it, like a Boreas, with inflated cheeks and eyes ? Or did he forget that he was tranfmitting his own picture to pofterity, in his manner of writing? He was as good as his word indeed not to anfwer the boo^ for reafons that may be gueffed. But there is a way of anfwering an author^ which is quite an- other thing, and with the lower clafs of readers may do quite as well. Do but rail at him enough, and the work is done. I was fo weak as to conclude, that this was an ex- pedient to which none but little minds would (loop. But it feems as if this great man was perfuaded, that he could crufh me all at once, with the weight of an overbearing reputation, and a few hard names. " The e< infolence the fraud the nonfenfe and I cannot " tell what nonfenfe befide difingenuity igno- " ranee praevarication," &c. Thefe (my lord) are the flowers of his rhetorick, which he has beftowed upon me with much freedom : but with how much jultice, may appear hereafter, if your lordfhip can but have the patience to review thefe notes with me. This ufage is the more furprizing, to thofe at leafl with whom I have converged , as they aflure me, that the general opinion is, that I had treated the au- thor of the Divine Legation, with decency and can- dor : neither has the D n produced any one inftance to the contrary (that can appear fuch to the unpre- judiced reader) in all that he hath quoted from me in thefe notes. Let your lordfhip judge then, what could have provoked him to this cruel treatment of me. Was k neceffary that he mould afTurne thefe fuperior airs, to let the fimple know what an awful diftance is to be maintained betwixt a dignified and undignified cler- gyman ? We were undignified alike when I pub- limed Of Dr. W. D n of B. 37 Jifhed my Diflertation on the book of Job : and had I ufed a language to Mr. W b - n any thing like what he has here fuffered to fall from his pen, what would he have faid ? or, what would the world have faid of me ? They will now (my lord) be apt to fay, that it came with a much worfe grace from the D n of B. when he ought to have obferved that decorum which was due to himfelf, and his eminent ftation in the church due to thofe by whole favour he .was promo- ted , and the great names of thofe, who had been pleafed to honour him with their friendfhip And I think I have a right to add, that fomething was Jike- wife due to the opinion of thofe who had exprefled their approbation of my book fome of thefe as able judges as the D n himfelf-, I might have faid, his fuperiours every way. It may offend his delicacy to be told, that a very good friend or his, then in the higheft ftation of -the church, was fo well fatisfied with the book when it came out, as to exprefs him- felf in thefe terms amongft others - " If W " has any ingenuity in him, he mould thank Mr. I am pleafed (methinks) that the want of inge- nuity mould be laid by this unbiased judge, to Dr. W- - , and not to me. His thanks I never ex- pected : but had reafon to expect, that this, and other confiderations, might have fcreened me from abufe. I might complain of it as another circumftance of hardlhip ; that this fine character wherewith the D n of B - 1 has been pleafed to adorn me, is conveyed to the publick, not in an idle pamphlet of a day, but in the body of this great work which is to live for ages. And if the life of books, like that of animals, is to be eflimated by the length of time wherein they are growing to maturity, this book muft certainly be long-lived : un'.efs through the bad humours that prevail in it, and feem to prasdo- minate more and more, it mould chance to die befoie C 3 its 3 8 'A Re fly to the Notes its time. But thefe (it is to be hoped, my lord) may, by a future fkilful management, be either corrected or expelled. Before I proceed to the confideration of thefe notes, I have this one thing further to premife : viz. that fince the D n has ufed me with fo little ceremony, I hope it will not be expected that I mould obierve jnuch towards him. It will be well indeed, if I can always keep my temper ; which I mall endeavour to do for the fake of both of us. And as the readers for amufement only will find little entertainment here, and will fcarce trouble themfelves about the matters controverted ; I mall defire the few candid and judi- cious (if your lordfhip will vouchfafe to admit thefe as your afTelTors) who may have read my book, and may therefore have the curiofity to perufe this defence, not to be fcandalized at the courfe language they will find me quoting from this angry writer ; but to give his arguments a fair hearing, and attend to the merits of the caufe. SECT. I. The firft note that relates to me, is in vol. II, part II, at page 167 ; and as all the notes that I am concerned with, belong to this part of the D. L. J need only for the future to refer to the page. The fubject of this note is indeed a queftion of im- portance, viz. whether the doctrine of a future ftate was of popular belief or not, amongft the ancient Jews or Hebrews. " A Cornifh author*' (fays the Dean, naming me in the margin) tc purfues the fame argument againft " the Divine Legation ; but takes his parallel much " higher. There is no one (fays he) who reads Ho- " mer, that can doubt whether a future ftate were the " popular belief amongft the Greeks in the, times he " writes of. And yet, by what I remember of *' him, I believe it would be difficult to produce fix w inftances in ajl his poems of any actions either en- " tered 0/Dr.W. D n ofB. 39 " tered upon or avoided, from the exprefs motive of " the rewards or punifhments to be expected in tlic " other world." Thefe indeed are my words, Crit. DhT. on Job, part III, pa. 267, 8, Quarto, and pa. 265, octavo. I mark the page, becaufe the Dean has not done it here ; as if he did not defire that the reader fhould turn to my book. For if he does, he will fee that thefe words of mine relate to an objection there pro- pofed, which is this ; that " had the doctrine of a fu- " ture ftate been generally known and believed un- A Reply to the Notes Though the D n had bid us to confider the feveraf 40 hiftoriesof the reft of mankind," (that is, all befide the Jews) " whether recorded by bards or ftatefmen, " philofopers or priefts" : It is pleafant to obferve how he would put us off with the hiftory of a nation or two of wild enthnfi'aftsy the Suevi and the Saracens. He attempts indeed to fay fomewhat of a more civi- lized people, the Grecian world fas he call them, for there was need of amplification here) but one fcarce knows which to admire moft, the rnfignificancy of the quotation, or the long way about that he has gone to fetch it. l * Let us confider (fays he) the hiftory of the reft *' of mankind, whether recorded by bards or ftatel- 4t men, philofophers or prietts : in which we fhali " find the doclrine of a future ftate ftill bearing", " throughout all the various circumftanees of human * fr life, a conftant and principal (hare in the deter- ct ruinations of the will. And no wonder. We fee " how ftrong the Grecian world thought the fanftion " of it to be, by a paflage in Pindar, quoted by PIu- *' tarch in his trafl of fuperftition, where he makes " it one circumftance of the fuperior happinefs of the " gods . over men, that they flood not in fear of " Acheron".* Thus the D n hath given us his quotation fronl Pindar, by the canal of Plutarch, without the leaft comment to direct us how we may undejftand it fo as to ferve the purpofe he intended. And yet it may feem a little ftrange at firft, that the Gods fritmid not (land in fear of Acheron -, fince it is well known that there was another of thefe underground rivers which they itood very much in fear of, 1 mean, Stvx. For it was the ^? ?* 6 ?, the oath by which they ufed to fwe'ar, and which they dreaded the viola- tion of. By the fear of Acheron, then, may (perhaps) be only meant the fear of death ; to which we mortals ire fubjecl:, but from which the immortals are exempt- * D. L. vol. II. part II. pa 165. And Of Dr. W. Dn of B. $$ And what is this to the D n's purpofe ? Or fuppole there may be any other meaning in it, (for it is fcarce worth while to confult Plutarch for fo odd a paffage) are we obliged to take fuch a dark fcrap of Pindar or Plutarch, as .evidence that the doctrine of a fu- ture flate bore a conftant and principal fhare in the determination of the will of the Grecian world ? But he proceeds to his other inftances, which carry a more plaulible appearance, thus artfully intro- duced : " But not to be diftrafted by too large a -' : view, let us felect from the reft of the nations *' one or two moil refembling the Jewifh. Thofe " which come neareft to them, and if the Jews were " only under human guidance, indeed extremely *' near, were the Suevi of the north, and the Arabs .-" of the fouth."* I was a little fcanclalized, J muft owa ? at firft, that he fliould hint at any refemblance here ; but he .has happily removed it again, as far as we are con- cerned with krln the preient argument, by that lav- ing claufe, " if the Jews were only under human " guidance." That is, bad they been wild and bar- barous likethofe other nations, led on by a falfe pro- phet impofmg .on their ignorance, and addrefling to their paflions -, they mighc then, probably, have pro- ceeded in the fame wild way ; and we might have had a hiftory of the Jews tranfmitted to us very much refembling that of the Saracens; or .a fet of Hebrew fongs, like thofe of the Suevi. " Both thefe " people" (proceeds the Dean) c< w.ere led out in " fearch of new porTeflions, which they were to win " by the fword. And both, it is confeffed, had the *' doftrine of a future (late inculcated iato them by " their leaders Odin and Mahomet. Of the Arabs c< we have a large and circumftantial hiftory: of