"For that Reafon must submit, and own God's Ways "to be infcrutable. Now could he poffibly reft in "this Solution how pious foever, if he had the more fatisfactory one of a future State?-But, what is strangest of all, when the two Parties "had quite confounded themselves and one ano"ther, for want, as one would think, of this Principle of a Refurrection which fo eafily unravels, "&c. the fourth Friend, the Moderator fteps in, "as the Precursor of the Almighty, &c. Here "then we might reasonably think, that the Ho"nour of the Solution, which the Doctrine of the Refurrection affords, was referved for these; but "to our great Surprize, they neither of them give "the leaft Hint concerning it." (p. 170.)—Thus the Objection is fully stated, and I trust, upon the Strength of what we have advanced, may be as fully obviated by a very few Confiderations. First then, we will grant that Job could not poffibly make mention of the Refurrection, or refer to a future State, inasmuch as his Friends neither acquiefced in the Notion, nor confuted it, as foon as it shall be made to appear that these Friends are the only Inftances of Men who could not, or would not facrifice their Perfuafions and Prejudices to the Force of an Argument. 2dly, If we are asked, why Job does not again infift upon this conclufive Argument in the Courfe of the Debate, after the 19th Chapter? We may anfwer, 1st, that, for the

Reasons

Reasons implied in the above Solution, it could have been to no manner of Purpose: 2dly, That though this Paffage be the first in which explicit Mention is made of the Refurrection, it is not the first that is clearly allusive to a future State; Though he SLAY me, yet will I trust in him, &c. (Chapter xiii. 15.) 3dly, That Fob has in Effect, though not in fo many Words, Recourfe afterwards to this very Argument, by enlarging upon a Circumstance which he had but just mentioned before, that plainly evinced the Neceffity of admitting his Hypothefis for the Vindication of the Divine Attributes, and fhewed the Abfurdity of the System maintained by his obftinate Antagonifts: I mean the Circumstance of the sometimes profperous State of the Wicked without Interruption to the very Hour of their Deaths. (Ch. xxi. 7. 13. 23. Ch. xxiv. 6. &c.)-In the 19th Chap. Job afferts the Doctrine of the Refurrection; in the 20th ZOPHAR, with a view to difcredit the Notion, and vindicate the Divine Proceedings upon other Principles, enlarges much upon his and his Companions' favourite Topic, the miserable State and Portion of the Wicked in this World, &c. In the 21ft Chapter, Job, admitting the Doctrine in neral to be true, does yet in certain Instances alledge fuch Exceptions against it, as in their Consequences must neceffarily force his Opponents into the Hypothesis of a future State, or at least reduce

ge

them

them to Difficulties confeffedly inexplicable. Accordingly as much as Job might acknowledge the Truth of a general Maxim very confiftent with his own Hypothefis, that Reason must submit, and own God's Ways to be infcrutable, yet this, and another general Pofition, that God may do as he pleases by his Creatures, who are all utterly vile and unclean in his Sight, are the grand Solutions which his three Friends take Refuge in throughout the Debate. (Ch. xv. 14—xxv. 4.—v. 9.-xi. 7.) By afferting these two Points they feemed to themselves to vindicate the Divine Difpenfations in general, and particularly to invalidate Job's, or any Man's Plea of perfonal Integrity. Thus then ftands the Controverfy when the illuftrious Moderator, the Preeurfor of the Almighty, interferes.-Now neither of these, it feems, give the leaft Hint concerning the Doctrine which Job is fuppofed to have been inculcating.—Some People cannot, or will not take a Hint; and this may appear to be the Cafe at prefent. -For if Job did not refer to the Refurrection and the Doctrine of a future State as his capital Argument, how came the Wrath of ELIHU to be kindled against his three Friends because they had found no Answer, and yet had condemned him? In this Cafe furely they answered him beyond all Poffibility of Reply. Again, if fob did not prin-` cipally infift this Point, in order to vindicate and account for the Severity of temporal Vifitations,

upon

how

how deserved he that Elogy from the Almighty himself, which gloriously distinguishes him from the other Disputants, who did not speak of God the Thing which is right? Job did not speak &c. the Thing which is right, when he afferted his Innocence, and was ready to expoftulate the Cafe with his Maker; for upon account of this he abborred bimfelf, and repented in Duft and Afbes. Neither did he speak &c. the Thing which is right, (i. e. particularly, or characteristically right as maintained by himself) when he confeft the Infcrutability of God's Difpenfations; because this was a Topic much infifted upon by his Opponents themselves; and therefore if his Appeal to a future State was not the Thing which was right, fomebody fhould inform us what was. Laftly, when we confider the acknowledged Inequality of prefent Distributions throughout this Book, and the utter Inconsistency of the divine Dispensations with our Ideas of Justice in the Cafe of Wickedness successful, or Goodness diftreft throughout Life, what Senfe can we make of these Declarations of ELIHU, that the Work of a Man God fhall render unto himthat he will not afflict, &c. &c. unless we fuppofe them to be Confirmations of Job's Argument, and to refer to the final Adjustment of all Difficulties and Irregularities in a future State?

But

But to proceed. The Examiner tells us, that the supposed Opinion of Job's Friends " who con"fined the Exercise of Providence to the present "Scene, &c." is irreconcileable with the common System, which "teaches that the Belief of a future "State has always been deemed a necessary Part "of revealed Religion, and been a popular Doc"trine among the Worshippers of the true God, " at all Times, and in all Places." (p. 156.) That is, if I fee the Force of the Argument, the Belief of a future State has always been a popular Doctrine among the Worshippers of the true God, &c. and therefore there never could have existed any particular Perfons who have been fingular and perverse enough to deny it!-If Job's Friends did deny it, they were fingular and perverfe; if they did not, what is the Subject of the Book of Job? or, what Advantage will the new Syftem make of their Faith?-Indeed the Examiner, in this Part of his Work, feems inclined to fight the Battle of the common System itself; for after having given us to understand that, " according to his Lordship's

Representation of the Cafe, Job's Friends were "not only Strangers to the Chriftian Doctrine of "a future State, but even to any Notion of a "future Retribution, &c. and that they afferted " that this Doctrine was not only falfe, &c. but " even deftructive to the Interefts of Religion;" and alfo acquainting us in a fubfequent Note, that