haps, that this expreffion, till the heavens be no more, may very well fignify, that man fhall never rife more; and, to fhew the contrary, it ought at least to be proved, that Job had a notion that the heavens should one day be deftroyed, and that new heavens and a new earth should fucceed. But if this expreffion be doubtful in itself, yet it is reasonable to expound it to the fense which ancient tradition beft fupports. And this we certainly know, from writers both facred and profane, that it was a very old opinion, that the present frame of nature should be one day diffolved, and be fucceeded by a renovation of all things, by new heavens and a new earth. And therefore Vatablus, a very learned and judicious commentator, makes no doubt of referring this paffage to Job's expectation of a refurrection in the day of God's vifitation. This expofition is fupported by another famous paffage, made familiar to us by being a part of our burial office; I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he fhall ftand at the latter day upon the earth: and though after my skin worms deftroy this body, yet in my flesh fhall I fee God: whom I shall fee for myself, and mine eyes fhall behold, and not another; though my reins be confumed within me, xix. 25, &c. Many worthy and learned men have understood this place of a temporal deliverance expected by Job. The late pious and worthy Bishop of Ely, Dr. Patrick, particularly, has followed this fenfe in his Paraphrase on the book of Job. What he says upon the twenty-fixth verse will fhew his meaning perfectly, and therefore I need tranfcribe no more: his paraphrafe is this; "And though the worms, which "have eaten my fkin, fhould proceed to confume

"the reft of this wretched body, yet I feel my "foul inspired with a comfortable belief, that before "I die I fhall fee myself restored, by the mercy of God, to a happy eftate." Job's condition indeed was such, that the defcription in the text (though after my skin worms deftroy this body) will fuit his cafe exactly; and we cannot neceffarily collect, from the expreffion only, that he thought of the corruption of the grave. The other expreffion (in my flesh Shall I fee God) may likewife fignify his feeing God before he put off his flesh, i. e. before he died. And there is still another reason, which has often weighed with me on the fide of this expofition, which is this; That if we expound this paffage in Job of a future refurrection, it contains a degree of knowledge in this great mystery beyond the proportion of light communicated to the age in which he lived. Mofes has no fuch exprefs promife or prophecy, nor is there any evidence that the Jewish church for many ages had fuch knowledge. It is the peculiar character of our Saviour, that he brought life and immortality to light through the Gofpel; and yet what do we know from the Gospel more than is contained in this pafsage, if it is indeed a description of a future resurrection, to be brought to light by a Redeemer, who fhall ftand upon the earth at the latter day? Thefe reafons, I imagine, inclined the Jewish interpreters to confine the fenfe of this paffage to a temporal deliverance only. For fhould they admit a future refurrection to be here intended, how would it consist with the preference they give to themselves, above all other nations, in the knowledge of religion? Can they cafily be perfuaded, do you think, that Job,

who was an alien from the commonwealth of Ifrael, had a clearer and more diftinct knowledge of this great mystery, than God thought fit to reveal to the Jewish church? Befides, this defcription in the book of Job, admitting that it relates at all to a future refurrection, is fo confonant to the doctrine of the Gospel, and is indeed fo ftrong a prophecy of the office and character of Chrift Jefus, that it is no more to be expected of a Jew, that he fhould fee and acknowledge this fenfe of the paffage, than that he should subscribe to the interpretation of other ancient prophecies, in the fenfe in which they are applied in the New Teftament. It is ftrange to me to obferve what ftrefs the very learned Grotius lays upon the consent of the Jewish interpreters in this cafe: "They are," fays he, " inquifitive after every "thing that may with any appearance be applied to "the refurrection; but this paffage of Job they never "fo apply." And reafon good; the Jews without doubt would be glad to find in their own law whatever appears to them to be excellent in the Gospel, that they may fhew the little need there was for the Gospel revelation. But would they be equally glad to find clearer knowledge of divine truth among the ancient Arabians, than among the defcendants of Abraham? Or to see a plain prophetical description of the grand article of the Gofpel, even before the giving of their own law?

The fame learned perfon has another objection against those who interpret this paffage of a refurrection. He thinks, with others to whom he refers, that they all depart from the original Hebrew, ("coacti funt in verfionibus fuis multum ab Hebræo

"difcedere.") It is happy that this learned hand has given us, what he judges to be the true fenfe of the paffage; for it fhews that no juft interpretation or tranflation can be given of these words, which will exclude the notion of a refurrection. Grotius his own fenfe, expreffed according to the original, is fo far from fhutting out this notion, that it can hardly be made to agree with any thing elfe". For what do those words mean, Mine eye fhall behold, and not another. (hifce oculis meis: ego, non autem alius pro me.) If Job's thought was, that he fhould be reftored to his former health and prosperity in this life, why does he guard against the suspicion that it might be another, and not himself, who should be restored? Had he ever seen a tranfmutation of persons in this world, or heard of any man who ceased to be himself, and became another? Difeafes may wafte the body, and often do to a great degree; but we never are afraid that they will deftroy the perfon, or change the man. What is it then that Job guards against ? If you apply this paffage to the refurrection, this circumftance, that he himself, and not another for him, fhould fee God, is the most expreffive of his hope.

" Hebræa fic fonant: Scio ego Redemptorem meum vivere, et illum poftremo ftaturum in campo. Etiamfi non pellem tantum meam, Sed et boc (nempe arvinam quæ fub pelle eft) confumerent (morbi fcilicet) in carne tamen mea Deum videbo (i. e. propitium experiar.) Ego, inquam, hifce meis oculis: Ego, non autem alius pro me.→ Deus Redemptor dicitur, quia pios ex multis malis liberat. Pf. Ixxviii. 35. Efa. xli. 14. xliii. 14. xliv. 6. xlvii. 4. Poftremum in campo ftare eft victoris, fic Deum dicit victorem fore adverfariorum fuorum. Neque vero ei effe impoffibile corpus ejus putredine prope exefum reftituere in priorem formam; quod et fecit. Deus. Grotius in locum.

Death, to all appearance, deftroys the person, the whole man; and though poffibly there may be a renovation of the world, yet still it is difficult to conceive how individual perfons fhall be fo preferved, through all the changes of many ages, as at the laft day to find themselves to be themfelves again.

But further; the words in the original, which we render, he shall ftand at the latter day upon the earth, are in Grotius's tranflation thus expreffed; "illum "poftremo ftaturum in campo:" by which he means, "he shall keep the field; (quod victoris eft ;) “which is a mark of conqueft." Allow this, and what do they suffer, who apply this paffage to the resurrection? The reftoring life to the world is represented as the greatest victory and triumph; St. Paul fays, Chrift must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet: the last enemy that shall be deftroyed is death. The expreffion therefore, as expounded by Grotius, has nothing inconfiftent with an application of the whole paffage to the refurrec

tion.

But the original word haphar is never used, that I can find, to fignify a field; much lefs a field of battle; and I very much question, whether keeping the field was an expreffion of victory of fo old a date as the book of Job. It feems to me to belong to the times when war was become more an art than it was in the times of Job: conquerors then did not use to keep the field; and why should they, when one battle commonly decided the point, and the conquered had nothing to do but to fly, and the conqueror to purfue? And even now, keeping the field is the