duct, we should needs confefs that the divine Writer had here done, what mere mortal Poets fo frequently

However, contending for fuch difcordant circumftances in the vehicle-story, he says, is directly annihilating the allegory. Now I understood it was the establishing it; as it is the only means of getting to the knowledge of its being an allegory. He goes on, - For it is as plain that in an allegory two things or persons must be concerned, as that two and two must go to make four. What he means by this jargon of two's being concerned, I know not. If he means that the fable and the moral must go to the making up the allegory, no body will difpute it with him. But if he means, that all the perfonages in the fable must have all the qualities, attributes, and adventures of the perfonages in the moral, all Æfop's fables will confute this profound reafoner on allegories. However fomething, to be fure, he did mean: He had a notion, I fuppofe, that there was a right and wrong in every thing he only wanted to know where they lie: Therefore to make thefe curfory notes as ufeful as I can, I will endeavour to explain his meaning. It is certain then, that tho' the juftice of allegoric writing does not require that the facts in the fable do in reality correfpond exactly with the facts in the moral, yet the truth of things requires the poffibility of their fo-correfponding. Thus, tho' the Afs perhaps never actually covered himself with a Lion's fkin, and was betrayed by his long ears, as fop relates, yet we have an example before us, fufficient to convince us that he might have done fo, without much expence of inftinct. But when Dryden made his Hind and Panther difpute about the doctrine and difcipline of particular Churches; as they never poffibly could have done fo, this (to take his own words, inftead of better) is directly annihilating the allegory he would eftablish; for it is as plain that in an allegory two things or perfons must be concerned, as that two and two must go to make four. But I fancy I afcribe more to his fagacity than it deferves, in fuppofing, that he understood, what kind of allegory the book of job muft needs be, if it be any allegory at all. I now begin to fufpect he took it to be of the fame kind with the Ode of Horace, not indeed because he compares it to that Ode; for fuch kind of Writers are accustomed to make, as the Poet fays, comparisons unlike; but because this fufpicion may give fome light to his cloudy obfervation, that two things or perfons must be concerned: For in that fort of allegory, which is of the nature of a relation containing a double fenfe primarily and fecondarily, every thing faid muft agree exactly both to the primary and to the fecondary subject. Which perhaps is what

quently do; that is, had tranfgreffed nature (in fuch a representation of friendship) for the fake of his Plot. But we shall fhew, when we come to examine the MORAL of the poem, that nature is exactly followed for that under these three miferable Comforters, how true friends foever in the Fable, certain falfe friends were intended to be shadowed out in the Moral.

But now the difpute is begun and carried on with great vehemence on both fides. They affirm.

this man means by his clumfy precept, of two things or perfons. concerned. The reafon of this diftinction, in these two forts of allegory, is this,In that fort of allegory which is of the nature of the book of Job, or of the APOLOGUE, the cover has no moral import: But in that fort which is of the nature of a NARRATIVE WITH A DOUBLE SENSE, the cover has a moral import.

P To this, the Cornish Critic, "What a happy way is here of reconciling contradictions! It feems truth may be"come falfhood, if it be neceffary to fupport the allegory. The "moral and the fable may difagree as widely as you please, "and the conclufion by a new fort of logic have fomething in "it very different from the premiffes." p. 19. If his kind Reader knows what to make of this jargon of truth becoming falfhood and the conclufion having more in it than the premises, he may take it for his pains. All that the Author of the D. L. afferts to be here done, and which may be done according to nature and good fenfe, is no more than this, that a dramatic Writer, when he fetches his fubject from History, may alter certain of the circumftances, to fit it to his Plot; which all dramatic Writers, antient and modern, have done. Much more reasonable is this liberty, where the work is not only dramatic but allegorical. Now I will fuppofe, that, together with Job's patience under the hand of God, tradition had brought down an account of his further fufferings under the uncharitable cenfure of three friends: Was not the Maker of this allegoric work at liberty, for the better carrying on his purpose, to reprefent them as falfe ones. Yet, this liberty, our wonderful Critic calls reconciling contradictions, making truth become falfhood, and I can't tell what nonfenfe befides, of premiffes and conclufions,

they object, they anfwer, they reply; till, having exhaufted their whole ftock of arguments, and made the matter more doubtful than they found it, the Author, in this embaras, has recourfe to the common expedient of dramatic writers, to draw him from his ftraits, Θεὸς ἀπὸ μηχανῆς. And if ever that precept of the masters of compofition,

Nec Deus interfit, nifi dignus Vindice nodus,

was well followed, it was here. For what can we conceive more worthy the presence of a God than to interfere with his Authority, to filence those frivolous or impious difputes amongft men concerning the MYSTERIOUS WAYS OF PROVIDENCE? And that this interpofition was nothing more, I think, is evident from hence: The fubject, as we observe, was of the highest importance, namely, Whether, and why, good men are unhappy, and the evil profperous? The difputants had much perplexed the question by various answers and replies; in which each fide had appealed to reafon and experience; fo that there wanted a fuperior Wisdom to moderate and determine. But, to the furprise of all who confider this attentively, and confider it as a ftrict Hiftory, they find GoD introduced to do this in a speech which clears up no difficulties; but makes all hopes of deciding the question defperate, by an appeal to his Almighty power". A

plain

Maimonides having given a fummary of the difpute, draws this inference from it: Vide & perpende, quâ ratione boc nego. tium confufos reddiderit homines, & ad fententias illas de provi dentiâ Dei erga creaturas quas expofuimus permoverit, Yet, when he comes to speak of the folution of thefe difficulties, he could find none. But not to fay nothing, (the thing moft dreaded by Commentators) he pretends to discover, from the obscurity in which things are left, the true fcope of the book of Job: Hic

fuit

plain proof that the Interpofition was no more than a piece of poetical Machinery. And in that cafe we see the reason why the knot remains untied: for the facred Writer was no wifer' when he spoke

poeti

fuit fcopus totius libri Fobi, ut fcilicet conflituatur hic articulus fidei, & doceatur, à rebus naturalibus difcendum effe, ut non er remus, aut cogitemus fcientiam ejus [Dei fc.] ita fe habere ut fcien tiam noftram; intentionem, providentiam, & gubernationem ejus, ficut intentionem, providentiam, & gubernationem noftram. Mor Nev. p. 3. c. xxiii,

Here Dr. Grey exclaims-" How, Sir, no wifer? Is God introduced to unfold the mysterious ways of his Providence, "and yet the knot is left untied, becaufe the Writer, though "fpeaking in the perfon of God, and by his infpiration, was "not wife enough to untie it? Is that a fpeech to the purpose, "which in a Controverfy, as you will have it, where the dif"putants have much perplexed the queftion, and a fuperior "Wisdom was wanted to determine it, clears up no difficulties? "Or is it language fit to be made ufe of, when speaking of 66 a book dictated by the spirit of God, that the writer of it "has recourse to the common expedient of dramatic writers "to help him out of his ftraits?" Answer to remarks, p. 125. Softly, good Doctor! In determining a difpute concerning the ways of Providence, though God himself had indeed interpofed, we can conceive but two ways of doing it: The one to SATISFY us, by explaining the end and means of that Providence, where the explanation is ufeful to us, and adequate to our capacities: The other, to SILENCE us, by an argument to our modefty, drawn from the incomprehenfible nature and government of the Deity, where an explanation is not useful to us, and inadequate to our capacities. Both thefe Determinations, the one by expla nation, the other by authority, attended by their refpective circumftances, are equally reasonable: and the laft is here employed for the reafon hinted at, to put an end to this embarraffed difpute. Let this ferve in answer to the Doctor's queftion, Is that a speech to the purpose, which in a controverfy where the difputants have much perplexed the queflion, and a Superior wisdom was wanted to determine it, clears up no difficulties?

Indeed, though there was no untying the knot, there was a way to cut it, which would have done full as well; and that was by revealing the doctrine of a future ftate. Why it was

C 4

not

1

poetically in the Perfon of God, than when he Ipoke in the perfon of Job or his friends.

On these accounts, and on many more, which will be touched upon in the courfe of this differtation, but are here omitted to avoid repetition, I conclude, that thofe Critics who fuppofe the book of Job to be of the dramatic kind do not judge amifs.

Nor does fuch idea of this truly divine Compofition at all detract from the proofs we have of the real existence of this holy Patriarch, or of the truth of his exemplary Story. On the contrary, it much confirms them: feeing it was the general practice of dramatic Writers, of the serious kind, to chufe an illuftrious Character or celebrated Ad

not done, I leave the learned Critic and all in his fentiments, to give us fome good account, fince they are not difpofed to receive that which the Author of the D. L. has given. For this Doctor tells us, it is but mall comfort that arifes from refolving all into Submiffion to the almighty power of God. p. 107. St. Paul indeed tells us, it is the greatest comfort, as well as wifdom, to refolve all into fubmiffion to the almighty power of God. But Doctors differ.

From the MATTER of the D. L. the Doctor proceeds (as we fee) to the LANGUAGE. Is it language fit to be made ufe of when feaking of a book dictated by the Spirit of God?—The language hinted at, I fuppofe is what he had quoted above, that the Jacred writer was no wifer when he Spoke poetically in the perfon of God, &c. I think it not unfit, and for thefe reafons; a Prophet fpeaking or writing by infpiration, is juft fo far and no further enlightened than fuits the purpose of his Miffion. Now the clearing up the myfterious ways of Providence being reserved amongst the arcana of the Deity, a Prophet (tho' employed to end the foolish and hurtful difputes about it, amongst men, by an appeal to the incomprehenfible nature of the Deity) was certainly, when he made this appeal in the person of God, no wifer in the knowledge of this arcanum, than when he spoke in the person of Fab or his friends.

venture