In one place Zophar says: 'For vain man would be wise, though man be born a wild ass's colt.' We have omitted the word of comparison ('like'), which does not exist in the original, for the omission of it renders the figure more emphatic. Yet it may surprise the reader to see such an animal as the ass quoted as the type of what is by nature untamed, rebellious, and unsubdued. An occidental writer would cer

tainly have chosen some other creature for such a comparison. But it occurs frequently in Scripture. So the wild and restless character of Ishmael is indicated by his being 'a wild ass man,' not simply 'a wild man,' as in the common version.1 Farther on in this book,2 and in the prophecy of Jeremiah,3 the 'wild ass' is described in conformity with these intimations. That an animal known to us chiefly for its stupidity, dulness, obstinacy, and sluggish movements, should thus be noted for the very opposite qualities-for velocity, wildness, and unsubdued spirit, may indeed well excite surprise. But in these places it is the wild ass of which the sacred writers speak, and not the tame one. Between these there is a great difference. The difference is, however, far greater between it and the domestic ass of Europe, than between it and the tame ass of Asia. Indeed, in the region traversed by the Tigris and Euphrates, we have seen tame asses that made near approaches to the wild ass in shape, colour, and spirit.

From the differences in the descriptions of travellers, there would seem to be several varieties of the wild ass, caused perhaps by diversity of climate. But it is likely these differences may, in many cases, arise from variations in the age of the animals, and in the time of the year at which the observation was made. Without, therefore, attempting to define these variations, we may state that the wild ass is to this day common in many parts of Central Asia. Large herds are found about the Lake Aral in summer, whence they migrate southward in winter, and return northward in spring. The Persians and Tartars hold their flesh in high esteem, and hunt them in preference to any other kind of game. The animal is found

1 Gen. xvi. 12.

2 Job xxxix. 5.

3 Jer. ii. 24.

west of the Euphrates. Indeed, the species improves as it comes westward, the wild asses of Syria being finer than those of Persia, and those about the Bahar-el-Abaid in Africa being the finest of all. Burckhardt informs us that wild asses are found in great numbers in Arabia Petræa, about the Gulf of Akaba, where the Arabs hunt them, and eat their flesh, but not before strangers. They sell their skins and hoofs to the inhabitants of Damascus, and to the people of the Hauran. The hoofs furnish materials for rings, which are worn by the peasants on their thumbs, or fastened under their arm-pits, as amulets

against rheumatism.

It is said that the wild ass never drinks. The allusion to it, therefore, in Jer. xiv. 6, most forcibly depicts the scarcity of food, when animals inured to the desert, and to want of water, are made the prominent examples of suffering. It does not appear that any wild ass has ever been secured alive, and brought to Europe; a fact which singularly corroborates both its fleetness and its intractable character. The best account of an interview with a wild ass is that of Sir Robert Ker Porter, and we transcribe it for the reader's entertainment.

'The sun was just rising over the summits of the eastern mountains, when my greyhound suddenly started off in pursuit of an animal, which my Persians said, from the glimpse they had of it, was an antelope. I instantly put spurs to my horse,

and, with my attendants, gave chase. After an unrelaxed gallop of three miles, we came up with the dog, who was then within a short stretch of the animal he pursued; and to my surprise, and at first vexation, I saw it to be an ass. Upon a moment's reflection, however, judging from its fleetness that it must be a wild one, a creature little known in Europe, but which the Persians prize above all other animals as an object ́of chase, I determined to approach as near to it as the very swift Arab I was on would carry me. But the single instant of checking my horse to consider, had given our game such a head of us, that notwithstanding all our speed, we could not recover our ground on him. I, however, happened to be considerably before my companions, when, at a certain distance, the animal in his turn made a pause, and allowed me to approach within pistol-shot of him. He then darted off again with the quickness of thought, capering, kicking, and sporting in his flight, as if he was not blown in the least, and the chase was his pastime. When my followers of the country came up, they regretted that I had not shot the creature when he was within my aim, telling me that his flesh is one of the greatest delicacies in Persia. The prodigious swiftness and peculiar manner in which he fled across the plain, coincided exactly with the description that Xenophon gives of the same animal in Arabia; but, above all, it reminded me of the striking portrait drawn by the author of the Book of Job. I was informed by the Mehmandar, who had been in the desert when making a pilgrimage to the shrine of Ali, that the wild ass of Irak Arabi differs in nothing from the one I had just seen. He had observed them often for a short time in the possession of the Arabs, who told him the creature was perfectly untameable. A few days after this discussion, we saw another of these animals, and, pursuing it determinedly, had the good fortune to kill it.'

The true spirit of Job's three 'friends' becomes more and more fully developed as the controversy proceeds. Eliphaz is dignified and polite, but yet administers undeserved reproof instead of com

fort. Bildad is rougher and ruder, and vainly attempts to cover invective under a quotation from some ancient sage. Zophar is positively insulting. It will be observed that there is an element of truth running through the speeches of all three-it is that sin and suffering are necessarily connected. But this sound principle is unwarrantably exaggerated in application. They seem to affirm that a man's piety must be estimated by his temporal prosperity and personal comfort. Consequently, Job being a great sufferer, must of necessity be a great sinner. With unrelenting severity they press this their favourite dogma upon the poor sufferer before them. They do not mingle a particle of love with their stern censure. 'They make no effort to enter into his position and feelings; they talk at him without intermission. He only can exercise compassion to his fellow-man, who has himself received compassion from God, and to this belongs a recognition of our own sins. All Pharisaism, where it is not a question of phrases, alms, and other external matters, is at the bottom unmerciful, uncompassionate. Had the friends had any true pitiful love, they would have corrected their view by means of the very case before them.' But they were the representatives of the stern, narrow-minded bigots of that ageindeed of every age.

Fifth Week-Fifth Day.

THE TREE.-JOB XIV. 7-1 2.

JOB's reply to Zophar's short address extends through three chapters. It is highly animated, and almost exhaustive of the argument he maintains. He enters more keenly into the spirit of the debate as an argument, and is hence drawn somewhat more out of himself than hitherto, and goes farther afield in thought and illustration. He is also more bold, as well as more keen, in recrimination, indulging occasionally in biting sarcasm, and at times displaying a little personal exasperation.

He begins, indeed, with a sarcastic remark upon the intense appreciation of their own wisdom which his friends evince; and ventures to distrust the quality of that wisdom, seeing that it had not led them to show manly pity for a friend in severe distress. Deriding their pretensions, he declares, somewhat

proudly, that he had no need to come to them for instruction, but had at least as much knowledge of the matters in debate as they had. This is somewhat idly said; for a really wise man may and does receive much instruction from those who are not superior, or are even inferior, to himself in wisdom and knowledge. He declares that all they had said upon the wisdom and power of God was, however true, merely trite and obvious; and then, as if to prove that they could boast no superiority of view in this respect, he breaks out into a most eloquent discourse on the same subject—the power and providence of God, -a discourse certainly not inferior to theirs in matter, while it exceeds them in freshness of sentiment and illustration, and was altogether well calculated to make them ashamed of their airs of superior intelligence. In this discourse, he, with great ability, takes up the very doctrine of God's sovereignty, which Zophar had so forcibly set forth, and urged as a ground of submission, and presses it into the support of his own view, arguing that this sovereignty was shown by God's acting from his own absolute will in the government of the world, far more than by his being bound by the conditions of merit or demerit in man, as they affirmed.

Nothing, therefore, which the friends could advance on the subject of the divine power and greatness, could prove him guilty, or make out that he was subjected to punishment for his sins.

This is certainly one of the most masterly strokes of argument that occur in the whole course of the discussion.

Job then assures them that God cannot be pleased at vindications of his providence and power based on erroneous doctrines. And so satisfied is he of the perfect knowledge and absolute wisdom of God, and so assured that he is not himself punished for special sins, that he desires nothing more earnestly than that it were possible for him, as Zophar had suggested, to submit the whole question to the divine judgment, feeling quite confident of the result. This, it will be noted by careful readers, is one of those incidental touches which occur in the course of the book, preparing our minds for the ultimate appearance of