So Waller, 'Treading the path to noble ends, Under this view, then, it results that to bless God, in the sense here intended, is to bid adieu as it were to God, and give up all regard to his worship and service; or, as one writer on this side of the question1 almost too strongly expresses it, 'To shake hands with the very God that made them, and take leave of everything serious and sacred.' Still, however, there is no clear instance in Scripture, in which bidding farewell to a person or thing is used in a bad sense, as of renunciation of a person or thing with dislike or unkindness. And, after all, the result of this explanation is to make the sense come very near to cursing, while the word 'blessing' is retained. Another interpretation, reaching the same actual result by a different path, is founded on the undoubted fact, that there are in all languages many deeds and many things deemed so odious and abominable, that they are never named directly, but are expressed by other terms. Thus the Athenians felt a delicacy in using the word prison, and said house instead: so they forbore to name the executioner, but said the public; and, in like manner, abstained from directly naming the Furies, but said the Eumenides. Hundreds of examples of this practice might be adduced, and there are many in our own language. The Hebrews, beyond all people of ancient times, felt this kind of modest reserve in the expression of hateful things. So in their imprecations or adjurations of themselves or others, we observe they avoid naming the specific evils, but say, 'The Lord do so to me, and more also.' So far, well. But those who take the view in question, go on to argue therefrom, that in the present case 'to curse God,' or blaspheme his holy Name, was an enormity deemed so unutterable, that it could not be directly expressed; and, therefore, to avoid connecting such an idea with that venerable name, they said 'to bless God,' leaving the intended meaning to be gathered from the context. This is a plausible and pleasing idea, but it happens not to be true, as ' DR. GARNETT, in his Dissertation on Job. there are numerous passages of Scripture in which blasphemy against God is very plainly expressed, showing that the Hebrews did not entertain the scruple that is ascribed to them. Some cases in which the expression of blasphemy against the Lord occurs, would, more strongly than this, have been deemed to call for suppression had any such rule prevailed. Here again, however, after all, we come to the essential fact of cursing, although the form of blessing is contended for. There is, however, yet one other explanation which takes blessing in the plain literal sense, but makes a change in the object. No doubt all our readers know that the Hebrew word for God, ELOHIM, is plural—the plural of majesty. But being plural, it is exactly the same word which is employed to express really in the plural the gods of the heathen. As the Hebrews have no capital letters, there is no way of distinguishing the application of these words as we distinguish 'Lord' from 'lord.' The application can only be gathered from the context, and usually it may be so gathered correctly. Now, in the present case it is urged that the word Elohim should be translated not 'God,' but 'gods,'-'they blessed the gods,'-which would indicate that the subject of Job's apprehension was lest his sons, in the midst of their festivities, had been led into any idolatrous actions or observances, at least to the extent of blessing in their hearts the hosts of heaven (particularly the sun), worshipped in that age, as the visible instruments of the blessings which in reality they owed to God only. The danger of this might be the greater, seeing that festivities were much connected with idolatry, and often led to it. If this were the case-if it were to be feared that the danger of idolatry was involved in these family entertainments-how came it to pass, it may be asked, that a parent so pious and careful as Job did not use his effectual paternal influence against them altogether? We feel assured that he would have done so, had he suspected the danger of which he is thus supposed to be aware. Besides, this notion is founded on the idea, that the word (barak), usually signifying to bless, never does mean It seems to us that a sufficient answer to this is to curse. found in 1 Kings xxi. 10-13, where the charge is made against Naboth, that he had 'blasphemed God and the king.' Here the word blaspheme is the very same that is now in question-the same which is twice in the present chapter translated curse. There are other passages where it is also rendered blaspheme; but as they are less conclusively distinct than this, we shall not produce them.1 We take it, then, that the word does not mean bless. Yet perhaps curse is too strong a word whereby to translate the Hebrew in this place; or, at any rate, the word is not to be taken in its perfect sense. We are not to infer that Job's children did deny, or that their father even supposed it probable they had denied, the being of God, or wished that there was none; or as little that they-persons piously brought uphad used blasphemous expressions against God, or had conceived blasphemous thoughts in their hearts. But as to bless God is to think and speak reverently of Him, and to ascribe to Him that which is his due ; so to curse Him, is to think and speak irreverently, slightingly, or unregardfully of Him, and not to ascribe to Him that which belongs to Him, and thus Job might fear that his sons amidst their feasting might have boasted of their plenty, of the increase of their substance, and have ascribed these blessings rather to their own skill and diligence, than to the providence of God, of which he feared they might have spoken unbecomingly, as persons in such circumstances are apt to do. And after all, it does not appear that they did even this; only Job feared that they might almost unconsciously have done so ; and even he did not fear that they had carried the sentiment into uttered speech, but that they had perhaps thought too slightingly of God 'in their hearts,' and had not at all times, in the midst of their temporal blessings, been duly 1 We are of course aware of the notion which presses the sense under notice in this text also, by substituting Moloch for king (the words being alike in Hebrew), so that the charge was, that he blessed Moloch. But how then about blessing God also, which was surely not a capital offence? This interpretation, however, is too forced, and we may say puerile, for closer examination here. regardful of his honour. Though not literally correct as a translation, Mr. Broughton's rendering,-'too little blessed. God in their hearts,'-meets almost exactly what we thus take to be the real meaning of the text. We observe, also, that this mitigated view is adopted by some of our early translators, who saw the word could not mean bless, yet shrank from using so strong a word as curse. So Rogers (1537), and Bishops' Bible (1572), have-' been unthankful to God in their hertes.' Second Week-Fourth Day. THE SCENE IN HEAVEN.—JOB I. 6. THE sacred writer abruptly takes us away from the land of Uz, and the contemplation of Job's prosperity and his goodness, and translates us to the court of heaven, and the councils of the Most High, that we may become acquainted with the cause of the sudden and lamentable change that is about to take place in the lot of this exemplary man. A day has come round in which the sons of God,' his ministering angels, have returned from their thousand missions of mercy and judgment, to render an account of their proceedings. We behold them standing in reverent homage around the throne, high and lifted up, on which the Holy One appears. Thither also came, but as one apart and alien there, the great Adversary1 of man, his Accuser1—Satan, scowling aloof, as one there only by strong constraint, or as one hoping to work in that high place evil for man. To him a voice from amid the glories of that throne speaks, and asks him whence he came? The answer of the Evil One is of awful significance to man: From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.' Knowing that the contemplation of human goodness and of human happiness was hateful to this being, and that he laboured night and day 'The meaning of the word Satan. VOL. V. D to spoil and blacken it all, the Lord deigned to speak to him of Job, as one eminently great and good; and, as such, a living contradiction to the satanic theory of man, and a standing justification, if there were but one such, of the divine wisdom, in placing him upon the earth, and in preserving him from utter destruction, even when he had fallen. But the devil, who appears to have been the first philosopher of the school of Rochefoucault, insinuates that all Job's goodness was mere selfishness-all his devotion but a quit-rent for the benefits which had been showered upon him. He was prosperous, therefore he was good. Who would not be good on such terms? He had not been tried; and what merit was there in that virtue which had sustained no proof? Only try him, only afflict him, only turn his prosperity from him, and he will curse Thee to thy face.' Such is the meaning of Satan's suggestion; and the Lord, to nullify his argument to make it plain that goodness may have other foundations, and affliction other results—allows him to oppress for a season his righteous servant to strip him of all—to bring him very low, his person only being withheld from the demon's power. Let us learn from this that Satan has no independent power to distress mankind, except as the Lord permits, for the trial of our faith, and for the purification of our souls; and, therefore, for ultimate good, if we but hold fast that which we have. It is only by our failure that the enemy gains any real power over us; and this conviction, that whatever form our trials take, they are essentially from the Lord, should teach us to receive them all as from his hand-a Father's hand. But the question will occur to the reader, Is this scene to be taken as real, or otherwise? Having contended for the historical character of the Book of Job, in so far as regards the human circumstances, and the reality of the discussion, some will suppose that we are now bound to maintain the reality of this scene on high. But this by no means follows. A true history may contain a parable, an allegory, or a vision, and is not thereby rendered the less historical. Thus the First Book of Kings (xxii. 17-23) contains a vision of heaven very similar, |