II. DESIGN OF a HE BOOK.—We here assume the integrity of the book of Job, or that it has been preserved in its genuine, unadulterated state ; and we may do so the rather, because those who would eliminate single portions, must still allow the diffi culty of showing in the remainder a fixed plan and leading idea, which again argues against them. Moreover, by determining the design of the book the best foundation is laid for proving its integrity. All agree that the object of the book is the solution of the question, how the afflictions of the righteous and the prosperity of the wicked can be consistent with God's justice. But it should be observed that the direct problem exclusively refers to the first point, the second being only incidentally dis cussed on occasion of the leading theme. If this is overlooked, the author would appear to have solved only one-half of his problem : the case from which the whole discussion proceeds has reference merely to the leading problem. There is another fundamental error which has led nearly all modern interpreters to a mistaken idea of the design of this book. Pareau (De immortal/tads not. it/ libro yobi, Deventer 1807, p. 207) is the only one who saw the error adverted to, and partially combated it with success. They assume that the problem could be satisfactorily solved only when the doctrines of immortality and retribution had been first esta blished, which had not been done by the author of the book of Job : a perfect solution of the question was therefore not to be expected from him. Some assert that his solution is erroneous, since retribu tion, to be expected in a future wor3d, is transferred by him to this life ; others say that he cut the knot which Ile could not unloose, and has been satisfied to ask for implicit submission and devotedness, showing at the same time that every attempt at a solution must lead to dangerous positions : blind resignation, therefore, was the short meaning of the lengthened discussion.
On nearer examination, however, it appears that the doctrine of retribution after death is not of itself alone calculated to lead to a solution of the pro blem. In contemplating the lives of the righteous, who were perfectly embued with this doctrine, it will appear that they also struggled with doubts ; that a satisfactory solution of the question is to be derived only from the fundamental doctrine on which the faith in retribution rests ; and that this faith is shaken where it has not the necessary basis. The belief in a final judgment is firm and rational only when it rests on the belief in God's continued providential government of the world, and in his acting as sovereign Lord in all the events of human life. If God is holy and just, he must also have the will to manifest these qualities in our present life by his bearing towards those who re present bis image on earth, as well as towards those who renounce it. If lie is omnipotent, nothing can in this life prevent him from exhibiting- his justice ; but if this is not manifested, and if no reason can be given for which he at times defers his judgments, the belief in retribution after death would be flimsy and shallow. Woe to him who expects in a future world to be supplied with every thing he missed here, and with redress for all injuries sustained ! He deceives himself. His God was, during his life on earth, inactive, shutting himself up in heaven : is he sure that his God will hereafter be better disposed or more able to protect him ? As his essence remains the same, and the nature of sin and virtue is unchanged, how should he then in a future life punish the former and reward the latter, if he does not do so in this life ! Temporary injustice is still injustice, and destroys the idea of a laoly and just God. A God who has
something to redress is no God at all. Lucian, the satirist, composed a dialogue entitled Zan 'EXE-yx6nevos, with the view of subverting the belief in Divine Providence ; in which be justly finds fault with that God who allows the wicked to lead a happy and pleasant life in order that, at a distant time, they may be tortured according to their deserts, and who, on the contrary, exposes the righteous to infinite miscry, that in remote futurity they may receive the reward of their virtue. Some men of sense among the heathens displayed deep penetration on this subject. Claudian, in the com mencement of his poem against the wicked Rufinus, hints that doubts had been often entertained of Divine Providence, but that they had been now removed by the downfall of Rufinus Abstulit hunc tandem Rufini pcena tumultum Absolvitque deos. Jam non ad culmina rerum Injustos crevisse queror. Tolluntur in altum Ut lapsu graviore ruant.' This worldly retribution leads him to a firm belief in that after death. He represents Rufinus de scended to the nether world, doing penance and enduring the keenest pains. See the rich collection by Barth fin his Notes to Clandian, io7S, s.s.) of those passages in the works of heathen writers in which doubts of future retribution are raised on the ground of disbelief in present requitals. Scrip ture knows nothing of a God whosc power admits of increase, or who is active only in the life to come : its God is always full of strength and vigour, con stantly engaged in action. God's just retribution in this world is extolled throughout the O. T. The notion of return accommodated to actions, is its substance and centre. It is particularly urged in the Pentateuch, and it is only when it had been deeply rooted in the public mind, and the belief in future requital had acquired a firm and solid basis, that the latter doctrine, which in the books of Moses is but dimly hinted at, is clearly and ex plicitly promulgated. The N. T. bolds out to the righteous promises of a future life, as well as of the present ; and our Saviour himself, in setting forth the rewards of those who, for his sake, forsook everything, begins with this life (Matt. xix. 29). A nearer examination of the benedictions contained in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. v.) shows that none of them exclusively refer to future blessings ; the judgment of the wicked is in his view proceed ing without interruption, and therefore his examples of the distribution of Divine justice in this world are mingled with those of requital in a future order of things. The Galileans, -whose blood Pilate had mingled with their own sacrifices (Luke xiii. 1), were in Christ's opinion not accidentally killed ; and he threatens those who would not repent, that they should in like manner perish. That sickness is to be considered as a punishment for sin, we are clearly taught ( John v. 14. ; Luke v. zo, 24.) : in the former passage it is threatened as punish ment for sins committed ; in the latter it is healed in consequence of punishment remitted. Nay, every patient restored by Christ, who acted not as a superior kind of Hippocrates, but as the Saviour of men, is by that very act declared to be a sinner. The passage in John ix. 2, 3, which is often ap. pealed to, in proof that our Lord did not consider sickness as a punishment for sin, does not prove this, but only opposes the Jewish position—founded on the mistaken doctrine of retribution—that all severe sicknesses and infirmities were consequences of crimes. But what is, from this point of view, the solution of the problem regarding the sufferings of the righteous ? It rcsts on two positions.