Having thus established the design of the book of job, it remains to consider the view taken by Ewald. He justly rejects the common, superficial view of its design, which has recently been revived and defended by Hirzel (see his Colman/an Leip zig 1839), and which represents the author as in tending to shew that man cannot apprehend the plans of God, and does best to submit in ignorance without repining at afflictions. The author would thus be rendered liable to the charge of having cut the knot which he could not loose. When this view was first set up, the solution of one of the most important religious problems was very un settled, and the public mind generally remained in suspense ; in accordance with which state of feel- ; ing this opinion is framed relating to the design of ' the book of job. The alleged theme occurs in no passage, not even incidentally. The writers in question chiefly base it on the discourses of God ; and so, latterly, does Stickel, who, although ac knowledging that the solution of the problem was afforded by Elibu, still thinks that in the senti ments uttered by God the sufferer was ultimately referred to human short-sightedness and directed to be silent, the author of the book distrusting the correctness of his solution, and intending at all events to vindicate God's justice. Thus they en tirely misunderstand the main point in the dis courses of God, which set forth his infinite majesty with a view, uot of censuring lob's inquisitiveness and of taxing him with indiscretion, but of shewing that it was foolish to divest God of justice, which is inseparable from his essence. His searching is not itself blamed, but only the manner of it. No where in the whole book is simple resignation crudely enjoined, and nowhere does Job say that he submits to such au injunction. The prologue represents his sufferings as trials, and the epilo,gue declares that the end had proved this ; conse quently the author WaS competent to give a theo dicee with reference to the calamity of job, and if such is the case he cannot have intended simply to recommend resignation. The Biblical writers, when engaged on this problem, know how to justify God with reference to the afflictions of the righteous, and have no intention of evading the difficulty when they recommend resignation (see the Psalms quoted above, and, in the N. T., the Epistle to the Hebrews, ch. xii.) The view of the book of Job alluded to would isolate it, and take it out of its natural connection. Thus far, then, We agree with Ewald, but we cannot approve of his own view of the design of the book of Job. According to his system, calamity is never a punishment for sins committed, but always a mere phantom, an imaginary show, above which we must raise ourselves by the consciousness of the eternal nature of the human mind, to which, by external prosperity, nothing can be added, and from which, by external misfortune, nothing can be taken away. It was (says Ewald) the merit of the book of job to have prepared these sounder views of worldly evil and of the immortality of mind, transmitting them as fruitful buds to pos terity.' Now from the outset we may be sure that this view is not to be found in our book. Credit has always been given to Scripture for knowing bow to console the distressed—which Ewald's sys tem must fail to do. Let it be offered to those who are afflicted with severe and painful illness, and it will prove abortive. Fictitious sufferings may be soothed in this manner, real pains certainly not. Consciousness of the eternal nature of our
mind is wanted to do all ; but how is it possible when the mind itself is depressed ? Turn to the l'salms : do we find in them shadowed out this cold consolation—the doctrine of the Stoics, which bas been always considered to be opposed to that of Scripture ? Read especially Psalms xxxvii., xli., and. lxxiii., which profess to treat our pro blem : take, in the N. T., the passage in Heb. xii. 6, and you will find afflictions considered at once as punishments inflicted by divine justice, and as means which God's love employs to lead us to higher happiness. Whom the Lord loveth he chastened], and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.' If suffering and happiness are as nothing, and have no reality, why promises our Saviour rewards to his followers, and why threatens be tbe wicked svith punishment (Matt. xix. 16-30? Why blesses he the meek, for they shall inherit the earth' (Matt. v. 5)? Why says he, seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and. all these things shall be added unto you' (Matt, vi. 33)? If righteousness already possesses evervthing and lacks nothing, why says St. Paul, to righteousness are held out the promise both of this life and of the life to collie ? Being thus im pres..,ed against Ewald's view, from the Scriptures themselves, we also find, on closer inspection, that it does not apply to the book of job. To make It appear that it does, he excludes the speeches of lilihu—which seems rather suspicious ; but what Ile objects against them is of little importance, and has been proved by Stickel to be erroneous. Tak ing, however, what remains of the book, it is evi dent that the epilogue is decidedly contrary to Ewald's view. Why is it that Job receives the double of all that he had lost, when, judged by Ewald's principles, he had lost nothing ? If in any place, it is in the epilogue that the leading idea of the author must appear ; and here we have not speeches, whose drift might admit of doubt, but acts, divine acts, the solution of the question by facts. Equally irreconcilable is Ewald's view with the prologue. The opening scene is in heaven ; Satan appears before God, and obtains leave to tempt Job. This enables the reader from the outset to see clearer into the case under con sideration than did Job and his friends, who judged only according to what passed on earth. He sus pects from the outset what will be the end of the narrative. If it is by way of temptation only that Job is subjected to 'misery, this cannot be lasting ; but if it cannot and must not be lasting, it must bc also more than an imaginary phantom—it must be reality. We might easily shew further that the view referred to is also incompatible with the speeches of Job, who never renounces happiness ; Ile is always either disconsolate and complains, or expresses cheering hopes of a return of better days ; he either despairs of God's justice, or expects him to prove it at least partially by his rehabilitation. We might likewise, with little trouble, prove that the view of Ewald is not in accordance with the speeches of God, who does not address Job in ex hortations to the effect, I3e insensible of thy cala mity ;' but, Humble thyself before me ; acknow ledge in thy severe sufferings my justice and my love, and thy own sinfulness, and procure release by repentance.' But what we have stated on this head may be deemed sufficient.