ThoughJob reached a wrong conclusion, he was arguing on a right principle. The patriarch’s argument is this--As we are the creatures, the workmanship of Almighty God, we may expect Him to take care of us, and that as God, any opposite conduct may justly excite surprise, and be thought at variance with the acknowledged fact that the Divine hands have “made us and fashioned us together round about.” This argument is susceptible of being wrought out into many and instructive shapes. The remembrance of our creation should animate us to expect supplies of grace and instruction. To the benevolence and goodness of God must be referred the production of the multiplied tribes of living things. God caused life to pervade immensity because, as He Himself is everywhere, He would that everywhere there should be objects of His bounty, beings with capacity and provision for enjoyment. Every creature may trace its origin to the benevolence of God, and therefore every creature might infer, from its having been formed, that its Maker was ready to satisfy its wants, yea, to fulfil its desires, so far as those desires might be lawfully entertained. What is creation to me, but a register of the carefulness of the Almighty in providing for my happiness during my sojourn here below? Shall I think it unlikely that God would take measures for my good in reference to that eternity on which I must enter at death? Job seems to reason that, in place of destroying him, God who had made might have been expected to save him. It is an argument from what had been done for him in his natural capacity, to what might have been looked for in his spiritual capacity. And Job’s reason is every way accurate. (Henry Melvill, B. D.)
