Wesley Corpus

Not one.” It does therefore by no means appear, that “Job is here speaking only with regard to the shortness and troubles of life.” Part of the following verses too run thus: “Now thou numberest my steps: Dost thou not watch over my sin? My transgression is sealed up in a bag, and thou sowest up mine iniquity.” (Verses 16, 17.) Let any one judge then, whether Job in this chapter does not speak of “the sinful ness, as well as the mortality, of human nature.” Not that he “urges his natural pravity as a reason why he should not be ‘brought into judgment;’” (page 141;) no more than David urges his being “shapen in wickedness,” as an excuse for that wickedness. Rather, Job (as well as David) humbly acknowledges his total sinfulness; confessing that he deserved the judgment, which he yet prays God not to inflict. 15. Another proof is, “What is man, that he should be clean? and he that is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?” (Job xv.1 ...) On this you observe: “‘Born of a woman, signifies no more than a man.” Often it does not; but here it is em phatical. “The phrase indeed includes frailty and imperfec tion.” (Page 142.) How can that be? Was Adam made frail and imperfect? And have you forgot that every man is now born in as good a state as Adam was made at first? “But it is not to be understood as the reason why man is unclean and unrighteous.” From the placing of the words, one would really judge it was; and how do you prove it is not? Why, “Job and his friends use this manner of speech in other places of this book: “Shall mortal man be more just than God? Shall a man be more pure than his Maker?” (iv. 17.)” Nay, this is not the manner of speech which is in question; so you are here quite wide of the mark. “How ever that is, ‘How can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?’ (xxv. 4.)” And does not this point at original sin?