our authorized version is a faithful translation, omits the words ‘conservabunt te,’ and ‘adjecit mandate et praecepta sua.’ Also in verse 17, ‘bonum et malum.’ The Syriac, or vulgar Hebrew, in which this book was originally written, is lost, although Jerome professes to have seen it. What Jesus the Son of Sirach produced in the Syriac, his grandson translated into Greek, for the benefit of his countrymen in Egypt, who, by long disuse, had forgotten the Hebrew tongue.
[←302]
The rest of the chapters of the Book of Esther, which are found neither in the Hebrew, nor the Chaldee.
[←303]
Graecas calendas. A day that will never come; a Latin proverb taken from the Greeks having no calends to their months, as the Latins had. A calend is the first day of each month in the Roman calendar.
[←304]
Super aristas incedis. Applied proverbially, to ‘one who affirms nothing absolutely.’ He skims the ears of corn, fearing to set his foot on them.
[←305]
Pelagius. The great heresiarch of Freewill, in the fifth century; a native of Wales, and supposedly a monk of Bangor who exchanged his original name of Morgan, for the more imposing one of Pelagius.
[←306]
We read Psa 4.6, “The Lord lift you”up,” etc., as a prayer; but it may with equal propriety be read as an affirmation.
[←307]
Nostra omnia sic perlastravit. I refer the ‘nostra omnia’ to the sacred records, the authorized documents of Christianity; not to the writings of Luther and his friends. Perlastr. does not express real insight into the things contained in those documents, but complete outside inspection. This is just the sort of knowledge which Luther would choose to ascribe to him, and which is amply sufficient to exempt him from the plea of ignorance.
[←308]
‘Us,’ as opposed to everybody. He represents him as playing at peep with the learned; and as deceiving the people by his tricks on words, by which he gave the same word as many faces as Vertumnus, who plagued the wise; he deceived the vulgar. Vertumnus had many faces: hence, ‘Vertumnis verborum ludere,’ to play at making words like Vertumnus; that is, different in appearance, while are really the same. Erasmus could say and unsay everything by his copiousness, versatility, and ambiguity of words.
[←309]
Erasmus does not introduce the word ‘harsh’ in describing this first opinion. Luther ascribes it to him, as implied in his description of the other two.
[←310]
The definition says, ‘can apply itself to those things,’ etc. The approvable opinion says, ‘cannot will good.’
[←311]
‘It leaves man in possession of desire and endeavour,’ etc.
[←312]
‘Not only ruining her own cause, but establishing her adversary’s.’
[←313]
Pillion: A seat behind the rider of a horse.
[←314]
Quod disdiapason conveniat. A Greek proverb, denoting the greatest possible dissimilitude.
[←315]
I object to this distinction, as I have already done to the same in substance (Part ii. Sect. 19.); nor can I believe it was in the mind of the Apocryphal writer. Man did not have Freewill given to him in the exercise of one set of his relations (those to the creatures, for instance) , more than in another. Dominion and superiority did not confer Freewill. He was, in reality, made accountable for his use of the creatures; they were not given to him to do what he pleased with. But, if it had been so, this would not have prevented his liability to have his will moved by a power without him. Insubjection and unaccountableness are of a perfectly different nature from Freewill. A despot may be ruled within, as well as a slave. But, taking the writer to mean that he was left to do his own will, this does not necessarily imply more than that he was left a free agent. And this he was left, with respect to all his relations, higher as well as inferior; and so are we. The difference between Adam’s state before his fall, and ours who have been begotten of him — after having fallen in and with him — does not consist in his having been in any way independent of God — which we are not — or having had a will that was inaccessible to divine control — which we do not have — but only in his ignorance of, and freedom from evil. He knew only good, and the devil as yet had no part in him. But even in that state, he did only, and only could do, what God willed that he should do; and though without excuse in choosing evil (as having faculties and capacities, and being placed in circumstances, by and in which he should at once have rejected the temptation), did so choose, through the operation (not indeed compulsory, but efficacious) and according to the will of Him who does all things: whose glory as well as prerogative it is to govern a world of free agents.
[←316]
Grammar: these are moods or verb tenses in Greek, which affect the meaning of the word.
[←317]
De sequelá. What follows, or is supposed to follow, from an assertion proved or admitted, but is not the immediate point in debate. ‘Consequence,’ deduction,’ ‘inference.’
[←318]
It is not Luther’s business to state where this difference of reception arises; which is only through the free favour of God, making some to be his friends by his Spirit working in due season, while he leaves others in their native enmity. Luther would not hesitate to assign this cause; but here he only deals with the fact that the Lord tests and evinces these different characters of men, by such calls to obedience.
[←319]
“Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh shall be justified in his sight; for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” (Rom 3.20) “Moreover, the law entered that the offence might abound.” (Rom 5.20.) “What then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions.” (Gal 3.19) “Therefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ.” (Gal 3.24)
[←320]
As distinct from a fraction. See note on p. 166.
[←321]
Tutum libero arbitrio tribuentibus. The Pelagians spoke more wisely than many who oppose them. They maintained ‘the integrity of Freewill’ as an absolute power of willing good. Freewill is Freewill, and if there is anything of it in man, there is the whole of it.
[←322]
Luther no doubt refers to Eph 2.8, “For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.” His interpretation, if I understand the text rightly, is incorrect: it is not faith that is spoken of as the gift of God, but ‘his whole salvation.’ The truth of his affirmation, however, though not fairly deducible from this text, is unquestionable; and it may be shown from particular testimonies, as well as from the general tenour of Scripture. [For example,] Mat 16.17; Joh 6.44, 65; Eph 1.19; Col 2.12 (to which many others might be added) are decisive.
[←323]
Deem: here it means to judge or declare, and not just indicate or suggest.
[←324]
Suo ipsius gladio jugulatur. By quoting a passage for herself, which directly contradicts her.
[←325]
Cum adesset Spiritus. Luther assumes that Adam, in his creation state, had the Spirit; of which there is no proof, and the contrary seems evidently to have been the fact. Made perfect after his kind, it was no part of his creation dues or gifts to have the Spirit. He was formed to glorify God, as his creature: which implies a substance distinct from, and existing in a state of severance from his Creator; like a piece of mechanism put out of the hand of its artificer. He was left to himself, therefore, having his own high moral powers and acquirements, but no extrinsic aid; to make trial and to show what man in his entireness is, and what he would become through temptation, if not inhabited by his Creator. This trial and manifestation would furnish an inference with respect to other creatures; even as the same inference had already been furnished by the angelic nature. But this trial could not have been made, and this exhibition therefore could not have been effected, if he had possessed the Spirit; or in other words, if he had been united to God — so united that he could not have been overcome. That union, therefore (as Luther, and others with him, would say), was dissolved; the Spirit which he had possessed was withdrawn during his temptation. Then, was he any longer the same substance, or person, which had received the command? On this representation, the command was given to him, having the Spirit; and he was tested, not having he Spirit. — So demonstrable is it that Adam did not have the Holy Ghost, whose in-dwelling ‘does not pertain to the perfection of man’s nature.’ — But the argument from Adam’s state to ours is quite strong enough without this unwarranted assumption of Luther’s. He that had just come out of the hands of his Creator, made in his image, and pronounced by him to be ‘very good,’ could not stand against a single and solitary tempation: therefore, what should we do?
[←326]
As opposed to that ‘stale and rejected’ thing which good is to us.
[←327]
I cannot help regretting that Luther, after the example of his opponent, has given so much space to this Apocryphal testimony from Ecclesiasticus. I could have been glad if he had not only stood upon his right, which he hints at in the opening of his discussion, declining to answer; but had used the occasion to protest against the honour put upon this book, and the rest of its brothers and sisters, by binding them up in our Bibles and reading them in our churches. The collateral matter of the argumentation, however,