is highly valuable; and Luther could afford to make his adversary a present of an argument. Here, indeed, he may almost be said to have used a cannon to kill flies. For is it not Adam, clearly, of whom the Preacher speaks; whose will is not the matter in debate? And what, as we have seen, is said even of that will, which might not be said of ours? It was left free to choose; and if it should choose good, good would result from that good.
[←328]
Vi sententiae, consequentiae et rerum hue cogitur.
[←329]
Referring to the ‘satis probabilis opinio;’ ‘sed non relinquat, quod suis viribus ascribat.’ See above, Sect. 8.
[←330]
Alieno imperio. ‘A dominion out of himself;’ so that he is no longer his own master.
[←331]
Ut sonant. The sound, as opposed to the sense, or real import. [Biblical Hebrew, unlike modern Hebrew, does not have future or past tenses; but it does have the indicative: perfect or imperfect. – WHG]
[←332]
I admit Luther’s principle, but I demur to the application of it, both here and in the parallel to which he refers, Gen 3.16. The original passage is one of great difficulty. I incline to the interpretation which our authorized version gives to it; and refer the words which are immediately under remark, as that appears to do, not to sin, but to Abel. “If you do well, shall you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And his desire shall be to you, and you shall rule over him.” Well, and not well, relate to the then-known will of God. Was Cain ignorant, with what sort of offering God was to be approached? — Whatever might be said of later times, Cain must have heard all about Eden, the serpent and the woman, the serpent’s seed and the woman’s seed; and must have seen the coats of skins. Cain despised “the way;” he would have none of Christ. — Then, God’s words are adapted to quiet and to instruct him. We know that a man can no more come by Christ, unless it is given to him from above, than he can come by the law. But this was not the thing to be shown him; he was to be reminded of the sole way of access, that he might make the fullest developement of himself, if he should continue to neglect and despise it. And since jealous and angry fears were now arising in his mind with respect to his brother — chiefly, lest he lose the earthly superiority attached to his primogeniture — he is pacified with an assurance (doubtless connected with the fore-mentioned condition) that sin’s dominion would remain in his hands; an assurance conveyed in words very nearly resembling those by which Eve was warned of her subjection to Adam. The Septuagint gives another turn to the former part of the verse, but clearly refers the latter as I do; and so in Gen. 3.16. According to this view, the words of this text have nothing to do with Freewill, though it seems the Hebrew Rabbins, as well as Luther and Erasmus, thought they had. (See Pole’s Synops. in loc.) If they must be referred to sin, not Abel, then Luther’s interpretation is correct, and his answer is unanswerable. If the words are taken indicatively, then they are a promise of God, which was broken as soon as it was made.
[←333]
Inculces. A figurative expression from ‘treading in with the feet;’ hence it is applied to those efforts by which, like the pavier ramming down his stones, we aim to drive or beat our meaning into a person’s head. Erasmus not only repeats, but pursues long desultory arguments, heaping one upon another, to prove his point.
[←334]
Libertas eligendi. Choice there must be, or there is no will; but that choice may be made under a wrong bias. This is properly the question of Freewill; viz.: whether the will is under such a bias or not.
[←335]
Imo nulla patet. Referring to what he has said before, about God’s doing everything; and our doing all we do, by necessity. So, even the way of evil is only broad and easy, ‘si Deus permittat.’
[←336]
Tota ratio et virtus legis. Rat. a word of very extensive and various signification, expresses ‘the nature, order, object, structure, and relations of any substance.’ ‘Principle’ seems best to express it here, as comprehending both design and constitution. Rat. et virt. The law is both framed for this purpose, and effects it.
[←337]
I insert ‘this,’ because the two ibis, which follow, make it plain that it is not knowledge in general, but this knowledge in particular, of which he speaks.
[←338]
Inter os et offam. ‘The mouth and the cake;’ but I have preferred the more common proverb.
[←339]
Et vos. It would be read with more spirit in the form of a question: — ‘And do you so suddenly make,’ etc.?
[←340]
Luther is abundant in reply to this passage from Deuteronomy. 1. It proves too much. 2. It is not ridiculous, if the way is supposed shut. 3. The law gives knowledge of sin. 4. Imperative verbs are not indicatives.
[←341]
The reference to Deut. 3 appears to be incorrect. These expressions are all found in the 30th; and those like them in Deu 27, 28, 29. But chap. 3 is a mere narrative.
[←342]
Unseasonable: not in keeping with; inconsistent with.
[←343]
Totum, as opposed to particula ejus reliqua; that small remaining particle of Freewill which Erasmus professed to support and prove: his texts would make it an integer, not a fraction. See above, Sect. 4.
[←344]
Originally, “sciolous Diatribe”: knowing superficially or imperfectly.
[←345]
Explode: to show a theory or claim to be baseless.
[←346]
Contra causam et scipsum. Not only in opposition to the cause he was advocating, but even to his own admissions and assertions. But what a string of charges is here! — Sciolist! a mere smatterer in learning and knowledge. — Pelagian! which every would-be orthodox disclaims — negligent, desultory, undiscerning, heartless! quam nihil vel intelligas vel afficiaris causae!
[←347]
Sine suis viribus. He plays upon ‘the approvable opinion;’ which leaves aside endeavour, but does not leave it to be ascribed to Freewill’s own power.
[←348]
Satis forti contentione. Cont. is sometimes used in a rhetorical sense to express one of the parts of an oration; ‘disputatio sive disceptatio,’ as opposed to ‘quaestio’ or ‘controversia;’ what might properly be called ‘the argumentation.’ But here it is used in another rhetorical sense, to express ‘contrast, comparison, or antithesis;’ ‘Moses’ folly,’ set in array against ‘man’s power.’
[←349]
She imputed this to Luther: she would make either him or Moses absurd; the real absurdity lay in adducing arguments which either proved nothing, or proved the opposite.
[←350]
If he can do what is bid, there is no need of the Spirit; if he knows he cannot, there is no longer any use for prescribing it.
[←351]
Ad gratiam. Not, what is often understood by grace, ‘the gift of the Spirit;’ but what grace truly is in its essence: ‘the free favour of God.’
[←352]
Ridicula. .seria. . necessaria. Ridiculous may have respect either to the laugher, or the laughed at; what we do in sport, or suffer as objects of sport. The law neither mocks nor makes a fool of herself, though her ordinances are impossible to man; she neither mocks by calling merely to expose, nor subjects herself to derision, by speaking where she has nothing to gain.
[←353]
Offam seems to be some allusion to Cerberus. Virgil’s Aeneid vi. 420. In Greek mythology, Cerberus is the three-headed dog, guarding the entrance to Hades. Exiting (as well as entering) the underworld is accomplished by giving Cerberus a mead-soaked barley cake.
[←354]
Percurrere. Luther applies the same term to his review of Erasmus’ preface, implying short and lively animadversion [harsh criticism] rather than grave and elaborate research. So, just afterwards, ‘recensere;’ ‘enumeration,’ or ‘recital,’ rather than ‘investigation.’
[←355]
Obruatur copid, seems to be some allusion to the dragon, Rev 12.15. “And the serpent cast out of his mouth water, as a flood, after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away by the flood.”
[←356]
The reference seems to be to verse 21, where our translation has it, “And your ears shall hear a word behind you, saying, This is the way, walk in it, when you turn to the right hand, and when you turn to the left.”
[←357]
Isa. 45.20; 52.1, 2. Jer 15.19. The reference was originally Zechariah, but it seems to properly belong to Malachi 3.7. See above, Part ii. Sect. 13. note o .
[←358]
Verbo gratiae oblate. The expression, ‘offers of grace,’ is exceptionable, as implying freeness of choice; in direct contrariety to Luther’s position and arguments. The truth is that, while he abhorred free choice, he liked free offers. I could have been glad if he had expressed his meaning more definitely; which is little else than the promises of God received in such a way that they are generally set forth to us in holy Scripture; that is, received as promises of free favour made to persons of a certain character; and not to individuals, as such. What but these are the very and legitimate stay of God’s eternally foreknown, elect, predestined, and now quickened child, in the day of his tearing and smiting? Is he to hear a voice, or see a vision, or receive some providential token, personal to himself, before he presumes to call upon the name of the Lord? Are not these, “Ho, every one that thirsts;” “To this man I will look;” “Come to me, all you that travail and are heavy-laden;” “The same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon Him” — his warrant for drawing near, and his first