words of consolation? But these, at last, are not offers of grace by which God throws himself, as it were, at the knees and feet of his creatures subjecting himself to a refusal; no, with full assurance that he must receive one, unless he superadds a special and distinct impulse of his own to secure acceptance — but testimonies of his own mouth, and hand, and ordinances, borne to those souls which he, in his own good time, has made ready to welcome them, that he will bind up, and heal, and own these poor destitutes, amidst the gathered remnant of his heritage.
[←359]
Verba, ut posita sunt. Without additions, such as Erasmus’.
[←360]
I do not know that any reasonable objection can be made to Luther’s paraphrase of Jeremiah 15.19, and Malachi (he calls him Zechariah) 3.7. But the quotation from Jeremiah seems perfectly out of place: it is a personal matter between the Lord and his Prophet, a converted man: what has this to do, then, with the question of Freewill?
[←361]
Quaerat unde possit. I have been inclined to connect these words with the preceding sentence, by which he is admonished what he ought to be; and having understood and discovered this, he is admonished to seek the power which he has no place where he might get it if Diatribe were not to intervene, etc. The punctuation, however, forbids this connection, and it does not appear to be Luther’s meaning. He imputes it to Diatribe’s false suggestion that if man, warned that he ought to turn to God, does not find out his own impotency, and seek his conversion from God. But there is much more that goes to this seeking than Luther seems to include in it: under the clearest light, men will still resist conviction — and the heart to seek, is as much a gift, as conversion itself.
[←362]
More literally, ‘since the meaning of the commander and the demander is equal on both sides.’
[←363]
Dilige Deum. Ama Dominum. Dil. and am. are here used as of like import. Sometimes they are put in contrast, and that is done variously; diligo being sometimes the stronger, and sometimes the weaker term. In distinguishing them, ‘amo’ may be understood to denote the love of appetite; and ‘diligo’ the love of reason.
[←364]
Forma legis. More literally, ‘the shape, mould, or image of the law;’ ‘what is comprehended in it.
[←365]
Scotistis et Modernis. See above, Part iii. Sect. 2. notes.
[←366]
Luther’s distinction between law words and gospel words, as applied by him in these two sections, severally and comparedly, is arbitrary, indefinite, and unavailing. Arbitrary inasmuch as he pretends not to have any recognised authority for it, and he applies it inconsistently; sometimes calling words of exhortation or command ‘gospel words;’ and sometimes confining that term to words of promise, as opposed to them. ‘Turn to me’ is a law word; ‘I will turn to you’ is a gospel word. Indefinite because he gives no fixed rule by which to determine what is one, and what is the other; but, according to his own account, he leaves it to the discerning reader. Unavailing because a gospel precept is not less impracticable than a law precept to the free will. — In my view, he confounds matters; for ‘return,’ or ‘repent,’ is surely not a law precept, but a gospel one: the law knows nothing of repentance. — The truth is, he has given his answer to all these testimonies already. They are requirements; call them law requirements, if you will, or gospel requirements; they are something for man to do; and as he very properly argues, they are meant to show him what he ought to do, but they do not imply any power either towards Law, or towards Gospel. Properly, the law is ‘the law of the Ten Commandments,’ under which, speaking less precisely, may be comprehended all those precepts which fall in with the nature and design of that ‘transcript of the creation law of man,’ but nothing which regards his relations as a fallen, or as a restored creature. Luther speaks confusedly on this subject, as other writers do, not discerning the origin, design, and nature of that institution. The law did not speak till Moses; it spoke only to the Jews, or the then visible church of God; it was a preparation for, and it was a fore-preached Gospel. A law word, therefore, rightly understood, is also a gospel word: a word which prepares by compelling a sense of need; and which — while it “shuts up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed,” and which now has been revealed — impliedly promises and exhibits Him who was to be, and who now has been and is, its fulfiller and perfecter.
[←367]
Sic versat. Vers. implies a forced application of it; as if you were to turn a body that is already in motion, out of its natural course; or give motion to one that is at rest.
[←368]
See above, Sect. 23. note a.
[←369]
His state as a sinner is a state of eternal death, the just punishment of his sin; and he has the beginning of this state in his now realizing apprehensions of it. When converted, he is delivered from this state of punishment; and when he lives, he is brought into the joy of this changed state.
[←370]
Revocaret et erigeret. Revoc. implies ‘departure;’ the soul has gone further and further off from God, through despair of mercy: erig. implies ‘fallen,’ ‘thrown down,’ ‘prostrated’ like Saul before the witch of Endor.
[←371]
The Psalms abound with expressions of this sort: see especially the 38th and 88th; from the latter of which, these words appear to be a quotation. “For my life draws near to the grave” (v. 3); or, according to the older version, “to hell.” (v. 2.)
[←372]
See above, note a. The account I have given there of Luther’s meaning is abundantly confirmed here. Mercy is to be preached, and what he calls ‘offered’ generally to all men; but only those in whom the law has done its office will receive it. And whom did Luther understand by these, but God’s elect? His offer, therefore, is a nugatory offer to all but the elect; and these must receive it — not ‘physically’ must, but ‘morally.’
[←373]
Luther’s answer to Erasmus’ argument from Ezek. 18.23 is threefold. 1. It proves too much. 2. It proves no more than other gospel words; that is, words of promise and mercy. 3. Such words prove against Freewill by implying that, without them, man could only despair.
See above, note i, where I have objected to this distinction between law words and gospel words, and to the statements generally made respecting the Law, as though it were opposed to the Gospel. Luther is chargeable here with arguing per sequelam, for which he so much blames Erasmus. ‘God’s word of promise proves that man could only despair without it.’ — The true answer to Erasmus’ argument from this text (which, according to Luther’s distinction, is a gospel word — but then there is quite as much supernatural help necessary to make a gospel word availing, as to fulfil a law word —) is that it proves nothing on either side. Inferences may be drawn both ways; against as well as for, and for as well as against: but the affirmation respects only the mind of God. He declares that he does not will death. What does this assert concerning the natural powers of man? For a fuller view of the doctrine set forth in this and like texts, and of their place in the great scheme of God-manifestation, see the next Section and its notes.
[←374]
Luther has given what he considers the true answer to Erasmus’ objection drawn from this text; it is a gospel word, for the consolation of the law-stricken; and it declares that we have no right to ask any more questions. I do not approve the exact point to which he brings the debate, nor can I agree with him that it ought to just end here. Luther speaks, and many others like him, as if only the law (meaning the law of the Ten Commandments) could do the office of abasing and prostrating man. In effect, this assumes that the law was given to man from the beginning, and that Moses’ giving of it was but a republication: otherwise how were those saints emptied of self and prostrated, who lived before Moses, such as Abel, Enoch, Noah, and the rest? But what proof is there of the law having been given from the beginning? Express proof is afforded in Romans 5 that the law was not till Moses. “For until the law, sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, ” etc. (vv. 13, 14.) The truth is, it is not the law, but the Holy Ghost (using the law, it is true, as his instrument more generally, where it has been given, but by no means universally using it so) — who does not need the law, but has enough proofs to supply about man’s sin; of his “earthly, sensual, devilish” mind; without having recourse to that summary of creation duty — that humbles, empties, and makes ready for the manifold Scripture-declarations of God’s entire readiness to receive the penitent freely. These are indeed made such by God, and they can only be made such by him; though it is not his plan usually to tell us how we have come, and alone can come, to this mind, when he testifies of his love and good-will towards it. So