at the last, through a long course of abandonment and punishment. But at that time, they had the word given to them (” the word is near you, even in your mouth, and in your heart; that is, the word of faith, which we preach.” Compare Romans 10.5-10 with Deu. 30.11-14), which they would at length obey. Now, they had nothing to do with these intermediate events which God would bring about; it was theirs to use that commandment (or rather that Gospel which the commandment fore-preached) looking through the type to the reality which he commanded them that day. Besides, if we were at liberty to use this text here, we must learn from it that we have nothing to do with election and reprobation at all: as some are fond enough of admonishing us. For it is not a question, who is individually of the one class, and who is of the other, that is to be answered here; but whether there really are such distinctions, and
why there are such. (See above, note r .) Then, meeting the question fairly, though not fairly attached to the question of Freewill, how does this assertion in Ezekiel comport with the God-willed death of a sinner?
Not to insist upon the peculiarities of the case to which this solemn declaration of God is annexed (the house of Israel was brought into peculiar relations to God, and the case of an Israelite was therefore considerably different from that of uncovenanted transgressors). This is not to notice the ambiguity of Erasmus’ expression ‘his people’ (God works no death in his people properly so-called, though he works death in many who have a name to be his people, and are not) without insisting that the original words יְהוִ֗ה אִם־אֶחְפֹּץ as well as the qelw, not Boulomai, of the Septuagint, express inclination rather than determination — and so the sentiment conveyed may be no more than what our translators have assigned to them, ‘have I any pleasure at all,’ ‘for I have no pleasure;’ implying only such a reluctance as is not inconsistent with a contrary decision though Luther, as well as Erasmus, makes it ‘nolo;’ waving all such objections, which do not shield the vitals of the truth, though they may serve to parry off a blow from its extremities (for clearly here is God at least declaring his dislike of that death which he nevertheless inflicts, and which we affirm that he wills); the true account of the matter, and that which comprehends all possible cases, has been furnished in the two preceding notes; asserted in note l, and illustrated by examples in note u .
The relative God, in his character of Israel’s legislator and sovereign, declares in this chapter that he will deal henceforth both nationally and spiritually with that people, each man according to his own ways; and, in effect, preaches the Gospel to each individual of them, saying, ‘Repent, and live.’ At the twenty-third verse [where Erasmus quotes the text unfairly by joining the oath of v. 3 with v. 23; but it is no part of it], he signifies that he has no pleasure in the death of him that dies: in the three last verses, he exhorts and remonstrates, and repeats his gracious assurances. But it does not belong to these and like relations, to give grace and power; and, without such grace and power, exhortations promises and threatenings are all, and alike, vain. But is God therefore to withhold them? Man, without this superadded grace, ought to obey them; ought, though he cannot — cannot through a self-wrought impotency. And are there no reasons, no satisfying reasons, why God should give them? Are these not among his choicest instruments by which he effects the manifestation of himself — manifestation of himself, through the manifestation of what is in man; “that you might be justified when you speak, and clear when you judge.” — His elect obey; his non-elect harden themselves still more under his outward calls. Thus, whether the case set forth in Ezekiel, is considered as the peculiar case of the national Israel, or the general case of the visible church having the Gospel preached to it (that Gospel which is in one view a statute, enactment, or commandment; while, in another view, it is the Jubilee trumpet, by which the Holy Ghost proclaims liberty to the Lord’s captives); we see in it, at last, only a further exemplification of what has been shown already: the relative God revealing the absolute, and his legislative fulfilling his personal will. — Luther meant nothing contrary to this statement, though his language might seem to imply it.
[←380]
Frigere necessariò. Frig. A metaphor taken from vegetable or animal substances, which are nipped with cold. These exhortations, etc. have no warmth, no life, no power, no meaning in them, without Freewill.
[←381]
‘Ut eitharoedus; Ridetur, chordâ qui semper oberrat eadem.’ — Horace, Art. Poet. 355.
[←382]
Libero campo. I understand it, ‘liber ab hoste. seu antagonista;’ but I do not find any parallel.
[←383]
Se ipsam comedit. What this animal is, and whether real or fabulous; I must leave in some doubt. The lobster comes nearest to the description of which it is said, ‘At the same time that they cast their shell, they also change their stomach and intestines. The animal, while it is moulting, is said to feed upon its former stomach, which wastes by degrees, and is at length replaced with a new one.’ — Bingley’s Animal Biography, vol. iii. p. 511. But the pelican seems the more probable allusion here; whose method of taking its sustenance from its pouch, might well account for the figment of its eating itself, or preying on its own stomach. The scolopendra discharges its own bowels, in order to disgorge the hook; and the scorpion, inclosed with burning coals, stings itself to death: but neither of these seems applicable here. The name bestia is said to he ascribed properly to wild and noxious animals, but not confined to these; while bellua expresses size rather than fierceness.
[←384]
See Luther’s commentary on Deuteronomy, in loco, where he notices and chides this unjustifiable use which the Sophists make of it. He gives another turn to the “secret things” of the preceding chapter; considering them as secrets revealed to Israel, that he may obey. Also, he understands St. Paul’s application of this text as an accommodation of the original words, not a quotation according to their true sense, as spoken by Moses. But his comment will be found strongly to confirm the view which I have given of this text, in note x . Moses’ words can only be fulfilled, he says, under the Gospel. Yet Moses says, “See, I have set before you this day life and death, ” etc. Then what is more natural, than to understand him as calling upon them to see the Gospel in their Law, and to yield a gospel obedience to that Law? — which every spiritual Israelite no doubt did.
[←385]
Manibus palpa. If you cannot see, or hear, submit to have your finger put upon each letter, that you may trace it out; as a child is taught to read.
[←386]
Praemansum porrigentem. Proem. A word of doubtful authority, but well-fitted to express the first process in the art of teaching, by which the scholar eats as it were out of the master’s mouth.
[←387]
Tractandas accepisti. In Deu 31.9-13, the ordinance is, “And Moses wrote this law and delivered it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who bore the ark, the covenant of the Lord, and to all the elders of Israel. And Moses commanded them, saying, At the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles, when all Israel is come to appear before the Lord your God, in the place which he shall choose, you shall read this law before all Israel, in their hearing. Gather the people together,” etc. etc. See also vv. 24-26. Also Jos 8.31-35. Also Neh 8.1-8. Also 2Chr 17.7-9; 30.22. — I render the expression ‘ore assiduo’ continually. But if I could have found authority for the use of the word ‘assiduus,’ I would rather have given it a reference to what is said in Nehemiah, “And the Levites caused the people to understand the law, etc. So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.” Luther is correct, then, in suggesting that the Levites (including the priests under this name) were to handle or discourse on the law to the people, and not simply to read it. And although he anticipates the injunction as given on this occasion, it had in substance been given before (see Deu 10.8-9.) at the second delivering of the Tablets.
[←388]
I do not quite fall in with Luther’s interpretation of this text, as I have hinted in note x of Sect. 28. and note c of Sect. 30. (Why are we to shut out Paul in our interpretation of it? Is not the Holy Ghost the best commentator upon the Holy Ghost’s words?) But I do not the less resist its application in support of Freewill. The thing required is near you, what ought to be in your mouth and in your heart. Is it therefore immediately and necessarily there? and is that of our own giving and getting?
[←389]
Quibus solutis. Sol. ‘Quod ligatum est, a vinculis libero;’ the bands of these captive texts having been loosed: they had been tied and bound in the service of Freewill.
[←390]
Optative: indicating an option or wish.
[←391]
Totam vim, as