alleged, in pursuit of something more remote.
[←429]
Inanis. We say, ‘without form;’ but Luther has it ‘without substance;’ having nothing in it, or upon it.
[←430]
Luther answers, 1. it is inference. 2. The text is against you. 3. Such use of Scripture is criminal.
[←431]
Malleus. More properly, ‘a mallet;’ ‘fabrile instrumenum ad tundendum.’ – a club.
[←432]
Vi insitâ. Ins. properly, ‘what is inserted as a graft;’ but transferred to signify ‘what is natural, innate, inherent.’ ‘Naivus, innatus, ingenitus.’
[←433]
Assumsit. Scil. ad probandum. What he elsewhere expresses by ‘probandum suscepit.’
[←434]
We have here Luther’s usual, exceptionable expression about ‘offers.’ (See Sect. 23. note a); and his mention of the person of Christ suggests over again the importance of the distinction of which I remarked in Part ii. Sect. 8. note r . If we do not keep the divine and the human person of Christ distinct, but regard him simply as a person who has put another nature, the human nature, upon his former and eternal, divine nature; his whole history and the things said of him are a Babel: not so if we are brought to apprehend him as the co-equal of the Father and of the Holy Ghost acting in and by a human person which he has taken into union with himself. — The text evidently proves nothing for Freewill: it only says “as many as received him;” without saying by what power; Avhethe natural or supernatural. I do not agree with Luther, in it being the making of the old man into the new man: it is thi state of privilege and glory, into which the son of Adam and child of the devil has been brought, by that preceding process of transmutation.
[←435]
See note f , Sect. 36.
[←436]
Ineptissimè longè absurdissimè. Inept. The weaker term; denoting properly, ‘unaptness,’ ‘impertinence,’ ‘silliness;’ absurd. ‘the extreme of incongruity and extravagance.’ ‘Ineptus est tantum non aptus; absurdus, repugnans, abhorrens: itaque absurdus majUs quiddam. significat; velut qui surdis auribus audiri dignus est.
[←437]
Referring, no doubt, to Rom 3.5-8.
[←438]
Annoy: to harm or molest, like a dog tearing at the flesh.
[←439]
Invadere et exigere. Inv. expresses the assault upon the person: ‘in aliquem locum vado;’ ingredior (et ferè cum aliquâ vi, aut impetu), aggredior, irrumpo, irruo. Exig. ‘extrà ago;’ educo. Saepè est reposcere, flagitare, in re pecuniariâ: itemque, exigendo obtinere. — The figure is that of a bailiff seizing a man’s person and demanding payment of a debt.
[←440]
It is not necessary to suppose this ulterior design, neither will it extend to all the cases which the Apostle had in view; though such effect is frequently produced by the instrumentality of these Scriptures. Such appeals are among the strong manifesters of what is in man; in him as what he has made himself, not as what God made him; in him, therefore, without excuse. By such manifesters, God, as his pleasure is, both hardens and converts. In chap. ii. it is an exposure of the heart of the Jew as boasting himself against the heathen; in chap iii. it is the infidel disporting himself against the truth: whose damnation is shown to be just by the language which he uses; the language of a heart, which has made itself vile.
[←441]
See Sect. 36. note f Gospel precepts, whether from the Lord’s mouth, or Paul’s pen, are words to the Lord’s called only; showing how the saved should walk: that we, having been delivered out of the hands of our enemies, might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life. (Luk 1.74, 75.)
[←442]
Concipit. ‘Translatè ponitur pro efformare, comprehendere, intelligere;’ ‘forms an idea.’
[←443]
I cannot think Luther very happy in this illustration: the hatchet and the saw have no choice in the hand of the carpenter; but we are led freely, delightingly.
[←444]
Quae sanè agnosco. Fateor enim. Qu. sa. ag. expresses the perfect self-possession and consciousness with which he acknowledges the words as his. Sanè. ‘Sana mente aut sensu, ubi nihil fuci aut fraudis est.’ But it is not honesty and simplicity, so much as calmness, sobriety, and stedfastness of judgment, that he claims for himself, in the recognition and restatement of what he had advanced. Fateor enim implies an avowal made under circumstances which might tempt to the suppression of it. His adversaries were the persons to make confession of the evil at Constance, not he: on his part, it was the proclamation of an accordant sentiment, not an antagonistic one; but still, it was testimony borne in adversity — borne, as with a halter round his neck.
“Mors sola fatetur
“Quantula sint hominum corpuscula.” Juv. x. 171, 2
Death testifies; but it is, as an unwilling and compelled witness: she would rather boast of her prey, than proclaim its littleness.
[←445]
This splendid paradox of Wickliff’s has been brought into discussion already (see Part ii, Sect. 22.), and is the very essence of divine truth, though so offensive to the enemies of truth, and of many who account themselves its advocates. Wickliff, with all his blemishes, was a truly great man; enlightened to see and teach much of the mystery of God; more, I am ready to say, than many who came after him and carried off his palm. Most of these acknowledged his worth indeed: for more than a century, those who had light did not disdain to acknowledge that they walked in his light; such as the Lollards, Huss, Jerome, and others. Erasmus gives him to Luther; and Luther is not ashamed to receive and confess him. Certainly, my friend the Dean has not done him justice; yet he tried, I admit, and meant to do justice to him. But this necessity, was what the Dean did not thoroughly relish, though he tolerated it: and so he apologized where Wickliff himself would have gloried; and when he professes to give a brief sketch of his doctrines as extracted from his writings and other authentic documents, while he admits that his distinguishing tenet was, undoubtedly, the election of grace, he does not tell us what he held about it, nor even mention this paradox, which seems to have been considered as the centre and heart’s core of his creed. The Dean appears to have attached too much importance to Melancthon’s judgment, who was so warped by the Sacramentarian Controversy, in which Wickliff’s name was drawn out against the Lutherans, that he went to a great extreme in denying Wickliff’s light; declaring that he had found in him, also, many other errors (beside this on the sacrament), and that he neither understood nor believed the righteousness of faith. I admit that he had much darkness mingled with his light; confusion with his clearness; pusillanimity with his boldness; sophistry with his plainness; rashness with his honest zeal for reform. But I am rather inclined to measure a man by what he has of good, than by what he has also of evil. And when I see Wickliff acknowledged as the first open champion and declarer against the abominations of Antichrist; when I read such profound and luminous testimonies to the “hidden wisdom ” in his writings; when I hear martyrs calling him their apostle, and a Cobham ‘solemnly professing before God and man that he never abstained from sin till he knew Wickliff — but that after he became acquainted with that virtuous man and his despised doctrines, it had been otherwise with him;’ when I recollect, that he was the first who gave the Bible to our nation in English, and vindicated the right of the common people to read it; when I find the more determined of the reformers of the sixteenth century owning him as their forerunner, and their revilers casting him in their teeth — then I am ashamed to ask what doctrine he held about tithes; to doubt his sincerity, because his circumstances drew him into an undesirable degree of mixture with carnal statesmen; to weigh the words which he dropped, in the hour of the power of darkness, in a pair of scales; and to rejoice in finding evidence, as the result of much pious search, that this celebrated champion did belong to the church of Christ. Huss in the flames, and the Swift receiving his unintombed ashes, my witnesses shall be that he spoke by the Holy Ghost.
[←446]
We have heard of the Council of Constance already (see Part ii. Sect. 8. note v); it was numerous, turbulent, and long: it put down three Popes, and erected one; raved about reform, and confirmed sword-preaching — the outrages of the Teutonic knights in Poland and Prussia; where they obtained a professed subjection to the Gospel by fire and sword! — condemned a dead saint, and burnt two living ones; denied necessity, made a Sigismund blush, and did one good thing amidst all these bad ones, by setting Councils above Popes.
[←447]
Succenturiatus. ‘Succenturiati dicuntur, qui explendae centuriae gratiâ subjiciunt se ad supplementum ordinum.’ Luther would consider himself as ‘the leader of an army of reserve;’ though such an army would be unnecessary, since the two invalidated texts would keep their ground. — Pugnae fortuna. Luther says here, ‘more Ethnicorum’ who, it is well known, ascribed everything to Fortune, erecting temples and altars to her, and accounting ‘Fortunatus’ (‘favoured by fortune’) the most illustrious title they could ascribe to their generals. But Luther well knew the God of battles; nor did he mean to ascribe their issue to any other than Him; “even the Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle!”
[←448]
Elusit. It was evading the natural and legitimate interpretation of those words, when she practised with them so as to pass them off as assertives.
[←449]
Adjectas. affictas. Adj. ‘addere,’ ‘adjungcre:’ affict. ‘saepius