pass (his going to the Father), so that when it has come to pass, you might believe.” “But these things I have told you (their own persecutions), so that when the time comes, you may remember that I told you of them.” (John 13.19; 14.29; 16.4)
[←517]
Exo 7.4; 11.9.
[←518]
Luther circumscribes the design. Doubtless, God would comfort and encourage his people by these acts and predictions: but self-manifestation was His one ultimate object; and in order for this: confounding his enemies, and rendering them yet more inexcusable, as well as emboldening his beloved ones. Was there not “also a manifestation of what human nature is, hereby made in his own people? Did they
all believe, after all these signs? Where did those hankerings after Egypt come from? What about, “It would have been better for us to have served the Egyptians?” The whole is resolvable into that great first principle, ‘God showing what he is, by his dealings with the human nature as exhibited both in the elect and in the reprobate — in his friends and in his enemies.’ But what a maze, or rather what a mass of inconsistency this history would be, and not only this history, but the whole Bible, without that principle?
[←519]
Vertible: Able to turn or to be turned; changeable.
[←520]
Here, omit means “fail to do,” as opposed to “leave out”.
[←521]
Occursu objecto. It is contrived that this word and work of God should come into contact with the edge of the will, excited into action by omnipotency, through an act like that of throwing a bone to a dog, or casting a stumbling-block in the path of a traveller
[←522]
Impingere. Imp. (se scilicet subaudito) est ‘ire impactum,’ ‘praecipitem ferri in aliquid.’ — Here, as before, we have God’s actuation, the man’s will, and testing, provoking dispensation. But there seems a little confusion in the admission concerning the man’s (Pharaoh’s) own will, as separated from the divine impulse. He now seems to make the crisis of the evil lie there. I can understand that there might be inertness in the case which he supposes: but if there is an act of will, in an essentially bad will, I cannot understand how it would be other than evil. (See above, note k ) The case is merely hypothetical, put for the sake of illustration. But like many other intended illustrations, it is confusing rather than distinguishing the object on which it would shine. And it is impossible: for God always acts, and therefore he always actuates the wicked; that is, he keeps them in their place and state as moral agents, which is a state of activity.
[←523]
Ordinatam sen voluntatem signi. The distinction amounts to that of ‘regulated’ and ‘absolute’ will, limited and restrained by ordinance, or by some outward sign which has revealed it; and will of pure, uncontrolled good pleasure. The former of these, it is intimated, may be resisted; the latter cannot.
[←524]
I understand ponit in a logical sense, ‘takes for granted;’ assumes as a datum.
[←525]
Ipse dixit: An unsupported dogmatic assertion.
[←526]
Luther makes some confusion in the order of the verses, putting the 18th in place of the 15th. But his argument is not dependent on the transposition. The more explicit testimony of verse 18 is implied in verse 15; but verse 18 precedes both the cavil and the reproof.
[←527]
Prosopopoeia. ‘The introducing of imaginary persons;’ literally, ‘the making of persons;’ — a well-known figure of rhetoric. Paul had before been simply stating truth in plain language. Now he brings in a supposed objection. Luther asks Erasmus whether he notices this? It was essential to his correct understanding of the passage, that he should have remarked this change in the Apostle’s mode of address: that he personifies, and what sort of persons he fabricates.
[←528]
Errat. fallitur. Err. a mistake in his own apprehensions. Fall. appearances beguile him. It is not disappointment as to the event, which is the subject of remark here; but an object seen far off is made to appear different from what it really is.
[←529]
That is, by doing violence to the text; by forcing an unwarranted and unfounded interpretation upon it. – WHG
[←530]
Majestatem. A form of expression common among men, with application to earthly potentates. ‘His Majesty’ does so and so. It is a sort of personification of the sovereign’s state, power, and excellency. So here, of God’s power and will.
[←531]
Fatum in-eluctabile. Even those who made the fatal sisters superior to Jupiter himself, still had an uncontrolled ordainer of events: inexorable, infallible, invincible fate.
[←532]
Praetexi. Properly, ‘a fine web of art spread before a substance to cover, or disguise it.’ — Judicium naturale, like ratio naturalis above, opposes ‘natural’ to ‘spiritual.’ The conclusions are so obvious, that we do not need the Spirit to draw them.
[←533]
Abyssum. ‘Alyssus est profunditas uquarum impenetrabilis, sive speluneae aquarum latentium, de quibus fontes et flumina procedunt, vel quae occulte subtereant.’ Hence applied to ‘the abyss.’ “They besought him that he would not command them to go out into the abyss.” (Gr.) “Have you come here to torment us before the time?” Luther had felt the very hell of despair.
‘And in the lowest deep,
‘A lower deep still threatening to devour me
Opens wide.’
[←534]
Pro excusandâ bonitate Dei. Excus. ‘Item, in excusationem affero.’ — For regulated and absolute will see above, Sect. 19. where he distinguishes these as volunt. ordin. seu signi, and volunt. placiti. — For consequence and consequent, see Part i. Sect xi.
[←535]
1Tim 6.20. antiqeseiv. ‘Doctrina opposita,’ ‘quaestio quae ad disceptandum proponitur.’ — Not what is commonly understood by opposition; but men setting out to canvass doctrines with a great display of school-learning, and maintaining theses which were opposite to the truth.
[←536]
See above, Sect. 20, p. 288.
[←537]
Paul’s testimony can only respect the fact that a law may be written in our hearts, which is not outwardly taught and professed: for it is neither the same law of which Paul speaks; nor does he testify anything about the handling, or recognition of that law. (Rom 2.13-16.) — Luther supposes this law of necessity to lie at the bettom of our hearts, so that, when we hear it duly and truly set out, we accord with it by the exercise of our natural powers; while it may be made illegible, and effaced, by false teaching and prejudice.
[←538]
Rom 9.30. I have not marked the words as a Scripture quotation, because they are not exact. He says in the same place, the intervening verses are all dependent upon verse 24, being so many quotations to show that it was God’s avowed purpose to call a body of Gentiles into his church, and to save only a remnant of Israel.
[←539]
Excisis et depravatis. Exc. words ‘cut out’ from the text, in which they stand connected with others. Depr. ‘turned awry, ‘made crooked;’ their meaning, through this violent separation, is distorted and polluted.
[←540]
See above, Part iii. Sect. 34.
[←541]
Excutiam. instituti. Excut. ‘concutere, scrutamli et explorandi causa.’ Inst. ‘scopus, proposition, inceptum. proairesiv.
[←542]
Pro libero arbitrio dicere. Eludere Paulum.
[←543]
Super aristas incedere. See above, Part iii. Sect. 6. note b . ‘Certo’ as opposed to ‘hesitatingly;’ constanter, as opposed to ‘variableness of statement;’ ardenter, as opposed to ‘indifference;’ solidè, as opposed to ‘insubstantial;’ dextrè, as opposed to ‘clumsiness, and lack of address;’ copiosè, as opposed to ‘scantiness of materials.’
[←544]
See above, Part iii. Sect. 37. note h .
[←545]
Consistent with what has been said before (Part i. Sect. 11.), but with a minute variety in the application: Judas’ treachery, they would say, was necessary, but he was not a necessary traitor: he must betray, but not therefore necessarily; that is, according to their account of the matter, compulsorily.
[←546]
The ‘mediae turbae’ are the multitudes surrounding the judicial tribunal: ‘non usitatâ. frequentiâ stipati sumus.’ — Cic. ‘Perduxeris’ expresses the pomp and the labour with which he had dragged on the cause to issue.
[←547]
Respondendi et definiendi. Resp. respects the adversary’s argument, which should be invalidated or taken off: defin. is the explanatory statement of the advocate’s own case. See above, Part i. Sect. 9.
[←548]
Hor. Art. Poet, v. 379.
[←549]
Moveret. There is a peculiar force, if I am not mistaken, in ‘moveret;’ he does not say ‘remove,’ though I have ventured, with good authority, to give it that force; rather, it is a heavy body which he cannot wag.
[←550]
Luther thus ridicules his claim to skill and victory. In many sorts of competition, and for many sorts of merit, it was customary to crown the conquerors with various materials — sometimes precious, sometimes of no value — as the highest tribute of honour which could be received. Here, therefore, he represents Erasmus as crowning himself , by a feint of rhetoric abandoning his cause, and assuming to be a conquering Bacchus, and an unrivalled Apollo, by wearing the emblems of those divinities.
[←551]
Perturbatum et exasperatum. Perturb. implies lack of order and distinctness; no first, second, and third, either in reply or advancement; exasp. the heat and ruffle with which it is maintained; we speak of ‘angry’ debate.
[←552]
Vafritia et versutia. Vaf. expresses the subtile invention which devises; versut. is the versatility and adroitness with which the crafty counsel is executed; this is opposed afterwards by simplex, ‘what is inartificial;’ and aperta, ‘what is manifest to the view.’
[←553]
See above, note r .
[←554]
Palpari. ‘What you may stroke with the hand.’ The gentlemen who have no eyes may still receive sense-testimony to it.
[←555]
Commentum. The subtlety means Judas still has a will, which is not forced; therefore there is still Freewill. — Who says ‘forced’? But can it choose otherwise? A will that can only make one choice, is in bondage. — The example of Judas is introduced by Erasmus, not Luther.
[←556]
See Part iv. Sect. 1. — The course of this long, elaborate, and invincible