argument may be traced by the side notes attached to each section; but the reader will forgive me if I endeavour to assist him by the following short summary. Erasmus endeavours to evade this plain text by a trope. 1. Tropical interpretations are generally inadmissible. 2. Absurdity of the proposed one. 3. It does not remove the difficulty. 4. Certain illustrations are objected to. 5. The causes assigned for introducing it are examined. 6. How God hardens is explained. 7. Diatribe is exposed, and Luther’s view maintained by an appeal to the context. Also, by an appeal to Paul’s comment; which introduces Erasmus’ evasion and that of the Sophists. In the course of these considerations several topics are admitted by the way: such as the state of man, limits of inquiry, carnal reason’s objections, etc…
[←557]
Pugnant. Said with reference to some particular doctrine not named — the doctrine of Freewill doubtless, as maintained by Jerome and those who teach like him.
[←558]
That is, be judicious in discerning what may not be doctrinally correct in Jerome’s writings.
[←559]
What is, in fact, gained by this distinction? The principle is the same; God differentiates by his sovereign will. Just so it is, with respect to national and personal election. Yet some seem to think that they have hooked a great fish in discovering that Great Britain may have been elected to hear the Gospel without any of her children having been elected to receive it!
[←560]
Originally Sarah. Clearly, it should be Rebekah. Sarah was dead when this prophecy was delivered, which is expressly said to have been delivered to Rebekah. “And she (Rebekah) said, If it be so, etc. And the Lord said to her.” Gen 25.22-23. The preceding mention of Sarah in Romans 9 accounts for the mistake.
[←561]
Pravis. Nearly allied in meaning to the torquendae Scriptura which follows: ‘what is crooked and awry.’ —It is obvious that no objection can be drawn from the statement in this paragraph, and from St. Paul’s argument, to what has been advanced in a former note on the subject of original sin (see above, Sect. 10. note z .). The question is about the difference .between Jacob and Esau. Both alike are fallen and self-destroyed in Adam; the question is how either of these receives distinguishing benefits, whether of a temporal or eternal nature. With respect to manifest existence and distinct personal agency, it is plain that neither of them had done good or evil when the words were spoken to Rebekah. There had not as yet been any opportunity to display that which alone could constitute any difference on a ground of Freewill or merit.
[←562]
See the last section. The question of Freewill is not affected. Erasmus follows Jerome, whom Luther has pronounced sacrilegious.
[←563]
Oraculum. It is said of Rebekah, that “she went to ininire of the Lord.” Oraculum is therefore, ‘an answer, counsel, or sentence from the gods;’ it is the fit term by which to characterise what was said to her.
[←564]
Isaac’s descendants in the line of Jacob were not only to be the typical family — the community which shadowed the Lord’s elect church — but also the visible church for a season, and to contain within them the true seed. So that, all the spiritual blessings of God were comprehended in this superiority which is announced as the portion of Jacob.
[←565]
Sacrilegam. ‘Qui sacra legit,’ i.e., furatur. Thus, sacrilege is beautifully defined by [Samuel] Johnson to be ‘the crime of robbing heaven.’ Jerome and those who followed him were guilty of this.
[←566]
Qui sacris scripturis seriò non affiduntur. Luther has a peculiar use of the word afficio, or rather afficior, which I recognise here — ‘affected to’ — denoting a mind interested in, or having its affections excited towards an object.
[←567]
Triplici industriâ torquet. A peculiar use of the word industriâ — which commonly denotes ‘a state, or act, of mind’ — to express ‘the result of that act;’ and this in an unfavourable sense: a laboured excogitation, in which there is neither genius, nor the Spirit. (See above, Sect. 5. note z .)
[←568]
Si literam urgeas. By way of forcing a tropical interpretation of the text, she intimates that the literal cannot possibly stand. ‘If you drive the letter;’ that is, force us to take it whether we will or not.
[←569]
Citra et praeter. More literally, ‘on this side and beyond,’ implying therefore that they are altogether of him and through him and to him.
[←570]
Erasmus says it is not love and hate, but the effect of these. Luther replies, if it is an effect, it is God’s will that effects, and the effect is what he approves: he approves one sort of event to Jacob, therefore, and another to Esau. How much further on are you by that?
[←571]
Excogitation: the creation of something in the mind; a fancy or imagination.
[←572]
To make this text consistent with Freewill, there must be ground of love and of hate in the personal mind and conduct of the two persons. — What follows is a master’s view of Malachi’s prophecy, and decisive as to the question. Judah’s reproach is that he has been freely, distinguishingly loved, and has been so treacherous. The essence of the reproach is the freeness of the love: and what is this temporality, which extends from generation to generation, and which comprehends as its cen tral portion ‘the eternal God had,’ in opposition to ‘not had,’ but had for an enemy?
[←573]
Pertinacity: persistent determination.
[←574]
Textus ipsè apertus Prophetae. Ipse, without any additions of mine; apertus, what requires no opening to make its meaning clear. Mal 1.4.
[←575]
Hie odit, illic amat. More literally, ‘hates in the one quarter, and loves in the other.’
[←576]
I insert the word ‘afterwards’ to give clearness. It is evidently the eleventh chapter to which he refers. — There cannot be a more pernicious practice in the interpretation of Scripture (while there is scarcely any more common), than that of dragging in words which are somewhere thereabouts, but really stand in quite a different connection, and have a completely different scope; to ascertain the meaning of a proposed text. An argument, or rather an illustrative exhortation of the eleventh chapter, separated from the preceding by many intervening subjects of discussion, is adduced by Erasmus to determine the meaning of an express affirmation in the early part of the ninth.
[←577]
According to Paul’s distinction of offices in Rom 12.6-8. “Having then gifts, etc.; or he that teaches, on teaching; or he that exhorts, on exhortation.”
[←578]
Erasmus says the Prophets speak only of temporal afflictions. What of it? You do not disprove bond-will by this distinction, if it is just. Rather, you adduce an instance of bond-will. These afflictions come, lie, remain against our will. How much does this show about freedom? — Voluntariè. We are taught indeed to make God’s pleasure ours; but, whether we are enabled to do so or not, his pleasure alone is done. [Job 2.10; Luk 22.42]
[←579]
Velut similes coaptare. I have given the idea rather than the exact word: it is ‘pairing, like horses joined together in a chariot.’
[←580]
2Tim 2.19.
[←581]
Coram Deo. Referring to a distinction which I have already objected to (See Part i. Sect. 25. note i); as though there were some objects and considerations with regard to which it is not nothing. Erasmus argues against the conclusion drawn from the simile of the potter, chiefly by appealing to 2Tim 2.20-21. Luther says, 1. You mistake the words “from these.” 2. If the simile is inefficacious here, this does not prove it so in Rom. 9. You must prove the similitude which you assume. 3. This passage, rightly interpreted, does mean the same thing, and it does prove the very thing in dispute.
The account which Luther gives of this text in its connection and construction, is perfectly correct. Ruin abounds: “the solid foundation of God nevertheless stands;” evil does not contradict His will and plan, but fulfils it. In a great house, there are vessels of two sorts. God’s eternal separation of his people is manifested, realized, and consummated by their own God-enabled voluntary separation in time, through his Spirit working in due season. Qemeliov (themelios) expresses the whole elect church of God laid by him as a sort of huge foundation-stone with inscriptions. See Zec 3.9.
[←582]
See pp. 162-165, Part iii, sect. 20.
[←583]
On the contrary supposition to that assumed and reasoned by Paul, the vessel is not the potter’s workmanship, as having been made by him just as he is; but his own. Why defend the potter then?
[←584]
Luther personifies the heart, or rather the wickedness of the heart, which I have therefore ventured to make feminine.
[←585]
R.C. Sproul once said that what’s surprising is not that anyone is damned, but that anyone is saved. WHG
[←586]
Luther blunders a good deal here, while he says many excellent things. In dealing with this cavil, the fault then is in the potter, he first sets forth its audacity, next repels Erasmus’ gloss by it, then maintains that it is an interested judgment, not a judgment of equity, by which God is condemned. — Much of the difficulty is, no doubt, resolvable into the sovereignty of God; that sovereignty which is so bitterly offensive to the carnal mind, while without the light of it we cannot stir a step in God. Whence came creation in all and every part of its wide range; whence come blessing and cursing, either as foreordained or as fulfilled; whence come heaven and hell, and inhabitants for each; whence comes the devil, whence comes the fall of man; whence comes sealed ruin on the one hand, and whence comes free restoration and glorification on the other; but from Him who makes no appeal to