from Him who makes no appeal to the creature for his vindication, but says ‘I have lifted up my hand that it shall be so?’ — But there is a worthy end for all this; which Luther did not see, and therefore did not assign: the sight of which, however, makes the difference between a cruel God and a wise one. (See Part iii. Sect. 28. notes t v x .) —It is not true that God condemns the undeserving, or that he crowns the unworthy. Luther did not discern the mystery of the creation and fall of every individual man in Adam (see Part iii. Sect. 38. note l , Part iv. Sect. 10. note z). Nor did he understand the mystery of the predestinative counsel. Every individual of the human race became a hell-deserving sinner in Adam; every individual of the saved, is saved by virtue of new relations assumed by God, and given to him in Christ — as one previously self-ruined, whom Christ has rendered worthy to be taken up from his ruin, by having shared it with him. Predestination is fulfilment forearranged; as is the execution, such was the covenanted design. It is self-destroyed ones, therefore, who are predestined to hell; even as it is Christ-made worthy ones who are predestined to life. Luther knew nothing about God’s assuming relations, much less about his assuming distinct relations. And this shows once more how impossible it is to give any consistent account of the salvation of the righteous, on the basis of universal redemption: such a redemption must leave either partiality in God, or merit in man. Luther would have it indignos to avoid merit, and therefore he leaves God ‘a respecter of persons.’ — He does not say a word too much about sovereignty, but he puts it in its wrong place, and omits what ought to be added to it — the end for which it is exercised. The place is, ‘God determining to make creatures with opposite destinies some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt — vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy.’ And that we may not even in heart murmur here, we must have an adequate end shown to us. It is shown to as many as have an eye to see it: he determines to make them, and he does make them, to His own glory — the manifesting of himself, according to what he really is. “What if God, willing,” etc. (Rom 9.22-24.) In the fulfilment of this design, sovereignty is not the hinge; there is nothing from first to last, in the varieties of the way or of the end, except what approves itself to right reason. — Luther seems to think that the salvation of the righteous escapes animadversion [harsh criticism or disapproval]. The fact that there is such a state may. But if the true nature of that state, and the true way to it, are faithfully opened, they are scarcely less offensive to the carnal mind than the damnation of the lost.
[←587]
Interpretatione sanâ. I do not venture to render this by ‘qualified interpretation,’ though this appears to be nearly the meaning: a ‘sound’ as opposed to extravagant sense is to be assigned to the words, in contradistinction to their simple literal meaning; this, it is implied, would be extravagant and contradictory. A peculiar use of interpretatio, which both Cicero and Quintilian recognise; from whom Erasmus no doubt borrowed it, is ‘a giving of the sense, instead of rendering the words’ — much as the Levites did when they read the law to the people after the captivity. Neh 8.7-8. See Part iii. Sect. 30. note f .
[←588]
Simpliciter, dupliciter, centuplic. Luther makes a pun on the word simpliciter, which is properly opposed to figurative, or tropical.
[←589]
All this alleged inconsistency in Scripture is the fruit of your additions; by the aid of which you create inconsistencies, but you also contradict your own positions.
[←590]
Affectavimus, extende. See above, Sect. 4. text and notes; particularly note u .
[←591]
Nodos in scirpo quaerunt. See above, Part i. Sect.26. note l.
[←592]
Corrupta. The figure is that of a man drowned; and the last term expresses the state of his substance, when now it has been long underwater. It is like Virgil’s ‘cererem corruptam indis.’
[←593]
Land caprind. See above, Part ii. Sect. 3. note l.
[←594]
I am disposed to give rather a different turn to the declaration, though in no way affecting Luther’s argument. All he wants to show is that they are words of anger, not of pity and palliation. But since the word which we render “strive “and which Luther renders “judge” properly signifies debate or judgment given after discussion; why might not the sentiment be, “My Spirit shall not always be proving that man is flesh;” or “shall not always be reproving him for being flesh?” The great reason for continuing man in existence after the original and damning transgression was that he might show himself what he is, as he has made himself — so different from what God made him. The Lord here says that he will carry on this work of manifestation — this controversy, as it may be called — for no longer than one hundred and twenty years. There seems to be no great importance in the annunciation that he would not strive because he is flesh. He was so from the first moment of transgression; and not more so now, than from that moment. But the manifestation having been carried far enough, there was now a reason why it should cease. This trial, or controversy, or judgment, or proof, or reproof, was effected by the divine Spirit both mediately and immediately acting upon their spirit. Luther confines it to the effect of their intercourse with others — such as Noah, and those of the Lord’s people who had lived and were living with those generations of men in whom was the Spirit of God. But did not that Spirit also act upon these disobedient ones, without their intervention? that Spirit which, according to Luther, moves and drives all God’s creatures. — רוּחִ֤י (ruach), appendere — litem vel causam agere — quomodo ‘disceptare’ signift; et ‘judicare;’ fut ruach disceptabit; Gen 6.3. (Sim. Lex. Hebr. in loc.) ruach Contendit. prop, appendit. 2. Judicavit, i.e., appendit bilance judicii. 3. In judicio contendit. ‘To judge, to strive, to litigate’ (Robertson’s Clavis Pentateuch in loco.) בְּשַׁגַּ֖ם (gam basar) ‘Inasmuch as,’ ‘for that.’ Robertson. Simon derives it rather differently, and explains by ‘en tw’ seducere eos; i.e., dum seducit eos ipsa caro.
Luther seems to lose the particular point of the preceding verses, when he speaks of the ‘sons of men’ marrying wives; it is the sons of God seeing the daughters of men, etc. meaning surely those who practised and made profession of his worship, in opposition to those who had thrown it off. The great offence and provocation seems to have been given by that hypocritical remnant, to and concerning which Enoch had previously prophesied (as it appears from Jude 1.15).
[←595]
Virgilicentonas. More literally, Virgilian centos.
[←596]
Simplicitati scripturarum studeretur. i.e., taking care to maintain a plain sense where it is practicable, in opposition to a figurative one.
[←597]
Officio verbi inter eos agere. Implying more than mere preaching; he has before said ‘per verbum praedicationis et vitam piorum:’ it is word administered by mouth, and life.
[←598]
It is impossible to understand this text in such a way that it will not be a decisive testimony against Freewill. Whether it is that ‘God would cease to prove man, what he is,’ or ‘cease to judge him, because he is such a one;’ what he is, remains the same; and that is something so vile that God cannot any longer tolerate it.
I confess that I greatly prefer understanding the flesh in Romans 7 and 8 as the bodily part of the saint, which is unrenewed while he remains in this world. But what difference does this make as to the question of Freewill? Every individual man is by natural constitution “enmity against God;” so far as that natural constitution remains in the saint, he also is enmity. The passage under consideration either says, or implies, being that he is flesh, he is contrary to the Spirit and offensive to Gocl. What is the state of his will then?
I would understand the word flesh here, of his whole substance or constitution, rather than ‘an affection’ of it, as Luther and most other divines do. Indeed, I consider that much jargon has been introduced into theology by this distinction. It has led to what is called the doctrine of two principles (the term ‘principle’ being a very indefinite one, and a shelter for almost everything that is unknown or wishes to be obscure). Whereas, I believe there are few if any places in Scripture, in which it may not be understood of the human substance, either in its complexity as soul and body, or in its dividuality, as body only.
I by no means subscribe to the interpretation which Luther assigns to some of the texts he adduces. “The flesh profits nothing “is not ‘evil affection,’ but the natural substance of man as contrasted with the Spirit. “The word was made flesh,” does not declare body in opposition to soul, but it declares that whole human person which the second Person of the ever-blessed Trinity truly and actually assumed into union with himself when the fulness of the time had come. So “my flesh is food indeed” does not exclude his soul as made an offering for sin. Neither does the “one flesh” which the church is made to