which the eternally foreknown of God are brought when, having already been regenerated in Spirit, by faith and calling upon God, they are regenerated in state. In this state, they live and walk by and in the Spirit. — Then, what has this state of theirs to do with the question of Freewill; or rather, with all that has just been argued about man’s being ‘flesh’? —whatever is meant by that word. He that has been begotten, or born, of the Spirit is Spirit, and he has the Spirit dwelling and walking in him, and he serves God therein.
[←630]
Secundum reliquias. Luther speaks of this remainder, as many other divines do, in a manner which implies that the work of the Spirit on the substance of the soul in regeneration is incomplete: whereas it will receive no increase or alteration forever. Only the body is unrenewcd, and will remain so till the resurrection. The variety is in the energizings of the within-dwelling Spirit, which, to God’s glory in our real good, are neither uniform nor perpetual; and to give occasion to the unrenewed part of our frame, and to our enemies without, to gain many a transient victory over us. — What I have already said and referred to about ‘flesh’ and ‘spirit,’ will serve to show that my account of this remainder would differ a little from Luther’s. — See above, Sect. 42. notes i and k. See also Part ii. Sect i. note f .
[←631]
Luther defends his interpretation of Isa 40.6-7, by 1. Making Jerome and Erasmus ridiculous. 2. Maintaining Isaiah. 3. Appealing to Erasmus’ vain show of candour and exposing it. 4. Entertaining the cavil ‘not all.’ 5. Repelling false charges, and charging inconsistencies.
[←632]
Plenipotentiary: having full power to represent a government; or here, to represent God’s word.
[←633]
O LORD, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks, to direct his own steps. O LORD, correct me, but with justice; Not in Your anger, lest You bring me to nothing. (Jer 10:23 NKJ)
[←634]
For objections to this distinction, see above, Part i. Sect. 15. note i .
[←635]
Pertinet igitur. More literally, ‘It most of all pertains to events, that a man strive,’ etc.
[←636]
Creatis eventibus. divinis eventibus. Luther has said (see note x), that a dominion has been given to man over the inferior creatures, in the exercise of which he would not object to its being said that he has Freewill. There are creature-events therefore, and God-events; that is, events which are conversant with creatures only, and events which are conversant with God also. Those in which he has to deal with creatures, are of small moment with respect to those in which he has to deal with the Creator. Temporal prosperity is of the former; salvation is of the latter. I deny the justness of the distinction, and I must allow that we have rather too much of the gladiator in this paragraph. Luther’s defence of his text is correct; but to give his adversary another thrust when he is fallen, he goes into refinements which will not stand. Doubtless, spiritual things are higher than temporal things, but each is under the sole dominion of God.
[←637]
See Part iii. Sect. 44. note m .
[←638]
Luther’s order is, 1. To repel Diatribe’s gloss. 2. To show the folly and inconsistency of it, if admitted. 3. To confound Diatribes’ confusion. The proof which the text fields is broad and palpable, and only loses force by allowing that it may allow a cavil.
[←639]
See last section.
[←640]
See Part iv. Sect. 10. note z .
[←641]
See above, Sect. 11. note h .
[←642]
Quia. I should have liked quâ instead of quia, if there had been any authority for it. — For the principle maintained, see above, Sect. 11. and note h .
[←643]
Coram Deo. Referring, I suppose, to the former distinction about divine and created events; as if there were some acts in which God left us at liberty. See above, Sect. 31. note a .
[←644]
Sui juris. ‘
Jus (a jubeo, ut quidam volunt) est universim id quod legibus constitutum est, sive naturalibus, sive divinis, vel gentium, vel civilibus.’ ‘The law or rule, which he prescribes to himself for the regulation of his conduct.’ Hence the expression ‘sui juris esse, i.e., liberum esse, suique arbitrii.’ ‘Ut esset sui juris ae mancipii respublica.’ — Cic.
[←645]
Luther defends his quotations from Proverbs, and withdraws the chorus from Erasmus’ old song thus: 1. Necessity does not preclude human agency, but quickens it. 2. They are imperative and conjunctive verbs. 3. The nature of God’s making and operating in the wicked. 4. The king’s heart furnishes an a fortiori, but any man’s heart will do.
[←646]
Magniloquous (or grandiloquent): Speaking pompously; puffed up; bombastic; lofty in style.
[←647]
Thersites: In Homer’s Iliad, he was a common soldier of the Greek army during the Trojan War.
[←648]
Uti. abuti. Ut. ‘To use according to its real nature.’ Abut.’ To use contrary to the nature, or first intention of a thing, whether for the better or worse.’ The Scripture is authority; she will not use it. The Fathers are not authority; she will use them as though they were.
[←649]
Corruptis. fallacibus. Cor. expresses the state of the receiver; fal. the wilfulness of the false prophets: we have the tinder ready, and they strike the spark.
[←650]
Uno verbulo. Alluding to this little word ‘nothing,’ I suppose. All Luther’s force, he would say, is in this Achillean lance; which we break by our interpretation of the word ‘nothing.’
[←651]
See above, Sect. 3. Trope and Consequence, p. 239.
[←652]
Longè potentiss. et callidiss. mundi. There is a little ambiguity in the expression; but he clearly means to compare the devil with other earthly Princes.
[←653]
Luther speaks as others do, leaving it to be imagined that sin is a substance, and has a real and positive existence. (See above, Sect. 11. note h .) The more correct statement is that the human soul is itself a substance that is sinful and devilish, and it would remain so — willing according to its nature — even if Satan and his agency were withdrawn from it.
[←654]
Fortiter contemnit. The taunt is obscure; but I understand it to insinuate that Diatribe has a good deal of that ‘better part of valour, which is discretion.’
[←655]
Luther refers to John 15.5, from which Diatribe argues that nothing does not mean nothing: “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.”
[←656]
I would rather rest the conclusion on the scope and train of the parable, than upon the interpretation of the figures in any one verse; this is a good general rule for the interpretation of parables. We may overstrain parts; but we cannot be wrong in seizing the general outline, and maintaining the broad principle which is illustrated, where that can be distinctly ascertained. Perhaps I should not interpret this parable just as Luther does. I consider it as a representation of the visible church, exhibiting two sorts of members: fruitful and unfruitful. Only the fruitful are Christ’s true ones; and their fruitfulness is altogether dependent n a real, continued, and unobstructed union with himself. It is with reference to their continuance in him, that this nothingness is spoken of. If they should be cut off from him — suppose them to have been ever so fruitful — (thus the parable speaks), their fruitfulness would cease —
entirely cease. Both the end and the way require that the nothing be an absolute nothing. Luther cannot state the result of non-union, or dis-union, more awfully than I would do; but I would question whether the parable sets this out with the minuteness which he assigns to it; and I do not see it necessary to the conclusion he is sustaining. It is quite enough that the disunited branch is a cast-away, waiting for the burning.
[←657]
Per omnia et omnibus modis. Per omn. the several parts of her argument. Omn. mod. the materials of each. Her arguments would not prove her point if they were sound; but they are not so.
[←658]
Verba, ut vocant. Ut voc. i.e., ‘quatenus vocabula sunt, sive dictiones quibus res singulae vocantur, aut voce efferuntur.’
[←659]
Coram Deo. Erasmus says, nothing means a little; and so men speak of their performances. Luther replies, this is said of the effect, not of the act: but if it is said of the act, this proves for me: doing, he does not — for in the sight of God, his work is nothing. Coram Deo, in a former instance (see Sect. 31. note a), referred to God’s presence as an agent; here he refers to it as a spectator.
[←660]
Merâm nihil. Erasmus applies this text to the act of ministering the word; whereas it belongs to the effect of that ministry. But if it illustrates the agency of the free will under the ministry, without grace, then this agency is nothing in the sight of God, though not an absolute nothing in itself. — This conclusion, however, is drawn from a double misapplication of the text: it is act, instead of effect; and it is an act of the hearer, not of the speaker.
[←661]
Quo loco pugnemus. The same as ‘status causa;’ or the question at issue.
[←662]
We are reasoning about existence of grace, or ‘existence before God,’ and her argument is about mere natural existence, which is absolute — when even she has avowed the distinction which makes the difference.
[←663]
De hoc enim. We shall see hereafter that Luther is mistaken in his view of this text; but the conclusion remains: the nothing is distinct from natural endowments. — Plato’s chaos is that ‘rudis indigestaque moles,’