out of which, ‘being itself eternal,’ he taught that the eternal God, according to an eternal draught or model in his own mind, had, in his own appointed time, created the world. — Leucippus of Abdera, b.c. 428, was the first who invented the famous system of atoms and a void, which was afterwards more fully explained by Democritus and Epicurus. The void was nothing, till the infinity of eternal atoms rushed into it by a blind and rapid novement, and thus settled into a world — Aristotle’s ‘infinite’ is his ‘first moveable,’ eternally put into motion by his first Mover, and made to be what it is, at its one first projection, by Him. There is not much of essential difference, therefore, between Plato’s chaos, Leucippus’ vacuum, and Aristotle’s infinite: they are each a name for some supposed state in which the world that now is subsisted antecedently to its present one. — For some account of Plato, see the Preface; see also Part ii. Sect. 5. note u , where I followed Seneca’s account of his term ‘idea.’ — For some account of Aristotle, see Part iv. Sect. 8. note r .
[←664]
Detriverunt. A figure taken from threshing, or more properly, from treading out the pure grain with the feet: “You shall not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treads out the corn.” Possibly he may have a squift [swipe] at the name of Diatribe in his use of this term; ‘even the Sophists have trodden the floor of their schools’ to better purpose than she. See the Introduction, p. 3, note a .
[←665]
Luther maintains his Achillean lance by 1. Exposing the staleness, unaptness, and unauthorizedness of the evasion which Diatribe proposes. 2. The dangerous conclusions which may be extorted from her concessions. 3. The impossibility of realizing what is thus ascribed to Freewill. 4. ‘Nothing’ cannot mean a little in this text. 5. And it does not in any of the texts which she adduces.
[←666]
Enumerat implies ‘the number in full tale’ — an ostentatious display of numbers.
[←667]
There is a double failure in the comparion: the works are two, and the agent in each, is one.
[←668]
Hor. Art. Poet. v. 22. — I do not find any classical allusion for the gourd.
[←669]
Omnia etiam impia. ‘All wicked substances’: men and devils
[←670]
Renovata creatura. Sometimes called ‘the new creation;’ but with less propriety. This new is all made out of the old, which ‘new’ does not imply, but ‘renewed’ does.
“Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures.” (Jam 1:18 NKJ)
[←671]
Cooperaremur. The cooperation in both cases consists in our acting concurrently with God, according to our nature. God, by his own agency, calls out our faculties, such as they are, whether natural or renewed, into act and exercise: it is by, and not without, our faculties that He moves, drives and hurries us along.
[←672]
Publicè traducere. A peculiar use of traduc., ‘to expose to ridicule or dishonour, to disgrace.’ So ‘traducit avos.’ — Juv. viii. 17. ‘Rideris, multòque magis traduceris.’ —Martial. ‘Miseram traducere calvam.’ — Id.
[←673]
Stocks and stones: an Old Testament idiom for making idols out of stone, in the image of stocks (animals).
[←674]
Encomion. A Greek derivative from which we get our English word ‘encomium’. It is applied peculiarly to the laudatory songs which were sung to the praise of the conqueror amidst the tumultuous revels of his Triumph. See Introd. p. 4.
[←675]
Explode: to show a theory or claim to be baseless.
[←676]
Feasts in honour of Bacchus; which were not only drunken bouts, but scenes of proud display, to the praise of the glory of man. They imitated the poetical fictions concerning Bacchus; putting on fawn skins, crowning themselves with garlands and personating men distracted.
[←677]
Originally, “tricked out with grace.”
[←678]
Jer 48.10. Negligenter. Our version says ‘deceitfully,’ but it has ‘negligently’ in the margin.
[←679]
Re ipsâ. The material which he worked up, as distinguished not only from his name, but from the dress of language which he put upon it.
[←680]
Asperity: harshness of manner; hard to endure.
[←681]
Nihil humani alienum. ‘Homo sum, nihil a me humani alienum puto,’ has furnished Luther with a sentiment which requires a little correction. As a called child of God he had surely something in him more than human. — He only means to make a full confession of his humanity — and that is another name for sin of all kinds.
[←682]
Luther’s argument is, ‘Paul declares that wrath is revealed upon “all men.” If so, then it is revealed upon Free will. His labour, therefore, is to show that this text means as much. That it does mean as much is shown, 1. From the very words. 2. From the preceding context.
[←683]
Ebraicatur. I would not say ‘hebraizes’ here; for it is Greek as well as Hebrew — perhaps nearly all languages — to speak thus, grammarians call it Hyperbaton. To “hebraize” is also to bring a Jewish understanding to it.
[←684]
An epithet which implies the reason for the Lord’s conduct, and which I should venture to render by, ‘for that they detain,’ etc. In Latin, ‘utpote qui;’ ‘seeing that they are those who,’ etc. I do not agree with Luther in the distinction which he understands the Apostle to make here. I consider him to be speaking strictly of all men; even as he is proceeding to show that all men without exception in their nature state, are chargeable with holding the truth in unrighteousness. It is the nature state of man, the state of man without the Gospel, which the Apostle treats, till he comes to the twenty-first verse of the third chapter. The true connection is, ‘I shall be glad to come to Rome, for I am not ashamed of the Gospel; for that Gospel is the power of God unto salvation’ — that salvation which all men want; which all men want because the wrath of God is revealed upon all men for their ungodliness; for their ungodliness and unrighteousness, because they hold the truth in unrighteousness; and they hold the truth in unrighteousness, because God has made himself manifest to them, but they have not dealt with him according to that manifestation. His great charge therefore, which he goes on to maintain against man universally, both Jew and Gentile, considered as yet without the preached Gospel, is that they hold the truth in unrighteousness. This account of the context does not at all invalidate Luther’s application of the text. All he lacks is “all men;” and this he clearly has.
[←685]
Istis duabus. I would rather understand the Greeks in this connection to be the representatives of the Gentile world, selected as the most favourable or enlightened specimen of it; Jew and Greek, like Jew and Gentile, comprehending the whole human race. Luther understands Paul to express that nation in its individuality, and argues by induction from there to the rest of the nations. The frequent use of this antithesis, Jew and Greek, favours my view: but Luther’s argument is not affected by the distinction. His refined Greek is included among my promiscuous Gentiles.
[←686]
Qui ad honesta niterentur. Referring to Erasmus’ noble defence of the heathens and their philosophers, as such great sticklers and strivers for the ‘honestum.’ See Part iv. Sect. 43. note m . See also Part ii. Sect. 8.
[←687]
The allusion is to Rom 1.14. I do not find any text in which he speaks of himself as debtor to Jews and Greeks. Luther seems to have confounded the fourteenth verse with the sixteenth, and with some expressions in Rom 2, 1Cor 1, Gal 3, and Col 3.
[←688]
Luther’s account of this text is, 1. The words are a testimony. 2. This testimony is confirmed by (1.) the preceding context (2.) fact and experience. — I deem him mistaken in his view, both of the text and context. (See above, note c .) The text does not refer to the truth as preached by the Gospel, nor does it make any division or exception. It is the nature state of ‘all men’ that is described here, and it is described as a reason for Paul’s willingness to preach the Gospel at Rome, or anywhere. Luther was misled, possibly, by the word ‘truth;’ “who hold the truth in unrighteousness;” as if it must necessarily mean the Gospel. What, is there no teacher of truth but the Gospel? and is the truth identical with the Gospel? “The truth” is either ‘the substance of God,’ or ‘the doctrine of that substance what states it,’ and consequently, what states or displays any part of this — so far as it does state this —may in this inferior sense (I call doctrine
of or about the reality inferior to the reality itself) be called ‘the truth.’
I do not forget that the Lord Jesus Christ is both personally and mystically called the truth; but if this title is examined, it will be found that He has it in both these regards, subordinately — as the grand Displayer, Declarer, Word, and Glory of God the Father, the created image of the Uncreated Reality.
Now some of the invisible things of God were thus shown, or stated out, in creation; and are shown by what we call the works of nature (that is, works of God in creation as distinguished from those of super-creation or redemption). So that, those who did not have the Gospel might still be charged with holding the truth in unrighteousness: they had it, and did not act on it. — That this is Paul’s reference and meaning here, appears from what follows. He goes on to say, “Because that which may be known