to his own,” etc. The contrast here is between the world at large, and his peculiarly connected ones, the Jews. And so, in John 3.16, “God so loved the world,” etc. It is all kindreds and tongues, and languages, etc., contrasted with the natural seed of Abraham. The clear sense here assists in establishing this use of the term, and it serves to confirm the ascription of it to Joh 3.16, etc.
[←734]
Translatum in spiritum. We might render it ‘made spiritual;’ but this would efface the distinction which he means to mark. He opposes Christ to the world; making Christ the Spirit, in contrast with Adam, the flesh. So, by realized union with Christ, we are transferred from the world into the Spirit.
[←735]
‘The will of the flesh’ and ‘the will of man’ separated and distinguished, and both named, must, upon every conceivable interpretation of those terms, exclude everything belonging to the human will from this generative power; and therefore, they decide the question as to the power of Freewill, in bringing us to the inheritance of God’s children. But I would rather understand ‘bloods’ to express natural birth generally (we do not have it by descent from our parents); ‘will of the flesh’ for our own personal and individual will, which we have by nature; and ‘will of man’ for the ordinance and appointment of man generally: it is not a human device. It is what men have chosen and procured for themselves, or what can, in any individual instance, be conferred by man, one or many, willing it to another. A man may leave his estate at death, or confer a liberal gift in his lifetime, but he cannot will or bestow new birth. Luther speaks as if we were begotten by believing (‘nascendo ex Deo, quod fit credendo in nomine ejus’); like Erasmus’ ‘renatus per fidem,’ which, as we saw, he does not object to. But the truth is, we must be begotten again before we can believe; and then, believing, we take our place among God’s adopted children. So that there is a sense in which we are regenerated by faith, inasmuch as it is by faith we are manifested to be of the Lord’s children. But the birth, or generation more properly, spoken of in verse 13. is prior to faith; so that it cannot in this view be said, ‘nascor ex Deo, credendo in nomine Jesu Christi.’ (See above, Part iv. Sect. 45. note t , also Part v. Sect. 19. note n .)
[←736]
Pro gratid scilicet Christi. Luther seems to understand him as saying grace in return for, or on account of, his grace;’ that is, the grace which Christ has himself shown. So he clearly explains himself afterwards, when he says ‘gratiam eis impetrat per suum sanguinem.’ In this view, it is parallel with the passage which he cites from Romans 5. It is more commonly interpreted ‘grace for grace;’ that is, one degree or measure of grace for another. But Luther is more correct: although the grace which we have from Christ is in reality grace given to us by the Father in the same instant in which the grace is given to Christ, by means of which he has done and endured everything personally; it still comes to us, and is actually conferred upon us, in the way of fruit and consequence of his actings — grace bestowed on us, for the sake of grace acted previously by himself.
[←737]
Condignity is the quality of deserving something; inherent worthiness. Congruity is the quality of being suitable.
[←738]
Meritum condignum. ‘Worthy merit,’ i.e., ‘merit worthy of the reward which is proposed to be given to it,’ ‘merit of worth to the uttermost.’ See above, Sect. 16.
[←739]
It is most true, that the Gospel mystery is strictly a matter of revelation, and not within the discovery of natural reason. But it is also true that it has been the will of God that there should be intimations of this mystery, hereafter to be revealed, and traces of such intimations amidst all nations, from the beginning. The kingdom of God was announced immediately after the fall, in the denunciation upon the serpent. And it has been part of the counsel and work of God, that it should be spoken of, and looked for, and that the eternal separation between the two parts of the human race into hell and into heaven, should be made on the ground of it. Still, it is not that Freewill has found this out, but that God has shown it.
[←740]
Pro nobis exaltatum. Exalt. is a word of doubtful meaning, which might refer to his seat at the Father’s right hand; but I understand it with allusion to the Lord’s words, “And I if am lifted up” (uywqw, John 12.32), as explained by the comment, “this he said, signifying what death he should die.”
[←741]
Nec sic tamen tacere. A sort of oxumwron, exumooron, like ‘stremna inertia,’ ‘concordia discors;’ but there is no real inconsistency: Freewill should be silent for herself, and give glory to God.
[←742]
The word extra is used throughout the whole of this passage, to denote distinctness: there are but two sorts of substances; to be without the one, is to be within the other.
[←743]
Luther’s argument is that Scripture speaks by way of comparison (See above, Sect. 18. note); therefore Freewill, which confessedly is out of Christ, must be sin, death, Satan, error, etc. If you deny that Scripture speaks by comparison, 1. You make Scripture void. 2. You deny Christ. 3. You make God unjust. His reasoning is subtle, but conclusive. See the same sort of argument pursued, and remarked upon, Part iv. Sect. 44. note s .
[←744]
Jam judicatus est. Already as opposed to the judgment day. He need not wait for that; the preaching of Christ tries him, of what sort he is, whether he is a doer of evil, or a doer of the truth — as it appears from vv. 20, 21. The secret is, a regenerated soul, when Christ is preached, knows, owns, and receives him. He who rejects Christ, thereby proves that he is not regenerated, but is in his nature state; devilish, and possessed by the devil. — It is supposed that the state described here is the abiding, unchanged, indeed dying state of the man. Every deliberate rejection of Christ, when preached, gives ground for an awful apprehension; but it is final rejection which stamps this judgment. Such being his mind towards Christ, he does not need the process of the last judgment to declare whether he is “in God” or not.
[←745]
Luther refers only to 1Joh 1. But the testimony is equally strong in 1Joh 5.10. “He that does not believe God has made him a liar; because he does not believe the record that God gave of his Son.”
[←746]
Per synecdochen. Syn. ‘A figure of speech by which a part is taken for the whole, or the whole for a part.’ Here, Diatribe makes it the whole of man, put for his grosser part.
[←747]
Hic dicit. That is, according to Luther (who assumes that the things spoken of here are things of God, not of the creature), determines this question; it is God’s will that is done, not man’s. — I have already objected many times to the distinction which Luther here again resorts to (see above, Part iv. Sect. 46. note x); nor can I allow this text to be a direct testimony against Freewill. — John is accounting for the superior honour paid to Jesus above himself. He had just been informed concerning Jesus, “All men come to Him.” The principle of the remark therefore is, ‘I can have no more of honour than it is the will of God to bestow upon me.’ And he goes on to say that he never claimed to be Christ, and consequently never claimed to receive the honour which it had been the Father’s good pleasure to appropriate to Him. It is honour and distinction, therefore, not spiritual power and capacity, of which John speaks here. — But it is honour in and of the kingdom of God, which is preceded by a gift of super-creation power exciting and leading to it. As the honour is, so is the precedent power of God, and according to the measure in which he has ordained to bestow it, and produce it. However, non tali auxilio. If Luther understands it as, ‘we must have power given to enable us to receive power,’ then it is a testimony. But its meaning is far simpler than this. What we have, we have received; if another has more, it is because God has given it.
[←748]
This is a testimony borne to Jesus by John, in contrast with himself: though filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother’s womb, and having the hand of the Lord with him (Luk 1.15, 66.), he had not been born ‘by the Holy Ghost’s coming upon a virgin mother, and the power of the Highest overshadowing her;’ ‘he had not come down from heaven ,’ he had not ‘come from above,’ ‘come from heaven,’ (and, as compared with Him, was earthly in his words (see Luk 1.31; Joh 3.13, 31; 6.38, 41, 42), as well as in his frame and formation.)
I do not refer to 1Cor 15.47, because I consider it as belonging to another subject — Christ the risen head of his risen people, come down the second time from heaven to raise his dead ones. — It is of Christ walking upon this earth that the Baptist testifies here: he comes or (what is the same in import here] he