in the other passages to which I have referred.
Luther misunderstands the text — he does not see its glory, and he does not elicit its testimony against Freewill correctly. It is, however, a testimony: if John, only so far as he had a gift from heaven, was other than earthly, and had so comparatively little of this gift as to fitly call himself earthly — what is ‘Freewill,’ ‘nature man,’ ‘that which is nothing but earth,’ instead of being such a one as John had been made, by the grace of God. It is not ‘Christ’s people,’ and ‘the world,’ which are opposed to each other here by the names ‘earthly’ and ‘heavenly,’ but Christ and John singly. John was a man in no way different from other men as to his natural frame; he was truly and solely a son of Adam. But Christ’s human person, as to its spiritual part, was from heaven.
[←749]
Surely the Lord means more by ‘from beneath’ here, than the Baptist did, who spoke of himself or, according to Luther, ‘of himself and all who are Christ’s.’ The Lord speaks of these Jews as the devil’s seed, whose throne and habitation are beneath the earth — while his own origin, as well as his throne, was and is heaven. (See that whole discourse in John 8, especially from v. 21 to the end of the chapter.) Luther’s conclusion, however, is correct. He bore this testimony to their best and finer part, not to the grosser pat. An objection may indeed be taken to, ‘These were expressly and emphatically children of the wicked one; and therefore their case is somewhat different from that of the children of the kingdom.’ The answer is, not as it respects nature — Freewill and all natural powers.
[←750]
Venit ad me. The original text is stronger; “is able to come to me.”
[←751]
Illuminationem Spiritûs. Not ‘the enlightening of the man’s own soul,’ but ‘the throwing of light upon Christ.’ The blessed Spirit casts his bright beams upon the face, or person, of the Lord Jesus Christ and so wins to him. — This is a most beautiful and accurate description of that Holy Ghost violence with which the soul is converted. One can hardly help saying to Luther, O si sic omnia! A single testimony, like this broad and irresistible one, opened as he opens it, is worth a hundred abstruse and obscure ones. It is a question in the first place, of whether they bear at all upon the subject — secondly, how they exactly bear upon it — and thirdly, with what degree of effect. I do not mean to disparage Luther’s testimonies which, with a few exceptions, are clear, and strong to the point. But I think the question might be safely rested upon this single text — considered in its connection — and that, on such a subject, to bring those which would allow for a doubt, or a possible misconstruction — in short, to use any other implement than a sledge-hammer is unwise. Even Luther might have made his proofs clearer and stronger; and they would have lost nothing by being fewer. The impression is weakened by being extended; and many small blows, of which one or two beat the air, render the victory doubtful in the sight of the by-standers. (See above, Part iv. Sect. 42. note i.) But what do we have here? It is not only that the words are so express that it is impossible to evade them, and that to cite them is even more impressive than to enlarge upon them; but they must mean what they say — ‘There is no power whatsoever in the natural man to come to Christ’ — because otherwise, they have no meaning at all in this context. — The Lord is accounting for their murmurs, in which they muttered a rejection of him. ‘You reject me! What wonder? It cannot be otherwise, seeing that you are not drawn to me by God.’ — And when he repeats the same sentiment at the 65th verse, it is to account for the same fact, and it is followed by a consequence which would naturally result from such a declaration, and which no other sentiment would account for. “From that time many of his disciples turned back and walked with him no more. Then Jesus said to the twelve, “Will you also go away?” The testimony, therefore, is so unequivocal, as well as so decisive, that Freewill does not even have a heel to lift up against it.
[←752]
Omnibus modis vicero. Omn. mod. like panti tropw (panti tropoo), or kata tanta tropon (kata tanta propon) of the Greeks, expresses the manner in which any act is done, or event accomplished: ‘By whatever arts and means, or with whatever spirit and turn of mind, the contest is carried on, I will have so conquered as not to leave a single jot or tittle for Freewill.’ — The argument is this: Scripture preaches Christ by antithesis; therefore, whatever preaches Christ, excludes Freewill. Christ is preached everywhere: therefore, Freewill is opposed everywhere.
[←753]
How strange that this enlightened and enlightening view of the two kingdoms should be so little realized, substantiated and applied! This needs only to be carried back to the period of the fall, and from there continued downwards to the end of the world, with an understanding that this is not the creation-state of man, and the things of man, but the counsel and scheme of God, as made way for by the creation and the fall, to render all Scripture, history, observation and experience, simple and intelligible! Luther evidently did not comprehend them in the fulness of their origination, design, operations, and results. But the substance is here, and we can scarcely help breathing out the vain wish that he had, for his own comfort, and that of others whom the Lord has not disdained to edify by his writings, been enabled to put the elements, with which he here furnishes us, together, in their beginning and endings, and in the connection of the intermediate parts, in a workmanlike manner. He has the materials; but he neither models, nor lays the foundation, nor builds on it. Still, what grace in his day to have seen so much!
[←754]
I have already shown that I do not coincide with Luther in his representation of the flesh and the spirit. I consider the flesh and the spirit to be the unrenewed body and the renewed mind, severally, of the Lord’s called people. But this difference does not affect the argument here. If the renewed man, who has the Spirit, has this conflict to maintain, then what is the wholly unrenewed man before God, and what is his endeavour after good?
[←755]
Laborare. The allusion is evidently to 1Cor 9.26; but he does not use the word currere. Paul says trecw (trechoo – run).
[←756]
Justitiariorum. I do not find the word, except as bad Latin for ‘a justice!’ But the connection determines it to mean here, persons who are going about to establish their own righteousness, in opposition to those who have learned that there is a God-righteousness, and have been led to submit to it. — ‘Justicers,’ or ‘righteousness-mongers.’
[←757]
Oudeiv (Oudeis) implies more than no man: no person, whether man or devil.
[←758]
The defects of Luther’s theology are apparent in this paragraph. He gives quietness, but not triumph; quietness too, we know not why, when a reason might be assigned. We are to live, assuredly to live; yet we do not live: we are to work too, that we may live; and our workings must be forgiven and amended. He did not see Christ’s peculiar and peculiarizing headship. He did not see that the efficacy of Christ, is enabling God — by his own dying — to raise up the cursed from their curse after suffering a part of it; that they live, even now, in a risen Christ as though they had risen with him; and that it is eternal life already received and acted, in just such a measure as He is pleased to bestow it, which constitutes the acceptable service that they are now rendering. This service He will reward, as he has appointed, and in just such a measure and manner as he appointed. But all this is upon the basis of Christ’s super-creation headship, and their relations to God in Him. The merit of their acceptance has been wrought already, to the uttermost, by Him alone; and they have only to enter into and enjoy their portion — which is a mixed one here, but an unmixed one hereafter. See Part iii. Sect. 38. note l. Joh 3.36; 5.24; 10.28; 17.3; 1Joh 5.10.
[←759]
Ad illius omnia. I do not venture to render it, ‘as compared with its like of His;’ but Luther means so, presuming that our image-ship extends to every divine property.
[←760]
Hale: cause through pressure or necessity, by physical, moral, or intellectual means.
[←761]
Justitiam et judicium. Just. The principle of justice; the faculty of judgment.
[←762]
Arrogate: to demand as being one’s due or property; to assert one’s right or title to something.
[←763]
Ad consolandum. An odd expression in this connection; but he means, to console the spirit which is tempted to see with evil eye: ‘an evil eye is one which is either unsound generally, or is infected with the particular disease of envy, malice and blasphemy.’ See Mat 6.23; 20.15; Mar 7.22.
[←764]
Job 12.6; Psa 73.12. Our version says, “The tabernacles of robbers prosper.” “Behold, these are the ungodly who prosper in the world; they increase in riches.”
[←765]
Luther feels a difficulty in reconciling the condemnation of the reprobate