with a flesh and blood body, as that Article says in spite of Paul’s clear words. But now, we have been taught with what sort of a body the Lord rose, and what sort of body we may look to be clothed with ourselves. (See 1Cor 15.44-54. See also Bishop Horsley’s Nine Discourses on Our Lord’s Resurrection.) These hints must be my defence against the supposed arrogance of impugning and correcting Luther. The Reformation did not absorb the spiritual Sun, any more than former or later periods had, or have done so. He still continues to shoot forth his rays, when and as it pleases Him; and those on whom they fall have already received their direction how to deal with them, from his own mouth, where He says, “No man, when he has lit a candle, covers it with a vessel, or puts it under a bed; but sets it on a candle-stick, that those who enter in may see the light.” Luk 8.16.
[←65]
Fleer: to express contempt by mockery.
[←66]
Milner does not appear to have understood what the investigating Horsley has made plain: that Plato was not an inventor, nor were the Ammonians scriptural improvers of human inventions. Rather, both Plato and those from whom he copied, were retailers, in fact, of mutilated revelations. ‘These notions were by no means peculiar to the Platonic school. The Platonists pretended to be no more than the expositors of a more ancient doctrine which is traced from Plato to Parmenides; from Parmenides to his masters of the Pythagorean sect; from the Pythagoreans to Orpheus, the earliest of the Grecian mystagogues; from Orpheus to the secret lore of the Egyptian priests, in which the foundations of the Orphic theology were laid. Similar notions of a triple principle prevailed in the Persian and Chaldean theology; and vestiges even of the worship of a Trinity were discernible in the Roman superstition in a very late age. Ehe Romans had received this worship from their Trojan ancestors. For the Trojans brought it with them into Italy from Phrygia. In Phrygia it was introduced by Dardanus as early as in the ninth century after Noah’s flood. Dardanus carried it with him from Samothrace, where the personages that were its objects, were worshipped under the heathen name of Cabirim…. ‘The Great or Mighty ones;’ for that is the import of the Hebrew name. And their Latin appellation is of like import, Penates… Thus the joint worship of Jupiter, Juno and Minerva, the triad of the Roman capital, is traced to that of the THREE MIGHTY ONES in Samothrace, which was established in that island. It is impossible to determine at what precise time, but earlier than the days of Abraham, if Eusebius may be credited. — Horsley’s Letters to Priestley, pp. 47-49.
[←67]
Diatribe. One of the names by which Erasmus chose to distinguish his performance on Freewill. He borrows it from the debates of the ancient philosophers; and would be understood to announce a canvassing of the question rather than a judicial determination upon it. The original Greek term denotes, 1. The place trodden by the feet while they were engaged in the debate. 2. The time spent in such debate. 3. The debate itself. Erasmus’ Diatribe, therefore, is a disquisition, or disputation, on Freewill. Luther often personifies it.
[←68]
Io Pæan – in ancient Greece, a hymn of praise; especially one sung to invoke or thank a deity.
[←69]
The schoolmen, with Peter Lombard at their head, who arose about the middle of the twelfth century; idolizers of Aristotle; their theology abounding with metaphysical subtleties, and their disputations greatly resembling those of the Greek sophists.
[←70]
Luther refers to the former editions of Melancthon’s ‘Common Places,’ which contained some passages not found in the later ones; this among others. The divine predestination takes away liberty from man [Not choice, but unbiassed choice; freeness and contingency of choice. ED.]. For all things happen according to divine predestination; as well the external actions as the internal thoughts of all creatures. . . . The judgment of the flesh abhors this sentiment, but the judgment of the spirit embraces it. For you will not learn the fear of God, or confidence in Him, from any source more surely than when you have imbued your mind with this sentiment concerning predestination. It is to passages such as these that Luther doubtless refers in the testimony here given to Melancthon’s work; and it has been inferred from the withdrawing of it in subsequent editions, that Melancthon afterwards changed his sentiments on these subjects. The late Dean of Carlisle has investigated this supposition with his usual accuracy and diligence; and concludes that he probably did alter his earlier sentiments to some extent in later life. Truth, however, does not stand in man or by man. Too much has no doubt been made of supposed changes in the opinions of many learned and pious divines. But after all, what do these prove? We have the same sources of knowledge as they, and we must draw our light from the clear spring, not from the polluted and uncertain stream. See Milner’s Eccles. Hist, vol. iv. p. 920-926, first edition.
[←71]
Lubricus et flexiloquus – Lub. ‘one that slips out of your hands, so that you cannot grapple with him.’ Flex. ‘one whose words will bend many ways, as being of doubtful or pliable meaning.
[←72]
Greek mythology: Scylla was a sea nymph transformed into a sea monster who lived on one side of a narrow strait; drowned and devoured sailors who tried to escape Charybdis (a whirlpool) on the other side of the strait.
[←73]
Conferri aut componi – What Erasmus professed to do, and thereupon gave the name of ‘Collatio’ to his Treatise: ‘a sort of conference and comparison of sentiment; each disputant bringing his opinion and arguments, and placing them front to front with his opponent’s. — Proteus was a sort of Demigod supposed to have the power of changing himself into many forms.
[←74]
Proteus (Greek mythology): the prophetic old man of the sea and shepherd of the sea’s flocks. He was subject to the sea god Poseidon…. Proteus knew all things—past, present, and future—but disliked divulging what he knew. Those who wished to consult him first had to surprise and bind him during his noonday slumber. Even when caught he would try to escape by assuming all sorts of shapes. Ency. Brit.
[←75]
Res nostra – The ministering of Christ is the business spoken of here, by a phrase correspondent with ‘res bellica,’ ‘res navalis,’ ‘res judiciaria,’ etc. etc. as being the trade, occupation, and sole concern of Christ’s ministers, in whose name he speaks here.
[←76]
Officii nostri – Off. ‘What a man has to do;’ ‘his business,’ implying a relation; such as ‘munus et officium oculorum,’ the office or function of the eye. Hence, ‘good office, obligation, or kindness conferred.’
[←77]
Gravas, ornas. The figure is mixed: gr. ‘clog, load, weigh down.’ Orn. ‘beautify with apparel.’ – your ornate load.
[←78]
Pedibus discessurus. A Roman phrase taken from their method of voting in the senate, when they dissented from the decree as proposed: they walked over to the opposite side of the house.
[←79]
Ne verbis ludamur. ‘That we may not be mocked by words;’ ‘made the sport of words.’
[←80]
Rom 1.29; 1Cor 3.3; 2Cor 12.20.
[←81]
Velut ille ad Rhombum. If you are indeed speaking of such assertions here, you are either a ridiculous orator, or a mad writer: a ridiculous orator if it is not true genuine Freewill which you are discussing; a mad writer if it is so. Oratory was out of place on such a subject, however sincere and disinterested the speaker might be; but orators were for the most part a venal and frivolous tribe, and some exercised their art unskilfully, while others were hired only to amuse and make sport. It is not without meaning, therefore, that Luther compares the orator and the writer; and if Erasmus is to fill the weightier place of the writer, then it is that of one who is frenzied and blasphemous.
I am indebted to the kindness of a learned friend for the reference, velut ille ad Rhombum, which had perplexed me. I can have no doubt that it refers to the fourth Satire of Juvenal, where Doraitian is represented as having called a council of his senators to deliberate what should be done with an immense Rhombus, or Turbot; with which a fisherman out of fear had presented him. Among other counsellors was a blind man, of very infamous character, as an informer, but high in the favour of the Emperor, named Catullus; ‘cum mortifero Catullo.’
“Grande et conspicuum nostro quoque tempore monstrum
“Caecus adulator.”
This man extolled the Rhombus exceedingly, pointing to its various beauties with his hand, as if he really saw them. But unfortunately, while he pointed to the fish lying on his left hand, it lay all the while on his right.
“Nemo magis Rhombum stupuit: nam plurima dixit
“In laevum conversus: at illi dextra jacebat
“Bellua:
This was not the only occasion on which he had given scope to his imagination, and praised as though he had eyes:
…”sic pugnas Cilicis laudabat et ictus,
“Et pegma, et pueros inde ad velaria raptos.” — Juv. iv. 113-121.
The force of the comparison, therefore, lies in Erasmus being supposed to discuss the phantom of his own imagination, instead of the real Rhombus. This phantom he might call dubious or unnecessary, without being himself impious; it was the coinage of his own brain. But if he called the real Rhombus (the Church’s confession of Freewill) dubious or useless, he wrote gravely, but he wrote sacrilegiously. He has only the alternative, therefore, of being a fool or a madman, if he places Luther’s assertion on