hereafter, most powerfully and satisfactorily repels.
[←173]
A vaunting insinuation expressed in the words of Aeneas, iv. 333, 334); by which Erasmus would lead his reader to understand, that he had a great deal still behind.
[←174]
That is, for ten years prior to posting his 95 theses (1517), he too had been of Erasmus’ mind. – WHG
[←175]
Luther claims respect, here, for three properties of his mind and conduct: conscientiousness, scrupulous investigation of truth, and full consciousnesss of the evil he was encountering. Not only was his light poured in very gradually, and admittedly very cautiously, but from first to last, he would have been often glad to hold his tongue. When he spoke or wrote, it was because God’s word was in his heart as a burning fire shut up in his bones, and he was weary with forbearing, and could not stay. (Jer 20.9.)
[←176]
Commendo. Properly, to ‘commit as a deposit into the hands of a trustee. I leave my character and my conduct, in these particulars, with my God.
[←177]
Luther considers himself as arrayed, in opposition to the Fathers, before the judgment-seat of Erasmus. His defence must consist of self-praise and abuse of the Fathers. He declines making such a defence, and cuts the matter short by acknowledging his inferiority; and that in all the points of competition which Erasmus had introduced. — Dr. Milner understands him to reserve three; viz. the Spirit, miracles, and sanctification. But this does not appear to be the fair construction and import of the original text. If I collect the sense aright, he makes two concessions: etiam te judice; I will allow the cause to be tried even at your judgment-seat; omnibus aliis; I do not reserve a single point of superiority for myself. (Did Luther indeed mean to contest the palm on any of these three grounds of excellency?) But then he abates the force of his concessions by remarking with respect to those three distinctions which alone are of any value in the number and variety claimed for his adversaries, that in the first place, Erasmus could not define them; and in the next, he could not prove that he possessed them, concerning any individual of his vaunted host. (See Miln. Ecclesi. Hist. vol. iv. part ii. p. 863.)
It may be well, just to notice the order, in which Luther hence proceeds, in his animadversions upon Erasmus’ Proem. 1. You cannot prove that they possessed these properties. 2. If they had them, they did not come at them by Freewill. 3. Show you the same. 4. At least define the power. 5. How absurd your conduct is with respect to the Fathers. 6. Some desultory objections such as, ‘strange that God should have tolerated such errors in his church:’ ‘Scripture is not clear’ — met and repelled. 7. Erasmus is reduced to a dilemma.
[←178]
By ‘manifestation of the Spirit,’ Luther (with reference to Erasmus’ taunt, ‘quem nusquam ostendunt’) means, ‘how men are to prove that they have the Spirit dwelling and walking in them.’ By ‘miracles,’ how the reality or falsehood of affirmed miracles is to be proved.’ By ‘sanctification,’ the state of a saint; that is, of one effectually called by the Holy Ghost: this effectual calling, or separation of the Spirit. It is that act by which the eternally separated of the Father (Jude 1.1.) are drawn into a realized and recognised union with the separated one, even the Lord Jesus Christ — in whom (Heb 2.11.), according to eternal purpose and covenant, they are separated to God. So that ‘separation from and to’ constitutes the essence of sanctification, into which the Scripture-use of the term is everywhere resolvable. It is not a gradual work, the result of repeated actions of the Spirit upon the substance of the natural soul, as human authors fondly teach; but one complete and final operation, by which the natural soul (Yuch) is made a spiritual soul (pneuma) — as holy, with respect to its own substance, as it ever will be in eternity. (See 1Pet. 1.2, 22, 23; 2The 2.13; Joh 6.37, 44, 63, 64. See also the klhtoiv agiois, ‘called to be saints,’ of the epistolary inscriptions.) Luther very properly distinguishes this ‘sanctimonia,’ ‘sanctum esse vel fuisse,’ from the ‘habere spiritum;’ that is, from the presence of the Holy Ghost with, and his consequent actings in and by, the renewed Spirit.
[←179]
Multùm sed frustrá sudatorum. Horace’s ‘sudet multùm frustráque laboret;’ implying great and inefficacious toil.
[←180]
Ex usu et publicis sermonibus. Us. ‘men’s saying what is usually said, what others say.’ Publ. serm. ‘what men talk in public,’ contrasted with private meditation and the secret testimony of their own hearts.
[←181]
Jesu Christi dogma. Not a ‘dogma taught by Jesus Christ,’ but a ‘dogma of which He is the subject;’ ‘the truth as it is in Jesus’ — which is directly opposite to this fancy of Freewill.
[←182]
Luther challenges him to show the effects of Freewill, in the three particular excellencies which he has selected out of Erasmus’ catalogue.
[←183]
Psa 39.5. 62.9.
[←184]
Equum claudum sanare. Erasmus’ burlesque illustration of their lack of miracles. Luther plays with it: ‘we will not call you to practise upon so huge an animal as a horse; we will be content with something less.’
[←185]
Alluding to the Lord’s, “a wicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sign.” Mat 16.4; 12.39.
[←186]
Luther confines the design of God in his miracles to the gracious object of them. But does God not also design, by these seals set upon his truth, to convict and render inexcusable the reprobate and ungodly?
[←187]
Fleer: contempt expressed by mockery.
[←188]
Supercilious: displaying arrogance by patronizing those considered inferior.
[←189]
Sub hastam libenter ibimus. The custom of selling under the spear was derived from the sales of booty taken in war; in which the spear was set up, and the spoil sold under it, to denote where the property had been obtained. So constant, however, was the use of the spear in auctions, that ‘hasta’ sometimes absolutely represents the auction itself; and ‘sub hasta venire’ corresponds to our coming under the hammer. Luther applies it here, in agreement with its original use: he will freely come to the spear, that he may be sold as a part of Erasmus’ spoil.
[←190]
Buceá verborum. ‘The puffed or distended cheek’ is used to express ‘anger,’ ‘pride,’ or ‘boastfulness.’ Horace has ‘iratus buceas inflet;’ Persius has, ‘scloppo tumidas intendis rumpere buccas.’
[←191]
Land capriná, vacua theatro. The first allusion (Hor. 1. Epist. xviii. 15.) charges him with contentious trifling; like the man who quarrels with his friend about goats’ hair, whether it should be called wool or bristles; ‘fighting for straws’ the second — ‘fuit haud ignobilis Argis’ — (Hor. 2. Epist. ii. 128 130, etc.) with indulging ‘a harmless but disordered fancy.’ —If you cannot show us any moral effects produced by it, Freewill must be either a thing of no value, or an illusion.
[←192]
Perditè. More perditi hominis; flagitiosè, ‘nequiter, corruptè.’
[←193]
Non nisi aversa fuerit. As opposed to ‘ad gratiam sese applicet;’ aversion and disgust, instead of desire and seeking.
[←194]
That is, by their heart and actions, rather than by their words alone. – WHG
[←195]
Accidents: a logical term referring to incidental, not essential attributes (e.g. bread being white).
[←196]
Seriphus was an island in the Ægean sea; one of the Sporades where, according to Ælian, the frogs never croaked; but when removed to another place, they became more noisy and clamorous than others. The latter part of the story, however, is differently told, and in a manner more consistent with the proverb: they kept their silence when transferred and mingled with others. Hence the saying, Batracov ek Serife, for a silent man, who can neither speak nor sing.
[←197]
Platonis Ideis. A term used by Plato to denote the first forms of things; the sort of mental draught, according to which nature (in the language of a heathen philosopher and if only professed heathens would speak so!) has framed all her substances. ‘Plato ideas vocat ex quibus omnia quaecunque videmus fiunt, et ad quas omnia formantur.’
[←198]
Nosque tutò rectum agere, i.e. in rectum. More literally, safe in going straight forwards. Quasi ‘in rectum agere iter.’
“Iterque
Non agit in rectum.” … “in rectum exire catervas.” — LUCAN.
[←199]
Publicani. Not without meaning is it used here instead of publici, as opposed to privati. The publicans were government-officers, employed in collecting the public revenues; which they contracted for at a price, and lived on the produce. They were chiefly of the equestrian order, and held in honour. ‘Erant publicani equites Romani, qui tributa et publica vectigalia questus sui causa conducebant.’ ‘Publicani autem, sunt, qui publico fruuntur.’ ‘Flos equitum Romanorum, ornamentum civitatis, firmamentum reipub. Publicanorum ordine continetur.’ — Luther uses the name, if I understand him aright, equivocally. While he gives them the glory of publicity, he hints at their support being derived from the fiscus, and the infamous celebrity which they had acquired by their exactions. In fact, what were the barefaced traffickers in Indulgences, such as Tetzel and others, but publicans of the worst stamp? I do not find any authority for the word publicanus, except as referred to this office.
[←200]
Deucalion: Gr. mythology – son of Prometheus, and survivor of the flood. Ovid’s
Metamorphoses.
[←201]
Socordes. Quasi sine corde. ‘Not only sinful, instead of sanctified; and carnal, instead of having the Spirit; but absolutely without natural intellect and feeling.’
[←202]
Referring to 1Pet 3.15. “And be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks you for a reason of the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear.” Petrus vester. ‘Your tutelar saint and pretended founder.’
[←203]
Quá formá. In a dialectic sense. ‘A dialecticis sumitur pro specie subjectâ generi. Formae sunt, in quas genus dividitur.’ ‘Specificate,’ or define it;
i.e. enumerate and combine all the