Calvin's commentary on Romans 1:18 (Latin, English translation by MacKenzie):
Ira, ἀνθρωποπαθῶς, more Scripturae pro ultione Dei: quia Deus puniens, prae se fert (nostra opinione) irascentis faciem.
The word wrath, referring to God in human terms as is usual in Scripture, means the vengeance of God, for when God punishes, He has, according to our way of thinking, the appearance of anger.
Nullum ergo motum in Deo significat: sed tantum ad sensum peccatoris, qui plectitur, relationem habet.
The word, therefore, implies no emotion in God, but has reference only to the feelings of the sinner who is punished.
How accurate is this translation?
In particular, I am wondering whether this use of motum 'movement' is nothing more than a typical assertion of divine impassibility, or whether it is stronger, not denying merely that he has no passions (involuntary/passive responses) but also that he has no true active and transcendent anger. Does anyone know how the Reformation era use of the concept of movement, signified by moveo/motum, maps onto our contemporary concepts? (Oxford Dictionaries say that the current sense of emotion dates only from the 19th century.)