Romans 7:7-8
- Quid ergo dicemus? Lex peccatum est?
Absit: sed peccatum non cognovi nisi per Legem: - What shall we say then? Is the law sin?
God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the
concupiscentiam enim non noveram, nisi Lex
diceret, Non concupisces
law: for I had not known lust, except the law had
said, Thou shalt not covet^209- Occasione autem sumpta, peccatum per
mandatum effecit in me omnem concupiscentiam. - But sin, taking occasion by the
commandment, wrought in me all manner of
concupiscence. ...
7.What then shall we say? Since it has been said that we must be freed from the law, in order
that we may serve God in newness of spirit, it seemed as though this evil belonged to the law, —
that it leads us to sin. But as this would be above measure inconsistent, the Apostle rightly undertook
to disprove it. Now when he adds, Is the law sin? what he means is, “Does it so produce sin that
its guilt ought to be imputed to the law?” — But sin I knew not, except through the law; sin then
dwells in us, and not in the law; for the cause of it is the depraved lust of our flesh, and we come
to know it by the knowledge of God’s righteousness, which is revealed to us in the law.^210 You are
not indeed to understand, that no difference whatever can be known between right and wrong
without the law; but that without the law we are either too dull of apprehension to discern our
depravity, or that we are made wholly insensible through self-flattery, according to what follows,
—
For coveting I had not known,etc. This is then an explanation of the former sentence, by which
he proves that ignorance of sin, of which he had spoken, consisted in this — that he perceived not
his own coveting. And he designedly referred to this one kind of sin, in which hypocrisy especially
prevails, which has ever connected with itself supine self-indulgence and false assurance. For men
are never so destitute of judgment, but that they retain a distinction in external works; nay, they
are constrained even to condemn wicked counsels and sinister purposes: and this they cannot do,
without ascribing to a right object its own praise. But coveting is more hidden and lies deeper;
hence no account is made of it, as long as men judge according to their perceptions of what is
outward. He does not indeed boast that he was free from it; but he so flattered himself, that he did
not think that this sin was lurking in his heart. For though for a time he was deceived, and believed
not that righteousness would be violated by coveting, he yet, at length, understood that he was a
sinner, when he saw that coveting, from which no one is free, was prohibited by the law.
(^209) Perhaps the sentence ought to have been rendered, For lust (concupiscentiam) I had not known, except the law had said,
“Thou shalt not lust” (non concupisces.) Then the word “coveting” in the next verse should be “lust” (concupiscentiam.) But
“Thou shalt not covet,” is the commandment; and to retain a similarity of idea, for the lack of a more suitable word, it seems
necessary to have coveting, as covetousness has not the meaning here intended. There is the same correspondence in the words
in Greek as in Calvin’s Latin. The noun is rendered first in our version “lust,” and then “concupiscence;” and the same is done
by Doddridge; the “strong desire” of Macknight is by no means suitable; the “inordinate desire” of Stuart is better, though “Thou
shalt not lust” cannot be approved. By μ , desire, is meant the inward propensity that is sinful, It is called “sin” in the preceding
clause; and, according to the usual stage of the Apostle, to show what sin was intended, it is called here desire: it is then sin in
the wish, in the inclination or disposition within. And this very sinful desire the tenth commandment distinctly forbids. — Ed.
(^210) It was the saying of Ambrose, “Lex index peccati est, non genitrix — the law is the discoverer, not the begetter of sin.”
“The law,’ says Pareus, “prohibits sin; it is not then the cause of it: sin is made known by the law; it is not then by the law
produced.” — Ed.