A17643:500
Commentary upon the Epistle to the Romans
A commentary upon the Epistle of Saint Paul to the Romans, written in Latin by M. John Calvin, and newly translated into English by Christopher Rosdell preacher. Whereunto is added a necessary table for the better and more ready finding out of certain principal matters contained in this workA commentarie vpon the Epistle of Saint Paul to the Romanes, written in Latine by M. Iohn Caluin, and newely translated into Englishe by Christopher Rosdell preacher. Whereunto is added a necessarie table for the better and more readie finding out of certayne principall matters conteyned in this worke
London: printed by Thomas Dawson for John Harison and George Bishop, 1583London: printed by Thomas Dawson for Iohn Harison and George Bishop, 1583
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
7 What shall we say then? Because it was said, we must be delivered from the law, that we might serve God in the newness of spirit, this fault did seem to be in the law, as though it did drive us unto sin. But, seeing that is very absurd, the Apostle did very well to take in hand to refute it. When he demandeth therefore, whether the law be sin, his meaning is, whether it beget sin so, that the fault thereof ought to be imputed to the law.1 But I knew not sin. Then doth sin abide in us, and not in the law: because the cause of sin is the wicked concupiscence of our flesh, & we come into the knowledge thereof by the knowledge of the righteousness of God, which is declared unto us in the law. But you are not to understand it, as though there were no difference at all between right & wrong without the law. But ye either we are too blind in seeing our corruption, or else whiles we flatter our selves, we are altogether secure: as also it followeth. For I had not known concupiscence. This is therefore a declaration of the former sentence: wherein he showeth that that ignorance of sin whereof he spake, did stand in this, that men marked not their concupiscence.
7 What shall wee say then? Because it was saide, wee must be deliuered from the lawe, that we might serue God in the newnesse of spirit, this fault did seeme to be in the law, as though it did driue vs vnto sinne. But, seeing that is very absurd, the Apostle did very well to take in hand to refute it. When hee demaundeth therfore, whether the law be sin, his meaning is, whether it beget sin so, that the fault thereof ought to bee imputed to the law.1 But I knew not sin. Then doth sinne abide in vs, and not in the law: because ye cause of sin is ye wicked cōcupiscence of our flesh, & we come into ye knowledge therof by ye knowledge of ye righteousnes of God, which is declared vnto vs in the law. But you are not to vnderstād it, as though there were no difference at al betweene righte & wrong without the law. But ye either we are too blinde in seeing our corruption, or els whiles wee flatter our selues, wee are altogether secure: as also it followeth. For I had not knowen concupiscence. This is therefore a declaration of the former sentence: wherein he sheweth that that ignoraunce of sinne whereof hee spake, did stande in this, that men marked not their concupiscence.