A treatise of original sin ... proving that it is

But secondly, If the Apostle allege that command, Why doth he instance only in the sin forbidden, not mentioning the objects that are specified in the command, Thy neighbours Ox or his Ass, &c?

But secondly, If the Apostle alledge that command, Why doth he instance onely in the sinne forbidden, not mentioning the objects that are specified in the command, Thy neighbours Oxe or his Asse, &c?

The Answer is, that is not material, for the Apostle speaking of lusts in the heart, what latent and unknown sins they were without the light of the Law, it was enough to name the sin it self, seeing the objects about which they are conversant are of all sorts, and can hardly be numbered.

The Answer is, that is not material, for the Apostle speaking of lusts in the heart, what latent and unknown sins they were without the light of the Law, it was enough to name the sinne it self, seeing the objects about which they are conversant are of all sorts, and can hardly be numbred.

In the third place, It's doubted how the Apostle could say, that he did not know lust to be sin, but by the Law of Moses, seeing that by the very Law of nature, even Heathens have condemned inward lusts, and unjust thoughts and plots, though but in the soul, and never put into practice. Aquinas makes the meaning of it, as if Paul's sense was, He did not know lust to be sin, as it was an offence to God, and a dishonour to him, because the Law of Moses represents the sinfulness of these lusts in a more divine and dreadful way, then the Law of nature doth. Grotius maketh the sense thus, Paul did not know lust, but by Gods Law, because the Laws of men punish nothing but sinful actions, never at all meddling with the thoughts and purposes of the heart. Beza expounds the expression comparatively, I had not known lust to be sin, viz. so evidently, so fully, so unquestionably, as I did when I understood the Law. But the general Interpretation is, That the Apostle speaketh here of his thoughts and knowledge, while he was a Pharisee, and it's plain by our Saviours correcting of pharisaical glosses about the Law,