Click or tap any sentence to jump there. The side buttons skip a paragraph.
Finally, that I may not be too prolix, when the Apostle says in verse 21. that sin reigned unto death, is it likely that death is taken in another way than in the Apostle's preceding dispute, of which that verse is the conclusion?But surely in that verse it cannot signify that which is truly sin.Because verse 20 came before the law moreover entered, that sin might abound.But where sin abounded, there grace superabounded.For that reign of sin, this overflow of sin, embraces all that in a human which is truly sin, and it is clear from Rom. VI. and VII. that that sin which overflowed and reigned through the law is concupiscence, or hereditary corruption.
Latin
Denique, ut ne sim aequo prolixior, cum ait Apostolus vers. 21. regnasse peccatum in mortem, sitne verisimile alio modo accipi mortem, quam in antecedenti disputatione Apostoli, cuius versus ille conclusio est? At profecto eo versu id significare non potest, quod sit vere peccatum. Praecessit enim illud vers. 20. lex praeterea introiit, ut peccatum abundaret. ubi autem peccatum abundavit, ibi gratia superabundavit. Illud enim peccati regnum, haec peccati redundantia id omne in homine complectitur, quod vere peccatum sit, & liquet ex Rom. VI. & VII. id peccatum, quod per legem redundavit & regnavit, esse concupiscentiam, sive corruptionem haereditariam.