Exposition

That this commandment, which has respect to lust, or concupiscence, is one and not two, is evident:

1. From the fact that Moses repeats it in a different order in Ex. 20 1-17, and Deut. 5:21, as we have already shown.

2. From the fact that Moses comprehends it in one verse in both of the places to which we have just referred.

3. From the interpretation of Paul, who comprises in one commandment! all that Moses says in relation to this subject, when he says, “I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” (Rom. 7:7.)

4. From the fact that the Papists and others are accustomed, in their expositions of this part of the Decalogue, to join together the coveting of our neighbor’s house and wife; because they, without doubt, perceived that the coveting of our neighbor’s wife, house, and all other things which be long to our neighbor, are here forbidden, for one and the same reason. It follows therefore, either that there is but one precept touching concupiscence, or that there must be as many commandments enumerated, as there are things belonging to our neighbor which we are forbidden to covet.

5. From the authority of the best ancient writers, both among the Jews and Christians, to whom we have referred in our remarks upon the division of the Decalogue.

The design and end of this commandment is the internal obedience and regulation of all our affections towards God, and our neighbor and his goods, which must also be included in all the other commandments. Should some one object and say, Therefore this commandment is superfluous, Inasmuch as it requires nothing new, or which has not been expressed in the foregoing precepts; we reply, that it is not superfluous, seeing that it is added to the other commandments, as a general rule and interpretation, according to which the internal obedience of all the other commandments must be understood, because this is spoken of the whole Decalogue generally. This commandment, therefore, enjoins original righteousness towards God and our neighbor, which consists in a true knowledge of God in the mind, with an inclination in the will to obey the will of God as known. It also forbids concupiscence, which is an inordinate desire or corrupt inclination, coveting those things which God has forbidden. It properly, however, commands original righteousness towards our neighbor, which is a desire and inclination to perform towards our neighbor all the duties which are required from us, and to preserve and defend his safety.

There are two extremes of this original righteousness here forbidden:

1. Original sin towards our neighbor, which is called concupiscence, which consists in desiring and wishing those things, which would be an injury to our neighbor;

2. An inordinate love of our neighbor, which leads to the neglect of God for his sake. There are some who hold that concupiscence and original sin are one and the same thing; but they differ in the same way in which an effect differs from a cause, or as a part of a thing differs from the whole. Concupiscence is a propensity to those things which are prohibited by the divine law. Original sin is the state of condemnation in which the whole human race has become involved by the fall, and a want of the knowledge and will of God.

We must here observe, that not only are corrupt and disordered inclinations sins, but that thinking of evil, in as far as it is connected with an inclination and propensity to pursue it, or with a desire to practice it, is sin. Concupiscence, although it is without doubt born in us, is both an evil and sin; for we are not to judge according to nature, but according to the law whether a thing be sin or not. Whatever is opposed to the law is sin, whether it be born in us, or not.

The Pelagians denied that concupiscence is sin. The law, on the contrary, declares, Thou shalt not covet. And Paul says, “I had not known sin, but by the law; for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” (Rom. 7:7.) The Pelagians were condemned in many councils, which were called together on account of the errors of Pelagius and Celestius, about the year of our Lord 420, and subsequently.