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

Another Question of greater consequence is, What is meant by lust? Thou shalt not covet, for the word [Greek or Hebrew], though in Exod. 20. there be the same Hebrew word [Greek or Hebrew] yet Deut. 5. 21. There is another Hebrew expression, which is [Greek or Hebrew], which because in Hithpael, and so of a reciprocal signification, they translate fecit see concupiscere, to stir up a mans self to desire, and thereby say, such lusts are only forbidden that a man nourisheth, and yields himself up ⟨p. 156⟩unto, but that rule is not a general one, see Prov. 23. 3. Some limit this Commandment too much, as it did only command contentation of spirit, and that we should not sinfully desire, that which others have. But the Apostle doth plainly extend it further than so. The Papists they likewise limit it too much, making only those lusts and motions of sin, which we consent to to be forbidden, denying that those motions to evil, which arise antecedently to our reason and will, to be truly sins; hence is their Rule concerning them, Non sensus, but consensus is that which doth damn, which in a good sense, we also will acknowledge to be true. But we are not to limit Scripture, where it hath not limited it self, and therefore we conclude, That the command doth forbid a threefold concupiscence or lust.

Another Question of greater consequence is, What is meant by lust? Thou shalt not covet, for the word 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, though in Exod. 20. there be the same Hebrew word 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 yet Deut. 5. 21. There is another Hebrew expression, which is 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, which because in Hithpael, and so of a reciprocal signification, they translate fecit se concupiscere, to stirre up a mans self to desire, and thereby say, such lusts are only forbidden that a man nourisheth, and yeelds himself up