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

SECT. VIII.

A Consideration of this Concupiscence in reference to the four-fold Estate of man.

5. WE are to consider this concupiscence or concupiscibili'y (for we speak of the principle of lusting, not actual lusting) according to several states that man may be looked upon in: AS

5. VVE are to consider this concupiscence or concupiscibili'y (for we speak of the principle of lusting, not actual lusting) according to several states that man may be looked upon in: AS

First, There was his Natura instituta, his instituted nature at first, and that was right and holy; There was concupiscence and desiring of the several powers of his soul, but in a good and orderly way; It was not then as now, the Superiora did not turpiter servire inferioribus, or the inferiora contumaciter, rebel against the superior parts, as is to be showed in the next place; In Adam there was no concupiscence in this sense; The inferior parts, though they did desire a sensible object, yet it was wholly in subordination, and under the command of the superior. It's true indeed Eve did look upon the forbidden fruit, and saw it was good and pleasant, whereupon she was tempted to eat of it, but this did not arise from any original lust in her, but from the mutability of her will, being not confirmed in what was good: Even as we see the Angels before their Apostasy, had sinful desires in their will, through pride and affectation to be higher than they were, yet this did not arise from original lust in them. Although therefore both Socinians and some Papists, do acknowledge man made with such a repugnancy of the sensitive appetite to the rational; yea, the former making it to be in Christ himself, yet this is highly to dishonour God in the Creation of man: Oh happy and blessed estate, when there was such an universal harmony and due proportion in all the powers of the soul, but miserum est illud verbum snisse, may all mankind cry out in this particular.