Selected quad for the lemma: work_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
work_n evil_a good_a tree_n 33,809 5 11.7409 5 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A93868 VindiciƦ fundamenti: or A threefold defence of the doctrine of original sin: together with some other fundamentals of salvation the first against the exceptions of Mr. Robert Everard in his book entituled, The creation and the fall of man. The second against the examiners of the late assemblies confession of faith. The third against the allegations of Dr. Jeremy Taylor, in his Unum necessarium, and two letter treatises of his. By Nathaniel Stephens minister of Fenny-Drayton in Leicestershire. Stephens, Nathaniel, 1606?-1678. 1658 (1658) Wing S5452; Thomason E940_1; ESTC R207546 207,183 256

There are 5 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

the holy One of Israel page 126. Sir I would intreat you not to make the doctrine of salvation odious by picking quarrels against words For we do not peremptorily define that there was no other way possible to save man unlesse Christ had stepped in we leave it onely to the Lord himself to judge of the several possibilities of the salvation of man This onely we affirme so far as it is revealed to us the present is the most excellent way to satisfie the justice of God and to shew abundant mercy And though you now as others before you go about to cast an hatred upon the doctrine of the Church in the points of the fall of Adam original sinne free-will and the like I must tell you if you and they would not tear those things asunder which should be joyned together if you would compare one thing with another you should find that there is nothing so deformed in the state of the first man but there is that in the second which will answer all But here is the misery you look upon the mystery of salvation in some broken pieces and parts onely and do not consider the whole compages or sum of the truth in one body We will now proceed to your next Chapter CHAP. XV. Whether Adams posterity were guilty of his transgression IN this Chapter you endeavour to make good the purity of nature and the freedome of all infants from original sin you do not as the Jesuites and Arminians extenuate the matter but after the manner of the ancient Pelagians you deny the sinne of the nature And here you do not go alone The Confession of faith lately set forth by the thirty separate Congregations doth not speak one word of this sin of the nature If we go to the beginning of their book where all other Chatechismes do shew the misery of man by nature they are altogether silent in the point of original sinne In the middle where they speak of the grace of Christ there is not one syllable concerning the grace that doth regenerate or purge out the sinne of the nature In the third and last part of the book when they come to duties after regeneration they speak nothing of the great work of the mortification of the Old man and the putting on of the New man but onely of dipping and baptizing Disciples and of the manner of living in their way of Church-membership And thus one great errour at the foundation doth in a manner overthrow the whole building of the Christian faith And this is the wofull state of the separate Congregations with us Neither are these Churches in so bad a condition but the Examinors and Censors of the late Confession of faith set forth by the Assembly of Divines these clancular Authours whosoever they be have further swarved from the truth ☜ For they in their late Examen do not onely maintain the purity of the natural birth but also have many other positions and damnable tenents I will therefore take the liberty to joyn all together And therefore Mr. Everard where you and they do agree one answer shall serve both and where they have any thing which you have not touched I shall begin with them as assoon as I have ended with you Before I come to answer your arguments let me put both you and them in mind of your sophystical dealing ☞ For neither you in your treatise nor they in their Examen do mention our chiefest argument drawn from Job 3. These are the words of our Saviour to Nicodemus Jesus answered and said unto him verily verily I say unto thee except a man be born again he cannot see the Kingdome of God Nicodemus saith unto him how can a man be born when he is old can he enter the second time into his mothers womb and be borne Jesus answered verily verily I say unto thee except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdome of God That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit Marvail not that I said unto thee you must be borne again verse 3.4 5 6 7. These words are most plain and significant to prove the impurity of the natural birth and the necessity of the new birth as every one that readeth may easily understand I do marvell then that you should overpasse this place in silence But let us now come to the meaning of the text to prove the necessity of Regeneration our Saviour doth use this medium that which is borne of flesh is flesh Because man is polluted in his natural birth therefore he needs have a new birth By flesh we do not understand that masse and lump of the body which we carry about us for in it there is neither good nor evil but our Lord Christ doth here intend the corruption of nature as it is opposed to the sanctifying work of the Spirit for so flesh and Spirit are commonly opposed in Scripture This may more particularly be seen in Rom. 8. in the beginning of the Chapter Therefore our Saviours argument is much in effect because the nature of man is defiled with original sinne from the very birth the remedy must be proportionable to the disease ☞ it is necessary that every one that shall enter into the Kingdome of heaven must be new born There be divers cause that do bring men to a habit of sinne and there are divers means to be used to break of such habits First men are brought to a custome in sinning by example and therefore the Word commands that we should turn away from such evil communications as will corrupt good manners Secondly men are brought to a habit in sinne by long custome which is as it were a second nature and therefore the Scripture speaks that we should break off such kind of customes by a kind of violence Thirdly men come to a practise of sinne by temptation as Achan saw the wedge of gold and the babylonish garment and coveted it and therefore the Scriptures do every where say that we should resist the temptations of the world the allurements of the flesh and to pray unto the Lord that he would not lead us into temptation These are in part the causes of the habit and practise of sin but they are not the original the principal cause that lies higher in the natural birth There is a necessity of Regeneration by the Spirit because all that are borne in the natural way are defiled with sinne They then who maintain the purity of the natural birth as the Examiners Mr. Everard and the separate Churches do overthrow the doctrine of the foundation of Christ Now Mr. Everard ☞ let us come to your arguments First you say we could not sinne in Adam our souls and bodies were not together in him and how we could commit sinne you know not therefore believe not page 127. But Sir if you would seriously consider
man onely this is sufficient that the first man is the root of all his branches and all that come of him were made sinners by him and the second man is the root of all his branches and all that are ingraffed into him are made righteous by him Secondly some of them that stand for the universal redemption do not plead an absolute or universal justification of all men by the obedience of the first man but onely plead for a general impretation or possibility of salvation which then onely comes to be applied when men believe and receive the promise by a lively faith Thus we have passed through all the arguments of the Examiners and we have seen their cavils against the several Scriptures alledged by us As for those similitudes of punishing the posterity of Traitors for the treason of their parents and the killing of the young vipers with the old by reason of their poysonous nature c. forasmuch as these are onely illustrations of the truth so all the pains which they take here is onely to cavil at illustrations Other passages they have of lesser moment which we have answered before onely they have one argument in the Chapter of free will from that place Isaiah 7.14 Before the child shall know to refuse the evil and chuse the good the land which thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her Kings Here they would have us observe two points First that though this place be commonly understood of our Saviour yet it is meant of the common state of man Secondly this child from his infancy according to the common state of mankinde should have the knowledge and ability to refuse the evil and choose the good From hence they do inferre that a natural man can both will and act according to his first integrity untill he disables and corrupts himselfe Further they stand upon it that a man hath a power to choose the good and to that purpose they cite the words of Moses Deuteronomie 30.19 I have set before you life and death blessing and cursing therefore choose life page 126 127 128. If they did well understand the meaning of these Scriptures they would not pervert them to so strange a sense For the Text in Isaiah we do acknowledge that the children in an ordinary way have a power to choose the good and to refuse the evil when they come to yeares of discretion But what kinde of good is here meant not that good which is spiritual or divine for this they cannot chuse without an inward work of the Spirit but that good onely which is moral and civil and this at yeares of discretion men are able to make choyce of And for the words of Moses I have set before you blessing and cursing therefore choose life c. To the clearing of this Let us distinguish First what he speaks of and Secondly the persons to whom he speaks First if by choosing the good be meant the true God in opposition to all the Heathen gods of the Gentiles here Moses speaks to the Israelites as to a people that had cleare evidences and convictions that there was no other God in all the world but theirs onely And therefore he doth exhort them to chuse the true God for their God Secondly if by choosing the good be meant the loving of the Lord their God with all their heart and with all their soule as it is implyed verse 10. then this word of command is given onely in relation to the word of promise verse 6. And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart and the heart of thy seed to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart and with all thy soul that thou mayest live In immediate relation to this promise Moses saith I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God to walk in his wayes and to keep his commandments that thou mayest live verse 16. So then we do conclude that the ability to choose the good is not from any natural power but from the grace of God and the word of promise Thus I have gone thorough all the reasons which are alledged either by Mr. Everard or the Examiners the late Patrones of the purity of natural birth If they have any thing more to say for this my desire is that they would shew their strength or else confesse their wicked errors and submit to the clear evidence of truth Now let us consider the several and respective arguments of Dr. Jeremy Taylor and what hath been lately said by him concerning the same subject The third Book containeth the Answer to several Arguments of Dr. Jeremy Taylor in his Vnum Necessarium and two smaller Treatises of his Forasmuch as this Learned man doth tread in the footsteps of our Antagonists and doth plead the same things against the Doctrine of original sinne as they have pleaded against us for certain years last past And seeing also that many are like to be taken with the purity and elegancy of his Style that probably are not able to judge of the foulenesse and impurity of his Doctrine We have thought it worth our labour to provide an antidote to secure the soules of men and if it may be possible in a peaceable and brotherly manner to reduce him from the evil of his opinions And so we come to the several Sections of the sixth Chapter in the treatise aforesaid SECT 1. Of Concupiscence and original sinne and whither or no and how far we are bound to repent of it ORIGINal sinne is so called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or figuratively meaning the sinne of Adam which was committed in the original of mankind by our first parent Answ We deny not but the sinne of Adam may be called the original or the first sinne because it was the first that was committed But then we must take heed that with our Authour we do not deny also the pollution and the corruption of the natural birth In so doing we must needs destroy regeneration or the new birth we must needs also evacuate the Baptisme of the Spirit so farre as it doth seal regeneration humiliation for the birth sinne will be a meere non ens and the mortification of the sinne of the nature will be a nullity In a word one of the chief ends of the Christian faith which is to put on the Christ-like disposition will be frustrated and greatly impaired For what need I to put on the new disposition as it is from Christ the root of all grace and spiritual life if there be no pravity and sinfulnesse of nature from Adam the root of corruption In Scripture the one is set forth as the immediate opposite to the other But he further sheweth This sinne brought upon Adam all that God threatned but no more a certainty of dying together with the proper effects and affections of mortality Answ Besides the affections of mortality and the certainty of dying this sinne also brought upon Adam the depravation of original righteousnesse
none have the guilt of Adams sinne but such onely that partake of his nature For in the next Chapter when the Apostle cometh to speak of sanctification he hath these words know ye not that our Old man is crucified with him that the body of sinne might be destroyed Rom. 6.6 By the old man he means the sinful disposition of the flesh derived from Adam the root of corruption So then the Scripture plainly doth shew that the opposition between both the Adams doth not onely stand in imputation of guilt but also in the propagation of the nature And it is a great wonder that any exception can be made against so plain a truth Thus I have passed through all the material objections and we have seen all of moment that can be said if it might be possible to take this Scripture out of our hands Now he comes to forme the state of the question to shew how farre he allowes original sinne and where he differs from us Because this is the foot of the work let him deliver himselfe in his own words Adams sinne saith he was punished by an expulsion out of Paradise in which was a tree appointed to be the cure of diseases and the conservatory of life There was no more told as done but this and its proper consequents He came into a land lesse blessed a land which bore thistles and bryars c. And then he addeth thus death came in not by any new sentence or change of nature for man was created mortal and if Adam had not sinned he should have been immortal by grace that is by the use of the tree of life and now being driven from the place where the tree grew was left in his own natural constitution that is to be sick and dye without that remedy And he further explaineth himselfe pag. 372. This evil which is the condition of all our natures viz. to dye was to some a punishment to others not so It was a punishment to all that sinned both before Moses and since upon the first it fell as a consequent of Gods anger upon Adam upon the latter it fell as a consequent of that anger threatned in Moses his law But to those that sinned not at all as infants and innocents it was meerly a condition of their nature and no more a punishment than to be a child is It was a punishment of Adams sin because by his sin humane nature came to be disrobed of their preternatural immortality and therefore upon that account they dye But as it is related to the persons it was not a punishment not an evil inflicted for their sake or any guiltinesse of their own properly so called And then going on he saith we finde nothing else in Scripture exprest to be the effect of Adams sin and beyond this without authority we must not go Turning his style against us he addeth other things are said but I finde no warrant for them in that sence as they are usually supposed and some of them in no sence at all Then he cometh to particularize The particulars saith he commonly reckoned are that from Adam we derive an original ignorance a pronenesse to sin a fomes or nest of sin imprinted and placed in our souls a losse of our wills liberty and nothing else left but a liberty to sin which liberty upon the summe of affaires is expounded a necessity to sin and the effect of all is we are borne heires of damnation These are the particulars which he excepts against and these he endeavours with all his might to oppugne we will go in the same method as he doth beginning with original ignorance he thus speaketh It is true saith he that we derive it from our Parents I meane we are borne with it but I do not know that any man thinks that if Adam had not sinned that sin Cain should have been wise as soon as his navel had been cut Answ We cannot so precisely determine what Adams children should have been in innocency because he did not continue so long to beget a child in that pure estate yet I think none may doubt had he begotten children in that estate he had conveied the same image of God the same knowledge respecting the kind of it that himselfe was created in And though in respect of actual knowledge Cain should not have been wise as soon as his navel was cut yet in respect of potential knowledge he should have been borne in a capacity and by degrees should have attained the same knowledge as Adam himselfe was created in But he further argues If he had so great knowledge saith he it is likely that he would not so cheaply have sold himselfe and all his hopes out of a greedy appetite to get some knowledge Answ The Apostle St. Jude tells us The Angels that left their first habitation are kept in chaines of darknesse to the judgement of the great day v. 6. Shall we say then because they did so cheaply leave their first habitation was there no such dignity or excellency in it The way of reasoning is one and the same in substance He goeth on The state of ignorance we do derive from Adam as we do our nature which is a state of ignorance and all manner of imperfection but whether it was not imperfect and apt to fall into forbidden instances we may best guesse it by the event Answ We may guesse by the event that he was made in a state from which he might fall but this doth no way hinder his being a spiritual man or that endowment of spiritual knowledge which he had before his fall First by his fall he did lose in his judgement he and all mankind did fall from faith to unbelief and hence it is that ever since for happinesse all men rely upon their own wit learning beauty strength friends riches nobility c. This plainly sheweth that Adam at the first was made in a state of dependance upon the true God which could not be but he must be endued with a great measure of spiritual knowledge and in his judgement at least he must discerne that excellency that is in God Further the Apostle speaketh ye have put on the new man which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him Col. 3.10 By knowledge he doth not point so much to that which is literal hystorical and textual but to that which is spiritual by which the Saints come to be cloathed with a new nature Secondly he saith is renewed which importeth the restitution of that knowledge that man once had but had lost by his fall In a sence therefore we may say that the knowledge of the Saint is a kinde of remembrance and that saying of Plato is not to much out of the way Thirdly is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him This plainly sheweth that in the old and the new creation a man is made after the image of God and this image doth
nature Infants are born in a sinful nature and do need the sanctification of the Spirit But he hath a passage out of Suidas when the Apostle saith you were by nature the children of wrath he means not that which is the usual signification of nature for then it were not their fault but the fault of him that made them such To which we rejoyn In men of ripe years it is both their fault that they do abide in the sinne of the nature and it is also the fault of Adam that did vitiate and deprave the nature at his fall That men do fulfill the lusts of the flesh and mind is their own voluntary act And though indeed and in truth it is not their personal fault that men are born in original sinne yet it is their fault that they fulfill the lusts of their nature and continue in that state at least that they do not use and hearken to those precursory motions and previous workings of the Spirit which the Lord doth administer to them at some seasons at least The end of all which is to bring them out of the evil of that state The first workes of the Spirit are to reprove to convince to accuse to terrifie men to humble them for their evil deeds that so they may come to Christ for pardon of their sin and for the healing of their nature But here they wilfully shut out the light will not see what they may and this will be the great condemnation Joh. 3.18 19 and 20 verses He goes on By nature the Apostle saith he means not by birth natural extraction or any other original derivation from Adam Rep. By the same reason he might argue that the Ephesians when they were quickned had not a new life by regeneration or spiritual extraction out of the second Adam which is immediatly opposed to the other as the counterpane or the other part of a deed In seeking to deny the misery by the first he must take away the happinesse grace and life that comes in by the second man But he gives his reason The Ephesians were no more guilty than every one else and no more before their conversion than after We say the same in effect and it is the force of our argument because all need a new life a new birth a new extraction out of the second Adam as well as the Ephesians therefore all are equally by nature the children of wrath and do partake of the sinne of the nature as well as they But whereas he addes that the Ephesians were no more guilty of this sinne before conversion than they were after in this he is monstrous absurd For after conversion the guilt of that sinne was done away and the power of it was broken by the inward work of the Spirit now he cannot say that this was done before their conversion He further addeth By nature the children of wrath must be expounded as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 really and truly the children of wrath it is agreeable to the usuage of the same phrase Galatians 4.8 Ye did service to them that by nature were no gods that is which really are none Repl. We may understand the meaning of the Apostle in this Scripture by comparing it with others God that made the world and all that is therein dwelleth not in Temples made with hands Acts 17.24 The invisible things of him are clearly seen from the creation of the world even his eternal power and Godhead Rom 1.20 So in the present case when the Galatians did service to those that by nature were not gods his meaning is no other but this they did service to them that had not the essence and the being of the Godhead As in a little case the nature of Birds Beasts and Fishes is taken for the essence and the being it self As in the expression of Saint James every kinde of Birds that is every nature of Birds Beasts and Fishes is tamed and hath been tamed by mankind or according to the original by the nature of man So in the present case when the Apostle saith that the Ephesians were by nature the children of wrath he doth not say onely that they were really and truly the children of wrath For so they might be by ill-custome when their nature was good as the water is really and truely hot though it be not naturally hot But his meaning is this that their very essence and being was sinful and that their corruption was in the very nature it self as they did derive out of Adam a common root The scope of the text doth plainly shew that this is the meaning the sinfulnesse of nature immediately opposed to that life spiritualnesse and new nature they had from the second Adam And whereas he saith as these Ephesians were before their conversion so were the Israclites in the dayes of their rebellion a wicked stubborne people insomuch that they are by the Prophet called children of transgression a seed of falshood All this doth confirme the truth of our interpretation he calleth them a seed of evil doers meaning that they were not onely sinners by custome and evil ensample but by propagation of the kind Let him grant this in the case of the Ephesians and the question is at an end This is all that he hath in his Vnum Necessarium Now let us consider what further he saith to this Scripture in his answer to the Bishops letter Here he tells us that these words do not at all relate to the matter of original but to the state of Heathens sinnes habitual Idolatries and impurities in which the world was dead before the great Reformation by Christ page 74. Repl. By this account when the Ephesians had a new life infused this was onely to cure them of their heathenish Idolatries and superstitions In which sense the Jewes free from such Idolatries needed no new life at all Besides how is it possible that the words are to be understood onely of heathenish Idolatries and impurities when the Apostle himself expressely saith among whom we all had our conversation Did he live in heathenish Idolatries before his conversion or was he an Idolater before his calling But seeing our Authour tells us how the Bishop did admonish him to remember how often the Apostle calleth concupiscence sinne we will urge the text a little more closely and consider what is the value of his answers To ground the businesse we argue thus If the Ephesians were accounted the children of wrath because they had their conversation in the lusts of the flesh by this reason then the flesh must needs be evil because it was evil to converse in those lusts Further to come to the point If the lusts of the flesh be evil it must be true in a sense that the flesh it self must be more evil because it is the very fountain from which the lusts do streame When he hath said all that he can when he hath accused the Ephesians of an evil
conversation of evil customes of evil acts of evil desires he must come to an evil nature that lies at the bottome and that which is worst of all he will find it to be the very root and cause of the the mischief The Apostle doth very elegantly call all lusts the works and effects of the flesh because they are the effects that the flesh doth produce in opposition to the effects and fruits of the Spirit Gal. 5.19 20 21. This ground being laid let us come to his exceptions as they follow in their order First saith he I know Saint Paul reckons concupiscence to be one of the works of the flesh and consequently such as excludes from heaven Col. 3.5 Evil concupiscence concupiscence with something superadded but certainly that is nothing that is natural for God made nothing that is evil and whatsoever is natural and necessary cannot be mortified Repl. That which is natural and necessary by creation we confesse cannot nor ought not to be mortified Of this kind is the lust after meat drink sleep c. but that which is natural and necessary by corruption ought chiefly to be mortified nay it is the prime work of Christianity to put off the Adam-like and by degrees to put on the Christ-like disposition Gal. 5.24 He proceedeth I come saith he to consider that by concupiscence either must be meant the first inclinations to their object or the proper acts of Election which are the second acts of concupiscence If the first inclinations be meant then certainly that cannot be a sinne which is natural and necessary Repl. We do willingly admit such a distinction concupiscence is sometime taken for the habit or the root it self and sometimes for those second acts that do flow from the root Now in such a case it is to me a great wonder that any should own the second acts of concupiscence to be sinne and yet own no sinfulnesse in the concupiscence that is more radical and fundamental Acts do flow from the nature and therefore where acts be bad the nature cannot be good It is our Saviours own argument Men do not gather grapes of thornes nor figs of thistles And whereas he stands upon this subtilty that the first inclinations are unavoidable therefore they are not sinful If he means that they are absolutely unavoidable this we deny For that which is unavoidable by nature may be avoided by grace The guilt of concupiscence may be taken away that it be not imputed the power of it may be broken by the Spirit and the remainders of it may be clean extinguished in the life of glory Now he proceedeth To desire that to which all men tend naturally is no more a sin than to desire to be happy is a sin Desire is no more a sin than joy or sorrow is Repl. If he speak of the natural tendency of desire as it is by creation We willingly subscribe and so it is no sinne to desire to eat drink or to long after an happy estate But if he speak of natural desires as they are now since the fall The desires of the flesh do wholly rend to evil The flesh lusteth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against the Spirit and the works of the flesh are manifest adultry fornication c. Gal. 5.18 c. He further argues Then there can be no reason told why it is more a sin to will evil than to understand it and how doth that which is moral differ from that which is natural For the understanding is first and primely moved by his object Rep. The Scripture doth testifie of the blindnesse of the minde and the perversity of the judgement as well as of the pravity of the will Not to go far for an instance the words of the text are plaine The Ephesians are said to be the children of wrath under this title and formality because they did fulfill the lusts of their minde or according to the original the wills of their cogitations and their reasonings They are tearmed the wills of the cogitation because the choise of the will and the disorder of that choise doth arise commonly from the blindnesse of judgement As for his question how doth that which is natural differ from that which is moral We need not trouble our selves in the businesse For the blindnesse of the judgement and the perversity of the will are natural and moral both They are natural so far forth as they come by propagation from the first root they are moral in respect of the anomy and irregularity as being contrary to the spiritual holy and pure law of God He goeth on I cannot but wonder saith he why men are pleased where-ever they finde the word concupiscence in the new Testament presently to dreame of original sinne and make that to be the summe total of it whereas concupiscence if it were the product of Adams fall is but one small part of it Rep. There is a double reason may be given as I conceive where men finde mention made of concupiscence they do thereby understand original sinne First because that sinne is commonly called by the title of concupiscence Secondly Those derivative concupiscences as I may so say which are by choice and election do all flow from the mother concupiscence and do exceedingly symbolize with her As in that famous passage of the Apostle Every man is drawn away with his own lust and enticed and lust when it hath conceived it bringeth forth sinne and sinne when it is finished bringeth forth death Jam. 1.14 15. By sinne he must needs meane the open act of sinne as it is in the publick view of man After this he speaks of finishing of sinne when men have filled the measure of their iniquity then death comes at last as the wages of sin Though this be so in the end yet at the first all sin is brooded in the lust of the heart All secondary acts of concupiscence do spring from the original concupiscence which is the cause of all Upon these grounds The sinful disposition of the nature may well passe under the name and notion of concupiscence because the operations within do chiefly consist in lusting and all the acts of sinne do flow from the lust of the heart within Concupiscence saith he is but one of the passions and in the utmost extension of the word it can be taken but for one halfe of the passions for not only all the passions of the concupiscible faculty can be a principle of sinne but the irascible doth more hurt in the world that is more sensual this more devilish pag. 94. Rep. It is true in moral Philosophy the usual distinction is into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 et 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the irascible and concupiscible faculty but what need is there of such a difference in the case that we now speak for the Apostle reckons up the lusts of the flesh adultery fornication uncleannesse hatred variance emulation c. Gal. 5.19 There is no man will