the instrument of righteousness, if they were properly used, and that he makes it depend on the person's will, or faculty of determining whether they should be employed this way or in sin. In this one respect the body was merely an unconscious instrument, subject to the use and direction of the mind.

At this stage it will be well to sum up what we have already ascertained of the apostle's real doctrine on the general subject: First, That the mind, the spirit of man, becomes itself corrupt; and, if common sense may be trusted, that here is the only seat of sin, in any sense that includes moral guilt, self-condemnation, remorse, repentance, &c. Second, That though an impulse towards sin is attributed to the body, yet the body may, nevertheless, be used to serve God, just as well as it may be used to transgress. And, third, That whether it shall be made to act for evil, or for good, depends not upon itself, but on the person, the moral agent, who determines the whole so far as respects the immediate cause. We think it will be seen at once, that this, the real meaning of St. Paul, is the same with that of the other inspired writers on the subject; and that he differs from them only in the manner of expressing it, by a more frequeut and extensive use of the term flesh as a metaphor.

We may now advance to another consideration. From the foregoing facts, it will be readily perceived, that whenever St. Paul speaks of the flesh, the body, or its members, as the seat of sin, he does not use those terms in their simple and proper sense, as denoting the physical constitution. He means something

be

else; say, the influence that is exerted on the mind by the bodily appetites and senses; or, which amounts to the same thing, the propensity of the person to submit to their control over the mind. This may be clearly exemplified by his language in many passages. Speaking of a vicious person in the Corinthian church, he advises "to deliver such an one unto Satan, for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may saved in the day of the Lord Jesus;" where it would be absurd to suppose it his meaning, to destroy the flesh literally; that is, to put the offender to death, or to maim him. It was, to correct the vicious habit and disposition he had formed, to make him break his mental thraldom to sensual gratification. Again: alluding to the unconverted state in which his brethren had formerly been, the apostle says, "When we were in the flesh, the motions (literally passions) of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death;" where he implies that, though still living in the body, they were no longer in what he here calls the flesh, that is, in a moral state of subjugation to the senses. So, then," he says, "they that are in the flesh cannot please God; but ye are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if so be that the spirit of God dwell in you," asserting what was implied in the former quotation, that while they were still in the flesh, literally speaking, they were not in the flesh as he uses the term. "And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin;" not, however, the physical body, for that would retain all its properties; but the affections prompted by it. "O wretched

man that I am," exclaims he, "who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" not that his wish was to die, to be delivered from this physical body; for this was to be employed in the service of God; and, moreover, he immediately adds, that the deliverance he sought was to be obtained "through the Lord Jesus Christ," or through faith in him. In all these cases, it is evident that, by the flesh, the body, its members, &c., he means the domination of the senses, in the mind, to the neglect of the spiritual development of our nature.

And now, as to the nature of that connection, which is thus recognised, between sin and the body, (using this latter term here in its proper signification) what is it when drawn out in detail, and stated in direct language? Evidently, nothing more than the following: The senses, so far as respects their outward organization, belong to the body; for without the body we should, of course, have no organs of seeing, hearing, tasting, &c., nor any animal feeling, whether of animal pleasure to entice us, or of animal® suffering to deter. These senses always lie in contact with the mind, with the will; and they communicate to it impulses, which must be either controlled or yielded to, by some exertion of the mental power. If we mistake not, it is these impulsive influences which St. Paul, in the passage referred to, calls the flesh, body, members, &c.; because, in most cases, at least, they proceed from the flesh. Up to this point, however, there is no sin in the case. But now, if the person voluntarily follows these impulses too far, or

neglects to restrain them within their proper limits, then sin begins, and not till then, - begins and continues in his will, or governing faculty. To walk according to these impulses is what St. Paul means by walking according to the flesh; to live in them is to live in the flesh, as he uses the term; to have our minds subjected to them is to be carnally or fleshly minded; to overcome their predominating influence is to destroy the body, or to crucify the flesh; the affections and acts in which they result, when not controlled, are the works of the flesh, in his language.

If we look back, it will be seen that the several views, which we have found so clearly presented in his general doctrine on the subject, do not admit of any closer connection than this, between the physical and moral elements of the case. He holds that the mind becomes corrupt, and needs to be renewed; that the body may be used in the service of God, or in sin, just accordingly as the mind is disposed; and whenever he speaks of the flesh, the body, or its members, as the agent of sin, the terms are highly metaphorical. The occasion of his using these terms in so remote a sense, was, probably, that they were suggested by some of the forms of Oriental philosophy, which prevailed among the learned, in his age and country. According to this, all evil was confined to matter, and all human sin to the flesh, simply as matter, which was supposed to be intrinsically corrupt, Nothing good could come of it, be it used in what way soever; and our duty, with respect to it, was, to macerate and mortify the body itself, instead of at

tempting the impracticable task of making it the instrument of righteousness. The apostle, however, was very far from adopting that doctrine, as we have seen, though he borrowed some of its phraseology. This it was natural that he should do, accustomed as he must have been to hear its language employed on such subjects, in the circle in which he moved.

A question may arise, whether, as matter of fact, every species of sin is necessarily connected with the physical body, either in this way or in any other. Many kinds of sin are, indeed, obviously so connected, at least in the outward form in which they are manifested; while they still have their ultimate ground in some infirmity of the moral nature. Such are intemperance and all excessive indulgence of the corporeal appetites; and it is worthy of remark, that these are represented as sins of the flesh, lusts of the flesh, &c., by other inspired writers, as well as by St. Paul, and indeed by mankind in all ages. Then, there are the sins of overweening devotion to worldly objects, as the means of gratifying our senses; and these may be brought into a remoter connection of the same kind. But it would be difficult, perhaps, to trace out any such relation, in the case of certain other sins, that lie deep in the human mind. What part, for instance, does the body appear to have in prompting the feelings, say, of pride, envy, selfishness, irreverence, &c.? We will not deny that, in some way unknown, it may have an influence to excite them; but, so far as we can see, they affect the individual only as a conscious, intelligent being, in his relations