not, it bears no resemblance to those animal properties of our nature by which we are exposed to temptation. What then is it but a curse-a curse on children for the sin of parents?

It is impossible for me to see how the New Haven brethren can reconcile their two hypotheses. On due reflection, one or the other will, I think, be abandoned by writers of so much discernment. And on no theory of a nature wholly sinful, which I have ever seen, can I perceive the least ground for maintaining the hypothesis that sin is an evil incident to the best possible plan of divine government.

It may probably be objected against me, that my first publication was on the origin of evil; and that, in some particulars, my views and reasonings are now different from what they were in early life. In reply I may say, that all my publications were written according to the light I possessed at the time of writing. Nearly half a century has elapsed since my first publication. The most of the intervening time has been employed by me in ardent inquiries after truth; and I do not think it very wonderful that at the age of seventy-four, I should see cause to dissent from some of the opinions which I entertained at the age of twenty-five.

When I first wrote on the origin of evil, I did not perceive how it could have existence under the government of God, unless it was admitted as a necessary means of the greatest good. It did not then occur to me that sin might be an evil incident to the best form of government, and not a necessary means of good. Having been educated in the belief of an hereditary sinful nature, I had then no other way of

accounting for man's liability to sin. At that period it was foreign from my conceptions that men are rendered liable to sin by the favors they receive from the hand of their Maker.

But the existence of moral evil under divine government, in any view of the subject which has yet been presented, may give rise to questions which the most discerning minds will find it difficult to answer. This circumstance may well excite in every writer both caution and candor-caution, lest he be too self-confident in asserting his own opinions; and candor towards such as, dissent from his views, lest he be found guilty of censuring opinions more correct than his own, and men more humble than himself. While on the verge of the grave, possessing some opinions very different from those in which I was educated, it affords me much comfort to reflect, that, on whatever side I may have been in the theological controversies, which have occurred in the different periods of my life, God has continually given me such a sense of my own liability to err, that I have never been disposed to ascribe it to wickedness of heart, that others dissented from my views. This has been one of the innumerable favors which God has granted me during a long life, a favor too for which I hope I never shall cease to be thankful.

1

NO. IV.

Paul's Philosophy of the Flesh and the Mind.

Towards the close of Chapter V. I quoted some passages from the writings of the apostles to show their accordance with the views I have adopted of man's liability to sin. The subject, however, deserves a more distinct illustration. I shall therefore exhibit what appear to me to have been the views of Paul. He has said much more relating to "the flesh and the spirit," or mind of man, than any other of the sacred writers.

The word flesh is used in the scriptures in various senses; but when it is contrasted with the mind of man it seems to denote the animal properties of human nature-the appetites, propensities, and passions. These, if I mistake not, are by Paul represented as the principal sources of temptation or liability to sin.

It may here be proper to remark, that in some instances Paul uses the word spirit in contrast with the flesh, in such a connexion and such a manner as to render it doubtful whether it is the Spirit of God or the spirit of man, of which he is speaking. But there are other instances in which it is clear that it is the "mind" or 66 spirit" of man, which he contrasts with the flesh. It is, however, a truth that those lusts or desires of "the flesh" which " war against the soul," or the spirit of man, at the same time and in the same sense war against the Spirit of God, which dictates to us the path of duty.

The distinction between the flesh and the mind was so great in the view of Paul, that in several instances he speaks of them as two persons or two men, united, and one in the other. The flesh or animal part he denominated the "outward man.' The mind or spiritual part he called the "inner," or inward man." The following passages may show that in the view of this apostle, the animal desires or lusts of the flesh are what expose us to temptation, and render us liable to sin.

"For the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary the one to the other, so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.' Gal. v. 17.

"For I know that in me

dwelleth no good thing."

that is in my flesh,

"I find a law that when "For

I would do good, evil is present with me."

I delight in the law of God after the inward man; but I see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members." "So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin." Rom. vii. 18, 21, 22, 23, 25.

"Let not sin reign in your mortal bodies that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof." Rom. vi. 12. "There is now no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit.' Rom. viii. 1.

They that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its affections and lusts." Gal. v. 24.

"I keep under my body and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, after I have preached

unto others I myself should be a castaway." 1 Cor. ix. 27.

Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth, fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry. Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds, and have put on the new man which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him." Col. iii. 5, 9, 10.

man

If I mistake not, these passages clearly suggest the following ideas: That the "mind" or "inward " is not of a sinful nature, but is very liable to be ensnared, overcome, and brought into captivity by our animal or fleshly propensities or desires;that these animal desires are to us, as they were to our first parents, the occasion of temptation, or liability to sin-in other words, it is by these fleshly propensities principally, that we are exposed to temptation and moral evil;-that our animal part is the self to be denied in taking up the cross to follow Christ; - that regeneration, reformation, conversion, or obedience to the gospel, implies the crucifying of the flesh with its affections, or passions, and lusts; that it behooves Christians to be on the watch, and to keep under the body, and bring it into subjection, lest they become ensnared and ruined by yielding to the inordinate desires of the flesh.

appears to

The same thing our animal nature be intended by Paul in these passages, by each of the following terms or phrases" the body ". "the flesh " "the outward man," and "the old