the soul, spirit, and mind signify one and the same thing. Now we have already seen that you admit that all sin arises from the evil intention of the mind or soul. How then can you pretend that all sin arises from the flesh, and that the soul is immortally pure, and at the 'same time insist that the evil intention of the soul alone produces every vicious act? You tell us that the soul is immortally pure, and then tell us in the very next breath, that "the powerful vibrations of the fleshly nature immediately absorbed his mind, (that is, his soul) he sought to the carnal man for food, eat and died."t Again you say, "When the creature-like nature leads the whole man captive, it is then that the soul is in a state of unreconciliation and death; but when the heavenly child whispers heavenly invitations to the soul, the soul immediately ceases to confer with flesh and blood." You say the mind is the soul, and yet you say again and again, that the carnal mind is the source of all evil, and constitutes the devil.§ Thus, Sir, does the soul of man, which you represent immortally pure, become, according to your own acknowledgment, absorbed by the flesh; nay, it confers with the flesh, becomes unreconciled and dead, is the source of all evil, and constitutes the devil!! It is rare that we find a gentleman of your talents and reputation as an author, contending thus warmly both for and against the same proposition. I am almost tempted to distrust my own senses, while examining what you have said upon the subject. At one time all sin arises from the body, at another from the mind, and then from ignorance; at one time the soul is always pure, at another it confers with the flesh; now it is heavenly, and then constitutes the devil. These adverse statements, and the distinction between the creation and formation of man, constitute a leading Aton. L + Ib. p. 33. feature in your "Treatise on Atonement;" a work which has been highly complimented, and pronounced an "excellent and unanswerable work."* We will now inquire whether the scriptures countenance the sentiment that all sin originates in the flesh. St. Paul exhorts his followers to put on the whole armor of God; "for," says he, "we wrestle not against flesh and blood; but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." In this passage the apostle represents spiritual wickedness as the most powerful foe to which man is exposed, and flesh and blood the most feeble. He exhorts us to put on the whole armor of God, and then assigns the reason why we must take to ourselves this powerful armor. For, that is, because we wrestle not against flesh and blood, those weak and feeble enemies, but against spiritual wickedness, that most potent of all foes. In this passage St. Paul represents spiritual wickedness as vastly more dangerous than flesh and blood united. Again, the apostle speaks of our walking in wickedness, "fulfiling the desires of the flesh, and of the mind."‡ To the Corinthians the apostle speaks of spiritual corruption. He exhorts them to cleanse themselves from all "filthiness of the flesh and spirit."§ In these passages, does the apostle teach your doctrine, that all sin arises from the flesh? He does not; he speaks of spiritual corruption, and the lusts of the mind; nay, he represents spiritual wickedness, as the greatest enemy to virtue and happiness. St. Paul to the Romans speaks of the lusts of the flesh. But we have already seen that the same apostle frequently speaks of spiritual wickedness, filthiness of the spirit, and lusts of the mind. From these * See Kneeland's Lectures, pp. 71, 96. + Eph. vi. 11, 12. 2 Cor. vii. 1. Eph. ii. 3. passages it is clear that he believed in the soul or spirit's being corrupted. And can we suppose that the apostle has taught elsewhere, that all sin is confined to the flesh, in contradiction of what he has said in these passages ? Besides, in the seventh and eighth chapters to the Romans, a portion of scripture on which you rely in no small degree to support your hypothesis, the apostle explains what he calls the flesh to signify the carnal mind. In chapter viii. verses 5, 6, 7, 8, the apostle says, "For they that are after the flesh, do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the spirit, the things of the spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnally mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. they that are in the flesh cannot please God." Here it is manifest that by the flesh, St. Paul means the carnal mind. He says "they that are in the flesh cannot please God." But how does he support this position? He infers it from the statement he had already made, viz. "the carnal mind is enmity against God." The apostle's argument therefore is this ;-they that are in the flesh cannot please God, because the carnal mind is enmity against God. Now unless we admit that the apostle by the flesh meant a wicked and depraved mind, we destroy the whole force of his argument, and make him reason very inconclusively. Thus does the apostle ascribe all sinfulness, not to literal flesh and blood, but to an evil disposition, or corrupt mind. So then St. James says, "Every man is tempted, when he is drawn away with his own lusts and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death."* Though you quote this passage to support your favorite hypothesis,t + Lect. p. 73. * James i. 14, 15. nothing can be more foreign to your purpose. Two considerations clearly show that the passage does not favor your views. 1. The Apostle says we are tempted by lusts. But he does not say that these lusts are the lusts of the flesh. We have already seen that the sacred writers speak of the lusts of the mind, or spirit, as well as Justs of the flesh; and I have the same authority to say that these lusts are the lusts of the soul, that you have to say they are the lusts of the body. 2. But if it could be proved that the lusts alluded to, are the lusts of the body, it would not yield you that assistance you want. We have already seen that lust or temptation, self-considered, is not vicious. A man may be tempted, as Christ was, and still be innocent. The passage says, "lust, when it hath conceived, bringeth forth sin." Here we learn that lust does not bring forth sin till after conception, i. e. the mind must assent and unite with the temptation, before any evil act can be performed. It is the assent of the mind, therefore which produces the sinful action. Were it not for the assent, or rather suggestion of the mind, men might be tempted, and this, instead of rendering them criminal, would confirm their virtue. Hence the Apostle says in the context, "Blessed is the man that endureth temptation." Thus does St. James confirm the views I have advanced relative to the source of sin. But it matters not where sin originates; if the soul participates and becomes an accomplice with the body, as you have acknowledged again and again, it is sinful; it is corrupt, and the dissolution of the body can render it neither holy nor happy. It is a maxim of truth, that the partaker is as bad as the thief. And if the soul acquiesces and becomes an accomplice with the body, it is as culpable as though sin originated in the soul itself. So if it could be proved that all sin originates in the flesh, it would not afford you any relief. But we do not feel constrained to make this concession. For we have alrealy seen that this notion is destitute of scripture or reason for its support; that it involves many difficulties, and is acknowledged by yourself to be unfounded. To expose your system still further, we will for a moment admit it to be true. But if the soul is always pure, and if the destruction of this earthly house exempts the soul from suffering, then salvation consists simply in throwing off the body. This you state as an article of your faith. "God has revealed his divine and glorious purpose of bringing man back from his formed state, and under the law of the earthly Adam, to his original created state, forever to be under the governing power of the law of the heavenly constitution."* Here then we see in what your salvation consists. It consists in bringing men back from what you call their formed state, to their created state. And how is this to be effected? Only by the death of the body. But where, I demand, are we told in the scriptures, that this is the salvation Christ came to effect? Can any such passage be produced? I say there cannot. It ought also to be remarked that no man can be saved by Jesus Christ. Our Savior when on earth did not effect a complete salvation in any one. Even his own disciples, with whom he associated about three years, were not saved by him. Salvation you assert consists in being brought back from the formed state. Now on your system, the body owes its existence to the formation of man; and in order to bring man from this formed state, this body must be destroyed. Now inasmuch as Jesus never did, nor never will destroy men's lives, he can never be their Savior. He says himself that the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. In this passage it is expressly said that Christ did not come to destroy men's lives. + Luke ix. 5, 6. Aton. p. 141. |