adhere to their principles, the whole tendency of their discipline is evil. It nourishes pride, self-righteousness, formality, and false relio-ion. The Pharisees, in the judgment of Christ, with all their strictness of living and constant fasting, were further from the kino-dom of heaven than publicans and harlots.
5. On the assumption involved in this theory, the old should be o-ood. In them the lusts of the flesh become extinct. They lose the power to enjoy what pleases the eyes or pampers the tastes of the young. The world to them has lost its attractions. The body becomes a burden. It is in the state to which the youthful ascetic endeavours to reduce his corporeal frame by abstinence and aus- terity ; and yet the older the man, unless renewed by the grace of God, the worse the sinner. The soul is more dead, more insensible to all that is elevating and spiritual, and more completely alienated from God ; less grateful for his mercies, less afraid of his wrath, and less affected by all the manifestations of his glory and love. It is not the body, therefore, that is the cause of sin.
6. This theory is opposed to the doctrine of the Bible. The Scriptures do indeed refer a large class of sins to the sensual nature of man ; and they represent the flesh (or o-ap^) as the seat of sin and the source of all its manifestations in our present state. They moreover, use the word o-apKi/cd?, carnal^ as synonymous with cor- rupt or sinful. All this, however, does not prove that they teach that man's animal or sensuous nature is the seat and source of his sinfulness. All depends on the sense in which the sacred writers use the words o-apf and a-apKtKos as antithetical to Trvevfxa and 7rieu/xaT- tKos. According to one interpretation, (rdpi means the body with its animal life, its instincts and appetites. Or as Bretschneider defines it : ^ " Natura visibilis seu animalis tanquam appetituum naturalium fons et sedes, et quidem in malam partem, quatenus hsec natura animalis, legi divinae non adstricta, appetit contra legem, igiturque cupiditatum et peccatorum est mater." If such be the meaning of crdp^, then o-apKiKos means animal and i/^uxikos sen- suous. On the other hand, according to this view, Trpev/xa means reason, and -n-reu/xaTiKo?, the reasonable, that is, one governed by the reason. According to this view, the a-apKiKoC are those who are controlled by their senses and animal nature ; and the TrvevfiariKoi, those who are governed by their reason and higher powers. Ac- cording to the other interpretation of these terms, crdp^ means the fallen nature of man, his nature as it now is ; and TrvcS/xa the Holy Ghost. Then the a-apKiKoi are the unrenewed or natural men,
1 Lexicon in Novum Testamentum, sub voce.
144 PART n. ch. viii. — sm.
i. e., those destitute of the grace of God, and the Trvev/AariKoi, are those in whom the Holy Spirit dwells. It is of course admitted that the word crdp^ is often used in Scripture and especially in St. Paul's writings, for the body ; then for what is external and ritual; then for what is perishing. Mankind when designated as flesh are presented as earthly, feeble, and transient. Besides these common and admitted meanings of the word, it is also used in a moral sense. It designates man, or humanity, or human nature as apostate from God. The works of the flesh, therefore, are not merely sensual works, but sinful works, everything in man that is evil. Everything that is a manifestation of his nature as fallen, is included under the works of the flesh. Hence to this class are referred envy, malice, pride, and contentions ; as well as rioting and drunkenness, Gal. V. 19-21. To walk after the flesh ; to be carnally minded ; to be in the flesh, etc., etc. (see Rom. viii. 1-13), are all Scriptural modes of expressing the state, conduct, and life of the men of the world of every class. The meaning o^ flesh, however, as used in Paul's writ- ings, is most clearly determined by its antithesis to Spirit. That the TTvevfjia of which he speaks is the Holy Spirit, is abundantly clear. He calls it the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of God, the Spirit which is to quicken our mortal bodies ; which witnesses with our spirits that we are the children of God ; whose dwelling in be- lievers makes them the temple of God. The Trvi.vjxaTiKoi, or spirit- ual, are those in whom the Holy Spirit dwells as the controlling principle of their lives. The Scriptures, therefore, are directly op- posed to the theory which makes the body or the sensuous nature of man the source of sin, and its essence to consist in yielding to our appetites and worldly aflections, instead of obeying the reason and conscience.
The Theory that all Sin consists in Selfishness. There is another doctrine of the nature of sin which belongs to the philosophical, rather than to the theological theories on the sub- ject. It makes all sin to consist in selfishness. Selfishness is not to be confounded with self-love. The latter is a natural and orig- inal principle of our nature and of the nature of all sentient crea- tures, whether rational or irrational. Belonging to their original constitution, and necessary to their preservation and well-being, it cannot be sinful. It is simply the desire of happiness which is inseparable from the nature of a sentient being. Selfishness, there- fore, is not mere self-love, but the undue preference of our own happiness to the happiness or welfare of others. According to
§2.] PHILOSOPHICAL THEORIES. 14i:
some, this preference is of the nature of a desire or feeling ; ac- cording to others, it is of the nature of a purpose. In the latter view, all sin consists in the purpose to seek our own happiness rather than the general good, or happiness, as it is commonly expressed, of the universe. In either view, sin is the undue preference of ourselves.
This theory is founded on the following principles, or is an es- sential element in the following system of doctrine : (1.) Happi- ness is the greatest good. Whatever tends to promote the great- est amount of happiness is for that reason good, and whatever has the opposite tendency is evil. (2.) As happiness is the only and ultimate good, benevolence, or the disposition or purpose to pro- mote happiness, must be the essence and sum of virtue. (3.) As God is infinite. He must be infinitely benevolent, and therefore it must be his desire and purpose to produce the greatest possible amount of happiness. (4.) The universe being the work of God must be designed and adapted to secure that end, and is therefore the best possible world or system of things. (5.) As sin exists in the actual world, it must be the necessary means of the greatest good, and therefore it is consistent, as some say, with the holiness of God to permit and ordain its existence ; or, as others say, to cre- ate it. (6.) There is no more sin in the world than is necessary to secure the greatest happiness of the universe.
The first and most obvious objection to this whole theory has already been presented, namely, that it destroys the very idea of moral good. It confounds the right with the expedient. It thus contradicts the consciousness and intuitive judgments of the mind. It is intuitively true that the right is right in its own nature, inde- pendently of its tendency to promote happiness. To make holiness only a means to an end ; to exalt enjoyment above moral excellence, is not only a perversion and a degradation of the higher to the lower, but it is the utter destruction of the principle. This is a matter which, properly speaking, does not admit of proof. Axioms can- not be proved. They can only be affirmed. Should a man deny that sweet and bitter differ, it would be impossible to prove that there is a difference between them. We can only appeal to our own consciousness and affirm that we perceive the difference. And we can appeal to the testimony of all other men, who also affirm the same thing. But after all this is only an assertion of a fact first by the individual, and then by the mass of mankind. In like manner if any man says that there is no difference between the good and the expedient, that a thing is good simply because it ia