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." 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

Here it

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 lusts 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 already 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.

This, according to your system, must mean that he did not come to save men; for we have already seen that no man can be fully saved without destroying the body. I do not intend to misrepresent your views. I will therefore admit that on your plan Jesus Christ may do something towards effecting the salvation of some; those who hearken to his instruction in this world, may derive some good from his gospel; but still they are not completely saved by Christ. As all sin originates in the earthly formed nature, which is the body, so the most effectual and the principal means of deliverance from sin, is to destroy this earthly body. Complete salvation therefore cannot be effected without the destruction of the body. So Christ cannot be a complete Savior to those who hearken to his instruction in this world. And as it regards those who never hear of his gospel, or obey its requirements in this world, they are not saved by Christ at all. Since on your system all men are in a degree saved by death, and the salvation of most men is effected wholly by the dissolution of the human body, the declaration of Jesus that he came not to destroy men's lives, amounts to a plain declaration that he did not come into the world to save sinners! If salvation is effected by the death of the body, then Alexander, Cæsar, or Napoleon, might be called Saviors with much more propriety than Jesus; for they have slaughtered, (i. e. “brought back to their created state," millions of human beings, but Jesus never slaughtered one.

You assert that as all sin originates in the flesh, so when the body is destroyed, there can be no more sin, and consequently no more suffering. Now the whole strength of this argument rests upon the principle, that all sin originates in the flesh-a principle which is by no means admitted, and which ought not to be assumed without proof. Besides, we have already attempted the con

futation of that position, how successfully is submitted to the reader. But if what has been offered in opposition to that doctrine be valid, this argument has been already refuted. But we will admit it true, and then notice some of the consequences. Now it requires no superior discernment to discover that in this method of salvation, Christ has no agency. If men are exempted from suffering necessarily from the dissolution of the body, if death translates them to a state, where pain is excluded of necessity, and happiness must be their portion, they are saved not by Christ, but by death. It is the immutable law of animal nature, that every thing which comes into the world, must suffer dissolution, and return to its kindred dust; and in the operation of this law of nature, Christ has no more agency than he has in the revolution of the earth upon her axis. If Christ exercises a saving power in the dissolution of the animal frame, then he is the Savior of the human, no more than of the brute creation. In what sense, I demand, is Christ the Savior of the heathen on your system? He does not save them in this world, for they never hear of him; he does not save them in the next, for death places them beyond the reach of pain, and brings them to the fruition of glory. They are saved by death, i. e. by a physical law of their nature; and if Christ had never made his appearance, their situation would have been precisely the same that it now is. I need not inform you that all who are saved, are saved by Jesus Christ, while the Scriptures expressly assure us that there is no other name than that of Christ, whereby we can be saved, and that there is salvation in no other.

Now on your scheme, instead of all men's being saved by Christ, he is the Savior of but a part of mankind. Were you a believer in the Vicarious Atonement, you might in some degree extricate yourself from this dileinma; but with your present belief you are destitute of