From  this  review  of  the  passages  it  seems  evident  to
me  that  no  definition  of  the  adp^  can  be  given  which  will
be  equally  applicable  to  all  the  uses  which  Paul  makes  of
that  word.  Primarily,  trdp^  is  the  material  of  the  body,
generally  considered  as  a  seat  of  impulses  which  become
motives  to  sin,  but  sometimes  as  a  symbol  of  creaturely
weakness.     But  moral  weakness  implies  a  positive  per-


FLESH  AND  SPIRIT  347

version,  and  sensuous  appetites  and  passions  enter  into
natural  alliance  with  sins  of  disposition,  and'  thus  a-dp(
easily  becomes  a  synonym  for  the  lower  nature  in  general,
in  contrast  to  the  better  self,  the  conscience  or  moral  and
religious  nature.  Paul  uses  these  terms  popularly  and
for  practical  purposes,  and  without  any  thought  of  making
precise  psychological  distinctions.  The  main  points  are
that  Paul  distinguishes  sin  from  the  flesh  and  from  the
organism  which  is  composed  of  flesh,  the  body.  Evil  is
not  traced  to  a  sensuous  origin,  although  it  is  extended
and  intensified  by  its  connection  with  sensuous  appetites
and  passions.  His  references  to  the  flesh  are  made  not
from  speculative  motives,  but  on  the  basis  of  experience.
Their  import  is  not  metaphysical  but  ethical.
In  the  light  of  these  considerations  we  see  to  what  extent
they  are  right  who  suppose  a-dp^  to  be  used  in  a  neutral
sense.  Metaphysically  considered,  the  flesh  is  neutral;
empirically  considered  it  is  sinful.  Matter  as  such  is  not
evil,  nor  is  it  the  source  of  evil;  but  the  body,  as  ani-
mated by  a  soul  capable  of  feelings  and  appetites,  is  a
source  of  temptation  and  a  seat  of  evil.  But  since  by  a
perversion  of  will  sin  entered  the  world,  it  has  made  the
body  its  slave,  and  has  subjected  it  to  vanity  and  corrup-
tion.
