The Human Spirit Limited by the Human Body

Early in this discussion we said, Man has a body but he is a. spirit. We have now reached a point in the argument where it becomes necessary to ofet some understandincr of the hindrances which die physical constitution of man throws in the way of his spiritual progress. It is too obvious that the body and the spirit seldom act in common and happy consent; yet it is supremely difficult to say which is right and which is wrong in any strife that may arise between them. The spirit may seek release from some of its highest obligations by an unjust reproach of the body, and the body may complain of the ignoble and mischievous uses to which it is put by the spirit. So there is a war in every man, a war which enfeebles and, probably, vitiates the whole nature. What, then, is the reality of the case, in the light of scriptural evidence as interpreted by human consciousness and experience? It is quite certain that the body does limit the capacities and functions of the spirit. Taking human life as a whole, and having regard to infancy, disease, sleep, and occasional prostration, it is more than probable

Human Spirit limited by the Human Buay 1 79

that half the time of the spirit Is engrossed by the body. When, therefore, seventy years are spoken of as the limit of human life, the body must be regarded as having decidedly the larger share of the lease, and from this very circumstance the body must charge itself with great influence and responsibility. The spirit may wish to work all the- twenty-four hours of the day, but it must deny itself that the body may have needful rest. In like manner, the spirit may desire to free itself of the limitations of time and space as known to us, and to penetrate with reverent boldness into thino-s that are hidden from sense; but the body detains it here .with a vulgar force which chafes and humbles the soul. Fierce passions thrill along every nerve; unholy appetites madden the senses; the very blood seems to be set on fire of hell; the question is, whether in the midst of such excitements the spirit is sitting in its hidden place like an injured angel, mourning the corruption and waywardness of its companion, or whether with subtle, though unexpressed consent, it is not really the cause of the riotousness which it affects to deplore? It would certainly be most convenient if we could at once set down the criminal side of life to the credit of our untamable flesh; but would it be just? Can spiritual discipline be so perfected as actually to silbdue and even sanctify the flesh? Or, after all that is possible to spiritual discipline, will there remain a fleshly despotism which can only be destroyed by death Itself? These questions are discussed by St. Paul in the most candid and fearless manner, especially in a very graphic passage in his Epistle to the Romans. The seventh chapter of that epistle presents a very complete summary of the strenuous contention in which all earnest men are engaged; it is a universal spiritual biography; the aposde therein showing that when any true man speaks distinctly the innermost secret of his spiritual experience, he becomes a citizen of the world and an interpreter of human nature in its totality. Let us look carefully at the minute and persistent analysis: —

‘’ I had not knozvn sin, hut by the lazu; for I had not knozvn Inst, except the law had said, Thou shall not covet r The sudden change to the first person singular which takes place here (ch. vii. ver. 7) gives very keen interest to the statement, taking the question, as it does, out of the region of mere speculation, and investing it with all the vividness of actual experience. But what is it that does “covet “? Is this “desire” a bodily or a spiritual act? An answer seems to be furnished by the fifth verse: “For when we were in the flesh, the motions (incitements) of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.” And yet this is hardly an answer, for are we not “in the flesh” still? The meaniilg may be that though we are “in the flesh” we arc no longer under its dominion, but arc conscious of a

Human Spirit limited by the Human Body. 18 1

new and better mastery, that is to say, the control of a spiritual director. Human life is begun in an animal condition. The animal has, so to speak, the first chance upon human destiny. Possibly the animal nature may never be subdued; the spiritual kingxlom may never supersede the fleshly dominion; and consequently the man will always be “in the flesh,” and will always be victimised and befooled by the importunity of sinful incitements. How is the animal tendency in human nature to be assailed? By a spiritual law. The law may not succeed, still there it is, as a new fact in life, bringing with it new chances and new responsibilities. Whilst the lower nature is seeking nothing beyond its own gratification, it suddenly encounters opposition in the form of a law which authoritatively says, “Thou shall not covet!’ At once the flesh has to adjust itself to this definition of liberty; that is to say, the flesh must set itself in a distinct relation to it, a relation of acquiescence, or of open and violent disregard. The apostle accepted the former position, and therefore declared himself to be no longer “in the flesh,” in the sense of obeying and gratifying all its desires. There was set up within him a new and holy power which held his passions under beneficent control, and thus the body was degraded from mastery to servitude. But the body did not accept the degradation without resistance; on the contrary, sin took a still firmer hold of the flesh, and wrought in Paul all manner of concupiscence! Who can accept the limitation of enjoyments without rebellion? The flesh can never do so. Its only idea of liberty is licence. To say to it, “Thou shalt not,” is to infuriate all its passions, and to add to its strength the violence of desperation. Still, this must be done, or the motions of sins in the flesh will “bring forth fruit unto death,” and at all risks death must be escaped. So, then, the apostle would argue, we are in the flesh yet not of it, as we are in the world itself yet superior to its maxims and vanities, — and even the letter, “Thou shalt not,” is superseded by “newness of spirit.” How, then, does the controversy stand? Thus: —

“It is no more I that do it, diit sin that dwelleth ill me.,.. To will is present with vie, but how to perform that which is good I find not: for the good that I would I do not; but the evil luhich 1 would not, that I do: nozu if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.’’’ Here is a strange but most positive duality, the proof of which is in the consciousness of every man. Commentators appear to have misspent much industry upon the exegesis of these words. Are they not fulfilled in the experience of every one of us .-^ Is not every man’s life a self-contradiction? We smile at the notion of a man talkinc’’ to himself, yet all men do this very thing, and niwt do it, in obedience to a sovereign law. What expressions are more common than, “I reproached myself,” “I corrected myself,” “I blamed myself,” “I was angry with myself,” — confessions of selfrcprocf which are much more numerous than con-HtLman Spirit limited by the Hiunaii Body. 183

fessions of self-complacency. The question to be determined by every man whose self-complaining is honest, is simply, What is the direction of my luiin As soon as Paul was able to say, “To will is present with me,” he was also able to add that his evil deeds were -not done by himself, but by “sin that dwelleth in me.” So there may be in a man a power in some respects superior to his own will, dragging him into forbidden ways, and blotting the most carefully written pages of his highest life! What, then, is the consequence as to divine judgment? Will God visit the overborne man with frowning and wrath, or will He come to the struQfa-linQf soul with benediction and succour? The question is answered by St. Paul himself: — “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit;” — they are ill the flesh, yet they do not walk after it; whenever they seem to have yielded to it, they have been momentarily dragged from the sanctuary of t’leir delight, and their soul is inflamed with indionation and sorrow. But if a man be divided against himself, can he stand? St. Paul answers, that he is not divided against himself; he himself is wholly on one side, hence he says, “It is no more I that do it but sin that dwelleth in me;” what evil he did was done against his will, and therefore he denied that his spiritual individuality was involved.

Where, then, is responsibility? The responsibility is entirely towards God: “Thou knowest our frame; Thou rememberest that we are dust.” Where social offence has been committed, social responsibility has been incurred; but the question of social offence does not arise in the apostle’s argument, which lies wholly between himself and the idea of divine sanctification which has been shown to him by the Holy Ghost. The man cannot reach his ideal. His most vehement prayers fall short, and his severest self-discipline is incomplete. He seems to be within reach of the prize, yet misses it by less than a hair’s breadth. Out of all this, there comes complaining which is very bitter, and there sets in a war which turns life into a spiritual tragedy, — “O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through our Lord Jesus Christ. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.” But no man can serve two masters! True; nor does Paul attempt this impossibility, — he himself served one master, yet another mastery had laid hold of his outer and inferior self; that is to say, the flesh on which was written the condemnation of deatlx

A more thorough understanding of the influence of the body on the mind would modify the fearfulness of many honest spirits, and create a tenderer charity in all social judgments. Religion is affected by temperament. It is not equally easy for all

Human Spirit limited by the IhiDiau Body. 185

men to pray;’ nor is it equally easy for all men to hope; and the reason simply is, that it is not equally easy for all men to live. Life is one thing to the man who never had an hour’s pain, and another thing to a man who never knew the joy of health. The sanguine temperament and the bi’ious temperament will express religious convictions in two almost totally different languages. The one will have longsunny days of gladness, and the other will walk through life covered with clouds and oppressed with burdens, and possibly the one might be to the other a temptation and an offence, because of the want of a common language of interpretation and sympathy. Summer must be a great mystery to winter; and the fern, thriving in the moisture and shadow of its cool grot, must wonder how the rose can bear the hot sun on its face all the day long. It should be pointed out that the difference which is seen so conspicuously under the action of r ligious sentiment, is after all not a religious but a natural characteristic; that is to say, religion does not change temperaments, but works through them, and takes its tone and colour from their distinctiveness. The man whose spiritual life is gloomy, will be found to be gloomy also in business, and even his family love may be tinged with a melancholy which may often cause it to be misunderstood and undervalued. Such reflections as these, arising out of the most obvious facts, should lead to the exercise of a nobler judgment of human life. We do not know through what suffocation some poor broken hymn of piety may have struggled; and we may give the loud songster credit for religion which ought to be given in no small deofree to the healthiness of his lunss and the redness of his blood. Under all circumstances it should never be forgotten that the minor as well as the major key is part of the music which expresses the gladness of all things.

Then the body is to be treated as an incorrigible criminal, and to be held free of all discipline and subordination? No. The apostle Paul is never more precise and emphatic than when he states the course which every follower of Christ is bound to pursue in the matter qf physical control. The proof of this might be established by the most copious citations from his writings; for example: — “They that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts;” “Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof;” “Our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin;” “Glorify God in your body;” “As ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness;” “Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth;” “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these ... of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kincrdom of God.” When Paul ex-Hwnau Spirit limited by the Hiiniaii Body. 1 8 7

plained the anomalousness of his moral condition, jn the seventh chapter of his epistle to the Romans, was he not describing his pre-christian state? Did he undergo the same conflict after he had been crucified with Christ? It would distinctly appear that he did, and consequently that the seventh chapter of the epistle to the Romans is part of his actual Christian experience. What other can be the meaning of his exhortation “unto the Churches of Galatia,” viz.: “Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh, for the flesh lusteth against the Sp’.rit, 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. 16, 17). A collation of these passages will show that even the renewed life is a daily conflict, and yet that he whose will is strenuously on the side of holiness will .be accounted victor in the strife, (ven though he may be weakened and impeded by many bodily infirmities. Judge a man by the lower side of his nature, and there may be found room enough for taunting and discouragement; but judge him by his best efforts, his purposes, and his sacrifices, and on all the ruggedness of his diflicult way there will be seen a light which could have come from heaven only. The Christian is not in heaven, yet he is often judged as if he were an angel. Faults and slips on his part are aggravated into great sins, and men who point them out imagine that to indicate the failings of others is to exemplify perfections in themselves.

But what of that great prayer of the apostle’s, found in his first epistle to the Thessalonians: — “And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ “? The answer is, that it is a prayer. Prayer is the ideal rather than the actual life; it shows what we would be rather than what we are; and it calls up every disciplinary act to tTie highest point. It is in the religious life what high and urgent aspiration is in other objects and services. The painter who desires (pra)’s) to reach perfection will excel the sloven who never knew the compulsion of a pure ambition; - so he who desires, with all the vehemence of unceasing prayer, that his body may be preserved blameless unto the coming of Jesus Christ will, as a reward, be enabled to realize the highest possible degree of self-control and chastity. That is the great and beautiful life which confesses its faults and turns each of its mistakes into a reason for more critical self-watchfulness; and that is a poor and superficial existence which declines all hard tasks and all severe exposures, lest so much as a flaw should mar the polish of its respectability. It should be remembered, too, that higher holiness always brings with it higher sensibility, so that where once an evil action could be looked upon without self-reproach, now even a questionable thought, in its most transient passage through the mind, leaves in the heart a sting of shame and self-hatred. That is proof

Huiiiaii Spirit limited by the Hmnan Body. 189

of o-rowth. It is worth while to say these things, because they may help others towards a godly cheerfulness in passing through the sharp discipline of a life which is assailed and torn through the weakness of the flesh.