3. But because this scripture has been so frequently misunderstood, and that in so dangerous a manner, because such multitudes of _unlearned and unstable men_, (οἱ ἀμαθεῖς καὶ ἀστήρικτοι, men untaught of God, and consequently unestablished in _the truth which is after godliness_) have _wrested_ it _to their own destruction_. I propose to shew as clearly as I can, first, who those are _which are in Christ Jesus, and walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit_; and secondly, how _there is no condemnation to_ these. I shall conclude with some practical inferences. I. 1. First, I am to shew, who those are that _are in Christ Jesus_. And are they not, those who believe in his name? Those who are _found in him, not having_ their _own righteousness, but the righteousness which is of God by faith_? These, who _have redemption through his blood_, are properly said, to be _in him_. For _they dwell in Christ and Christ in them_. They are _joined unto the Lord in one Spirit_. They are ingrafted into him as branches into the vine. They are united, as members to their head; in a manner which words cannot express, nor could it before enter into their hearts to conceive. 2. Now _whosoever abideth in him, sinneth not; walketh not after the flesh_. The flesh, in the usual language of St. _Paul_, signifies corrupt nature. In this sense, he uses the word, writing to the _Galatians_. _The works of the flesh are manifest_, Gal. v. 19. And a little before, _Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust_ (or desire) _of the flesh_ (_v._ 16.) To prove which, namely, that those who _walk by the Spirit, do not fulfil the lust of the flesh_, he immediately adds, _for the flesh lusteth against the Spirit; but the Spirit lusteth against the flesh (for these are contrary to each other) that ye may not do the things which ye would_. So the words are literally translated, (ἵνα μὴ ἃ ἂν θέλητε, ταῦτα ποιῆτε) Not, _so that ye cannot do the things that ye would_, as if the flesh overcame the Spirit: a translation which hath not only nothing to do with the original text of the apostle, but likewise makes his whole argument nothing worth, yea, asserts just the reverse of what he is proving.