Further, in his subjective consciou.sness a man tends to separate himself, both in his merits and in his defects, from his fellow-men ; hut in objective reality men are so closely related to one another as to be involved in moral res]ionsibility for one another. Saints as a whole must bear the blame for many of the conditions which make the criminal ; and the saint will bear in his heart as a personal Borrow and shame the .sins of his fellow-men. In God's view also the individual does not stand isolated ; but the race is a unity, one in its guilt, yet also one for God's grace. While, when neces- sary, we must insist on individual liberty and personal responsibility, we must not ignore the
complementary truth of racial solidarity. The Scripture point of view is predominantly, if not exclusively, universul objectivity and not individual s\ihjectivity ; and unless we recognize this we shall fail to understand the ajTOstolic teaching.
1. St. Paul's teaching.— As the DVG deals with the teaching of .lesus, we are here strictly confined to the apostolic teaching ; and we must obviously begin with St. I'aul.
(n) The, iinive.r.ialitij of sin. — St. Paul's view is the distinctively religious view. Men, dependent upon God, and capable of knowing God, 'glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks,' but dis- honoured (iod in their conception of Him, and in their worship (Ko 1"'); their moral deterioration followed religiinis perversion (vv.-*-^). Even in the Gentiles this involved guilt, for the sin was conscious and voluntary, as a disregard and de- fiance of a law written in their hearts (1=8-S2 2'*'"'). Not less guilty was the Jew who failed to keep the Law of the possession of which he made his boast (2^). By such a historical induction St. I'aul establishes his thesis of the univers.ality of sin and consequent guilt, aiul confirms it from the S('riptures, the aim of which is to bring to all men the sense of guilt, ' that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may be brought under the; judgement of God ' (H") ; ' the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteou.sness of men, who hold down the truth in unrighteousness ' (1"). This thesis is advanced, not for its own sake, however, but to show the need of as universal a salvation ottered to man- kind in Christ.
Ttie v.alidit.v of St. Paul's conclusion here is not affected by the correctness or otherwise of the explanation \vhi<-h he offers of the ori^'in of idolatry and tlte initnorality consequent on it. r'irst, we must recnj^nize the Hebraic mode of speech, which represents as direct Divine judgment what we should regard as inevitable moral consequence ; and, secondly, we must to-day regard polytheism and the acconipanyinfr iflolatry as seemingly inevitable sta^res in the development of tlie reli^'ious conscious- ness of the Divine. We may admit, however, tliat idolatry as St. Paul knew it in the Roman Empire was closely associated with immorality ; and that Greek and ilonian mythology was likely to have an adverse moral influence, as Plato in the Re- public recognized.
In affirming that sin involves guilt, exposes man to the Divine judgment, St. Paul was eclioing the teaching not only of the OT and of Jesus Himself (Mt 11-^23''-^'') but of the univer.sal human con- science, confirmed by the course of human history. There is a moral order in man and the world con- demning and executing sentence on sin ; and, if God be personally immanent in the world, we cannot distinguish that moral order from the mind and will of God. And, if (iod be personal, He feels as well as thinks and wills ; and so we cannot altogether e.xcludo an emotional reaction of God against sin. St. Paul's term ' the wrath of God ' may be allowed its full significance so long as we exclude any passion inconsistent with holy love. Thus we are here dealing, not with an outgrown superstition, but with a permanent moral and spiritual reality — man's sin and God's judgment, man's need and God's ofl'er of salvation.
(6) The development of sin. — From the universal fact we may turn to the individual feeling of sin. St. Paul was not merely gencr.alizing his individual experience in his proof of the universality of sin, but it is certain that his indiviilual experience gave emphasis to his statement. The classic passage is Ro 7''^, which the present writer must regard as an account of St. Paul's own individual experience, before the grace of Christ brought him deliverance ; but there is no doubt that he desires us to regard his individual expcrit^iue as in greater or lesser degree common to all men. Sin is a power dwelling in man, which may for a time be latent, but which is provoked into exercise by the
Law. The knowledge of the prohibition stimu- lates, and does not restrain, the opposition of sin to law ; as the common proverb says, ' Forbidden fruit is sweet.' While tlie mind knows, approves, and delights in the law of God as holy, righteous, and good, the flesh is tlie seat and vehicle of sin. The 'law in the members' is opposed to, resists and conquers, the ' law in the mind,' and so the man is brought into bondage, doing what he con- demns, unable to do what he approves. This passage raises three questions which must briefly be answered.