t
so much to arrive at, as to retain hold on, a belief which is
continually in danger of being overlaid and forgotten. It does not
appear that anthropological science is at all likely to disprove such a
view which on the other hand has a great deal of evidence to justify
it. At least, the {84} evidences of deterioration in the history of
religion are manifold and conspicuous. The lowest view of God and man
is not by any means always the oldest. And the recognition of such
facts is quite consonant with the doctrine of the evolution of religion
in its more reasonable forms.

Meanwhile, every one is in sufficient harmony with St. Paul's argument
who recognizes the universal facts of sin and guilt and needless moral
deterioration among men; and who recognizes also that the secret of sin
is the wilful refusal on men's part to know God as they might have
known Him, and obey Him as they might have obeyed Him.

4. Besides these difficult questions, we should mark what is both
plain and instructive, that St. Paul regards man as necessarily living
either above himself or below himself. Man's true nature is to be in
dependence upon God. Therein is his true liberty and dignity of
sonship. When he tries to be independent, to be his own master simply,
he loses the true principle of self-government and becomes the victim
of his own passions. God 'gave men up,' handed them over as slaves to
dishonouring passions. This theory of human nature is intimately bound
up with all St. Paul's {85} teaching about grace and redemption, and we
shall hear more of it.

5. We shall do well to notice, finally, one consequence which follows
from recognizing that the lowest stage of moral degradation lies, not
merely in doing what is wrong, but in having ceased to disapprove of
it. That is to say, the lowest moral stage carries with it a complete
loss of ideal, or absence of the standard of right and wrong; and this
lowest stage is anticipated before it is reached. It follows,
therefore, and we must not forget it, that the actual conscience of the
individual, or of the society, at any particular moment affords no
adequate standard of right and wrong. The moral conscience, like the
intelligence in general, requires enlightenment. It supplies no
trustworthy information, except so far as we are at pains to keep it
enlightened. More than this, its capacity to keep us admonished
depends on our habitually observing its injunctions. To disob