le Paul enters upon a line
of argument to demonstrate the ill-desert of every human creature without
exception. In order to this, he shows that no excuse can be urged upon
the ground of moral ignorance. He explicitly teaches that the pagan knows
that there is one Supreme God (Rom. i. 20); that He is a spirit (Rom. i.
23); that He is holy and sin-hating (Rom. i. 18); that He is worthy to be
worshipped (Rom. i. 21, 25); and that men ought to be thankful for His
benefits (Rom. i. 21). He affirms that the heathen knows that an idol is
a lie (Rom. i. 25); that licentiousness is a sin (Rom. i. 26, 32); that
envy, malice, and deceit are wicked (Rom. i. 29, 32); and that those who
practise such sins deserve eternal punishment (Rom. i. 32).

In these teachings and assertions, the apostle has attributed no small
amount and degree of moral knowledge to man as _man_,--to man outside of
Revelation, as well as under its shining light. The question very
naturally arises: How comes it to pass that this knowledge which Divine
inspiration postulates, and affirms to be innate and constitutional to
the human mind, should become so vitiated? The majority of mankind are
idolaters and polytheists, and have been for thousands of years. Can
it be that the truth that there is only one God is native to the human
spirit, and that the pagan "_knows_" this God? The majority of men are
earthly and sensual, and have been for thousands of years. Can it be that
there is a moral law written upon their hearts forbidding such carnality,
and enjoining purity and holiness?

Some theorizers argue that because the pagan man has not obeyed the law,
therefore he does not know the law; and that because he has not revered
and worshipped the one Supreme Deity, therefore he does not possess the
idea of any such Being. They look out upon the heathen populations and
see them bowing down to stocks and stones, and witness their immersion in
the abominations of heathenism, and conclude that these millions of human
beings really know no better, and that therefore it is unjust to hold
them responsible for their polytheism and their moral corruption. But why
do they confine this species of reasoning to the pagan world? Why do they
not bring it into nominal Christendom, and apply it there? Why does not
this theorist go into the midst of European civilization, into the heart
of London or Paris, and gauge the moral knowledge of the sensualist by
the moral character of the sens