3.-The Establishment of Responsibility.
Thus man learned of these things relatively to one another, and it is only thus that he is acquainted with either of them distinctively, so that before sinning he could not be said to have had this capacity.
All complexity which might have arisen if we had had to take into consideration any power of judging of things morally inherent in man from the first, is thus rendered impossible, and the principle involved in the relative positions of God and man at the outset is made perfectly clear as one of will—God's will, of course, being that which should have been owned as supreme, and thus literally accepted as man's will, which would therefore have been expressed only in obedience to God, who had done sufficient to give man perfect confidence in Him, so as also to lead the desires of his heart in that way.
Thus was man made responsible, and thus are we led to see what responsibility pure and simple means. And thus, too, we see that in Adam's sin there was far more than the mere transgression of a command (though, of course, it was this also; see Rom. 5:1414Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Romans 5:14); Hos. 6:77But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me. (Hosea 6:7)); there was the assertion of an independent will, and that too by a creature (the very principle of sin, as 1 John 3:44Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. (1 John 3:4) rightly translated tells us), the possession of which, for God so ordered it, could be had only in conjunction with the knowledge of good and evil acquired by man's practical subjection to evil.
The whole subsequent condition of man is involved in this—he has the knowledge of good and evil, and he knows too the exercise of his own will, but that is, in the nature of it, as manifested from the first, invariably directed towards evil. It is evil which he wishes to do, contrary to the good which God wishes him to do. If he never wished to do anything but good, he would have no will apart from God's will and would thus be sinless.
It follows from this that the only just measure of sin is that infinitely wise and good will against which all sin is rebellion, and we must primarily consider sin in this light, apart from all questions of degree of moral turpitude, or of human standards, if we desire to have, as far as our power to weigh it reaches, a true judgment of its nature and extent. We must indeed go farther, and own that, without the knowledge of God and His will, we are unable to measure evil at all. For it is only by having God brought consciously before him that man is able to know the truth (that is, what is absolutely true in character, whatever the measure or amount) as to good or evil, or anything moral (or indeed as to anything material too, for even here it is easy for the mind to pursue a wrong road if it once starts from a false notion of the nature of things). One might reason, for instance, about evil, but could never know what it is in reality by this process. The utmost that could be arrived at would be a comparison of various known evils, and a speculation as to some general principle of evil which was thought to underlie them all. On this ground it is not difficult to see how men could endeavor to persuade themselves that there is no knowledge of evil possible but that which is gained by comparing certain things that are evil to them. But such reasoning blots God out of His own universe, and therefore we need to have God brought face to face with us in a revelation of Him, in order to learn truly what evil is, for then we have a perfect standard of all good.
We cannot, it is true, plumb depths that are infinite, and apply God's perfect standard to the judgment of sin, or grasp in our minds the full extent of its enormity as it is seen by Infinite Wisdom, and measured by Infinite Majesty, for we are not Gods, but we can see and own that only thus is sin rightly measured. Its punishment, therefore, must be infinite, for it is according to God's estimate of that which is an offense against Himself, the Infinite One, and so could be no less. It is idle for men to raise objections, as many do, against eternal punishment, on the score that the notion is foreign to their minds, and contrary to their ideas of what is right. These objectors should begin at the beginning, and say if ever they have allowed themselves one true thought of the enormity of that which must be punished. Let them but own that it is beyond their puny minds to comprehend how dreadful is that which their wills have dared to do, and then there would be no difficulty in acknowledging that, while it is not in man to comprehend infinite punishment, yet, when he owns what sin is, he has the sense that nothing else than that can be right.
It is thus that we are in our due place with regard to these things, and only when we are in this attitude that we are prepared to own the grace that has provided, in the blessed Lord Jesus Christ One, the only One who could perfectly, because divinely, estimate sin, and bear before God, in a spirit which could fully enter into it, and know all the suffering it involved, and in a body made subject to the ultimate penalty it entailed, the full weight—of His wrath and judgment against sin. He is the One we as sinners need, though in poor human pride we refuse to own the troth, and prefer rather the cheats invented by minds and wills that are depraved by sin, if not invented by the one far more subtle than these, and who “sinneth from the beginning.” But grace delights to find herein its opportunity, and seeks to lead men to own the truth, and to acknowledge God in His place as supreme. For right and wrong being known, when God is supreme to the mind and heart we have certain light as to the character of His doings, even though we are unable to comprehend the extent of that which He does. We cannot measure Him or His actions, as though our measure of knowledge of right and wrong must be His, but having the knowledge of good and evil, while we have a responsibility directly based upon this, we are able to rise to the thought that God must act consistently with this principle, though in His own infinite measure of apprehension of it.
But to return to the consideration of human responsibility, it is plain that the acquisition of the knowledge of good and evil—in a word, the acquisition of conscience—necessarily forms the basis of man's condition as a responsible being subsequent to that fact. He known good and evil now, and is therefore responsible on the principle of conscience, or moral discernment, which is in him as possessed of that knowledge, even when he has no direct word or revelation from God about himself or his path. In fact we are taught in Rom. 1; 2, that the former is in itself a sufficient guide to the consciousness of having to do with God, and of what is morally suited or unsuited to Him, for those who have not any further revelation from. Him, but who are honest and sincere in the desire to own Him, as being themselves properly subject to Him. Rom. 2:5-165But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; 6Who will render to every man according to his deeds: 7To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life: 8But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, 9Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; 10But glory, honor, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: 11For there is no respect of persons with God. 12For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; 13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. 14For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) 16In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. (Romans 2:5‑16) makes it plain that, as regards God's judgment of such men (and those whom we call the “heathen” come within the range of this scripture), that principle becomes the measure of responsibility in their case; and although, in view of what the Cross has revealed of man's natural heart and will, we may seriously question whether there are any who actually meet the demands of God's righteous judgment on this ground, yet we may see from Acts 10:2, 302A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway. (Acts 10:2)
30And Cornelius said, Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and, behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing, (Acts 10:30) to end, and specially from verses 34, 35, how He is wont to deal with any who may be found truly devout before Him, even while outside the range of revelation,
On this subject the speculations of men's minds are numerous in these days, but for the most part all such seem to me to proceed on principles which are exactly the reverse of the truth. There are in the main two distinct directions in which these speculations are found to run. In pursuance of the first of these men seek to lessen the importance of conscience by trying to make out that the knowledge of right and wrong is in us a mere matter of thought, because our judgment of what is right and what is wrong is entirely the result of education or of prejudice. This, when examined, resolves itself plainly into a denial that there is morality, or an abstract moral standard, and as a necessary consequence denies an absolute standard of morals, that is, denies God. It is well to look the full result in the face, and it would be far better for all if men in general did so, and spoke plainly out, so that all might know what is the true issue before them. Concealment is certainly not of “the truth,” whether it is voluntary or involuntary, as far as man is concerned. If we are to deny God and morals, then we know what is before us, and must prepare to see the world deluged in violence and corruption, such as have in degree prevailed wherever the “reason” which teaches these doctrines has held sway, and that even of late years.
I do not overstate the result. For granting that, conscience may be much influenced by education, and therefore, putting aside for the moment the consideration of, what is judged right or wrong, there plainly remains the existence in men of the power or capacity of discernment of these opposite qualities, even though things wrong may be put for right, and vice versa. As then the capacity to discern these essential qualities exists, the question undoubtedly is, Is there a standard of abstract right and wrong, of morals, by which our ideas derived from education or habit are to be tested? It will not do to say because, with the Spartans, what we call stealing was a virtue, or because the Corinthians deified what we know as lust, or because among savage people what we are taught to call murder, is commended, that therefore theft and adultery and murder exist only as relative ideas in our minds. This is really, as I have said, to deny the existence of virtue or goodness, either in the abstract, or absolutely in God. Man's moral nature, except when degraded; scouts the absurdity, and demands as a necessity the existence of abstract moral virtue, and, not only so, but insists that there must also be a perfect and absolute measure of that in God Himself. And therefore conscience leads us directly to the fact of having to do with Him.
There are those pursuing the second path of speculation to which I have alluded who own the nature of conscience and moral standards in a general way, but seek to weaken the character of the evil that is in the world. These suppose that in all its history, past and present, God has been, and is, educating the world, or bringing it by a gradual process nearer to Himself, by elevating and improving the minds of men in general, somewhat after the analogy which the education and training of one of themselves, from childhood to manhood, suggests to them. The truth, however, is, that in all that concerns its relations with God, the world has steadily gone on from bad to worse; commencing ages ago by giving up the knowledge of God (that is, its personal acquaintance with Him, and not merely the idea of a God) which it once possessed, and using ever since then, merely as an occasion to pursue its own way with impunity,. the patient grace in which He has so long dealt with it. So that the world has arrived at its present condition, namely, that in which there is in existence a large number of its inhabitants in the condition and circumstances of “heathen” through departure from God. (As to this see Job 21:14, 1514Therefore they say unto God, Depart from us; for we desire not the knowledge of thy ways. 15What is the Almighty, that we should serve him? and what profit should we have, if we pray unto him? (Job 21:14‑15); Rom. 1:28, 20-2528And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; (Romans 1:28)
20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: 25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. (Romans 1:20‑25).) And men often unconsciously bear testimony to the truth and right of such dealing. Do we not often hear them say that it is righteous that individuals who do wrong should bear the results in their bodies, and transmit them to their descendants, as it is incontestably proved they do? Or that nations who depart from right and light should suffer the consequences even here? What about those nations who used to have light, such as Spain, Greece, and others (not to take any “heathen” for examples)—do we not say they merit their present darkness?
I do not deny that God has given a greater measure of light in Christianity than in Judaism; but this is a fact founded, upon His own grace, and quite apart from the human thought which we are considering. For He has introduced successive measures of revelation of light in grace, on the failure of men to w1dk up to the preceding ones; and in fact the new measure becomes a new point of departure, a new commencement, for the people to whom it appeals. Thus Christianity is not built upon Judaism in the sense conveyed by the “education of the world” school: else why are the Jews utterly outside of it? Why has it been spread almost entirely among peoples formerly living in the gross darkness of heathenism, and strangers to all the teaching and privilege of Judaism? These things call for consideration.
With regard to what men call the refinements or elegancies of life, there no doubt appears to be a general progress in the world from a ruder to a more cultivated state; but if we look a little below the surface, we shall find that these accessories have become necessary through man's taste being corrupted, that is, rendered more greedy of self-pleasing. Simplicity, of which we see abundant proofs in the early days of Old Testament history, is not barbarism, but is the evidence of nobility of nature, though to us it may seem rude; for where is it to be found now? It is, moreover, quite compatible with a high state of moral intelligence. Barbarism is moral degradation.
And the truth is not therefore, that barbarism is man's original state, and that he has gradually to be freed from that, and educated up to God. That notion assumes, if it dare not say, that man, as he came fresh from God's creative hand, was a morally degraded being, requiring to be perfected by his own or others' efforts. Apart from the shocking irreverence of this idea, we are plainly told that “God saw everything that he had made, and behold it was very good,” and also it is distinctly said that “God made man upright.” So that such a condition as that of the heathen to-day is, if anything, the fitting and, in God's wisdom, the natural result of man's willful disregard of Him; and if He bears with the world which exhibits such marks of declension from, and enmity to, Him, it is only that He, in His grace, may save some out of that which is wholly bad. The means, however, by which He acts on the few are ever seized and turned to had account by the many, and it is so, as ever, with Christianity, so that access to privileges effects in itself no change on man: though doubtless they, by increasing the weight of his responsibility somewhat, prove to be the surer witnesses against him.
Before looking at the history of responsibility in the world, we may mark one thing more in the position of man as a fallen being (that is, man in the character and condition in which his history becomes known), which in its wonderful grasp of the roots and principles of the moral world Genesis suggests to us.
Man as fallen ever makes himself the center of his thoughts, instead of putting God in the foremost place in them, and the consequence is that he seeks to make his own acquired knowledge of his own position (however that knowledge may have been acquired, even though by sinful means), that is, his own experiences, though they be those of a fallen nature, and not the communicated knowledge of God's position towards him (in his state, whatever it is), the standard for his conduct. This but leads him in action to depart farther from God, and proves but the more complete witness against him, when the simple word of God, which is the measure of his responsibility, is brought face to face with his conduct. Thus Adam, when summoned before God (in Gen. 3:99And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? (Genesis 3:9), et seq. 9), says, “I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid,” not because Your command had been transgressed, and You had a right to be angry, but “because I was naked, and I hid myself.” While the Lord God says, “Who told thee that thou west naked?” —as if to say, “You never got such a word from Me to act upon” —and He immediately recalls him to that word which he did receive, saying, “Hast thou eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?” And thus the full measure of man's sin, and of his failure in responsibility, became apparent at once; and so it is always whenever God's voice is heard.