(6) InKo 16'" the word 'simple,' translating d/c^paioj (lit. 'free from foreign admixture,' as, e.g., wine unmingled with water, unalloyed metal), has no such derogatory significance. St. Paul would have his readers innocent without being ignorant ; dis- cerning the wiles of Satan, yet without sin-craft : in wisdom many-sided — in aim and att'ectionsimg'/e- minded (cf. 1 Co 14-", ' Be not children in mind : howbeit in malice, be ye babes').
(c) In 1 P 2'-' fiSoXos is used in the sense of ' simple,' ' unadulterated ' : ' Desire the sincere milk of tlie word ' ( A V : the word ' sincere ' being used in its early English sense of 'unmixed'). See R. C. Trench, Synonyms of the NT ^, London, 1876, p. Ivi.
[d) 'Simplicity ' is given as the AV translation of airXiTT/s in Ro 12" : ' He that giveth, let him do it with simplicity.' The Greek word indicates one- foldedness ; in regard to giving, the term suggests that there is no two-sidedness in the act, that the impulse to help is not checked by a spirit of grudg- ing selfishness. Thus the sense of 'liberality' became attached to the word, and so it is trans- lated in the RV of this passage (cf. 2 Co 8* [AV and RV] 9"- '», Ja P).
In 2 Co U' St. Paul fears lest the church at Corinth, like tempted Eve, 'should be corrupted from the simplicity (both AV and RV) that is toward Christ.' 'The noun (d7rX(iT7;s) would be better translated here 'singleness of heart,' as in AV and RV of Eph 6» and Col 3^2 (' Obey your masters in singleness of heart,' i.e. in contrast to the double-dealing of eye-service). In Ac 2"^ ( ' They' — i.e. the members of the primitive Church — 'did take their food with gladness and singleness of heart ') the same idea is expressed by another phrase — arpeXdrrirt KapSlas — the figure suggested being that of a Held clear of stony ground (d + <pe\\eis). The AV tr. 'simplicity' of 2 Co 1« rests on an inferior reading — arXdrr^n for ayidrTjTi.
H. BULCOCK.
SIN.—' Sin' is a term which belongs to religion. Moral evil as an injury done by man to himself is vice, as an offence against human society crime, but as affecting his relation to God sin. But even here we may distinguish a more distinctively religious from the more general moral sense. It is distrust of the goodness and grace of God as well as disobedience to the law of God as the standard of moral obligation. To be forgetful of God in one's thoughts, to be neglectful of piety and worship towards God, is as much sin as to dis- regard and defy God's commandments. It is sometimes insisted in writings of to-day, such aa Tennant's (see Literature), that sin must be con- scious and voluntary distrust and disobedience ; but it will appear that in the Scriptures the emphasis on the subjective consciousness is second- ary. Sin includes departure from, or failure to
roach, the standard of religious and moral obliga- tion for man determined Ijythe nature and purpose of (Jod ; the stress falls more on the olijertive reality— the dillerence between \vhat man is and what he sliould be, God being what He is. While it might be convenient to restrict the terra ' sin ' to conscious, voluntary acts, yet the wider usage is too deeply rooted in religious thought to be easily displaced. It must be insisted, however, that moral accountability, personal blaniewortldness, attaches to the conscious and voluntary acts alone, even although, as regards the consequences of evil, human solidarity is such that the innocent may sutler with the guilty.
The term 'guilt' is one that requires careful definition. It is not punishment ; for punishiucMl consists of all the evil coMscc|iicnces of sin, which the .sinner in his sense of h.aving sinned ri'gards as resulting from a violated moral law, or more per- sonally as the evidences of the Divine displeasure. This subjective consciousness is not, however, illusory, as it does correspond with and respond to a moral order and a personal will opposed to sin, which are an olijective realit}% Guilt is the liability to punishment, the sinner bj' his act placing himself in such a relation to the moral order and the personal will of God as to e.xpose him to the evil consequences included in his punishment. Here again our modern thought with its refinements majies distinctions which the Scriptures for the most part ignore. Can we separate, or must we identify, guilt and sense of guilt? Is there an objective fact and a subjective feeling? If sin is confined strictly to conscious and voluntary acts, then guilt, it would seeui, must be measured by the sense of guilt, the blame- worthiness or evil desert that the conscience of the sinner assigns to him. If this were so, then the worse a man became, the less guilty he would be ; for it is a sign of moral deterioration to lose the sense of shame in wrongdoing.
The Scripture approach — and surely this is the properly religious approach— to the question is from the side of God rather than of man. A man's guilt is measured, not by his shame or sor- row, but by God's judgment : his relation to God as afiected by his sin is determined, not by his own opinion of himself, but by God's view of him. The Divine judgment will, we may confidently be- lieve, take due account of all the facts ; the de- parture from, or failure to reach, the Divine standard, the moral possibility of each man as determined by his heredity, environment, and in- dividuality, and his own moral estimate of himself — all will be included in God's knowledge of him, and so his guilt will be determined, not by an un- erring wisdom and an unfailing righteousness only, but also by an unexhausted love. Thus a man's sense of guilt is not the measure of his guilt : for the more callous he is morally, the worse must his moral condition appear in the sight of God ; and the more sensitive he is, the better must he appear to God. In the measure in which a man judges him- self in penitence will he not be judged guilty by God.