[See page image]

Page 439

tract than that of unforgiven and forgiven sins. The former abolishes life in the highest sense; the latter gives it anew. This contrast has been employed for the classification of sin as pardonable and unpardonable; such as sins of oversight and rebellion in the Old Testament, and venial and mortal in the Roman Catholic Church. [The Roman Catholic distinction between mortal (or deadly) sin and venial sin is that the former deprives the sinner of habitual grace and of spiritual life, while venial sin does not. The names of the seven deadly sins will effectually illustrate their character: pride, covetousness, lust, anger, envy, gluttony, and sloth; and it is readily apparent that these sins, deliberately persisted in, will drive from the soul all state of grace. But if such deliberation is lacking, or if the sin be committed through an ignorance which the sinner has no means of avoiding, or if, again, the matter of the sin be of a less grave nature, then the sin committed is venial, i.e., " the all-just and a,ll-holy God does not see in it such depravity as deserves to be punished by eternal torment " (Hunter, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, 3d ed., iii. 40, New York, n.d.). It is, however, not always possible for man to know whether a given unlawful act is really sin, or whether, if sin, it is mortal or venial; this can certainly be known only by God; all that man can do is to have a more or less confident judgment in the matter. Venial sin does not cause even partial loss of habitual grace, since, if that were so, venial sin multiplied would amount to mortal sin, which is a contradiction. At the same time, venial sin hinders the operation of actual grace (i.e., grace which is the result of distinct divine acts). By the Decrees of the Council of Trent (Seas. xiv., cap. 5) it is obligatory to confess all mortal sins; it is not absolutely required to confess venial sins, although it is undoubtedly best to do so.] But the correctness of these distinctions is questionable. Both betray a confusion of legalistic and religious-ethical standards. Also the opinion of A. Ritschl that pardonable sins are sins of ignorance raises doubts. In accordance with the New Testament pardon is to be attributed purely to God's unlimited grace, Christ's atoning work, and man's contrite faith, and not conditioned by the minor importance of a certain category of sins. The unpardonable sin (Matt. xii. 31-32) is one that, as obstinate rejection and contemptuous debasement of the recognized truth, bars the return to repentance and faith. As pardon effects access to God, it translates into the kingdom where the divine will is supreme. This involves the renewed transformation of the whole life tendency, described by Paul as the becoming of a " new creature" (II Cor. v. 17) and by church doctrine as Regeneration (q.v.) or, with special emphasis on moral change, as Sanctification (q.v.). In the former sin does not disappear instantaneously and permanently (Rom. vi. 12 sqq.; Phil. iii. 12; i John i. 8, ii. 2); yet it is in a vanishing process and no longer capable of striking fresh root, the obverse side of which is cleaving to God through Christ, the unremittent battle against the remains of sin, and the practise of perfection. Like the individual, the Church may assume a purifying process against the common evil

Btsnjooasray: For expositions of the Scriptural doctrine of sin the reader is referred first of all to the works cited in and under BIBLICAL. THEOLOGY, particularly those by Schultz, Beyschlag, Oehler, Duhm, Smend, Schlottmann, Noack, Duff, Piepenbring, DiVmsnn, Holtzmann, Stevens. Gould, Estes, and Bovon. Consult further: J. Taylor, The Scripture Doctrine of Original Sin, London, 1738, 4th ed., Newcastle, 1845; L. Ernesti, Vom Uraprung der Shade each paulinischem LeArgehau, G6ttingen, 1855-62; G. M. Straffen, Sin as set forth in Holy Scripture, London, 1875; E. M6nbgoz, Le P&U et la redemption d'apr" St. Paul, Paris, 1882; L. Lemme, Die Sunde wider den heiligen Geist, Breslau, 1883; J. S. Candlish, The Biblical Doctrine of Sin, Edinburgh, 1893; J. KSberle, Sunde and Gnade in religiosen Leben des Volks Israel, Munich, 1905; W. Staerk, Sunde and Gnade each der Voratellunp lea dlteren Judentums, Ttibingen, 1905; F. Bennewitz, Die Sunde im ahem Israel, Leipsie, 1907 (1908); DB, iv. 528-536; DCG, ii. 630-635.

As a subject in systematic divinity sin is treated by all the great dogmaticians, and discussions are to be looked for in the works named in and under DOoMA, Dooxsnes. Special works which may be cited from the large literature on the topic are: A. Burgess. A Treatise of Original Sin, London, 1658; G. Tomline, Refutation of Calvinism; in which the Doctrines of Original Sin, Grace . . , are explained, London, 1811; G. Payne, The Doctrine of Original Sin; or, native State and Character of Man unfolded. London, 1845; M. P. Squier, The Problem Solved; or, Sin not of God, New York, 1855; E. Girard, Lehre von der Sande, Strasburgi 1861; J. MOller, Die christliehe Lehre von der Sonde, 2 vols., 5th ed., Breslau, 1867, Eng. tranal., The Christian Doctrine of Sin, 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1868; E. Naville, Le Probldrne du maZ, Paris, 1868, Eng. trawl., The Problem of Evil, Edinburgh, 1871; J. B. Brown, The Divine Mysteries: the divine Treatment of Sin, and the divine Mystery of Peace, London and New York, 1869; W. G. T. Shedd, Theological Essays, pp. 211-264, New York, 1877; J. Tulloeh, The Christian Doctrine of Sin, Edinburgh, 1877; G. Heinrici, Die Siinde mach Wesen and Uraprunp, Frankfort, 1878; G. P. Fisher, Discussions in History and Theology, New York, 1880; A. Ritsehl, Rechtfer*ung and Versohnuny, vol. iii., 40-43, 2d ed., Bonn, 1882-83; R. W. Landis, Doctrine of Original Sin as Received and Taught by the Churches of the Reformation, Richmond, 1885; M. Dix, The Seven Deadly Sins, New York, 1888; S. Kierkegaard, Zur Psychologie der Sonde, Leipsic, 1890; J. Martineau, Seal of Authority in Religion, pp. 450461, London, 1890; D. Graeey, Sin and the Uniblding of Salvation. London, 1894; R. Harris, Is Sin a Necessity. London, 1896; R. C. Homer, Original and Inbred Sin Ottawa, 1896; C. Clemen, Die christliche Lehre van der Sande, Gbttingen. 1897; J. Royce, Studies of Good and Evil, New York, 1898; E. W. Cook, The Origin of Sin and its Relations to God, ib., 1899; F. R. Tennant, Origin and Propagation of Sin, London, 1902, 2d ed., 1906; idem, The Sources of the Doctrine of the Fall and Original Sin, ib. 1903; J. Turmel, Hilt. du dogme du p&U originel, Mason, 1904; J. N. Espenberger, Die Elements der Erbsunde mach Augustin, Mainz, 1905; N. R. Wood, The Witness of Sin, New York, 1905; H. V. S. Eck, Sin, New York, 1907; N.W. Stroup, The Fact ofSin Viewed Historically and Doctrinally, Cincinnati, 1908; H. Windisch, Taufe and Sonde im Oltmen Christentum bis auf Oripines. Ein Beitrag sur allchrish lichen Dopmenpeschichte, TObingen, 1908; M. L. Burton. The Problem of Evil; a Criticism of the Augustinian Poit# of View, Chicago, 1909; J. H. Busch, Das Wesen der Erbsunde nach Bellarmin and Suarez. Eine dopmengeschichtliche Studie, Paderbom. 1909; W. D. Hyde, Sin and its Forgiveness, Boston, 1909; W. E. Orchard, Modern Theories of Sin, London, 1909; F. J. Hall, Evolution and the Fall, New York, 1910; Vigouroux, Dictionnaire, few. xxxi. 7-16.

SIN: The name of a place in Egypt named in Ezek. xxx. 14-16. Trouble has been caused for exegetes and investigators by what is clearly a wrong arrangement of the verses; a correct division