SERMON XV.

JAMES ii. 10.

WHOSOEVER SHALL KEEP THE WHOLE LAW, OFFEND IN ONE POINT, HE IS

AND YET

GUILTY OF ALL.

THERE are few passages of Scripture

which have given more occasion of triumph to the enemies of Christianity, and more disquiet to some of its friends, than that now before us. The former represent it as a declaration in the highest degree tyrannical, absurd, and unjust; the latter read it with concern and terror, and are apt to cry out, “ It is a hard saying, who can hear "it ?"* And a hard saying it undoubtedly is, if it is to be understood, as some have contended, in all its rigour. But it is not

easy to conceive why we are to be bound down to the literal meaning in this particular passage of Scripture, when in several others of the same nature, and to the full as strongly expressed, we depart from it without scruple. No man, I suppose, thinks himself obliged to " give (without distinction or exception) "to every one that "asks him; to pluck out his right eye, or "cut off his right arm; to offer his coat to "him that has taken away his cloak; or "when his enemy smites him on the right "cheek, to turn to him the other also."* Yet all these things, if we regard the mere words only, are commanded in the Gospel. We all hope and believe, that it is possible for a rich man to be saved, and for a great sinner to repent and amend his life. But look into the Scriptures, and they tell you “that it is easier for a camel to go through "the eye of a needle, than for a rich man "to enter into the kingdom of God;” and that if" a leopard can change his spots, and "an Ethiopian his skin, then may they "also do good that are accustomed to do

*Luke vi. 30. Matt. v. 29, 30. 39, 40.

“evil.”* These expressions, literally taken, imply an absolute impossibility. Yet no interpreter, I believe, ever pretended to infer from them any thing more than extreme difficulty. By what rule of criticism then are we obliged to understand the text more strictly than the passages just mentioned? It certainly stands as much in need of a liberal interpretation, and is as justly entitled to it, as these or any other places of holy writ. Consider it only with a little attention. "Whosoever shall keep the whole "law, and yet offend in one point, he is

66

guilty of all." The meaning cannot possibly be, that he who offends in one point only, does by that means actually offend in all points; for this is a palpable contradiction. Nor can it mean, that he who offends in one point only, is in the eye of God equally guilty, and of course will in a future state be equally punished, with him who offends in all points; for this is evidently false and unjust; contrary to every principle of reason and equity, to all our ideas of God's moral attributes, and to the whole tenor of the Gospel, which uniformly

teaches a directly opposite doctrine. It is therefore not only allowable, it is absolutely necessary, to understand the proposition in the text with some qualification. The only question is, what this qualification shall be. It is a question certainly of the utmost importance, and well worthy our most serious attention. It is not a matter of nice, and curious, and unprofitable speculation. It is a point in which we are all most deeply interested, and the decision of it must be of great moment to every moral agent, who thinks himself bound by the precepts, or looks forward to the rewards, of the Gospel. The common interpretation of the text is

this.

All the laws of the Christian Revelation are founded upon one and the same authority of God. Therefore, every offence against any of those laws is a contempt of the authority upon which they all depend, and consequently every act of disobedience is a breach of the whole law, because subversive of that authority on which the whole law stands.

But to this interpretation it has been observed, that there is one insuperable objection. It is evidently liable to all the

difficulties of the Stoical paradox, that all offences are equal. For if the guilt of sin depends not upon the nature and circumstances of the sinful action, but upon the authority of the lawgiver, then every sin being an offence against the same authority, is of the same guilt and heinousness, and consequently will be subject to the same degree of punishment in a future state: which is clearly repugnant to every idea of equity and justice, and (as we shall see hereafter) to the express declarations of Holy Writ. We must therefore look to some other explanation of this confessedly difficult passage, more consonant to reason and to Scripture.

Now the most probable way of arriving at the true sense of it, is, I conceive, to take into consideration the whole of the context, the persons to whom the Apostle's admonition is addressed, the particular object he had in view, and the particular doctrine which that object required him to establish.

The persons to whom this Epistle of St. James was addressed, were, as he himself tells us, the twelve tribes that were scattered