be practised with impunity, will find himself most fatally deceived. As sure as God is just, and the Gospel is true, so surely will the judgments of the last day be inflicted on all impenitent offenders, not promiscuously and indiscriminately, but in weight and measure precisely balancing their several demerits. And although from the text we may collect, that any one vice, habitually indulged, will as effectually exclude us from reward, and subject us to punishment, as if we had been guilty of every vice; yet the degrees of that punishment will be exactly proportioned to the number and the magnitude of the sins we have committed.

That the sense here given to St. James's words is the true one, must, I think, be allowed by every one that will take the trouble of casting his eye on the chapter from whence the text is taken, and that which immediately precedes it. He will see that the Apostle's reasoning, throughout a great part of these chapters, is directed against that most dangerous notion, which the heart of man has been at all times but too apt to entertain, and which the Jews,

more especially, carried to a most extravagant height, that universal holiness of life is not necessary to salvation; that a partial obedience to the divine law is sufficient to secure both impunity and reward; and, that many virtues will cover and excuse one favourite vice. This was the error which the Apostle undertook to combat; and in order to do this, it was not (as I have already observed) necessary for him to prove, that he who offends in one point is, literally and strictly speaking, guilty of all. This was going not only beyond all bounds of credibility and truth, but beyond every thing that his argument required. All that this naturally led him to prove was, that no impenitent offender, even though he offended in one point only, should either obtain reward or escape punishment. Accordingly, it is this doctrine which he endeavours throughout the whole context to establish. It is this which he lays down with peculiar emphasis in the text; it is this which he inculcates a few verses before, in words nearly as forcible as those in the text, and which will assist us in confirming the interpretation here

"If

66

seem

any man among you," says he, "to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, "but deceiveth his own heart, that man's "religion is vain."* Here, you see, is a specification of one particular point (that of habitual evil speaking, in all the worst senses of that word) in which he supposes. that a man, in other respects religious and unblamable, offends. † And what does he say of that man? Why, that his religion is vain, is unprofitable, is useless to him, will in the last day avail him nothing, will neither entitle him to reward, nor exempt him from punishment. When, therefore, within a few verses after this, he resumes the argument, and says, "Whosoever shall

66

66

keep the whole law, and yet offend in

one point, he is guilty of all," who can have any doubt that he means nothing more than to express, in stronger and more comprehensive terms, the very same doctrine which he had just before laid down with regard to one particular case? The clearness of the former passage reflects light on the obscurity of the latter; and when St. James says, "Whosoever shall keep the

* James i. 26.

+ See Benson in loc.

66

"whole law, and yet offend in one point, "he is guilty of all," it is exactly the same as if he had said, "Whosoever shall keep "the whole law, and yet offend in one point, that man's religion is vain :” will be of no benefit to him in the great day of retribution. He will be as far from obtaining either impunity or reward, as if he had been guilty of every sin, instead of one.*

The justness of this explanation will, I apprehend, appear in a still stronger light, if we try it (as all explanations of Scripture ought to be tried) by considering in one view the whole passage from whence the text is taken, and then subjoining such a

* There is a very ingenious conjecture of Baulacre's, in Wetstein, on the text in question, James ii. 10. Instead of the common reading, yeyove mayтwy εvoxos, he proposes (with a very small variation) yɛyovɛ navτws evoxos: that is, he is undoubtedly guilty, he is clearly a transgressor of the law. Just as it is said, Acts xxviii. 4., Παντως φονευς εςιν ο άνθρωπος στος, "No doubt this man is a murderer.". Could this emendation be established, it would certainly remove all difficulty. But it is not supported by any manuscript. And I doubt much whether the word voxos is ever used by any good writer, singly and absolutely to signify guilty. It is generally found in construction with some noun to which it has a reference, and by which its sense is determined. Thus it is said, Matt. v. 21., ενοχος τη κρισει ; and, xxvi. 66., ενοχος θανατε; and in Demosthenes, and other classical writers, Evoxos TOIS

paraphrase of it as the meaning here affixed to St. James's words requires. The entire context is as follows:

" If ye fulfil the royal law, according to "the Scripture, THOU SHALT LOVE THY "NEIGHBOUR AS THYSELF, ye do well: but "if

if ye have respect to persons, ye commit "sin, and are convinced of the law as "transgressors. For WHOSOEVER SHALL KEEP 66 THE WHOLE LAW, AND YET OFFEND IN ONE 66 POINT, HE IS GUILTY OF ALL. For he that "said, Do not commit adultery, said also, "Do not kill. Now, if thou commit no "adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become "a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, " and so do, as they that shall be judged by "the law of liberty. For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath showed 66 no mercy, and mercy rejoiceth against "judgment."

66

66

If the principles advanced in this discourse be true, and the conclusions just, the sense of this very obscure passage will be what is here subjoined.

If you fulfil the great law of LOVING YOUR NEIGHBOUR AS YOURSELVES (which, having been adopted, explained, and enforced by