oppofite doctrine. It is therefore not only allowable, it is abfolutely neceffary, to understand the propofition in the text with fome qualification. The only question is, what this qualification fhall be. Different expofitors have propofed different restrictions; and they who are content with thefe (as many probably are) have nothing further to feek. But as there are fome, I know, who ftill wish for further light on this fubject, I fhall beg leave to offer, what, upon the most attentive confideration of this confeffedly difficult paffage, appears to me the trucft and most fcriptural fense of it. The queftion is certainly an important one, and well worthy our

most serious attention. It is not a matter of nice, and curious, and unprofitable fpeculation. It is a point in which we are all most deeply interested, and the decifion of it must be of great moment to every moral agent, who thinks himself bound by the precepts, or looks forwards to the rewards, of the Gospel *.

It

* The various fenfes, which have been given to the words of the text by different interpreters, are ftated and explained

by

i

It may, in the first place, be neceffary to premise, that by offending in one point is not meant a single cafual tranfgreffion of duty, fuch as the best of men may sometimes fall into, but a wilful and conftant violation of fome divine command, a fettled and determined habit of fin. In this there is no difference of opinion. And, fince it is also an agreed point that the full and unlimited fenfe of the text is indefenfible, all that can be neceffary to be proved is this: that he who

by Archbishop Secker, with his usual accuracy, judgement, and perfpicuity *. The most common interpretation of them, which is well known, has been proved by Bishop Sherlock to be altogether inadmiffible; and in the room of it, that very able prelate has propofed another explanation † which may be found also in St. Auftin; who has expressed the substance of it very concisely in thefe words :-Plenitudo legis eft charitas; ac per hoc qui totam legem fervaverit, fi in uno offenderit, fit omnium reus, quia contra charitatem facit unde tota lex pendet ‡. It is very conceivable that the bishop, without ever having met with this paffage, may have fallen incidentally into the fame train of thinking. But, notwithstanding the united authority of thefe two learned men, there are, in my apprehen fion, infuperable objections to their opinion; with which however, I do not think it neceffary at present to trouble the reader.

*Vol. vii. Serm. 3.

+ Vol. i. Di c. 18. p. 347.

Auguft op. om. ii. Epift. 29. ad Hieronymum.

lives in the habitual commiffion of any one acknowledged fin, will, in fome material reSpects, experience the fame confequences, and be treated in the fame manner, as if he had been guilty of all. If this be clearly made out, and shown to be confiftent with the dictates of justice, and the doctrines of the Gospel, it will fully justify St. James's declaration; and will at the fame time be as near an approach to the literal meaning as can be made, without falling directly into it.

The next enquiry then of course is, in what refpects he who offends in one point will be treated as if he had been guilty of all.

Now there are two effects, and those of a very important nature indeed, which will equally follow from partial and from total difobedience. The first of these is exclufion from heaven, or the lofs of eternal life.

In this respect, our guilt, our demerit, our incapacity for future happiness, will be precisely the fame, whether we offend in one point, or whether we offend in all. The gates of heaven are shut against unexpiated

fin,

fin, under every form and in every degree. He who lives and dies in the violation of any one divine command, fhall have no more title to reward than if he had violated

every command. And in this fenfe, by offending in one point, he may with great propriety and truth be faid to be guilty of all. For the consequence to him, with regard to future happiness, will be the fame as if he actually had been fo. He will be as certainly and as effectually excluded from the kingdom of God, as if he had broken every law, instead of one.

Had this then been the whole of St. James's meaning in this place, it would have sufficiently authorized the ftrong expreffion he has made use of. But there is, I conceive, ftill another effect, which will equally attend difobedience in one point and difobedience in all, and that is, condemnation to punishment. He who habitually and wilfully tranfgreffes any one of the divine laws, will be as certainly doomed to fome degree of future mifery as if he had tranfgreffed them all. This indeed teems to be the natural confequence of his being excluded from reward. In the great day of final retribution, there are A a but

but two claffes into which all mankind will
be divided; the wicked, and the good; those
who are punished, and thofe who are re-
warded. Between these there appears to be
no middle rank, no neutral set of beings who
are neither punished nor rewarded. Not the
leaft traces or moft diftant intimations of any
fuch intermediate condition are to be met
with in fcripture. In our Lord's reprefenta-
tion of the last judgement, the sheep are
placed on the right hand, and the goats on the
left, but we hear of none who have a station
affigned them between both *. They who do
not go away into life eternal," are ordered
to depart into a state of everlasting punish-
ment. And, fince the offender in one point,
cannot be among the first, he must neceffarily
be afforted with the laft. In this then, as
well as in the lofs of heaven, he shares the
fate of him who is guilty of all; with him he
is caft into outer darkness, with him he fuf-
fers the infliction of actual pain. And, fince
his condemnation to thefe fufferings is as cer-
tain and inevitable as if he had broken every
command instead of one,
he may
in this re-

* Matth. xxv. 31—46.

fpect

4