humble, nor can he be truly humble without being chaste. For the same reason no man can deliberately violate the law that forbids anger, without violating that which forbids avarice; nor can any man violate the law which forbids extortion, without violating that which forbids impurity. All virtues are naturally united together, and mutually support one another. The establishment of one unjust maxim authorizeth all unjust maxims. This is the meaning of the proposition in our text, Whosoever offendeth in one point, is guilty of all.

Hitherto we have only explained the sense of our text, it now remains to be proved. The proposition of our apostle is founded on three principal reasons. He, who sins in the manner just now described; he, whose mind resolves to sin, and who forces his conscience to approve vice, while he commits it, sins against all the precepts of the law, while he seems to sin against only one. 1. Because he subverts, as far as he can, the foundation of the law. 2. Because, although he may not actually violate all the articles of the law, yet he violates them virtually, I mean to say, his principles lead to an actual violation of all the precepts of the law. 3. Because we may presume, he, who violates the law virtually, will actually violate it, when it suits him to do so. These three reasons establish the truth of our apostle's proposition, and justify the sense, that we have given it. The discussion of these three reasons will be the second part of our discourse.

II. He who violates one precept of the law in the manner just now described, violates all; because,

first, he subverts, as far as in him lies, the very foundation of the law. This will clearly appear by a comparison of vice with error, heresy with disobedience. There are two sorts of errors and heresies; there are some errors which do not subvert the foundation of faith, and there are other errors that do subvert it. If, after I have honestly and diligently endeavoured to understand a passage of scripture proceeding from the mouth of God, I give it a sense different from that which is the true meaning of it; if I give it this sense, not because I dispute the authority of an infallible God, but because I cannot perceive that it ought to be taken in any other sense than that in which I understand it, I am indeed in an error, but by falling into this error I do not subvert the foundation on which my faith is built. I always suppose the authority and infallibility of God, and I am ready to renounce my error as soon as I am convinced that it is contrary to divine revelation.

But if, after it has been made to appear with irrefragable evidence, that my error is contrary to divine revelation, and if, moreover, after it has been made to appear that revelation came from God, I persist in my error, then, by sinning against one point I become guilty of all, because, by denying one single proposition of revelation, I deny that foundation on which all other propositions of revelation are built, that is, the infallibility and veracity of that God who speaks in our scriptures. I put in the place of God my reason, my wisdom, my tutor, my minister, whomever or whatever determines me to prefer my error

before that truth, which I am convinced is clearly revealed in a book that came from heaven.

In like manner there are two sorts of vices, some which do not subvert the foundation of our obedience to the laws of God, and others that do. In the first class are those sins which we have enumerated, daily infirmities, transient faults, and involuntary passions. In the second class ought to be placed those sins of deliberation and reflection, of which we just now spoke, and which our apostle had in view. These sins strike at the foundation of our obedience to the laws of God.

What is the ground of our obedience to the divine laws? When God gives us laws, he may be considered under either of three relations, or under all the three together; as a sovereign, as a legislator, as a father. Our obedience to God, considered as a sovereign, is founded on his infinite authority over us, and on our obligation to an entire and unreserved submission to him. Our obedience to God as a legislator is founded on his perfect equity. Our obedience to God as a Father is founded on the certain advantages which they who obey his laws derive from them, and on a clear evidence that because he ordains them, they must be essential to our happiness. Now he who sins coolly and deliberately against one single article, saps these three foundations of the law. He is, therefore, guilty of a violation of the whole law.

He saps the foundation of that obedience which is due to God considered as a master, if he imagine, he may make any reserve in his obedience; if he

say, I will submit to God, if he command me to be humble, but not if he command me to be chaste; and so on. He saps the foundation of that obedience which is due to God considered as law giver, if he imagine God is just in giving such and such a law, but not in prescribing such and such other laws; if he suppose God is just when he appoints him to educate and provide for an only son, but that he ceaseth to do right when he commands him to sacrifice him, addressing him in this terrifying style, Take now thy son, and offer him for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of, Gen. xxii. 2. He subverts the foundation of obedience to God as a father, if he suppose that God hath our happiness in view in requiring us to renounce some passions, but that he goes contrary to our interests by requiring us to sacrifice some other passions, which he may suppose can never be sacrificed without sacrificing at the same time his pleasure and felicity.

He who sins in this manner, attributes to the ob- \ jects which induce him to sin, excellences that can be in none but the Creator. He says, It is not God who is my master, my sovereign: It is the world, it is my company, it is my custom. He says, It is not God who is just: Justice is the property of my passions, my anger, my vengeance. He says, It is not God who is the source of my true happiness: it is my gold, my silver, my palace, my equipage, my Dalilah, my Drusilla. To offend in one point in this sense is to be guilty of all; because it subverts the foundation on which our obedience is built. And VOL. IV.

5

this reason is emphatically assigned by St. James in the verses that follow the text, Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all, for, adds the apostle, 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.

2. The man who offends in the manner that we have described, he who in his mind resolves to sin, and endeavours to force his conscience to approve vice while he commits it, breaks all the precepts of the law, because, whether he do actually break them or not, he breaks them virtually, and intentionally. He violates precepts of generosity, but he does not fall into debauchery. Why? Is it because he respects the divine laws which prohibit debauchery? No, but because, not being alike inclined to both these vices, he enjuys less pleasure in excess than in avarice. Could he find as much pleasure in violating the laws that prohibit excess, as he finds in violating those which forbid avarice, then, the same principle that impels him now to an incessant, immoderate love of gain, would impel him to drown his reason in wine, and to plunge himself into all excesses. By violating, then, laws commanding generosity, he violates, if not actually, yet virtually, laws prohibiting debauchery. What keeps him from violating the laws that forbid clamour and dissipation, is not respect for that God who commands recollection, retreat, and silence : but he affects these, because he has less aversion to retirement and silence, than he has to noise, clamour, and dissipation. Had he as much dislike of the first,