Page images
PDF
EPUB

he said, Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point? 2. How did he mean, that, by offending in one point, the offender was guilty of violating the whole law?

The meaning of the first depends partly on what precedes the text. The apostle had been endeavouring to inspire christians with charity; not with that partial charity, which inclines us to pity and relieve the miseries of a few distressed neighbours, but with that universal love, which induces all the disciples of Christ to consider one another as brethren, and which, because all are united to God, unites all to one another, and teacheth each to consider all as one compact body, of which love is the bond.

The apostle enters into this subject by this exhortation, My brethren! have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons, ch. ii. 1, These words are rather difficult: but one of the following senses, I think, must be given to them. 1. Instead of translating, have not the faith, we may read, judge not of faith by appearance of persons; that is to say, Do not judge what faith christians have in Jesus Christ, whom God hath elevated to the highest glory, by the rank, which they occupy in civil society, by their attendants, and equipage, and habits. A man, who makes a very mean / and contemptible appearance, a man all in rags is often a better christian than he, whose christianity, (so to speak,) is all set off with splendour, and grandeur, and fortune,

Or rather, have not faith in the Lord of glory by shewing a partial regard for the appearance of persons;

that is to say, Do not imagine yourselves believers, while you regard the appearance of persons. Do not imagine, that true faith is compatible with that meanness of soul, which makes people susceptible of very deep impressions of esteem at seeing a parade of human grandeur; do not suppose, that the soul of a good man must necessarily prostrate itself before pomp, and annihilate itself in the presence of great men; while he turns with disdain from the poor, infinitely greater for their piety than others for their pomp. A christian believing in Jesus Christ glorified, a christian persuaded that Jesus, his head, is elevated to the highest degree of glory, and hoping that he shall be shortly exalted to some degree with him; a christian, in whose mind such ideas are formed, ought not to entertain very high notions of earthly things, he ought to esteem that in man, which constitutes his real greatness, that immortality, which is a part of his essence, those hopes of eternal glory, at which he aspires, those efforts, which he is making towards bearing the image of his Creator: such qualities deserve esteem, and not the empty advantages of fortune.

The apostle, having established this general maxim, applies it to a particular case; but there are some difficulties in his manner of stating the case, as well as in the maxim to which he applies it. If there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; and ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or

sit here under my footstool: Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? What assembly had the apostle in view here?

Some think he spoke of an assembly of judges, and by respect, or appearance of persons, a spirit of partiality. They say, these words of St. James are synonimous to those of God to Jewish judges by Moses. Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour, Lev. xix. 15. Ye shall not respect persons in judgment: but ye shall hear the small as well as the great, Deut. i. 16, 17. They confirm this opinion by quoting a canon of the Jews, which enacts, that when two persons of unequal rank appear together in the Sanhedrim, one shall not be allowed to sit while the other stands; but both shall either sit together, or stand together, to avoid every shadow of partiality.

But, perhaps, our apostle spoke also of religious assemblies, and intended to inform primitive christians, that where the distinctions of princes and subjects, magistrates and people, were not known, there the rich would affect state, aspire to chief places, and gratify their senseless vanity by placing the poor on their footstools, in order to make them feel their indigence and meanness. However the apostle might mean, whether he spoke of juridical assemblies, or of religious conventions; of partial judgments, or of improper distinctions in the church, it is plain, he intended to preclude that veneration, which, in little souls, riches obtain for their possessors, and that dis

dain which poverty excites in such minds for those whom providence hath exposed to it.

Among many reasons, by which he enforces his exhortation, that, which immediately precedes the text, is taken from charity, or benevolence, If ye fulfil the royal law, according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well. But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are. convinced of the law as transgressors. Then follow the words of the text, for whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

It should seem at first, from the connection of the text with the preceding verses, that when St. James says, Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet of fend in one point, he is guilty of all, he means, by this one point, benevolence. However, I cannot think the meaning of St. James ought to be thus restricted. I rather suppose that he took occasion from a particular subject to establish a general maxim, that includes all sins, which come under the same description with that of which he was speaking. On this account after he has said, Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all, he adds, for he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill; he adds another example beside that of which he had been speaking. Consequently, he intended not only to speak of violation of the precepts of love; but also of all others, which had the same characters.

But in what light does he place this violation of the precept of love? He considers it as a sin com

mitted with full consent, preceded by a judgment of the mind, accompanied with mature deliberation, and, to a certain degree, approved by him who commits it. All these ideas are contained in these words, Ye have respect to persons, ye are partial in yourselves, ye are judges of evil thoughts, ye have despised the poor. What the apostle affirms of love in particular, he affirms of all sins committed with the same dispositions. Every sin committed with full consent, preceded by a judgment of the mind, accompanied with mature deliberation; every sin that conscience is made to approve during the commission of it; every such sin is included in this maxim of our apostle, whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

In this manner divest the text of one vague notion, to which it may seem to have given occasion. We acquit the apostle of the charge of preaching a melancholy, cruel morality, and we affirm, for the comfort of weak and timorous minds, that we ought not to place among the sins here intended, either momentary faults, daily frailties, or involuntary passions.

1. By daily frailties I mean those imperfections of piety, which are inseparable from the conditions of inhabitants of this world, which mix themselves with the virtues of the most eminent saints, and which, even in the highest exercises of the most fervid piety, make them feel that they are men, and that they are sinful men. By daily frailties I mean wanderings in prayer, troublesome intrusions of sensible objects, low exercises of self-love, and many

« EelmineJätka »