SERMON XI. THE KNOWLEDGE OF SIN NECESSARY TO REPENTANCE. (PREACHED DURING LENT.) 1 John iii. 4. Sin is the transgression of the law. AT this season of the year we are directed, for a considerable period before our commemoration of the suf ferings and death of our blessed Saviour, to prepare ourselves for its celebration by penitential exercises: and with much reason; for exactly in proportion to the sense of our sinfulness will be the value we shall place on the inestimable Sacrifice which was offered up on our behalf. In pursuance of this excellent intention of our church, it is my wish to endeavour to promote in myself and you a spirit of sincere repentance for our transgressions against God. Repentance pre-supposes a knowledge of our sin. There may, indeed, be a knowledge of sin without any repentance on account of it, but there cannot be repentance without a due knowledge of our transgres VOL. I. 48 sions; and, in general, where there is true repentance, it will be rational, deep, and abiding in proportion to the clearness of our view of the number, quality, and heinousness of our transgressions. What is sin? The Apostle answers, It "is the transgression of the law." Let us keep this definition in view, in order to form a just idea of sin. Unscriptural ideas on religious subjects have, perhaps, more than any thing else, contributed to a corrupt conduct. This is particularly the case with respect to sin. Men form to themselves ideas of sin very different from those which the Scripture warrants, and then pronounce themselves either to be free from it, or to need nothing more than a slight and superficial repentance. 1. "Sin is the transgression of the law."-This supposes that there is some law given by the Almighty which sin transgresses. Now the laws of God are of various kinds, and made known in different ways. Some have been expressly revealed: others have been written in the hearts of men by nature. Some are determinate-forbidding certain actions; others indeterminate-requiring the cultivation of certain dispositions, or the performance of certain duties. In whatever manner the law has been revealed, to whatever points it is directed, if that law be transgressed, there the guilt of sin will attach. Now it is evident, from this account of the nature of the law, that more sin may be committed against the indeterminate precepts of the law than against those which are determinate; and yet the transgressors of the former class of precepts be far less sensible of their guilt. If, for example, such a determinate law be given as, "Thou shalt do no murder," a person will certainly know whether he has been guilty of breaking this law or not: but if an indeterminate law be given, such as this, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength;" this law a man may be breaking every day and every hour of his life, and yet may not be sensible of it, nor be led to repent of his habitual transgression. Now it is in this very way that the greatest part of mankind deceive themselves. They consider chiefly the determinate precepts; such, for instance, as forbid certain crimes; but those which are indeterminate they do not regard, although they are equally enjoined by God, and the neglect or violation of them is therefore equally sinful. If God commands a certain duty and you neglect it, do you not contract as much guilt as if you had committed an action which he had forbidden? The guilt arises, not from the quality of the particular act, but from its being a transgression of the law of God. The law of God requires certain dispositions and tempers: now if a man is not actuated by these dispositions he is guilty of habitually breaking the Divine law, and therefore is habitually living in a state of sin. The laws of man respect actions only, but the pure and holy law of God requires that the dispositions also should be regulated. Hence, to prove that you have not sinned, it is not enough to say, "I have not committed such and such crimes:" the question will still recur, "Have you constantly lived under the influence of those tempers and dispositions which the law of God enjoins?" If you have not, you are clearly a transgressor. The law of God requires you to be heavenlyminded, to be meek and kind, and to love your neighbour as yourself; it requires you to be pure and chaste, and to be "holy even as" Christ is "holy;" the man, therefore, who does not in the fullest degree possess these dispositions, is living in the hourly, nay constant, commission of sin, however unconscious he may be of his transgression and guilt. 2. "Sin is the transgression of the law." But, then, it is the transgression of a law of which the spirit is to be regarded rather than the letter.-An inattention to this truth is another fruitful source of error. Many will say, "Shew us that this or that particular action is forbidden, and we will no longer practise it: but do not make that to be sin which is not declared to be so by God himself." To this I reply, that the laws of God are to be interpreted by a rule in some measure contrary to that which human governments employ. In criminal cases, the judge will not suffer a penal statute to be strained beyond its literal meaning in order to condemn a prisoner; but the law of God, which requires the highest conceivable purity, both of heart and life, is to be interpreted in the most extensive sense: it forbids not only the sin, but every thing connected with it, every thing leading to it. It is in this manner that our blessed Lord, in his Sermon on the Mount, insists upon the most extensive interpretation of the commandment: "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; but I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother, without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgment." Here the spirit as well as the letter, of the law is considered; and the spirit of the commandment forbids every degree of hatred or anger, and says, with St. John, "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.”— It is not necessary, therefore, to the guilt of the criminal, that the particular crime of which he is guilty should be expressly named in Scripture. It is sufficient that the general class of sins under which it may be ranked, be forbidden; or that the disposition from which, in common with many other sinful acts, it proceeds, be contrary to the pure and holy law of God. It may be objected perhaps, that "so to apply the law of God as to enlarge the bounds of transgression, is to represent it as far more severe than the laws of men." Now with the mercy of God the present question has nothing to do. God is merciful and compassionate to a degree far greater than man can conceive. He does not, however, shew his mercy by narrowing the limits of transgression, and allowing the sinner to entrench himself behind the mere letter of the law. His compassion and mercy are shewn, not in altering the nature or abating the penalty of sin, but in freely pardoning innumerable and heinous transgressions, that "as sin hath abounded, so might grace much more abound.” The law of God bears the character of the Deity whose mind it declares, and is, like himself, infinitely holy. It is so pure, that a moment's reflection must convince us it could not proceed from man. It ap proves itself to be of Divine origin by its purity and perfection, as much as the light of the sun displays the power of the Creator by its utility and lustre. cent. 3. Again: "Sin is the transgression of the law." But it is not necessary to the guilt of such transgression, either that the law should be distinctly known, or the trangressor be conscious that he has committed a sin in breaking it. The law may be broken and man fall under its condemnation, without knowing or suspecting the consequences of his misconduct. For, in this case, as in that of human laws, it is sufficient that the offender might have known what the law was. If our sinfulness depended upon the distinctness of our knowledge of the law, it would follow, that those who least read the Bible, or least endeavoured in other ways to ascertain the will of God, would be the most innoIf our guilt depended upon our consciouness of transgression, it would follow, that the man in whom the habits of sin have "seared" the conscience, and extinguished the sense of demerit, would be comparatively guiltless. But this is an absurdity too gross to be admitted. We must therefore adopt a different rule of judgment: we must view it as the first duty of every man to ascertain the will of his Creator: we must hold, that, in proportion to his means of acquiring this knowledge, his ignorance of it becomes criminal; and that, therefore every person of competent understanding, who has the Bible before him, or who has the means of knowing what it enjoins, will be considered as guilty before God whenever he violates any of its precepts, even although through his carelessness and indifference, he may be absolutely unacquainted with their nature and extent. But it is to be feared that men in general judge |