§ 24. HE THAT COMMITTETH SIN, IS OF THE DEVIL.'

MUCH has been said and written to show that John, in the above declaration, did not mean what he said. It is admitted on all hands that he did not mean more than he said; for, assuming that his intention was to convey the idea that any one who sins has no part or lot in the salvation of the gospel, he could not have expressed it more clearly in an equal number of words, than he has done in these. The only question is, whether he meant less than he said; whether his words are to be qualified in such a manner as to mitigate the rigor of their simple sense. In determining this question, we shall resort, 1, to the context; 2, to other parts of scripture; 3, to the nature of the case. I. THE CONTEXT.

"Every man that hath this hope [viz. of seeing Christ] in him, purifieth himself even as he is pure. Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not; whosoever sinneth, hath not seen him, neither known him. Little children, let no man deceive you; he that doeth righteousness, is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin, is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness, is not of God." 1 John 3: 3-10.

1. It is manifest in the above passage, that the apostle was laboring seriously and earnestly to establish the truth, (whatever that truth may be,) that he that committeth sin is of the devil.' He has expressed it not lessthan eight times, in varying phraseology, within the compass of this short paragraph. Among all these expressions, we may surely expect to ascertain beyond controversy, whether he meant to assert that he that committeth sin is of the devil,' absolutely, or in a qualified sense. If he has not defi nitely and perfectly conveyed his meaning, he was either singularly unfortunate as a writer, or a wilful deceiver. But he cannot be misunderstood. Not a particle of evidence can be found in the whole paragraph, that he designed to suggest or admit any qualification of the simple declaration 'he that committeth sin is of the devil.' On the contrary, he has expressed the same idea in at least seven other instances, without qualification; and in two instances, with such a comparison as perfectly determines the extent of his meaning. Every man that hath this hope in him, purifieth himself even as he [Christ] is pure.' He that doeth righteousness, is righteous, even as he is righteous. If it is not absolutely true that he that committeth sin is of the devil,' the apostle has eight times in succession repeated a false assertion without the least intimation of his covert meaning, and with such definitive explanations that we cannot avoid the conclusion that he designed and earnestly labored to establish those to whom he wrote in the belief of its truth.

6

6

2. The immediate context strongly intimates the nature and extent of the truth declared in the words in question. Little children, let no man deceive you; he that doeth righteousness, is righteous, even as he is righteous: he that committeth sin is of the devil.' The apostle was evidently dwelling on a point, concerning which the greatest danger of deception existed. We may well perceive the necessity of his caution- Let no man deceive you'-if we understand that he was insisting upon the truth that all men are either as righteous as Christ, or as wicked as the devil. Doubtless there were then, as there are now, multitudes who could not receive Christ's assertion, that a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit'-who believed it possible to serve God and mammon at the same time. Such persons might be expected to deceive themselves and others. Hence it was needful that the truth on the subject should be stated with what seems to be almost puerile repetition, and with explicit caution against deception. There is no subject at this day, in respect to which there is so much manifest looseness of thought, and tendency to self-deception, as the question, whether, and how much, men may sin and yet be Christians. Human depravity teaches us to expect a tendency to lean away from the severe doctrine of the apostle. In these circumstances, his warning- Let no man deceive you'-is not only appropriate to his subject, but a pledge of his plainness. With such a warning in his mouth, how could he use the language of poetry or metaphor? If he was honest, he could say no more nor less than he meant. If he did not mean that all men are either as righteous as Christ or as wicked as the devil, he has done what he could, so far as language is concerned, to deceive those to whom he wrote, while he solemnly cautioned them against the delusions of others. Little children, let no man deceive you; he that doeth righteousness, is righteous, even as he is righteous.' As if he had said, 'There are those who will try to deceive you with the notion that there is such a thing as imperfect righteousness-sinful holiness; but beware of such. He that committeth sin is of the devil.' If the common view of this passage is true, instead of diminishing the danger of deception, by his plainness and caution, he has greatly augmented it. If he did not mean to convey the idea that men cannot sin at all and be Christians, we confess, for ourselves, he has greatly deceived us. Though by no means naturally inclined to exalt the standard of holiness, we have been compelled to believe that John was a Perfectionist of the highest standard, so far as the subject of holiness is concerned.

3. It is manifest, in the paragraph we have quoted, that the apostle's object was to establish a definite and intelligible test by which the children of God, and the children of the devil, might be distinguished. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil; he that doeth not righteousness is not of God.' And forasmuch as he had already declared that he that doeth righteousness, is righteous even as Christ is righteous," he virtually proposed this test, viz: He that is not as righteous as Christ, is not of God: in other words, he that committeth sin [without qualification] is a child of the devil.' In this view of his language, the test is simple, intelligible, perfect. Two classes only are recognized, and they are easily and

certainly distinguished. The children of God are perfectly holy. Sin, in every case, proves the subjects of it children of the devil. If we substitute any of the common versions of this passage for the simple words as they stand in the text, we destroy the nature and value of the test. For example, He that committeth sin habitually is of the devil.' Now it would puzzle the keenest casuist that ever cavilled for the ninth part of a hair,' to ascertain the limits, and define the meaning of the term, 'habitual sin.' Thus the virtue of the test is lost. This may be seen by an illustration. While the principle was held that he who drinks ardent spirits habitually is intemperate,' and no other test was known, nobody could with any satisfactory degree of accuracy, distinguish between the temperate and intemperate. Every man had his own standard of temperance. Some claimed the character of temperate men, because they drank only once a day; and some who drank before and after every meal, thought themselves by no means habitual drinkers. But when the principle was established that he that drinks ardent spirits is intemperate,' a perfect and practical test was furnished. A fulcrum was fixed for the action of that lever which has revolutionized the public sentiment of the civilized world. So, while the word 'habitually' is added to the declarations of the word of God concerning sin, we can expect nothing but looseness of thought and looseness of practice, which shall confound all valuable distinctions between saints and sinners. Receive the word of God as it stands- He that committeth sin is of the devil'-and a fulcrum is fixed for a lever which by the power of God shall ere long turn an inverted world upside down. These remarks apply with equal force to various other versions of John's hard saying:' e. g., He that committeth known sin is of the devil;' 'He that committeth wilful sin is of the devil;' 'He that committeth sin is of the devil while committing sin.' &c. But it is needless to protract this examination. It is perfectly manifest to every candid reader, that John intended to take the high ground of TOTAL ABSTINENCE FROM SIN; and we are so uncharitable (if it must be called uncharitable) as to believe that they who insist upon inserting the words habitual,' known,' 'wilful,' &c., in his unqualified declarations, in so doing, commit habitual, known, and wilful sin.

II. OTHER PARTS OF SCRIPTURE.

6

If we can clearly ascertain the sense of one assertion of God's word, we need no more proof to establish the truth which it exhibits. If that word by legitimate rules of interpretation applied to every part individually, is not consistent with itself, its authority is destroyed. Yet we have thought it well, for the sake of those who make great account of what is called the ' analogy of faith'-the principle by which one part of scripture is distorted into seeming consistency with another, and by the abundant use of which systems of divinity, creeds, &c., discordant as they are, have usually been constructed-to show by a few examples, that John is not the only writer in the Bible who denies that they who sin have any part or lot with Christ.

Paul says If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die.' Rom. 8: 13. Who live after the flesh but they that commit sin? Again; "If while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves are found sinners, is Christ therefore the

minister of sin? God forbid.' Gal. 2: 17. Having shown that believers are justified by Christ, and not by the works of the law, the antinomian question suggests itself to the apostle, whether justification by Christ abolishes the necessity of personal holiness-whether Christ will justify, and thus serve men in their sins? He replies with a decisive negative, and proceeds to show that in true believers Christ makes an end of the law and its works, by living in them, crucifying their flesh, and making them personally partakers of his perfect righteousness.

James says-Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world, is the enemy of God.' 4: 4. Most professing Christians will admit that this is true in some general and indefinite sense. If it is true in any sense, a 'worldly Christian' (we use the language of antichrist) is an enemy of God. But we may easily perceive that it is true in its most rigorous sense, by attending to the hint furnished by the address with which it begins:- Ye adulterers and adulteresses.' The apostle is dealing with professors of religion: for he says immediately before, Ye ask and receive not,' &c., showing that the persons he addressed recognized God as the source of blessing; and he afterwards characterizes them as 'double-minded.' Ver. 8. We understand then that he called them adulterers and adulteresses, because they professed to stand in the covenant of God, which the Bible every where represents as a marriage covenant, and yet loved the world. In other words, the love of the world is a breach of a marriage covenant with God-spiritual adultery. Now let any one consider how delicate and sacred the marriage relation is, as it exists between two fellow-worms-how the least suspicion of a single instance of unfaithfulness destroys all fellowship-and he will understand how often and how long men may commit adultery with the world, and yet remain in marriage covenant and fellowship with the great God.

As it is this class of persons, called by James the double-minded,' i. e. 'worldly Christians,' whose standing is principally concerned in the interpretation of our hard saying- He that committeth sin is of the devil,'-we will notice particularly several other passages which treat of their case.

Matt. 6: 22, 23. The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light: but if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness! In the first two clauses of this passage, Christ represents all men as either full of light or full of darkness: i. e., wholly righteous or wholly sinful; for all men have either a single or an evil eye. In the last clause he evidently alludes to the case of those, who, having an evil eye, imagine themselves at least partially right. eous, and thus put darkness for light. That this is his meaning, appears from what immediately follows:-No man can serve two masters,' &c. "If the light that is in thee be darkness, [i. e., if you have an understanding of religious truth, profess and believe yourself to be in the way of righteousness, while yet your eye is not single-while you are seeking to serve both God and mammon,] how great is that darkness!' The expression intimates

23

what is manifestly true, that a worldly Christian,' a 'double-minded man, is in greater moral darkness than a mere heedless sinner.

Compare Matt. 24: 48-51, with Luke 12: 45, 46. In these passages we have a clear description of the character and doom of a double-minded man. 1. He is an 'evil servant;' not an open rebel, neither a good servant, but a rebel at heart, and a servant by profession: in other words, an adulterer, a double-minded man, who is seeking to serve God and mammon. 2. He takes advantage of the delay of his master to indulge himself in wickedness, saying, 'My Lord delayeth his coming;' an exact pattern of the case of those who neglect preparation for meeting Christ, in expectation of deathbed sanctification. 3. His master comes upon him unexpectedly, cuts him off, and assigns him a portion with hypocrites and unbelievers. This last expression intimates that he was neither entirely a hypocrite, nor an unbeliever. In some sense he was truly a servant of his master; in some sense he was a believer; but he was an evil servant, a wicked believer, and therefore unexpectedly shared the doom of sheer hypocrites and unbelievers.

In John 8: 30-44, we have a delineation of the character and standing of wicked believers. Observe, 1, the persons there spoken of believed on Christ; 2, they thought themselves Abraham's seed and therefore heirs of the promises; 3, they denied that they were in bondage; 4, they thought themselves the children of God. Christ declared to them the test-Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.' They disputed, cavilled, rejected his word, as thousands of wicked believers do in this day. He said to them plainly at last, Ye are of your father the devil.' For this they called him a Samaritan, and a child of the devil. Such is now the usual result of the application of John's test, He that committeth sin is of the devil.'

Revelation 3: 14-18, describes a double-minded church. It appears that this church was well pleased with its supposed good estate. But Christ gives us to understand that he loathed its character more than he would havə done had there been no profession of righteousness.

We give but a specimen of that testimony concerning sin, which is the most prominent characteristic of the New Testament, and indeed of the whole Bible. We give enough to show that the Scripture makes but two classes among men, the children of God, and the children of the devil; and subdividing the children of the devil into careless sinners and religious sinners, or unbelievers and 'double-minded,' assigns the lowest place to the latter class. III. THE NATURE OF THE CASE.

Every body admits in some general sense that sin characterizes the children of the devil, and holiness the children of God. The only question that calls for discussion is whether sin is of such a nature that a single instance of the commission of it is a sufficient criterion of character. For the sake of illustration we put another question: Is the juice of a tree of such a nature that a single specimen of the fruit it produces is a sufficient criterion of the tree? We are authorized by right reason, as well as by the example of Christ, to use this illustration. As in the case of the tree, one principle of vitality pervades every limb, so that there is a unity of character, and the