CHAPTER II: SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SINLESSNESS OF JESUS WITH RESPECT TO HIS RELATION TO

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SINLESSNESS OF JESUS WITH RESPECT TO HIS RELATION TO MANKIND. __________________________________________________________________

IT is obvious that a personality constituted as we have seen the Lord Jesus to be, must have a significance for the entire human race. It is as evident that this significance must be sought in that point in which the being and nature of such a personality is most essentially comprised and concentrated. Now the earthly. life of Jesus, from its commencement to its close, the purpose to which it was entirely devoted, was to make the true relation to God and to His fellow-men a living reality. Hence, too, His life-task, and the aim of all His outward acts, was to bring men in this highest of all respects into their right position, and thus to found their true, their imperishable happiness on God, the source of all life and blessedness.

This, however, was to be accomplished, not in a race in whom the Divine image was still pure and unobscured,--the moral power, vigorous and unscathed. It was to be effected in one in which sin had attained a supremacy, which had eclipsed the image and the knowledge of God, in which the true fellowship with God had been destroyed, the moral powers enslaved, and a principle of discord and ruin introduced even into the relations between man and man. Hence what was needed could not be merely to give greater firmness and stability to a bond of Divine fellowship already in existence, and to cherish and render still more energetic a life already based on such communion. The question, on the contrary, was to form afresh the bond which sin had destroyed,--to plant anew, in the midst of a sinful condition, an entirely new life. The question was to bring about a re-union with God, to produce a new creation of human life--new to its very roots and sources; and this could only be effected by actually breaking the power of sin, and doing away with its guilt,--by taking away all that was either destructive or obstructive. For such a purpose, the influence of instruction and example, though of the most perfect kind, was by no means adequate. On the contrary, an atonement, a redemption, a mediation, were of absolute necessity. This being the case, it is evident that the being who is to intervene between the holy God and the sinful race of man, for the restoration of true and vital fellowship between them, can be none other than one standing in a relation towards God which is uninterrupted by sin, and at the same time impelled by holy love to enter into the very depths of human nature, and to take its entire condition upon himself. Jesus is such a being, by reason of His sinless perfection; and it is this very quality that makes Him capable of being the one mediator between God and man.

If it be then asked what was needed for the purpose of bringing the human race, which through sin had become estranged from God, and at variance among themselves, into saving fellowship with God, and of laying in that race the foundation of a truly satisfactory state of life, the reply, if it is to be at once complete and particular, must embrace the whole work and scheme of salvation. We may, however, reduce that which falls within our present aim to a few general essential features. These seem to us to be the following: first, the revelation of the will of God to all men, so far as this is necessary for their salvation (knowledge of the method of salvation); secondly, the removal of all that separates the sinner from God, and the establishment, in its place, of a new life of fellowship with God (atonement and redemption); thirdly, the institution, upon this foundation, of a community whose aim and purpose should be wholly of a religious and moral character,--a community of fosterers and guardians of the new and Divine powers (foundation of the kingdom of God and of the Church); and fourthly, the assurance to the living members of this community of a final victory over all opposing powers, and of eternal glory (pledge of eternal life). All these we find in the Person of Jesus Christ. But we find them only in so far as He is sinless, and should not be able to find them in Him unless this were really the case. Had He been a man with the slightest taint of sin, He would not have been able to fulfil these necessary conditions. As the sinlessly perfect One, however, who stands in that oneness with God which He Himself asserts, He is, in the most direct manner, the personal revelation to us of the nature and will of God,--the true mediator between sinful man and the holy God; the royal founder of the kingdom of God and the Church, the highest of human communities; and the perfect pledge of everlasting life, and glorious victory to this community, and to its members united to Himself by a living faith.

We shall now proceed to consider Him in each of these several aspects. __________________________________________________________________

Sec. 1.--The Sinless Jesus as the personal Revelation of God.

Sinlessness, in the case of Him to whom it cannot but be conceded, is of itself a powerful guarantee of perfection, both in the knowledge of things Divine and moral, and in the doctrine arising therefrom. Sinless perfection and religious infallibility mutually condition each other; and Jesus Himself appeals, as we have seen, in proof that He spoke the truth, and that His doctrine was not His own, but His that sent Him, to the impossibility of convicting Him of sin, and to the fact that He did at all times such things as were pleasing to the Father. [262]

But doctrine, simply as such, is not revelation. It is, indeed, a component, but only a deduced and secondary part of revelation, and everywhere presupposes--but most especially in Christianity--a more primitive and more comprehensive whole,--a series of actual Divine announcements. Doctrine, at best, can but tell us what we ought to think of God: from revelation, on the contrary, if we regard the term in its full meaning, we expect that it should show us what He is,--that it should manifest His nature. Without needing to itdduce evidence, revelation will of its very nature be itself the strongest actual proof of the Divine existence and government, by bringing the God of whom it is the witness and lively image as near to our soul as is possible,. and above all by disclosing to us His very nature, and making it an object of contemplation. In this sense, that alone can be a perfect revelation which is accomplished by means of the totality of a personal life. For God Himself, as the infinitely perfect, self-conscious Spirit, is essentially a person; and the true relation of created spirits to Him cannot be otherwise conceived of than as that of person to person. Hence that manifestation of God to man which completes all revelation, in which both the relation of God to man and of man to God is perfectly realized, must have that same form which we recognise as the highest form of life, viz. the personal. Only in this form can the fulness of the Divine Spirit and the Divine love suitably manifest the whole sum of those qualities which, in a moral sense, constitute the nature of God. Only thus can God draw so near to man, that he, according to the measure of his capacity, may become a partaker of Him. Only thus can the true relation of man to God be expressed by an, actual and genuine life, and a restorative, creative, vital power be implanted in the history of mankind in such wise that, from henceforth, the higher life of man may be renewed and developed by organic connection with this its true centre. Hence we may say that, the more personal the Divine revelation,--the more it is expressed, not merely as religious instruction, or as the delivery of law, but as personal life,--the higher is it in degree; and that the final and perfect revelation must necessarily be one which is essentially manifested in a holy personality, in one whose life and conduct bring before the very senses of man the nature and will of God.

It is in this sense that Jesus is the revelation of God. It is He Himself that is this revelation, both in His own Person and in the totality of all that proceeded therefrom, whether in word or deed, of all the suffering and the glory, the humiliation and the exaltation, that was accomplished therein. It is thus that He represents Himself. He says, [263] I am the way, the truth, and the life,'--thus most expressly declaring that for the attainment of everlasting life everything depends upon His Person, and that in this respect He would be regarded not merely as one who teaches truth, but as truth impersonate, as truth manifested in life. In like manner, He designates Himself as one who has manifested unto men the name of the Father, i.e. the whole extent of His nature,. so far as it could be revealed in, the world, and to mankind. [264] He also asserts that no man can attain to the true knowledge of the Father but he to whom the Son will reveal Him; [265] and in that passage in which He speaks of a knowledge which is at the same time eternal life, He directly combines with the knowledge of the only true God that of Jesus Christ, whom He has sent.
[266] Besides, wherever He speaks of a perfect and saving knowledge of God, He always represents this as brought about by means of His own Person; while it is undoubtedly Jesus who is intended, when subsequently the Son is designated in the apostolic circle as He through whom, as being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His Person, God has, after divers previous revelations, in these last days fully revealed Himself. [267]

We have, moreover, this revelation of God in a personal life in Jesus, inasmuch as He was sinlessly perfect. His whole life breathes of God, is rooted in God, is inexplicable apart. from God. There is not, nor can there possibly be, a stronger evidence of the existence and government of God than such a life. If God is not to be seen and felt here, where, we may ask, is He to be found? But that He is to be found by, and that He is the rewarder of, them that seek Him, is told us by every word and act of the Lord Jesus, and is powerfully declared by His whole manifestation, in which the reality of a higher and a heavenly order of things is so overwhelmingly evident. And not only does the existence of God become a certainty through Him, but He is also the means of disclosing the nature of God, and that--as is indeed demanded by the very notion of revelation--under an entirely new aspect, an aspect which had not as yet become an all-pervading consciousness. Hitherto the power, the glory, the unapproachable dignity of God had been clearly perceived, while but a faint and distant idea of His grace had been entertained. But now, in the sinless Jesus, who died for a sinful world, in the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth,' that which constitutes the essential nature of God,--that which, as has been aptly said, is mast God-like in God, even His holy love, His preventing, sin-forgiving, death-conquering, and life-giving grace, [268] --is brought out in the clearest light. In the sinless One, who lived only for sinners, God was for the first time revealed in the manner needed for the salvation of a sinful world. Nor was this done in the way merely of doctrine and declaration, but very chiefly in that manner in which alone such a revelation could exercise creative energy, even by acts of direct intervention, by a totality of saving deeds and saving operations, centering in the divine-human Person of Jesus Christ Himself, the living exemplification of the holy love of God. In that miracle of Divine love--the whole being and life of Jesus--the nature of God, as love, is manifested in a manner than which it is impossible to conceive aught higher or more perfect; and therein is fulfilled that profound saying of St. John: [269] The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.'

But a revelation of God concerns itself not merely with His nature, but also with His will. In this aspect it is still more apparent how Jesus the sinless One was the personal revelation of God to humanity. Looking at the moral side, we find that two conditions absolutely require to be complied with, if sinners--and all men are sinners--are to become well-pleasing in the sight of God. In the first place, they must be brought to know their sin, and to repent of it in their inmost soul; and further, the good must be set before their minds in its whole compass by means of a living and powerful example. Both these things--self-abasing knowledge of sin, and quickening knowledge of good--are effected in an incomparably excellent way by the manifestation of holy life given us in Jesus; and this manifestation is a moral revelation of God, because its true foundation is in Him.

Without doubt, even the moral law, both in its positive and in its unwritten form in the conscience, produced knowledge of sin, and sorrow on account of it. But evidently mere knowledge of and sorrow for sin in themselves are not all,--everything depends on their purity and depth; and here it must at once, be acknowledged that a concrete life will have quite a different effect from an abstract law. [270]

The knowledge of sin may always be measured by the knowledge of good. The more complete and certain the latter, the truer and deeper the former. Now it is unquestionable that no law is able to communicate so sure and full a knowledge of good, as the life of one truly holy in all relations and circumstances. Conscience, when tenderly cherished and cultivated, does indeed speak with great certainty, but it is never infallible. It takes its tone in part from our own inward state it is itself entangled in that web of sin which is thrown around our whole being; and, as a thousand instances prove, it may go astray, it may even fall into a state of most fearful blindness, if it is not guided and enlightened by an external standard clearly held before it. The positive law, being more fixed and definite, is of course surer than the law in the conscience, but both lack that living completeness which is necessary for giving true knowledge of the good. They stand above and outside of our life: the commands they issue are abstract and general. Even the law as we find it in the Old Testament does not present the standard of good in its greatest perfection, not in the whole depth of its free inwardness. These defects are all overcome and supplied in the holy and sinless life of Jesus. There we have a sure standard. His life is conscience outwardly realized. We find there a perfection of good as to principle, and a carrying of it out in action, in all relations, which can never be surpassed. Consequently, in the presence of this exemplification of holy life, an entirely different knowledge of sin is awakened,--a knowledge much purer, deeper, more certain and complete, than any which arises from mere law.

That which thus holds true with respect to the knowledge of sin, is equally true as regards sorrow for sin. Is it not natural that he who gazes on absolute righteousness and truth, realized in the living example of Jesus, who beholds there the transcript of human nature and the human will in their original purity, and who therefore comes to know the beauty and perfection, the glory and excellence of the holy Divine will, should humble himself more deeply and truly than the man who can merely oppose a stern commandment to himself and his inclinations?' [271] In His realization of the good, Jesus always referred to God, not to the law. Hence it is that, as we stand in His holy presence, we become more truly conscious, than in any other circumstances, of that quality of sin, in virtue of which it is rebellion against God, unfaithfulness towards Him; and thus, too, of the deep guilt which sin involves. Inasmuch, however, as Jesus sacrificed His own pure life in the conflict with sin, the sinner may at the same time see in Him the love which went even to death for his sake: and how much more genuine and inward a sorrow for sin must this awaken than the mere thought of having transgressed the law! In this aspect, the life of Jesus had the effect of separating most distinctly good from evil, and did in the true sense discern and judge men. Through Him a direct judgment was executed on sin, which is shown to be Divine by its purity and holiness. In His Person man possesses a living power capable of awakening the knowledge of sin, and of calling forth sorrow for it,--a power which they who experience it will confess to be of Divine origin, and a constituent part of revelation.

More important still, however, is the positive side. Not only was the whole strength of sin laid bare, but man was made also to see and feel the whole purity and fulness of life possessed by the good; for how could he be brought to the determination of making goodness the substance and aim of his life, unless he saw its beauty and loveliness? It is not of course to be questioned that a susceptibility for the ideal of moral perfection is implanted in man along with his moral capabilities; but precisely at the moment when we feel that in this ideal there is nothing which contradicts and is foreign to true human nature,--that, on the contrary, it really belongs to our nature,--the question presses itself most strongly upon us: Why, then, do we not universally find in mankind a full belief in the existence of perfect goodness, and living examples of its attainment? And why was it that, when it did appear in full distinctness, it was but gradually, with much difficulty and after much resistance, that it penetrated the minds of those who beheld it? The simple reason is, that man cannot possibly produce what does not previously live in himself. The image of the perfect good, however, could not live in him, because sin did not permit its free development. It slumbered in him. It must have done so, or no power could ever have awakened it in his inner being, and it would always have remained incomprehensible to him. But it did not live in him, else would he have had a distinct and full consciousness of it. Proofs enough that such an ideal did not live in him, are furnished by history. The idea of justice, of a self-complacent virtue which prudently keeps the mean between two extremes, the idea of accordance with the laws and with that which is commended by all reasonable men,
[272] was the highest point to which educated reason rose before the appearance of Christ; and even this idea was more a matter discussed in the schools, than a universal persuasion. On the contrary, the picture of one who is filled with holy love,--of a love of the good for the sake of God,--of a love which compassionates the souls of others, seeks, and sacrifices itself for their salvation, was foreign even to the most cultivated reason; nay, not only foreign to it as mere natural reason, but even unnatural and overstrained. Such an ideal could only be introduced amongst men through the medium of facts, of an actual life. The life by which this is effected cannot be regarded as a mere product of humanity, a climax reached by existing human nature; but, because an entirely new element, even true holiness, is there revealed, it must be viewed as the work of the Spirit from on high, as the operation of God. It is, in fact, a communication of God to humanity, and is as truly a revelation in connection with the department of morals, as what is usually so designated in connection with religion.
[273]

This ideal has been set before us in the Person of Jesus, in Him who was the sinless One, who, because He lived only in God, was not merely a perfectly righteous man, but also manifested a love which proclaimed itself Divine by its holy earnestness and unbounded devotion. He is man, as God would have Him be, and therefore is He also the full and living expression of the Divine will to humanity. In Him, the Son full of grace and truth, has the Sun of Righteousness arisen upon man; in His light it is that we first see light, even in a moral sense, in its full brightness.

The presence of such a distinct, fixed, and elevated standard must unquestionably be of infinite value for the moral development of humanity. The significance of the matter becomes still greater, when we consider the mode and circumstances in which it was accomplished. Such ideals and examples of the good and noble as are to be found before the coming of Jesus, all wanted power to affect and actually to transform the depths of man's life,--to transform humanity as a whole. The reason thereof was partially that they were not in reality the highest, but more because they were only products of thought,--products of intellect in a higher state of cultivation than was commonly attainable. Even when, as under the old covenant, these examples came before men clothed with Divine authority, and in a shape which the common understanding might lay hold of, they only appear as requirement, not as fulfilment. It is otherwise in Jesus. In His case, the ideal of perfect goodness is not merely set forth by a personality as a product of thought, but is realized in its life. Hence arises the extreme value it has in relation to moral intuitions and knowledge, and its boundless influence on our moral volitions and acts.

There is a further superiority, also, of this realization in Jesus, that it has both an all-inclusive and a universally intelligible character. The image of goodness in Jesus, we say, is all-comprehensive. It exhibits before us that which is true and universal in human nature under the very conditions to which every man is subject, in the relations of individuality, of race, of family, and of nationality, and is therefore sufficient for all, however situated as to these conditions of life. [274] He realized the ideal in all the essential relations of life, especially in those which are attended with most difficulty and temptation; and has thus shown not only that, but how, good may be preserved intact, and come off victorious in all circumstances. He exemplified it not only in single and prominent virtues, not in a partial and fragmentary manner, but in the entirety of life, as a single and perfect work, resulting from complete harmoniousness of mind. He consequently stands before us as a true and universal example,--not as a model of which we are to copy the separate parts, but as a type the true spirit of which we are to appropriate as a whole. Nor is it less a characteristic that it is intelligible. It is deep and rich enough to furnish a subject which human comprehension and delineation can never exhaust; and, at the same time, it is placed before mankind in features so grand and mighty, yet so direct and affecting, that the simplest soul, yea, the mind of a child, can understand it, and even those who would resist, are impressed by it. We may consequently affirm of the moral example of Christ, that it .is one universally binding; and in this sense also may we apply to it the words of the apostle, In Christ Jesus there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female.' [275] This example is destined alike for all, that all may make it their own; and all alike are destined for it, that it may live in them for ever. But that which thus stands in its all-embracing greatness above humanity, although it is at the same time truly human, which has not proceeded from, and is, notwithstanding, destined ever to enter into humanity, is stamped with the seal of a Divine revelation. __________________________________________________________________

[262] John viii. 28, 29, and 46. See above, pp. 182-188.

[263] John xiv. 6.
[264] John xvii. 6.
[265] Matt. xi. 27.
[266] John xvii. 3.
[267] Heb. i. 1-3.

[268] Compare Dorner, Jesu Sündl. Volk. p. 57, and the fourth section generally.

[269] John i. 17.
[270] Martensen's Dogmatik, § 109, p. 233.

[271] Words of Nitzsch in the Deutsche Zeitschrift, 1852, No. X. p. 81.

[272] For references as to particulars, see Rothe's work on the Berechtigung der Sinnlichkeit nach Aristoteles, Studien und Kritiken, 1850, 2, p. 265 ff. and Schaubach's das Verhältniss der Moral des class. Alterthums zur Christlichen, likewise in the Studien und Kritiken, 1851, 1, p. 59 ff.

[273] 'Christology must no longer be merely a chapter in dogmatics, but must take its place also as a chapter in ethics.' So speaks Ackermann in a beautiful review of Harless's Christliche Ethik, in Reuter's Repertorium, 1852, 4, p. 39. We may even speak still more strongly: not only must Christology become one chapter, but the fundamental principle, of ethics. Christ is as truly the principle of the moral, as of the religious revelation. Compare De Wette, Lehrbuch der Christlichen Sittenlehre, Berlin 1853, §§ 3, 41-52.

[274] Compare what is said, pp. 51-55, with regard to the universality of the moral character of Jesus.

[275] Gal. iii. 28. __________________________________________________________________

Sec. 2. The Sinless Jesus as the Mediator between God and Sinful Man.

Although the revelation of the nature and will of God form an essential part of the scheme of salvation, yet it is evident that by it alone man cannot be saved. The relation of man to God is not merely one of intellect to intellect,--it is a relation of person to person, and embraces the whole life. And the more so, since the matter here in question concerns the position which the creature occupies with reference to his Creator, and thus to Him who is in all respects the source and support of his whole being. Hence nothing will suffice but perfect communion of life and of love. But this communion is opposed by sin, whose very nature is antagonism to God; and sin, which, as well as the guilt it implies, and the consequences that flow from it, is a real power in human life, cannot be done away with merely by means of knowledge, though this were the purest and most complete which can be conceived. In order to break its might, and destroy it, there must be opposed to it another equally real but higher power. But this power cannot come from man,--it must come from God. For it is only God who can forgive men their sins, and take away their guilt; from God alone can the scheme of reconciliation go forth; God alone can, by the actual communication of His grace, set up a new power in the soul, which shall be mightier than sin and all its consequences. And yet, since it is for men that the reconciliation is designed, it is only by a corresponding human medium that it can be consummated. Moreover, this human mediator must be capable of imparting to the soul a principle of life and goodness, in the place of the principle of sin, which is now subjugated. Just such a medium do we find in the sinless Jesus, as we shall now proceed to show.

In Him, the Son of God, who is one with the Father, we recognise not merely a typical and symbolical representation, but an actual realization and communication of the holy love and saving grace of God. All that He was, all that He did and suffered, had the joint purpose of bringing back sinful man into fellowship with God, of bestowing upon him Divine grace, and of bringing about a true reconciliation between him and the holy God. His sufferings and His death, which form the consummation of His whole life of self-sacrifice, occupy so special a position in this respect, that our attention must be more particularly directed to them.

And, first, Jesus Himself attributes to His death and sufferings the utmost importance in this respect. In His view, His death was an essential element of the Divine counsel, and an indispensable part of that work of redemption which He came to accomplish. [276] And in what sense it was so, is obvious from His own words. He calls Himself the Good Shepherd, who, while the hireling flees from the invading wolf, lays down His life for the sheep, that they may have life, and have it more abundantly. [277] He designates Himself as the corn of wheat, which, if it is not to abide alone, but to bring forth much fruit, must fall into the earth and die. [278] He compares Himself--the Son of Man--with the serpent which Moses lifted up in the wilderness for the healing of the people, [279] --thus alluding to His own lifting up on the cross, [280] the effect of which will be, that all who believe on Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. He will give His life a ransom for many, [281] as the price for the redemption of those souls whom guilt has exposed to punishment. His blood is to be shed for the remission of sin, [282] and to become, by being shed, the blood of the new covenant; [283] that is, the blood through which the covenant of perfect union, of true reconciliation between. God and man, receives its formal ratification and consecration. On the other hand, He would equally have His death regarded as the alone means by which true life is begotten in man; His flesh is meat indeed, His blood is drink indeed; and they who feed on Him, who by faith receive Him into their souls, are united to Him, and made partakers of everlasting life. [284]

It is thus that He who offers a sinless life as a pledge of the truth of His word, expresses Himself concerning the significance of His life and death. In His own eyes, His death was undoubtedly the chief means of expiation, reconciliation, and communication of new life; and if He does not call it in so many words an atoning sacrifice, He plainly implies that it is so, while His apostles afterwards decidedly express the fact. In directing our attention to the death of Jesus in this point of view, it cannot, however, enter into our purpose to discuss the act of redemption and atonement thereby accomplished in its full extent. [285] On the contrary, we would, in conformity with the course of our argument, bring forward only that which stands in unmistakeable connection with the sinless perfection of Jesus, and the conclusions involved in the very nature of this doctrine. Our subject thus leading us to the significance of the death of Christ, especially as an atoning sacrifice, we shall endeavour, on the one hand, briefly to show that such a significance cannot be conceded to His death unless He is indeed sinless; and, on the other hand, that if He is so, this significance is but the natural consequence of His sinlessness.

Atonement, generally speaking, turns upon the fact that the pure, the innocent, the unpolluted, is given up, is offered to God, in the place of the sinful, guilty, and vile, in order to bring about the deliverance of the latter. It has for its object to restore that relation of man to God which sin had disturbed, and to reconcile the sinner to God; and it takes place where there is a knowledge of sin and of the holiness of God, as well as of the antagonism existing between them, and consequently a felt need of pardon and grace. An approximation to this idea of atonement existed even in some heathen religions. But it was in the religion of the Old Covenant that it was first fully apprehended, because here, first, we find a full consciousness of God's holiness, and of the penal character of sin, as opposed to the Divine law. Here sacrifice had a twofold object: on the one hand, it sought to deepen in the mind of him who offered it the feeling of sin and guilt, and to give a strong expression to that feeling; and, on the other, it furnished a means whereby the offerer might receive an assurance of Divine grace, and be replaced in a right position towards God. In both respects, the fundamental idea is that of substitution. The sacrifice of the animal, in which the worshipper gave up something of his own,--something belonging, as it were, to his own person, placing himself in direct connection with it by laying his hand upon it, and generally slaughtering it himself,--shadowed forth the self-sacrifice of him who offered it; while the death which the animal suffered, represented the death which his sin deserved. Then, as the consequence of his penitence, and by virtue of the promise which was attached to the sacrificial offering, he received the assurance that God accepted the ransom, and now looked upon the sinner with favour.

Now this service of sacrifices, although it unquestionably arose out of a deep religious want, although in itself highly significant and full of meaning, and well adapted to that particular stage of religious development, had, nevertheless, something inadequate about it, and could never thoroughly accomplish that real abolition of sin and implantation of holiness which the nature of the case required. All was symbolic representation, and there was no actual moral transaction. In general, sin was acknowledged to be sinful, but the full extent of its guilt was unperceived. Divine grace was prefigured, but not actually communicated. The relation in which the offerer of the sacrifice stood to the animal he sacrificed, was a voluntary, not a necessary relation; the rite was to him an outward event, the sacrifice was not received into his very soul. As the sacrifice offered was an animal which had Indeed, as a thing consecrated to God, a sacred character ascribed to it, but which of course could not be. really holy, there could go forth from it no sanctifying power. Hence, although these sacrifices might for a time calm the sense of guilt, they could not take away sin, and establish in its place a true fellowship with God and a new life. Hence sacrifices of this kind, as has been already shown, could neither powerfully affect the heart, nor continue efficient in all time, but needed to be constantly repeated. They could effect a temporary relaxation of the variance between God and the sinner, but could obtain no eternal redemption. [286] Now, what could not thus be accomplished--viz. the restoration of a life which should be inwardly reconciled to God, and really free from sin--was performed by Christ. But it was not merely by the abolition of sacrificial worship that Christ accomplished this; it was by realizing in Himself all that had been striven after, but never attained, in sacrifices. The perfect self-surrender of Him, the All-holy, for sinful men, which was the only real and sanctifying sacrifice, whose efficacy should last for ever, came in the place of those merely typical sacrifices which were now to cease, having found their true fulfilment in that great sacrifice.

A free self-sacrifice of this kind necessarily presupposes and is based upon the sinless purity of him who offers it. The very idea of such an offering could have been justifiably conceived only by one who knew himself to be pure and spotless in the sight of God; and such an offering, if made by a really sinless being, could not fail of effecting the purpose contemplated. The sacrifice of Jesus is distinguished from all previous sacrifices chiefly by this, that it was not a representation and foreshadowing, but a real moral transaction; it was a free action, of a purely ethical character. Jesus, in whose Person the sacrifice and the priest are one, offered Himself, as the Epistle to the Hebrews expresses it, through the eternal Spirit unto God. [287] And in this offering of Himself, He preserved the most perfect liberty of action. For however we may regard His death to have been brought about by circumstances, still we must acknowledge that it was by a free decision of His own will that He took it upon Him. Now this act, thus freely determined on, can only be regarded as the result of a will thoroughly pure and unenslaved by sinful love of self; and we must regard this sublime resolve as the culminating action of a life which was itself, from first to last, a perfect sacrifice. But this free self-determination to death can only be viewed as a purely moral action, and free from all tincture of fanaticism, if based upon a full consciousness that this death was necessary to the carrying out of the Divine plan, of salvation, and an indispensable condition of the redemption of man, and the establishment of a kingdom of God upon earth. This consciousness could be possessed only by One who, in virtue of His holiness and His oneness with God, had a clear insight into the whole purpose of God in salvation. Again, Jesus could desire to offer Himself as a sacrifice for sinners, only if He felt that He was pure and stainless; and might therefore regard His offering as a sacrifice well-pleasing to God. It was, in truth, an indispensable condition of the sacrifice that the victim was immaculate, for only such a one could be worthy of God. The physical immaculateness of the animal sacrificed, rises in this personal self-sacrifice of Jesus into moral stainlessness. That He who sought to give Himself as a sacrifice to free the world from sin should have been conscious of being Himself a sinner, or felt Himself to be in any one respect unclean before God, would have been not merely a contradiction, it would have been a gross impiety: if, on the other hand, He did not make upon all the impression that He was perfectly sinless, then one might suppose that it was for His own sin, for His own guilt, that He suffered. Only in the case of One who was perfectly free from sin can we feel confident that the suffering which He underwent, however much it may have conduced to His Divine perfecting, was endured not on account of His own guilt, but for the guilt of others. [288]

The principal thing, however, is that the sinless holiness of Jesus was an essential reason why His free act of self-sacrifice really attained the ends which previous sacrifices had but aimed at: that is, it became the means of imparting a full knowledge of sin, and was itself an actual communication of Divine grace, a substitution in the truest and deepest sense, a real destroying of sin, and a real implanting in its place of a new life of sanctification.

In the first place, it is in the contemplation of the self-immolation of the Holy One, that we come to understand what sin is, in its absolute antagonism to holiness. For in the fact that both love, unreservedly sacrificing itself, and sin, in all its power and malignity, are here exhibited in utmost distinctness and placed in juxtaposition, the true nature of each becomes clearer to us, and even the dullest understanding can appreciate to some extent the vast difference between them. But further, we cannot fail to observe, that the sin which is here brought before us is not sin in its isolated phenomena, but that it is the dominant sin of the race,--that sin which operates as a universal power in humanity, and of which we may trace the workings in ourselves. The Holy One dies, not in a conflict with sin in any special manifestation, but with sin itself,' [289] in order to break its entire power; and in His death both the power of sin and its opposition to God are exhibited with incomparable distinctness. There is, as has already been shown, no more effectual means of awakening the heart to a knowledge of sin, and a true sorrow for sin, than the life-picture of the Holy One, as it is presented to us in the gospel; but, above all, it is from the contemplation of the Crucified offering Himself for the sins of the world that this benign influence proceeds; and assuredly no one can deny that the consciousness of sin is called forth in a manner infinitely more clear and more intense by the sacrifice of the sinless Christ, than it ever was by former sacrifices. These contained, at most, a general monition against sin; they did not hold up to the soul the mirror of a love freely giving itself up for the sinner to suffering and to death.

But here, too, the positive side is much stronger. All that the sacrifices of the earlier dispensation could accomplish, was to typify and symbolize the Divine grace: but the sacrifice of Jesus actually communicates that grace. For if the sinless One is so united to God that His love is to us a real manifestation of the love of God Himself, and that we must recognise Him to be an impersonation of the Divine love, all this must be most forcibly expressed in that highest act of His life, His free surrender of Himself to death from love to man. In this act we see two things: we see One who has established His claim to be regarded as the Son of God, freely giving Himself up to die; and we see God not sparing His own Son, that He may give Him up to death for the salvation of man. In the sacrificial death of the Holy One we see immediately the reconciled and gracious God, because therein the eternal love of God--that love whose very nature it is to be a sin-forgiving, a saving, a helping love--is not only manifested, but so offered that it may be directly accepted by the sinner. Nor does this love offer itself at the expense of the holiness of God: on the contrary, it does so in a manner which alone truly satisfies the claims of that holiness for the sacrifice of the sinless One possesses, in a very different way from the earlier sacrifices, a vicarious significance and a sanctifying efficacy. [290]

Against sin itself there can exist in God only a righteous displeasure, fully bent upon its extirpation. To the sinner, as such, He must not be a gracious, but an angry, because a holy God and such does the sinner know Him to be when conscience awakes within him. If God is to bestow His favour upon him, this can only be done on condition that the partition wall of guilt shall be done away with, and the foundation of the sinner's sanctification at the same time laid. On the other hand, the sinner, too, needs a pledge and assurance of the Divine favour, if he is to have that delight in goodness, and that power to perform it, which lie at the very root of holiness. Thus on both sides a mediation is requisite; and here it is that the holy and sinless One comes in, and is seen living, suffering, and dying, as the sinner's Substitute. By His unconditional surrender of Himself to God and to mankind, He renders the forgiveness of sin and the bestowal of grace, the restoration and renewal of the sinner, really possible.

There is an essential difference between the one great sacrifice and the previous typical sacrifices. In these, sin was borne, and that but externally, by an unconscious animal, which was itself without the sphere of religion and morality. Jesus, however, moved by compassionate love, consciously and unreservedly entered into the world of sinners, and though Himself untouched by sin, took upon Himself, as an actual member of the same, the sins of all. Then, voluntarily appearing before God with these sins upon Him, He suffered their fearful consequences to fall upon Himself, as though He had been the most flagrant of sinners and evil-doers. Thus He fully satisfied the claims of Divine justice against mankind; and by surrendering Himself to death, made an atonement for the sin of all, which sinners themselves were unable to furnish. In this manner was the wall of partition between the holy God and sinful man broken down, and the destroyed relation between them so restored, that the love of God may now be unreservedly bestowed upon man. In the Son, in whom He is well pleased, God looks upon mankind, and beholds first a race restored, and then individuals under a process of restoration. In the holy Son of God, who shed His blood for the forgiveness of sin, the sinner beholds One in whom he possesses the assurance that God is, of a truth, a reconciled and gracious God.

That this is possible, depends again on the nature of the fellowship which is perfectly realized in Christ, and which takes so important a place in His whole work. For as, on the one hand, Christ is so absolutely one with God, that His whole manifestation, especially His death, must be regarded as an actual living manifestation of God Himself, as a God of love; so, on the other hand, He becomes equally one with men, enters into the fullest life-fellowship with them; gives Himself entirely to them, in His love; lives, suffers, and dies, not for Himself, but for them,--not in order to procure some one special benefit, but that He may purchase the salvation of the whole race. And in virtue of this self-devotion, which truly unites Him with humanity, He is no longer to be regarded as a separately existing individual, but as the universal man, as comprehending the whole of humanity in Himself, as its Substitute and Head. In this way, Christ, being one with humanity, communicates to it everything which He Himself possesses. A holy and happy exchange takes place between Christ and man, by which He who took upon Him our sin and guilt, and suffered our death, imparts to us His righteousness, His peace, His happiness, and bestows upon us that which He obtained for them.

Doubtless this presupposes something on our side: we must enter into His fellowship, we must by faith lay hold of the salvation offered to us, and thereby become partakers of the reconciling power of His life and death. And here, again, we trace the difference that exists between the old sacrifices, and the one all-efficacious propitiation of Christ. The ante-Christian sacrifices remained without the offerers; and although they doubtless made some impression upon their minds, they were still external to those for whom they were to make an atonement, and could not penetrate into their hearts with quickening and renewing power. The sacrifice of Christ, on the contrary, is from its very nature such, that it cannot remain a merely external, strange, and accidental circumstance, where there is any susceptibility for its reception, but must enter into the soul, and place him who by, faith appropriates it, in a living relation to the object sacrificed. And this is the case, because .this object is a person, and the sacrifice itself the voluntary act of holy love. Hence it is that a stream of love and life goes forth therefrom, that a tie is formed between Him who offers Himself as a sacrifice, and him who appropriates this sacrifice. By this inward personal union it is that strength is imparted to the latter, in virtue of which there is begotten in him, together with an assurance of pardon and reconciliation, the actual beginnings of a new life and of victory over sin.

Viewed thus, the idea of substitution--which, if understood merely in an external and formal sense, is indeed to be rejected as dead and false--becomes something living and true. The connection between Christ and His believing followers is expressed by St. Paul in words of profound significance, as being in Christ.' So close is the living union between the Head and the members, that they form parts of one whole. His fellowship with Christ, from which the Spirit and the life of Christ pass into his soul, makes the believer a partaker in all that Christ Himself is. In this fellowship he learns to know God as a God of grace. In this fellowship, even when it exists only in its early dawnings, he does not stand alone in the sight of God, but is in His sight as one who has been grafted into Christ, and is united by faith with Him. On this account, God can in His love impart to him His grace, even although sin still exists within him, because in his oneness with the sinless Christ the dominion of sin is destroyed, its power is broken, and a hope and a pledge of its ultimate total overthrow are bestowed.

Hence, when it is said that in Christ God is gracious to the sinner, this does not mean that He is so by reason of an arbitrary act of grace, but that He is gracious to the sinner in Christ, because, as soon as a sinner becomes united to Christ, God beholds in him one in whom there is given, not in virtue of his own strength, but in virtue of the operation of Christ in him, a pledge that he will attain to actual freedom from sin. [291] Now if this importance attaches to the sacrifice of Christ, it is apparent how His sacrifice must be regarded as the only sacrifice, offered once for all. [292] It possesses entirely and for ever the power to communicate Divine grace, and to impart the new life. And therefore it is not possible objectively to renew His sacrifice: the only way in which it can be offered again is a subjective one; that is, by such an inward following of the example of Jesus by each believer, that, being thus himself a priest, he may also offer himself to God as a spiritual sacrifice in Christ.

In this sense it is that we recognise in the sinless One the only true Mediator between God and man. In Jesus we see Him in whom God is well pleased with man, and turns to him in grace,--Him in whom man may behold with unveiled face, and believingly appropriate this grace, and thus be transfigured into the Divine image. But this naturally involves a further consequence. If Jesus, by His sinless holiness, thus restores the vital fellowship between sinful man and God, He thereby becomes at the same time the author of the true fellowship between man and man, the founder of a kingdom of God, a kingdom of faith, extending far beyond the limits of those circumstances which have hitherto exercised a separating power over mankind; and it is as occupying this no less fundamental position, that we have now to consider Him more closely. __________________________________________________________________

[276] Luke xxiv. 26, 46, 47.
[277] John x. 11-16.
[278] John xii. 24.
[279] John iii. 14, 15.
[280] John viii. 28.
[281] Matt. xx. 28.
[282] Matt. xxvi. 28.
[283] Mark xiv. 24; Luke xxii. 20.
[284] Gal. iii. 28.

[285] An excellent and full dissertation upon the point which we are now to consider may be found in the Essays of Schöberlein: Ueber die Christliche Versöhnungslehre, Stud. u. Krit. 1845, 2; and Ueber das Verhältniss der persönlichen Gemeinschaft mit Christo zur Erleuchtung, Rechtfertigung, and Heiligung, ditto, 1847, 1; and in a recent and comprehensive article on the doctrine of Redemption in Herzog's Real Encyclopädie, B. 17, pp. 87-143.

[286] Heb. ix. 12.
[287] Heb. ix. 14.
[288] Heb. vii. 26, 27.

[289] De Wette, Wesen des christlichen Glaubens, § 57, S. 297.

[290] Compare on this whole subject Rothe's Ethik (vol. ii. pp. 279-812): Der Erlöser und sein Erlösungswerk.

[291] Schleiermacher, der christliche Glaube, ii. 145, § 104.

[292] Heb. vii. 27, ix. 12, 26-28. __________________________________________________________________

Sec. 3.--The Holy Jesus as the Founder of the True Fellowship of Men.

Men being by their very nature disposed to associate one with another, we find that all the chief activities of human life, as well as its fundamental arrangements, are calculated to bring about such association. Everywhere we meet with a reciprocal giving and taking, an acting and producing on the part of some, a being acted upon and a receiving on the part of others, a drawing together of the congenial, and an excluding of the uncongenial; and they who would entirely withdraw from the mutual interaction thus arising, cannot but be regarded as individuals of unsound and incomplete development. Hence there necessarily arises upon the foundation of the family, as the primitive and typical association, civil, political, and national associations; and those associations for the purposes of art, of science, and of intercourse in the various spheres of intellectual pursuits, which are partly restricted to the former, and partly of far greater relative extent. But all these fellowships, great and important as they are, have yet their strict and definite limits. They are either confined within certain local boundaries, or are inseparably connected with some special kind of nationality or endowment, and often even with a certain degree of culture or social position. Hence, by their very nature, they involve, to a certain extent, a principle of separation, as well as of association. They do not unite men as such, but only men of certain definite peculiarities, and thus exclude all those who are not thus distinguished.,

There is, however, a task allotted to all men, without exception, and for which all, as beings made in God's image, possess the requisite endowments: and this is the recovery of the right relation to the holy and living God, and to every human being. This task, besides being universal, is absolutely the highest that can be engaged in; and if co-operation and association are requisite for the accomplishment of any human undertaking, they are so in this instance. For it is only upon the soil of society that piety and morality can display a healthy and vital energy, only from such a soil that they can derive the nutriment necessary to their growth and perfection. In their case isolation would be synonymous with deformity, degeneracy, annihilation. If in these respects that which is true and excellent is to be obtained, there must of necessity exist a fellowship which, transcending all existing limitations, is by its very nature calculated to embrace all men without distinction, and to promote the attainment of that eternal destination which is alike set before all. Not till such a fellowship exists will the true foundation be laid for every other kind of association among mankind. Not before, will a possibility exist of preventing those distinctions which naturally divide men, from effecting a hostile separation. Not before, will communities and individuals, nay, different nations, recognise the fact that they are made, not for themselves alone, but for each other,--that they are destined mutually to aid and supplement each other,--that thus, by the reciprocal action and reaction of the better gifts of all, humanity may be fashioned into a true and living unity.

Now, a fellowship of this supreme and universal kind can be founded only upon that union between man and God which is effected by faith or religion. Hence its very existence is an impossibility so long as religion cannot be found in a state of purity and independence, but only in combination with other and particular elements, by which it also is placed in a position of specialty and particularity. This was the case in the præ-Christian world, and is still so in nations beyond the pale of Christianity. In these we everywhere find a religion so indissolubly connected with the special constitution of a country, with peculiarities of nationality, with the degrees of culture and political institutions of certain nations, that it cannot be separated therefrom. We find religions in which nature, religions in which art, is deified,--state religions, and religious states but we do not find a religion free from all admixture with foreign elements, and keeping within its own proper territory,--a religion which is entirely itself, and will be nothing else but itself, which makes that, and that only, which is its special province--even the eternal salvation of its professors--its chief concern. Such a religion is not found previously to the appearance of Christianity, and is found in Christianity alone. Here religion is brought back entirely to its own special province, and thus offers that firm and self-supporting point whence the whole circle of human life may be worked upon, and gathered into one harmonious whole.

But this could be effected only by a person whose whole and sole task it should be to exhibit in perfect purity the Divine image in man, and to make that image comprehensible to all,--by One who actually did accomplish this task, and that in such wise, that none who were susceptible of such an emotion could fail of being touched thereby. The sinless Jesus was such a Person. By manifesting religion not only in its perfection, but also in its unmingled purity and entire independence, He at the same time laid the foundation of a fellowship which, being restricted by no kind of external condition, was capable of including the whole human race,--a fellowship which, while remaining faithful to its original purpose, may exercise a free and real influence upon every department of social life, upon art and science, upon legislation and politics, without intermeddling directly with these things, much less putting itself in their place.

In the foundation of such a community, Jesus Himself recognised an essential element of His mission. He invites all who need redemption; that is, all men. [293] He wills that all should be one in Him, as He is one with the Father; and it is by this very union through Him, and in Him, that the world is to know that the Father has sent Him. [294] He proclaims the kingdom of God as at hand, as having already, come,
[295] as His kingdom. It is not, however, to be a kingdom of this world, but a kingdom of heaven, [296] to be developed indeed in the world, but to be pervaded by heavenly powers, and to attain maturity in a future and heavenly period. For its earthly development--during the course of which He particularly distinguishes between what is God's and what is Cæsar's, and thus points out the propriety of separating the spiritual from the secular [297] --He would have a Church, to be gathered from all nations, from the whole human race. [298] To effect this, He sent forth His apostles, and endowed them with His Spirit. For the regular continuance of the Church which they were to found, and which, consequently, was to be a manifest and visible one, He made special preparations, by instituting holy Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and by laying down rules as to how those who were disobedient in the Church were to be treated. [299] And in all this He was so sure of success, that He not only promised to the Church which He called His an imperishable existence, against which no power should prevail, [300] but He already beheld with a glance which surveyed and comprised the whole process of the world's development, the whole redeemed human race as one flock, under Himself, the one Shepherd. [301]

Jesus, however, not merely purposed to institute such a community, He not merely announced such a purpose, but possessed in Himself the power to form and to maintain it. An all-embracing fellowship of personal spirits, united by a common faith and a common love, presupposes a personal head. And He, the holy Son of God and Son of Man, who lived entirely for men, and gave Himself a sacrifice for them, was, from His very nature, this Head. For the Head must be so constituted, that the Spirit by which the community is to be pervaded and governed, may continually flow forth therefrom in pure and inexhaustible fulness. And this is the qualification which is offered in. Him in most abundant measure.

Men, sinful and limited as they are, do not possess, in and of themselves, the power of forming themselves into a lasting fellowship of the highest kind. They must find the living point of union for such a purpose in a holy Being exalted above themselves, and capable of lifting them up above self, in One who, by uniting them to Himself, at the same time brings them into vital union with each other. But when One thus holy and thus exalted has once really laid hold of the hearts of men, this union will be the inevitable result. For there is in the Divine, when vividly presented in life, a magnetic power which draws minds out of their isolation, and unites them with an unseen but powerful bond. This life-magnet, this infinite force of attraction, is introduced among mankind, in the Person of that Divine and Holy One who sacrificed Himself in holy love for the sinful race. By Him must every one who is susceptible of its influence be drawn out of his own narrow self. But it is not only out of self that those who feel the powers of Christ are attracted, through that faith which He calls forth within them. They are also drawn into His life, made one with Him, and thus made one among themselves. This kind of union is at once the most perfect and the most lasting, for it is the work of the Highest: through it, man is raised above himself; and by it, that selfishness which otherwise obstructs all true fellowship, is, in its very essence, destroyed. [302]

It is true that all this applies immediately to those only who have actually laid hold of Christ by faith. But then these are the salt of the earth, the leaven which is destined gradually to leaven the mass. They are to introduce an ever-extending, and at length an all-comprehending union. The moving spring of this union is love,--that pitying, seeking, saving love which was brought into the world by the holy Jesus of the gospel. This love sees in every one who needs its aid, not only the possessor of a common nature, but rather Him who said, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.' [303] This love sees in the sinner, not merely a guilty and condemned man; in one sitting in the darkness of spiritual death, not an uninteresting, or perhaps a repulsive object;--it sees in both, one made for redemption and adoption into God's family, one who is to be brought by it into the kingdom of God. This love, flowing forth in boundless fulness from Christ, has not a human but a Divine source. It therefore contains in it a guarantee that the kingdom of God will come forth victorious from all its conflicts, and will in the end succeed in effecting a union of the whole race.

Thus we see that there dwells in the Person of the holy Christ, a power of uniting men, which effects its purpose from an inward necessity,--a power which first, indeed, brings together those who are His by faith, but which afterwards impels these to spread on all sides that salvation which they have themselves experienced, that all may be saved by Christ, and all brought into the same fellowship. It is a fellowship which exists only for the sake of satisfying the deepest, the universal needs of men: it is the kingdom of God, for it is even this which is visibly manifested in the Church of the Redeemed, so far as it is ordered according to His will and word. And where else do we find anything equal or even similar to this? The very idea of forming a society which should embrace the whole human family, never entered the mind of the greatest sages, or lawgivers, or founders of empires, before Christ. [304] And if the thought had occurred to any of these, which of them could have realized it? The Holy One of God, and He alone, could do this, because in Him alone was the true uniting power, and because the kingdom of God was contained in Him, and had only to develope itself from Him. Regarded in this light, Christ is presented to us as the centre of the world's history. He is this, not merely in that more ideal sense, according to which the whole spiritual life of mankind before His appearance was one continual aspiration and longing after Him, while all the spiritual life which has been found among men since His coming exhibits decided marks that He is its author; but in that far more real aspect in which He is beheld as the true point of union for the race, the life of humanity, the pulsating heart and quickening spirit, by means of which humanity is formed into an organic whole, into a body animated by the power of God, and consisting of many members. And it is a fact of very deep significance, that Christ makes it a ground of faith in His Divine mission, [305] that by union with Himself and with God He brings men into union among themselves; because a work such as this, the most noble which the human mind can conceive, could have proceeded from none but God. __________________________________________________________________

[293] Matt. xi. 28.
[294] John xvii. 21.
[295] Luke x. 9, xvii. 21.
[296] John xiii. 36.
[297] Matt. xxii. 21.
[298] Matt. xxviii. 19.
[299] Matt. xviii. 15-18.
[300] Matt. xvi. 18.
[301] John x. 16.

[302] It may be said that, in this respect also, Jesus has a substitutionary significance. The higher kind of fellowship of which we have been speaking is as much an ethical requirement, as those more limited associations which we designate as civil and political. But though a participation in such a fellowship is at once the duty and the need of all, none would have been able to found one, unless Christ, with His personal power and authority, had done this for all men.

[303] Matt. xxv. 40.

[304] This idea is enlarged upon by Reinhard in his celebrated work, Ueber den Plan welchen der Stifter der christlichen Religion zum Besten der Menschenentwatf, fifth edition, with additions by Heubner, Wittenburg 1830.

[305] John xvii. 21 __________________________________________________________________

Sec. 4.--The Sinless Jesus as the Pledge of Eternal Life.

The fellowship founded by Christ, however,--and this is the last point to be considered,--is not destined merely for this earthly existence, but has the promise of eternal life and perfect victory in a future and heavenly state. This promise holds good to every living member of Christ in particular, as well as to the community, formed of such members, in general. And the pledge for its performance is found in the sinless perfection of Him who, through what He was and what He did, became the sole foundation and all-comprising head of this fellowship.

This promise is, in the first place, expressed with the utmost assurance by Jesus Himself. He testifies of Himself that the Father has given Him to have life in Himself; [306] that no one takes His life from Him, but that He lays it down of Himself; that He has power to lay it down, and power to take it again. [307] He feels certain also, that through sufferings and death He shall but enter into the glory which He had with the Father before the world was. [308] In like manner He represents Himself as giving life to the world, and calls Himself, in this very sense, the Resurrection and the Life.' [309] His people especially are to be sharers of His eternal life and glory. Because I live,' He says, ye shall live also;' [310] Where I am, there also shall my servant be;' [311] and, Father, I will that they also whom Thou hast given me be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which Thou hast given me.' [312] They are to attain to true life, to be received into everlasting habitations [313] in the Father's house of many mansions, where a place is prepared for them, [314] where a day shall come in which they shall ask nothing,' and a joy shall be bestowed upon them which no man shall take away from them. [315] He speaks of Himself as one having life in Himself, and imparting it to His followers, both individually and collectively, as to those who are with Him, and through Him, partakers of an eternal life. And this implies that the same may be predicated of the fellowship of His followers, of the Church united in Him, and founded according to His institution. In this sense He also very decidedly announces, though in the figurative manner which is in this case alone appropriate, a future perfect realization of the kingdom of God, [316] which, after the final exclusion by means of a Divine interposition--of all who persevere in opposing it, is to enter upon an entirely new condition. [317] At the same time, however, He promises also to His believing people, who, until this consummation takes place, are still in a state of warfare upon earth, that He will be with them always, even unto the end. [318]

We now proceed to inquire whether that which is thus testified and promised by the Lord Jesus, is not likewise the necessary result of this sinless holiness,--in other words, what is the relation borne by this doctrine to the subject now under consideration?

It is certain that not a few so-called Christians see in Christ nothing more than a historical personage, who lived more than eighteen centuries ago, who taught certain doctrines, and perhaps performed also certain unusual acts, but who--beyond what has been handed down to us concerning Him in this respect--does not stand in any very close and immediate .relation to the present generation. In such a merely historical Christ, they who are really in earnest in their belief in His words, and sincerely His followers, do assuredly possess certain benefits. To them, however, may well be applied the saying, Why seek ye the living among the dead?' And if they will but observe somewhat more closely the Christ presented to us in the Gospels, they will be constrained to admit that He declares Himself to be--and that, if but the chief features of His character are correctly drawn, He must actually be--something very different from a past historical phenomenon. For the actual historical Christ, and especially the Being who proved Himself to be sinlessly holy, necessarily implies the living Christ, the ever living, ever acting Christ and it is only when we admit this, that we really receive even the historical Christ, in the full completeness of all that is testified concerning Him.

If Jesus is sinless, and consequently the holy Son of God and Son of Man, as He declares Himself to be, He le one whose very existence is a pledge of indestructible life and supreme glory. Even if He had not declared this, it is the necessary and direct result of His whole life. All that He said or did pointed to a heavenly order of things, and was pervaded by the powers of eternity. The wall of partition which conceals from us the invisible world had no existence for Him. On the contrary, as His life was one continuous intercourse with God, so did He constantly behold the eternal and imperishable, and live and act therein as in His proper element. Thus true life was not revealed by Him as something to come, but as something already present. And this life is, moreover, of such a nature, that not only is the thought of annihilation through death irreconcilably opposed thereto, but it can only be conceived of as, by virtue of its inherent power, eternal and victorious over death. The resurrection, too, and exaltation of Jesus, when viewed in their rightful connection with His character, cannot be regarded as events happening to Him merely through an external and miraculous interposition of God, but must also be looked upon as proceeding from His own intrinsic nature, as the normal development of that Divine and eternal life which was ever present in Him, as consequences which, when once the limitations of His earthly life were removed, were simply inevitable.

But He who is thus exalted by the power of that Divine life which dwells in Him, cannot be otherwise conceived of than as the acting. And if even during His earthly course His agency related to the whole human race, the sphere of its influence cannot be a more circumscribed one, now that the restrictions of His earthly existence are done away with. We must not picture it to ourselves as similar only to that exercised by all whose lives have produced powerful effects upon history. Such persons do indeed exercise a lasting influence by means either of their deeds or of their intellectual productions. This, however, is not a direct, a living, a personal influence, but an after effect, brought about by historical tradition, and separate from all present connection with their persons,--an effect which generally becomes weaker and weaker in proportion to the remoteness of the ages in which they lived. We cannot stop at such an influence as this when we contemplate the Lord Jesus. For although, with respect even to this kind of influence, whether its depth, its extent, or its duration be considered, He occupies the highest place, He yet, by virtue both of His Person and of the work He effected, lays claim also to one of an entirely different kind. Through His absolute self-surrender for the good of mankind, His perfect obedience, and His atoning death, He has become the royal Head of the human race, and that not merely in a figurative, but in a real and living sense; and we cannot conceive of a living Head which does not exercise a continual influence upon its members. But besides this, He is also the Son of God and Son of Man--proved to be such in all the conflicts of life--who was perfected through sufferings, and who has entered through death into glory. The fulness of the Divine life and nature which was in Him on earth, though restricted by human limitation, can now freely and perfectly develope itself; and in virtue of the exalted position which alone becomes Him, we are constrained to assume that His agency is also of a Divine kind, and therefore not limited by time or space, nor confined to ordinary means, but direct, personal, and everywhere present. It is only in this sense that Christ can be said to be ever living, and at the same time exercising a living agency; and that this is actually the case, is the necessary consequence of that perfect and uninterrupted communion with God, which, by means of His sinless holiness, He ever maintained.

But, again, we cannot conceive of the eternal life and continuous agency of the Head, unless the members also are partakers of eternal life, and susceptible of the influence of their Head. The very idea of a personal God, a Creator who is love, involves the admission that the personalities whom He has created, upon whom He has impressed His image, and whom He has invited to fellowship with Himself, are also designed for an eternal and perfect existence, and cannot be destined to be merely resolved into their natural elements by corporeal death. But the matter assumes an entirely different aspect when such personalities are also members of Christ, and have become intrinsically one with Him; and when, therefore, that life, the design and foundation of which was already within them, has actually begun to be realized. For if Christ has by His very nature eternal life in Himself, and if faith is that which, according to its primitive sense, it ought to be,--viz. the complete appropriation of the life of Christ by a perfect surrender to Him, so that He becomes the proper vital principle of every believer,--it then naturally follows that they who have entered into real fellowship with Him, are through Him made partakers of the same imperishable existence.

But least of all can we conceive of an exalted and eternally living Christ, really the Head of His believing people, but unpossessed of the power of bringing them into His glory, and continually losing them through death. It would be but a very poor compensation to say: He can continually be taking new members to Himself as the old ones die away. This would be to commit the folly of conceiving not only of a heavenly Head with merely earthly members, but also of an eternally living Head, with members in a continual state of coming and going, in a condition of perpetual change. It is quite as impossible to combine faith in an actually living Christ with the supposition of the continual dying off of His members, as it is to supplement the idea of a living and personal God with the notion of the annihilation of the human personalities whom He has called into existence. In the latter case, together with a belief in personal existence after death, we are compelled to surrender also our belief in a personal God, who is love, and to abandon ourselves, if not to atheism and materialism, yet to the pantheistic doctrine of a universal life, ever ceaselessly changing between birth and death. So likewise in the former case, the eternally living Christ must be transformed into one who had a merely past existence, the after effects of which have now entirely disappeared, and who is therefore a historical Christ only in a very limited sense, before it can be maintained that His followers are destined to perish. Either we must say, that as believers fall a prey to annihilation, this must also have been the case with Christ Himself, or that because He lives and reigns, they shall also live and reign with Him. He has made them partakers of the Divine nature. He has impressed upon them the image of His life, and thereby imparted to them eternal life also. For how could that be said to be a Divine nature which was absolutely perishable? And how could Christ be Himself the truly living One, if the highest effects which have proceeded from Him in forming personal beings were ever and again, to be dissolved into nothingness?

What is true of the individual members of Christ holds good also of His members viewed collectively, of the kingdom of God, and its manifestation in the Church, which is the body of Christ. From the very first, it was not as an isolated individual that Christ received each man into His fellowship, but as one who was also destined to form a member in His body. And this relation can never cease, but must ever become more real and true. As the life of the individual is perfected in a higher state of existence by his being made partaker in ever-increasing fulness of the life of Christ, even so, and in equal measure, must the life of the community of Christians be perfected, until the body of Christ is presented in perfect symmetry and beauty. We can never imagine a moment when the body should be left without its Head, or the kingdom without its King; but neither can we conceive of the Head existing without the body, or the King without His kingdom. If the kingdom of Christ, in virtue of the creative power which dwells in its Founder, has in Him a sure pledge of its ultimate perfection, then it has also in Him the assurance of an endless duration; and we have no alternative but either to deny that Christ is the true Kink of a real kingdom, or to regard Him as the immortal, eternally reigning King of His eternally triumphant Church.

If what has been advanced in this last part rests upon sound reasoning, Jesus is thus proved to be, in virtue of His sinlessness, the One Being in our whole race in whom Godhead and manhood are personally united, and in whom a man well-pleasing to God, a typical man, has appeared. And if by this very fact He has also perfectly revealed the nature and the will of God in so far as this was needed by the world of sinners, and effected a true reconciliation between them and the holy God; if He has at the same time established upon this foundation a kingdom of God among men, as the highest human community, and as the guardian of His saving benefits, and has assured to this community, and to every living member thereof, a life of eternal happiness and glory,--then has He also fulfilled all the conditions under which alone it was possible for man, separated as he was from God by sin, to be readmitted to blissful fellowship with Him, and has done this in that form in which alone it could be done, in a truly vital and really efficacious manner, in the form of personality, of personal example and personal intervention. A more exalted Being than one in whom Godhead and manhood were united is necessarily inconceivable. He is, and ever will be, supreme in matters of religion, --Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever.'
[319] His mediatorial work cannot be surpassed, since the restoration of man to fellowship with God was actually effected. thereby. Nor can it possibly be regarded as needing completion. It is a perfected and finished salvation continually offered, that it may be appropriated and lived upon by all who need it.

We have now arrived at that point which we at first designated as the end we had in view, and which we may now describe as the result of what has hitherto been stated. And this was to show that Christianity, of which Jesus Christ is the inalienable vital centre, and all whose essential elements are comprised in Him, is not merely a religion, which may have its own special advantages beside or above other religions, but that it is the religion in a supreme sense,--the perfect and exclusively Divine means and revelation of salvation; and that a supreme and satisfactory, though not the sole pledge that it is so, is offered by the sinless holiness of its Founder. __________________________________________________________________

[306] John v. 26.
[307] John x. 18.
[308] John xvii. 5.
[309] John vi. 33, xi. 5.
[310] John xiv. 19.
[311] John xii. 26.
[312] John xvii. 24.
[313] Luke xvi. 9.
[314] John xiv. 2, 3.
[315] John xvi. 22, 23.
[316] Luke xiii. 21-30, and other places.
[317] Matt. xix. 28, xxvi. 29.
[318] Matt. xxviii. 20.

[319] Heb. xiii. 8. __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________

CONCLUSION.

THE results at which we have now arrived are not only important in a theoretical, but also in a practical, point of view and it is on this latter aspect of our subject that we now propose to add a few remarks.

When the Apostle Peter declares to the Gentile Cornelius [320] that, in every nation, he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted of Him, this assertion implies, as the context plainly shows, not that every kind of worship and righteousness can in themselves render a man acceptable in the sight of God, but that it pleases God to receive into His kingdom, and into the fellowship of Christ, without respect to their former faith--whether they are Jews or Gentiles--all men in whom are found the necessary religious and moral conditions. St. Peter, like the other apostles, makes salvation depend, not on anything that man can offer by way of worship or righteousness, but upon Christ alone. This is unanswerably shown by his immediately following discourse, as well as by his other most express declaration, that there is salvation in none other, and none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.' [321] In these very words is given the summary of all that our previous arguments are designed to prove.

If, then, the Person of Christ has this all-deciding importance with respect to the salvation both of the individual and the whole race, it is obvious that everything will depend upon the position occupied with respect to His Person. Evidently this position cannot be merely a matter of knowledge; it must, on the contrary, be a matter of the heart, the will, and the conscience, because that which concerns our supreme relation, our relation to God, claims not only our intellect, but our entire personality, and especially its moral centre.

To occupy no position at all with respect to the Person of Jesus, when once we have become acquainted with it, is simply impossible; for there is in the holy a power which can never be utterly inoperative; and man, even in his present sinful condition, is a moral being possessing an ineradicable tendency towards the Divine. As such, he is so constituted that he is incapable of remaining absolutely indifferent to that which is holy when he actually meets with it, or when it is powerfully brought to his knowledge. He can avert, or forcibly close, his spiritual eye; yet if but a ray of holy light penetrates his soul, he cannot possibly conduct himself as if there were no such thing in existence, but must necessarily take up some position with respect thereto.

And this position cannot, at least for a continuance, be a neutral or an undecided one. The Lord, indeed, when He says, He that is not against us, is on our side,' [322] seems to assert the opposite, viz. that conduct which just stops short of being inimical, deserves a certain amount of approbation. This saying, however, refers solely to the external following of Christ in combination with His disciples,--to the relation maintained to Christianity viewed in its corporate aspect. Where, however, the far more important and internal relation of the individual to the Person of Christ is concerned, that testing and severing saying, He that is not with me is against me, and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad,' [323] applies. The very nature of the case makes it impossible that it should be otherwise. In presence of the holy and the Divine, the human soul has no other alternative than for or against, affection or dislike; a joyful acceptance of the benefits therein offered, or a repellent withdrawal into itself, followed by an ever-increasing aversion, which at last becomes open enmity. Thus did the manifestation of Jesus, even during His earthly career, act with a dividing effect upon all hearts and minds, and reveal their inmost thoughts and dispositions; thus, to this very day, does it, wherever it is faithfully testified to, irresistibly compel a decision. This decision may indeed be delayed or postponed; the soul of man may hesitate between the Holy One of God and the world; but a decision must at last take place; and if it is not made by an express resolution of the will, a continuance of not being with Christ is in itself a being against Him, and must inevitably manifest itself to be such with more and more distinctness.

But in what does being with and for Him really consist? Not in a merely esthetic approbation of His character, but in a hearty love of His Person. If this is indeed lin us, we shall be willing, first of all, to allow ourselves to be convinced of, and thoroughly humbled for, our sins by Him, the Holy One, and shall then surrender ourselves in perfect confidence to Him who is also the Son, full of grace and truth, and willingly and thankfully accept at His hands the gifts of forgiveness, life, and salvation, which He offers without our merits or deservings. But this is nothing else than what is called believing in Him. And thus the only rightful position which we can occupy towards Christ, the position all-decisive with respect to our own salvation, is that of faith. But faith thus understood can be none other than a living faith, fruitful in all good works. For when a man thus wholly surrenders himself to Christ, Christ really imparts Himself to him: such a one receives the life of Christ into himself, and lets himself be ruled by Christ's Spirit. And where the Spirit of Christ is, His love is shed abroad in the heart; and the works of this love naturally follow. From such a faith there is no need to require good works: Neither does it inquire whether good works are to be done; but before they are asked for, it has done, and is ever doing them.' [324]

Let him who refuses this faith clearly understand what such refusal involves. There is, as we have seen, no neutral ground to which he can retire. In his, as in every case, there will at last arise the necessity of deciding for or against. He, too, will be compelled either to open his heart, by trustful self-surrender and humility, to the Holy One of God, or to close it against Him; and having turned away from Him, to seek salvation--if indeed he still feels himself in need of it--in ways of his own devising. If, however, he decides for the latter, he should do so with a clear knowledge of the full significance of his choice. Perhaps he may think it possible to give up Christ, the Son of God and Redeemer of the world, and to retain the pure and holy Son of Man as an example. This, however, is not possible; for it is the pure and perfect Son of Man who testifies of Himself that He is the Son of God, the Mediator, the alone source of salvation. Besides, it is precisely His pure and perfect manhood which leads, by an inward necessity, to His Divine dignity, and to the truth and reality of His redeeming work, and which involves and furnishes the surest guarantee of both. In short, we cannot have the one without the other. For when we have set aside the Son of God and the Redeemer of the world, there is no longer a place for the holy Son of Man. Then the only perfectly pure specimen of humanity is taken out of its midst, and its whole process of development lacks that central point after which it is ever striving, and from which, when it is once obtained, it receives its deepest, its creative impulse. Then all previous hopes and aspirations that a true man, a man as God had willed him, would one day really appear, have been but an empty delusion; all faith that such a one has really appeared--a faith which has made men strong in life, and joyful in death--has been childish folly. Then the heart of man may look in vain in the midst of its sorrows for a Divine, a holy, but also a truly human heart, which it can entirely trust, to which it can unreservedly surrender itself, and from which it may receive full comfort and perfect peace, in life and in death.

Of him who, on the contrary, inclines to this faith, it demands that he should embrace it with his whole heart, and in the full extent of its requirements. The Redeemer will not be satisfied with a divided heart. He who gave Himself wholly to us, desires that we also should give ourselves wholly to Him. He who receives Him, must do so in a manner suited to His sacred dignity,--must accept from Him that which He is willing to bestow. For He is not here to be fashioned and formed according to the desires and fancies of those who need His salvation, but they must let themselves be formed and fashioned, or rather transformed and refashioned, in their inmost nature and being, by Him, and thus become recipients of the true basis of all true and exalted human progress. Neither is it His will that faith should be timidly concealed in the inner sanctuary of the heart. He would have it gladly confessed before men, and shining forth like a bright light from the whole walk and conversation. [325] He, moreover, who is with Christ, must also gather' with Him; that is, he must diligently promote the interests of His kingdom, and lend his aid to propagate more and more widely the saving and cleansing virtue which proceeds from Christ. Not one special class alone is called to this work. All believers must, after the example of the one High Priest, offer spiritual sacrifices, both in their actions and persons, and show forth the praises of Him who hath called them out of darkness into His marvellous light. [326] Only in proportion as this general Christian duty is fulfilled, in addition to the regular agency of those who are officially called to spread the knowledge of Christ, will the whole fellowship continue to grow up into Him who is the Head; only thus will be laid the foundation of a faith realized and perfected in Him, and the life of the sinless and Holy One be, by means of this faith, increasingly imparted to mankind. __________________________________________________________________

[320] Acts x. 36.
[321] Acts iv. 12.
[322] Matt. ix. 40.

[323] Matt. xii. 30; Luke xi. 23. On the mutual relation of these seemingly contradictory sayings, see my article in the deutschen Zeitschrift, 1851, Nos. III, and IV., especially p. 29, etc.

[324] The well-known words of Luther, in the excellent passage on faith, in his Preface to the Epistle to the Romans.

[325] Matt. x. 32, and v. 16.

[326] 1 Pet. ii. 5, 9. __________________________________________________________________

SUPPLEMENTS. __________________________________________________________________

I.
THE HISTORY AND LITERATURE OF THE SUBJECT.

THE great importance of the sinlessness of Jesus, with regard both to Christian faith and to that impression thereof which we designate doctrine, has at no time been ignored. The attention paid to it, however, by Christian teachers and theologians, has been by no means uniform. The importance of the fact, and its manifold consequences, have not been at all times equally perceived, while its relation to other elements of Christianity has been variously estimated, and its treatment has been undertaken with different purposes and in different manners.

A complete statement of the various ways and modes in which the dogma of the sinlessness of Jesus has in different ages been viewed, proved, and applied, carried out with relation to the whole course of development which doctrine and practice have gone through in the Church, might well form the subject of a separate treatise of no slight interest. Such an undertaking would far transcend our limits. We feel, however, that it is due to our subject to follow up the allusions given in the Introduction by a few general outlines, and especially to make the notice there given of its literature more complete.

To the Christians of the apostolic age, and to the most distinguished of the apostles, the sinless perfection of their Master was an inalienable element, nay, a fundamental factor, of their faith in Him as the Messiah sent by God, the Son of God and Son of Man, the Reconciler and Redeemer of mankind. With them it was not a subject of reflection. They merely reproduced in very decided and pregnant statements the impression which Jesus had in this respect made upon themselves, and plainly indicated the inseparable connection existing in their eyes between His; sinlessness and other elements of Christianity, especially the atoning and priestly agency of Christ.

In the further development of the doctrine of Christ within the Church, this apostolic view of the subject continued to prevail. A more explicit reference to the doctrine of the sinlessness of Jesus, especially in its historical bearings, was nowhere attempted; because it was regarded as an absolutely sell-evident fact, and as an article of belief essentially interwoven with the whole organism of the Christian religion. But as soon as the doctrine of the Person of Christ began to be more fully elaborated, this article of belief was most prominently brought forward. [327] We find this already in the writings of Irenæus and Tertullian, of Clement and Origen. [328] But they give the subject a different form and position. Generally the difference is this: either the sinlessness of Christ is inferred from His Divinity, as by Tertullian; or it is regarded, as by Origen, as a peculiar property of the human soul of Jesus,--a property resulting from a free undisturbed love of all that was Divine and good, and making that soul capable and worthy of perfect union with the Divine, eternal Logos.

In the Christology of Apollinaris this doctrine has a peculiar import attached to it. He proceeded from the belief that along with human nature there is always mutability and change in the moral life, gradual development, conflict, and therefore sin: in his view, it is impossible to conceive of a complete man without sin. But as, according to his own belief, the Redeemer of men must Himself be free from all sin, nay, elevated above all conflict therewith, he was thus led to form the opinion, that in Christ the Divine and eternal Logos had taken the place of the necessarily vacillating and sinful human soul. This Logos being in itself immutable and self-determined, is thus supposed to have imparted to every action and emotion of Christ an irresistible tendency towards the holy and the Divine, and to have raised Him above all conflict with sin. Now even if by the adoption of this view the doctrine of the sinlessness of Christ seems to be placed upon a firmer basis, an evident injury is thereby done to another most vital doctrine, namely, that of the perfect humanity of Christ, and the truth of His typical character as a real man; because both these truths rest upon the assumption of a rational human soul in Christ.

Hence the importance of holding fast the doctrine of Christ's sinlessness along with that of His true human nature. Both were fully recognised by Athanasius, who directed attention to the fact that sin, although found by experience to be really present in all mankind, yet belongs not to human nature in itself considered, whose original state was, on the contrary, a state of sinlessness. Hence it was possible for Christ to take upon Him the whole nature of man, without thereby becoming subject to sin; nay, He must have done so, in order that He might thus show that it was possible for one who is entirely human to preserve himself free from sin. Since His time, both truths have continued to be recognised in the Church--the perfect manhood of Christ, and His absolute sinlessness. In the creed of Chalcedon (451) this doctrine first found expression as an article of faith. In this creed, while testimony is at the same time borne to His proper Divinity, Christ is spoken of as truly man, with a rational soul and body, of like essence with us as to His manhood, and in all things like us, sin excepted.'

This settled the doctrine, at least within the domain of the Church and no important change of opinion with respect. to it afterwards took place. It now became more a subject of theological discussion, although it was not treated in a comprehensive spirit until modern times.

In the Middle Ages, theologians were content to abide by the decisions of the Church; but at the same time they fully recognised the importance of the subject. The Schoolmen indeed allowed, that if the human soul of Jesus were viewed independently, and its union with the Divine Logos left out of the question, the possibility of His sinning could not be denied. [329] On the other hand, however, the fact of His perfect sinlessness was most expressly acknowledged. This feature was prominently brought forward as a thoroughly essential one in the character of Jesus from the most opposite quarters, [330] and we may regard it as not improbable that, in the well-known controversy of the Thomists and the Scotists about the immaculate conception of the Virgin, one chief point of interest for the defenders of that tenet was, by proving the perfect original purity of the mother of our Lord, to establish that also of the Saviour Himself. But this dogma was damaging to the position of Christ in another aspect. For hitherto Christ alone, according to apostolic testimony, had been regarded as free from all sin, hereditary sin included. Now, however, this quality began to be attributed to His mother and thus not only was the uniqueness of Christ in this respect done away with, but His dignity as the world's Redeemer was impugned, together with the indissoluble connection between the work of redemption and absolute sinlessness. For if there really existed a human being . besides, nay, before Him, entirely unaffected by sin, the necessity of being redeemed and sanctified by Christ would be no longer absolute and universal. Consequently His position as Redeemer would be lowered and though this took place in fact only at a single point, yet in principle the whole doctrine would be affected. That this was the case was immediately felt and expressed. At the very first appearance even of the dogma of the immaculate conception, St. Bernhard despatched an epistle to the Canonist of Lyon, who had about the year 1400 introduced a new festival in honour of this doctrine, in which, among other things, he says: If it is given to some few of the sons of men to be born in holiness, it is not given them to be thus conceived, that thus this pre-eminence of holy conception might continue to be His alone who was to sanctify all, and who alone coming into the world without sin, was to effect the purification of sinners.' In a similar manner do several other excellent authorities express themselves; among whom we may specially name the Dominican John of Montesono, who, in 1367, published at Paris several theses on this controversy. [331] The movement, however, continued, and an increasingly idolatrous honouring of the Virgin prevailed, until at last, in our own days, though not without a partial protest by the more pious and enlightened of Romish theologians, the dogma of the immaculate conception was formally promulgated by the Roman see.

While the theology of the Middle Ages continued in theory unwaveringly faithful to the decisions of the apostolic, and the ancient Church concerning the Person of Christ, a corruption of another kind set in; not, in the first instance, within the sphere of theology, but in that of the Church and of Christian life generally. Christ, while strictly adhered to doctrinally, began to disappear from Christian consciousness as a living, directly operating personality, and as the only medium of salvation. The Church, with its mediation of priests, put Him more and more into the background, while His pretended earthly representative usurped His place. The chief merit of the Reformers consisted in restoring the Divine and human Person of Christ to its central position as the one only ground of salvation, and re-establishing the direct character of the relation of believers to Him, and, through Him, to God the Father. They did this, because they felt Christ present to their inmost soul in His Divine and human dignity, in His redeeming and saving power; and they sought for no further proof of that which was to them a second nature, and which was confirmed and sealed by the word of God and the testimony of His Spirit. They received the doctrine concerning Christ as set forth by the Church,--the Church universally Christian and truly catholic; and since the sinlessness of Christ formed an essential part of that doctrine, we find it also enunciated in their writings. [332] A minute discussion of it would, however, have been at variance with their spirit; to them it was not a matter requiring proof, but an immediate certainty, far removed above all controversy. As soon, however, as evangelical doctrine was formed into a systematic whole, this dogma had to undergo a more thorough discussion. This is first found in the writings of the dogmaticians of the second generation after the Reformation; [333] and not less so in those of subsequent systematizers, particularly in works on doctrinal and on moral theology. But it is in modern times that the subject has been most prominently brought forward, owing to the growing consciousness of the extreme importance of the doctrine of sinlessness in treating of Christology, and indeed of Christianity in general.
[334]

And nothing has done more to awaken this conviction than the doubts which have arisen in recent times upon this subject, even within the domain of Christian belief and of theology. Indeed the development of the doctrine which we have sketched above had not been carried far enough for the sinlessness of Christ to be at once recognised by all men, at all times, as a perfectly unquestionable fact. As early as the ages of ancient Christianity, we see suspicions arising and limitations adduced in isolated instances. [335] But it is in modern times that we first find the doctrine an object of decided and detailed attack. And here we have not so much in view the application--made with greater or less directness against the sinlessness of Christ--of the position, that Christ did actually share our sinful flesh; [336] we rather refer to the direct calling in question of sinlessness as a possibility and as a fact, as it has been called in question by rationalism, both deistic and pantheistic. [337]

These doubts, based as they were, not only upon historical and critical, but upon very decided and utterly negative doctrinal prepossessions, assailed the very heart of Christianity; and there could not fail to be a reaction against them from the Christian side. If, in former times, the moral character of Christ had often been the subject of special discussion, this. was now of necessity much more the case; and we find a whole series of single works upon this subject, with direct reference to the question of sinlessness. [338] But not only were more numerous works thus called forth,--there was also a more acute apprehension of the idea of sinlessness, and a more profound investigation of the questions involved in it. Nevertheless, two distinct modes of treatment were followed; some theologians dealing with the subject in a manner purely doctrinal, while others, taking it up chiefly in its historical aspect, used it also in the interest of apologetic aims. In the former aspect, the influence of Schleiermacher in itself marks a fresh era. He, as is well known, defines Christianity as fundamentally a system of redemption, and makes redemption consist essentially in the communication of the sinlessness of the Redeemer. In doing this, however, he not only specially vindicated, for the doctrine of Christ's sinlessness, a position which, however modified, will still retain its importance; but he gave to the discussion of this doctrine an impulse which has caused the feature of sinlessness in the character of Jesus to be regarded, in general, in a manner totally different from that in which it had hitherto been viewed, and has placed this essential trait in a point of view more particularly apologetic. The manner in which it has been treated in more modern times, in this latter aspect, need not, after what has been stated in the Introduction and notes, be further alluded to here. __________________________________________________________________

[327] The first writer who uses the technical expression anamartetos with reference to Christ is Hippolytus (Galandii Biblioth. 466). Then we find the term repeatedly employed by Clement of Alexandria; still he uses also the word anepithumetos (Stromat. vii. 12),--a word which, more than the other, has reference to the inward state.

[328] It would lead us too much into detail were we to give all the passages of the fathers referred to. The reader may consult Duncker's Christologie des Irenæus, S. 219 ff.; Hagenbach, Dogmen-geschichte, B.
1. § 67; and Baumgarten-Crusius' Dogmen-geschichte, vol. ii. p. 162. Suicer also, in his Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus, gives a tolerably complete collection of passages from the fathers under the words anamartesia, anamartetos,--vol. 1. pp. 287-289.

[329] Peter Lombard says, Lib. sent. iii. 12: Non est ambiguum, animam illam entem unitam verbo peccare non posse, et eandem, si esset et non unita verbo, posse peccare.

[330] This was to be expected in the case of theologians. I will here name only two poets: Otfried von Weissenburg, who, in his Poetical Version of the Gospels, iii. 21, 4, uses the expression, ther suntiloso man, concerning Christ; and Dante, in whose view Christ is like Himself alone, and who on this account never makes his name rhyme with any word but itself, nor permits it to be uttered in hell on account of its supreme dignity, says, Inferno, xxxiv. 114, 15, Where the man who was born and lived without sin, perished.'

[331] These may be found in Dupin's edition of the works of Gerson, vol. 1. p. 693. In thesis x. it is said, It is expressly contrary to our faith to hold that any except Christ has been born free from original sin;' and in thesis xii., It is as contrary to Holy Scripture to say that one human being besides Christ is excepted from original sin, as to say that ten are.' In thesis ix., moreover, it is laid down as a general axiom, that, to declare anything true which is contrary to Scripture, is most expressly contrary to our faith.'

[332] E.g. by Luther in the Larger Catechism.

[333] See Schmid, Dogmatik der ev. luth. Kirche, pp. 231, 236; and Hase, Hutt. rediv. § 96, p. 226, 7th ed.

[334] Among the works of the older Protestant theologians the following may be specially noticed:--Gerhard, Loc. theol. Pt. iii. p. 237; and Buddeus, Compend. theol. dogm. § 497. Among modern writings in which the doctrine is briefly or extensively treated, may be mentioned:--Doederlein, Institut. ii. pp. 206, etc.; Zacharias, bibl. Theologie, Pt. iii. pp. 38-46; Töllner's theolog. Untersuchungen, vol. i. Pt. ii.; Reinhard's Dogmatik, § 91; Bretschneider's Dogmat. vol. ii. §§ 135, 138; Wegscheider, Institut. § 122, pp. 446, 447, 7th ed.; Knepp's Vorlesungen, Pt. ii. § 93, p. 151; Schleiermacher's christl. Glaube, Pt. ii. in the whole section concerning Christ, especially pp. 39 and 86 of the 2d ed.; De Wette's christl. Sittenlehre, Pt. i. pp. 173-193, and Wesen des christl. Glaubens, § 53; Nitzsch, System der christlichen Lehre, § 129; Rothe, Theolog. Ethik. vol. i. § p. 279, etc.--Remarks on the subject will also be found in Daub's Judas Iscarioth, No. I. pp. 55, 64, 78; and Steudel's Grundzügen einer Apologetik, pp. 56, etc. It is also discussed in Steudel's Glaubenslehre der evangelisch-protestant-Kirche, Tüb. 1834, pp. 233-245; in Sack's christl. Apologetik, 2d ed. p. 201, etc.; Hase's Leben Jesu, pp. 23, 32; and Jul. Müller's christl. Lehre von der Sünde, 3d ed., in various places. Among the latest works, compare the doctrinal writings of Grimm, Schweizer, Lange, Schoeberlein, Liebner, and Martensen; die biblische Dogm. of Lutz, pp. 293-299; Dorner's Entwickelungsgeschichte der Lehre von der Person Christi; and Schumann's Christus, vol. i. pp. 284-297.

[335] Basilides, the Gnostic, appears to have been the first who entertained doubts concerning this doctrine. He even applied to Christ, as man, the maxim that every one who suffers, does so as an expiation for his own sins. Yet he shrinks from charging Jesus with actual sin, and places Him, in this respect, on a level with children, who suffer indeed, not on account of sins committed, but because of the inclination to sin existing in them,--because of the hamartetikon. Clemens, Strom. iv. 12; Neander, gnost. Syst. pp. 49-53. Arius and Theodore of Mopsveste admit only the moral perfection of Christ in a more limited sense. See Baumgarten-Crusius, Dogmengeschichte, p. 164, note 1.

[336] See on this subject the note on p. 125.

[337] The Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist is, with respect to our subject, the advocate of the former; Strauss, in his Glaubenslehre, vol. ii. pp. 190, etc., of the latter. Pécaut, whose still more recent work has been already so frequently alluded to, may also be mentioned as belonging to the deistic side.

[338] Among works entirely devoted to this subject are the following:--Walther, Dissert. theol. de Christi hominis anamartesia, Viteb. 1690, and Dissert. de dissimilit. ortus nostri et Christi hom., in his Dissertatt. theol. ed. Hoffmann, Viteb. 1753, pp. 207-244; Hoevel, de anamartesia Christi ejusque necessitate, Hal. 1741, recusa 1749, 37, p. 4--(this treatise, whose author, Carl Ludwig Hoevel, is a pupil of Baumgarten, is strictly orthodox, and written with much scholastic acuteness. It follows Wolf's method of demonstration, and bases the sinlessness of Jesus upon the unio personalis of the Divine and human natures. In the first part the necessity of this doctrine is laid down; in the second it is defended against objections);--Erbstein, Gedanken über die Frage ob der Erlöser sündigen konnte? Meissen 1787--(this work, denies the possibility, in opposition to Doederlein, Institt. § 234);--Ueber die Anamartesie Jesu, in Grimm's and Muzel's Stromata, Pt. ii. pp. 113, etc.; Ph. A. Stapfer, Versuch eines Beweises der göttlichen Sendung und Würde Jesu aus seinem Charakter, Berne 1797; and in French in the collection of Stapfer's writings recently published at Paris--(it contains a very spirited and eloquent description of the moral manifestation of Jesus, and such inferences therefrom of His Divine dignity as were not easily drawn in that period of rationalism);--J. L. Ewald, über die Grosse Jesu und ihrem Einfluss auf seine Sittenlehre, Hanover 1798; also his erste Forts. Beantwort. verschied. Einwürfe, Gera 1799; M. Weber, Progr. Virtutis Jesu integritatem neque ex ipsius professionibus neque ex actionibus doceri posse, Viteb. 1796; and in his Opusc. Acad. pp. 179-192--(Weber, while firmly adhering to the sinlessness of Jesus, insists upon grounding this doctrine solely on the inspired testimony of the apostles, and thus of God Himself, who, as knowing the heart, can alone pronounce authoritatively in this case);--Fr. von Meyer, war Jesus Christus der Sünde fähig? in the Blättern für höhere Wahrheit, new series, 2d collection, Berlin 1831, pp. 198-208; J. G. Rätze, die Heiligkeit und die Wunderthaten als die höchsten und genügenden Beglaubigungsgründe der Gottheit des Welterlösers, Zittau and Leipsic 1834--(it is possible that miracles, inasmuch as they differ from the ordinary phenomena of nature, may be doubted both on historical and philosophic grounds; but such doubts are extinguished by the holiness of Christ's Person and life. A holiness manifested by precept and example, and in accordance with the religious and moral ideals of reason, is its own best credential; and they who deny it, would at the same time deny the consciousness of the Divine existence and the moral law);--Al. Schweizer, über die Dignität des Religionstifters, in the theol. Stud. und Kritik. 1834, No. III. pp. 521-571; No. IV. pp. 813-849--(Schweizer here endeavours to prove, in a speculative way, the necessity of the absolute religious perfection, the infallibility and sinlessness of Christ, from the notion and nature of the Founder of that religion which is to be the religion of the whole human race);--Christ. Frid. Fritzsche, de anamartesia Jesu Christi Commentationis, iv., Hal. 1835-37--(the author criticises the treatises on the Sinlessness of Jesus by three theologians of Halle, viz. Hoevel, Weber, and myself, and makes objections against those of the first and last. An answer will be found in the theol. Stud. und Kritik. 1842-3);--Hase, Streitschriften, No. III. 1837, pp. 105-114--(an excellent and acute refutation of rationalistic objections)--Guil. Naumann, Dissert. de Jesu Christo ab animi affectibus non immuni, Lips. 1840; Gotth. Ferd. Doehner, de dictis aliquot Jesu Christi quæ anamartesian ejus infringere videantur, Zwiccau 1840--(the contents of these two works are cited and condemned in an article by Theile, Litt. Blatt. der allgem. K. Zeitung, Feb. 1841, Nos. XIX. XX. XXI.);--Theile, über die sittliche Erhabenheit Jesu allg. K. Zeitung, June 1841, Nos. XCII. XCIII. XCIV.--(a good description of the typical nature of the character of Christ, and of its significance for Christianity).--Remarks referring to our subject will also be found in Käuffer's Jesus Christus unser Vorbild, Dresden 1845, especially p. 98, etc. An article in Swedish against my views, by Prof. Thomander of Lund, in the quarterly paper edited by himself and Reuterdahl, unfortunately did not come to my notice till it was out of print. I am, however, able to refer to a more detailed review by Prof. Van Oordt, in the Gröningen journal, Waarheid in Liefde, 1838, No. I. pp. 117-224, especially pp. 218 sq. __________________________________________________________________

II.

THE DIFFERENT VIEWS HELD WITH RESPECT TO THE TEMPTATION. __________________________________________________________________

THE object of the brief notice given in the Treatise, of the history of the temptation, was principally to point out the relation between the fact of our Saviour being tempted and His sinlessness. We endeavoured to show what aspect this relation bears, as seen from the various points of view occupied by those who have discussed the two subjects and with this purpose we referred even to those opinions which present the greatest difficulty. But what was there said would be insufficient and unsatisfactory without a further investigation of the whole subject. We subjoin, accordingly, an examination of the various expositions of this passage, [339] and supply a fuller vindication of the view which, in our opinion, deserves the preference.

Everywhere in the Bible the exposition of the details, and the view to be taken of the whole, reciprocally modify each other and this is especially the case with reference to the passage before us. But while, as is evident, the details can be fully understood only by a correct appreciation of the whole, there is a great danger of allowing one's self to be influenced in fixing the meaning of the separate histories by a predetermined conclusion on the import of the whole narrative. That we may avoid this danger, and pursue the safest course, we shall first state what can with certainty be determined with regard to the details, and then proceed to the general history, that thus justice may be done to both, by a due consideration of their mutual relation. __________________________________________________________________

[339] The most recent literature on the subject of the temptation has been given above, p. 130, to which may be added Riggenbach's Lectures on the Life of Christ, pp. 271-286. More information may be found in Hase's Life of Jesus, and De Wette's Exegetical Handbook. Specially rich in literary notices is a treatise in the (Catholic) Tübinger Quartalschrift, 1828, 1 and 2. __________________________________________________________________