Sec. 1.—By Others.

WHEN we cast a searching glance at the actual events of our Lord’s life, we cannot help wishing that men of the most opposite ranks and dispositions, occupying positions exterior to Christianity, sceptical, or even inimical, had left us express accounts of the impressions produced by His actions and character. Such a wish is, however, but scantily gratified by history. We know, indeed, with unquestionable certainty, from the testimony of heathen authors, that Jesus suffered death by crucifixion in the reign of Tiberius,

Tacitus, Annals, xv. 44; Suetonius, Life of Claudius, cap. xxiv., and elsewhere.

Sec. 2.—The Testimony of Jesus to Himself.

The Lord Jesus must best have known what was in Himself. Hence, the manner and nature in which He gave expression to His own moral consciousness, must naturally be of the most decided importance. The impression He produced on others, and their consequent conviction, must not, as is self-evident, be absent. Yet this might be but the echo of what originally proceeded from Jesus Himself; and hence, in the very nature of the thing, His own utterances on the subject must form the final and culminating testimony on which we embrace the persuasion of His sinlessness.

And, first, even the negative side of His testimony is in the highest degree remarkable.

For further confirmation, see my article, ‘Polemisches in Betr. Sündl.,’ Stud. und Kritik. 1842-3, pp. 661-67. Excellent remarks on this side of the question will also be found in Dorner, Schaff, and Young.

Sec. 1.—The New Life of Christianity in its Moral and Religious Aspects.

The moral effects of Christianity are undeniable. It has in all ages produced, in those who have been deservedly called believers, a rich supply of virtues, and, indeed, of virtues which were not previously in existence, or at least not in so pure a form. This applies chiefly to humility, and to compassionate, ministering love. Nor has it exercised a less salutary moral influence upon the social relations of life. In marriage, and in the family, in civil and political life, in the relation of ranks, tribes, and nations to each other,—nay, in the whole condition of the human race,—it was Christianity which first laid the foundation of a state of society truly worthy of man. And these changes it has accomplished, not from without, not by any kind of constraint, but essentially from within, and by mere moral force. But chiefly have they been brought about by the fact, that, through the influence of Christianity, the godlike, free personality of man, and the equality of all men before God have been really recognised as they had never been before. All this irresistibly points to the abundance and depth of the moral forces inherent in Christianity. For the origin of these forces, however, we must necessarily go back to its Author and this alone is, at all events, strong testimony to the singularly prominent position He occupies in the domain of morals. But when our special subject is the doctrine of His sinlessness, all that has hitherto been touched upon may be considered as essentially comprised in one leading point, namely this, that the sum-total of these moral results makes it obvious that Christianity produced something new in the moral world, something which is utterly inexplicable, unless it be assumed that the Author of this creation was sinless and pure.

The idea of a new moral creation is one as peculiar to Christianity as it is indispensable to its completeness. This the Apostle Paul expresses in the most forcible manner when he says, ‘If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.’

2 Cor. v. 17.

If, however, we are to define in general terms that new moral principle which distinguishes the Christian from the præ-Christian world, we should say that it is a principle of moral perfection surpassing both nature and the law, and whose ultimate aim is an actual freedom from all sin. Before the entrance of Christianity into the world, we find, on the one hand, in heathenism a surrender of the individual life to nature, without any decided consciousness of sin; on the other hand, in Judaism an overwhelming consciousness of sin, produced by the revelation of the Divine holiness, and by the strictness of the law, but unaccompanied by the vital power and confidence necessary to overcome it. If it be true that in the heathen world the life of nature was, in the case of certain nations, ennobled into something supremely beautiful, and even that certain great prophetic spirits were able to rise, to a certain degree, above its limits,—if it be true that in the domain of Judaism there was, beside the consciousness of sin, a consciousness of grace; yet, on the whole, the heathen and their gods were under the dominion of nature, which mind may glorify, but cannot overcome; while the Jews were in presence of the holy God, under the curse of sin, which the law could indeed give the knowledge of, and place under outward restraints, but was utterly unable to eradicate and subdue. When Christianity appeared, it broke the power of nature, and redeemed it from the curse of the law. For it is self-evident that a life determined only by natural motives is not to be thought of within the sphere of Christianity. By means of Christianity, moreover, the life will also rise above the essentially legal grade. The place of the law will be occupied by a morality made free from within,—a morality for which the law is no longer written on tables of stone, but on fleshy tables of the heart; and which, having its origin in Divine grace, and being conscious of this origin, cherishes also the assurance that, at some stage of its development, it will become free from sin.

Sec. 2.—Morality and Religion united in Holiness.

Another circumstance must now be taken into consideration. Not only have morality and religion, individually considered, appeared under new aspects in Christianity, but a blending of the two, such as had never before existed, has been by it introduced into human life. This union of the religious and moral elements, which we call Holiness, is the highest quality attainable by man, and furnishes another point whence the sinlessness of Jesus may be inferred.

Undoubtedly a reciprocity of action between religion and morals may be found even beyond the province of Christianity. All vigorous piety manifests itself by moral results, and all deep morality is in some way or other based upon piety. If we conceive of either as existing independently, as entirely severed from the other, we should have, on the one side, a piety either of a sickly and internal character, confining itself to contemplation and emotion, or consisting solely of merely outward observances; on the other, a morality which, keeping closely within the bounds of legality, would exhibit a virtue, strict perhaps, and immoveable, but austere, and lacking all genuine warmth and heartiness. We are not, however, speaking of a greater or less degree of reciprocal action, but of a perfect fusion,—of such a oneness of religion and morality, that the one can never be found without the other;—no feeling of piety without moral worth and moral results, and no moral action which does not spring from piety. For holiness, as a human quality, exists only where a being, who has either continued free from sin, or, having sinned, has again become free from every stain of guilt, and victorious over every temptation, is ever, both in will and deed, following after good; and this not only from motives of duty, not merely for the sake of good itself, but for the sake of God; impelled, therefore, by that love which, like the Divine love itself, finds its objects even in the undeserving and the lost, and is ready to make any sacrifice for their deliverance.

Where, then, do we find even the notion of such a holiness as this?

We cannot seek for it in the heathen world. Even here the distinction between the profane and the sacred, between the impure and the consecrated, was understood, and its nobler spirits, at least, conceived that the pure alone could be worthy of fellowship with Divinity. But the Divine itself was not in its view perfectly holy. Heathenism is essentially the religion of nature, and consists either in the deification of nature, or the introduction of the Divine into natural life. This naturally and necessarily excluded from the sphere of the Divine the stricter notion of holiness; and where this was already wanting in the province of religion, it would be vain to seek for its impression in that of morals. In fact, though we do find in the ancient world the ideas of justice, of virtue, and of the good and beautiful, we by no means meet with that of holiness.

The revelation of the Old Testament is based on an entirely different foundation. Here the holiness of God, the free Creator and Governor of the world, forms the central-point, and the precept, ‘Be ye holy, for I am holy,’

Lev. xi. 45, xix. 2.

And this we find in Christianity. Here first, and here only, do we meet with that perfect idea of holy love in which piety and morality are indivisibly united. Christianity, moreover, does not regard this idea as a standard exalted above ordinary practice, but cherishes the most assured confidence of its realization, even in the sphere of human life. Not till the appearance of Christianity did a community exist whose fundamental characteristic and aim were not any one particular virtue or religious exercise, but sanctification; and that a sanctification extending from the inmost heart to every circumstance of life,—an existence wholly in God and from God, as religious in its motives as it is moral in its activity. Whence, then, arose so deep-reaching, so wondrous a change? Was it effected merely in the way of reasoning and instructing? Such an issue would be contrary to all analogy. It could only have been brought about with the results which actually accompanied it in the way of life; in other words, by the appearance of a person who should make a profound impression that he possessed such holiness in unmistakeable perfection, and should thus set up an entirely new standard of excellence within this sphere of life. It was precisely in this manner also that the type of truly classic excellence was introduced into the province of art. This was not effected by devising beforehand some theory of beauty, but by its actual exhibition in the creations of some more than usually gifted artist.

We have now, however, reached a point which will give rise to a special discussion. For it might be said: Granting that what has been hitherto advanced is correct, is it certain that the reality of a sinless life is needful to account for it? Might not the mere idea, the mere belief in such a life, produce the like effects? To this subject, then, we shall now devote a few words.

Sec. 3.—These Effects caused not by an Idea, but by an Actual Person.

The objection just hinted at is founded upon a spiritualism which everywhere flees from reality to dwell apart in a world of ideas, and seeks to resolve all life into mere intellectual conceptions. In fact, however, mere ideas have not the power of creating new life reality can only arise from reality and unless we are willing to regard the whole moral and religious life of the Christian world as a collection of mere ideas, instead of acknowledging it to be a reality, confirmed as such by our own experience, we must admit a corresponding reality as its starting-point, since there can be nothing in the effect whose germ was not previously in the cause.

But here the question specially arises: Whence came, then, the representation, or, if the term be preferred, the idea of sinless perfection? In all other cases, being and life are primitive, representation and conception derived. Yet here a notion is supposed to precede, which would not only have no foundation in an originating life, but to which there would nowhere exist a corresponding reality. And how is it to be accounted for that this thought should have appeared, with so marked a character and so powerful an energy, just at this point of the world’s history, while we find nothing similar or equal to it at any other period, nor at the same period in any other instance?

We have already alluded to the fact that the notion of sinlessness had by no means attained so definite a form that nothing else remained to be done but to apply it to Jesus Christ, but that, on the contrary, the idea itself was first developed with and by the appearance of Jesus Himself. We have now arrived at the place where it will be needful to investigate this more closely. It is a fact of no slight significance. For if, on the one hand, we find that, previous to the appearance of Christ, and beyond the circle of Christian influences, the notion of sinlessness was either utterly indefinite, or, where it did occur, was inseparably connected with the certainty that its realization was impossible; while, on the other hand, we see that within the province of Christianity not only is the notion itself fully defined, but also accompanied by a firm faith in its actual realization in the life of a certain individual,—the conclusion forced upon us is, that between the former and latter state of things there must lie something by which this mighty change has been effected. Thus, again, the only natural explanation is offered by the supposition that the idea of sinlessness was realized in the Person of Jesus Christ.

But it is not enough to have made this general statement. It must be historically proved; and for this purpose it will be needful to enter somewhat into particulars.

The reason why the idea of pure holiness was impossible to the whole heathen world, lay, as has been already hinted, not only in the fact that polytheism was deficient in a spirit of thoroughly decided morality, but also in the positively immoral elements by which it was disfigured. For where the Divine models themselves were not regarded as pure, there could be no place for the notion of a virtue, spotless and in all respects perfect, within the province of human life. Nevertheless, even the heathen world possessed, in the form of philosophy and poetry, an extensive range of thought, which rose far above the limits of the popular religion; and in these departments we undoubtedly meet with very exalted views of morality. The tragic poets, especially Sophocles, present us with pictures of a virtue as sublime as it is pious and attractive; and those philosophers whose systems are borne up by a spirit of morality, naturally approach somewhat to the idea of a perfection of moral life in holiness,—because it is scarcely possible to go at all deep into the philosophy of moral subjects, without at least verging upon this idea. None of the sages of antiquity is more noteworthy in this respect than Plato. In the second book of his Republic he draws a sketch of a righteous man, in which he represents perfect integrity as necessarily conjoined with suffering. This must remind every thoughtful reader of the noblest instance of suffering virtue that we know of, and be regarded as one of the most remarkable anticipations of Christianity to be found among the deep utterances of that prophetic spirit.

Plato’s Works, edited by Schleiermacher, third edition, vol. i.; Notes, p. 535.

Sec. 1.—The Development of the Person of Jesus.

The Scriptures speak undeniably of a growth in wisdom in Jesus, consequently of an increase, a progress in His intellectual life; and not less distinctly do they intimate that His moral nature became gradually perfect. And were this not clearly taught in single passages,

For the intellectual growth of Jesus we have the classic words, προέκοπτε σοφίᾳ, Luke ii. 52: for His growth in moral perfection there are several passages in the Epistle to the Hebrews, especially chap. ii. 10-18, v. 7-9. Compare Scholten, Oratio de vitando in Jesu Christi historia Docetismo, pp. 15-19; De Wette, Das Wesen des christlichen Glaubens, § 53, p. 269; and Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbriefs, i. pp. 327, etc. Keim especially has endeavoured to bring forward the several stages of ‘the human development of Jesus’ in his lecture under this title. His remarks are frequently striking, but there are also many points with which we are unable to agree. Also Gess, in another, and decidedly positive sense, in his Lehre von der Person Christi: see many passages, but especially p. 210, and pp. 304 seq.

Sec. 2.—The Development of the Messianic Plan.

With still more positiveness, and with greater force, has the objection which is based on progress from a state of imperfection to one of perfection, been urged in relation to the Messianic plan of Jesus.

The phrase, ‘Plan of Jesus,’ has in recent times been so much in vogue, that it may seem paradoxical to consider it inappropriate; and yet it is utterly so. The devising of a plan implies an activity of mind which is far too strongly individual and subjective to be ascribed to Jesus. So also the acting constantly according to a plan, springs from a one-sided predominance of reflection, such as He never manifested. That which He was commissioned to do and to establish was marked out for Him by God and history,—was recognised, not devised by Him. Hence, although we are not warranted in saying that there was no connection between His various acts, seeing that in all He did and said He was possessed and inspired by the loftiest idea still, to assume that all He did was deliberately planned and intended beforehand, in the common sense of the words, reduces Him to a lower position than that which He actually occupied, as One filled with the Spirit and with God. The older terms, office and work of Christ, have much greater congruity than the modern expression plan. If, however, this term plan, having usage on its side, is to be retained, let us understand by it only, as Hase very correctly defines it in his Leben Jesu, § 40, ‘His subjective conception of the office to which God had appointed Him, without reference to the collateral use of the word in the sense of: what is arbitrary, the mere result of reflection.’ Compare Neander’s Life of Jesus, pp. 128, etc., fifth ed.

This view, which even at a former period was broached by certain of the learned, has been fully and acutely carried out in more recent times.

Following in the steps of Von Ammon, De Wette, and some others, Hase, in the first ed. of his Leben Jesu, published at Leipsic in 1829, propounded at length the thought of a twofold plan of Jesus,—of a plan which was at first theocratical, and only became purely, religious subsequently. In opposition to his view and development of the subject, appeared Heubner, in an appendix to the fifth ed. of Reinhard’s Plan Jesu, Wittenb. 1830, pp. 394-407; Lücke, in two programmes of the year 1831, under the title, Examinatur, quæ speciosius nuper commendata est, sententia de mutato per eventa, adeoque sensim emendato Christi consilio; and J. E. Osiander, in his article, Ueber die neueren Bearbeitungen des Lebens Jesu von Paulus und Hase, in the Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie, 1831, No. i. pp. 145-148. My controversy also, in the second ed. of this work, was with Hase. To this opposition, especially as conducted by Lücke, Hase, with a noble love of truth, did justice, partly in his Theologische Streitschriften, Leipsic 1834, pp. 61-102, and partly in the subsequent editions of his Leben Jesu. He adopted from his antagonists as much as his own convictions would allow him, and sought to unite the opposed views in the following general result, § 50:—‘Apart from single political institutions, which are by nature transitory, the plait of Jesus undoubtedly related to a moral reformation and a spiritual kingdom; but still the Divine law which He put in force was clearly meant in the course of time to subdue the world, or rather to pervade it as its highest general law; and He, the King of Truth, intended to become also a King of the world.’ ‘Jesus must, at one time or other, have examined and rejected those Messianic hopes which bore a theocratic character, for the Messianic faith could only reach Him in that form. But there is no proof whatever that He was led to this examination and rejection by hard experience in the midst of His career, and not by the clear judgment of His own mind ere He entered on His work.’

Sec. 3.—The Temptation.

The very difficult problem now awaits our consideration, whether Jesus ever experienced any inclination to sin? Our business is specially with the application of the idea of temptation to Jesus, and the difficulty lies in the question as to whether He could be really tempted, and yet remain absolutely sinless. Temptation implies allurement to evil; allurement involves a minimum of evil itself, and that is inconsistent with perfect purity.

We may very easily get rid of this difficulty by refusing to recognise one or the other of the two sides which should here be held in conjunction with each other; i.e. by affirming either that Jesus was not really tempted, or that we must not be so precise in our view of sinlessness. And there are not a few who do either deny the reality of the temptation, or sacrifice the strict conception of sinlessness. But the problem is not solved in this way. On the contrary, since Scripture teaches both the temptation and sinlessness of Christ, it becomes the duty of theology to furnish an answer to the question whether both can be held without prejudice to either, or whether the one necessarily excludes the other. Our proper guide in answering this question is the well-known passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Heb. iv. 15. See on this subject Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebr. Br. i. pp. 317, etc., and 321, etc.

Sec. 4.—Other Acts and Expressions of Jesus, as Arguments against His Sinlessness.

If, then, there is nothing in the facts that Jesus underwent a temporal development, and that He was tempted, which compromises His sinlessness, another question arises, namely, as to whether we do not find in His works and discourses themselves, much that is inconsistent with moral perfection. An affirmative answer to this question would constitute the most striking and satisfactory refutation of what has been hitherto advanced. Several things of this nature were urged even by the contemporaries of Jesus. Others have been brought forward more recently. Some of these seem almost frivolous, and scarcely worthy of notice. Yet the removal of even subordinate misunderstandings may be useful, when they threaten to deface so elevated a form as that of Jesus.

Amongst the .scanty traditions of the earlier period of the life of Jesus, has been preserved that account of His peculiar ripeness at twelve years of age (Luke ii. 41-52), which we have already several times brought forward as very significant in relation to His mental development. But there is the appearance of a blemish even in connection with that remarkable circumstance. The boy might be reproached with disobedience, with wilfulness, for remaining behind in the temple. In examining the matter, however, more closely, this apparent blemish vanishes. Not a word hints that His parents looked upon Him as in fault for remaining behind. The exclamation of His mother was simply the spontaneous expression of tender concern. Further, we can easily conceive of many circumstances arising, where the family relationships were less constrained, which might give occasion to the separation, without neglect on the part of the parents, or self-will on the part of the Son. On the other hand, we may discern even in the boy the same Jesus, who, as a man, rising above the narrow limits of family connections, and subordinating everything that was private and peculiar to His vocation, could say, Who is my mother? who are my brethren? and on another occasion could address His mother, Woman, what have I to do with thee? His energies were to be devoted to the whole of mankind, and the spirit requisite thereto must needs have been manifested at an early period.

In the properly Messianic period of the life of Jesus there were many things at which even His own contemporaries cavilled. Scrutinized, however, more closely, they only furnish one proof more of the elevated nature of His moral life. Of this kind are the reproaches, that He did not live ascetically like the Pharisees, nor even like John the Baptist, but ate and drank like ordinary men; that He associated with publicans and sinners; that He broke the Sabbath by healing the sick; and the like. But it was precisely in opposition to such narrow-heartedness that Jesus manifested by word and deed the grand principles of a freer morality,—of that morality which flows from the fountain of Divine love, and which raises the gospel so far above the level of all legal service: precisely then did He take occasion to defend the simple and genuinely human cheerfulness of a truly pious life, which is marred by no spurious asceticism, but receives and uses all God’s gifts thankfully and temperately: precisely then, too, did He propound those simple doctrines, that the disposition is the test of genuine morality; that love is more than sacrifice; that ordinances are for man, and not man for ordinances, and lay them down as eternal truths in forms appropriate to the time.

The evangelists have artlessly recorded many doings of Jesus with that unreflective objectivity which is peculiar to them, without ever thinking that they might give moral offence. It is only the sensitiveness of the modern world that has found them strange. and offensive. Some things of this kind scarcely deserve examination; as, for example, the cursing of the fig-tree.

Matt. xxi. 17-22; Mark xi. 11-26.

WHEN the arguments against the actual sinlessness of Jesus, taken from matters of fact, are found to be inadequate, the possibility of sinlessness in the domain of human life may still be called in question. For if, indeed, such perfection were intrinsically impossible to human nature, it could not have been realized in the Lord Jesus, in so far as He shared that nature. Such an impossibility has been asserted, and reasons have been urged in support of it, which are partly drawn from experience, and partly from the nature of the moral idea, and the mode of its realization. The examination of the reasons of both kinds thus brought forward, is now, therefore, incumbent on us.

Sec. 1.—Arguments drawn from Experience.

In many cases, undoubtedly, the fruit of experience in connection with the moral relations of life, is distrust of the purity of human virtue, and unbelief in the existence of true goodness and greatness amongst men. The more earnestly we examine the phenomena of human life around us, and the workings of our own hearts, the harder is it to attain the conviction, that there ever did live one who was wholly pure and perfect. Whithersoever our eyes are turned, we find concealed, under a thousand captivating forms, vanity and ambition, the pursuit of possessions, power, and enjoyment; malevolence and envy; and, above all, that evil of evils, selfishness, which in the subtlest way creeps into volitions and acts of a nobler character. Seldom does it fall to our lot to rejoice at the sight of a really pure deed never have we the happiness to discover a man whose life is an unblemished picture of moral perfection. The eye of our spirit becomes, in consequence, so accustomed to the constant spectacle of imperfection, to this chiaroscuro of human life, that we are in danger of ultimately losing the power of recognising a character of perfect moral purity, when presented before us. And it is an undeniable fact, that the knowledge of human nature on which many plume themselves, ends in the miserable and comfortless result of absolute moral scepticism.

But that acquaintance with man which leads to such a conclusion really begins with the principle of mistrust and there must have been beforehand an inclination to discover defects, and either not to pay attention to the good, or to attribute it to bad motives. Besides, such a knowledge is proved to be spurious, by the fact of its giving a result that tends to destroy our best powers, faith and love, and that blights at the root all self-sacrificing effort for the welfare of mankind. Moral scepticism, consistently carried out, possesses no firm ground on which to base a moral judgment, and does in fact ultimately undermine all those higher relations which rest upon such a judgment.

Comp. Reinhard’s Moral Theol. iii. cap. 1, § 329.

Sec. 2.—Arguments drawn from the Nature of the Moral Idea.

In the last place, a word must be said on the position taken with regard to the subject under consideration by modern speculative criticism.

The literature of this subject is well known. I therefore merely mention, on the one side, Strauss’s Schlussabhandlung zum Leben Jesus and the christological portion of his Glaubenslehre, especially pp. 153-240, vol. ii.: on the other side, the essays of Alb. Schweizer on the Dignität des Religionstifters, in the Studien und Kritiken, 1834; and on Strauss’s Leben Jesu, also in the Studien und Kritiken, No. III. 1837; my own treatises in the work Historisch oder Mythisch, Hamb. 1838; Fischer’s Prüfung der Straussischen Glaubenslehre, Tüb. 1842, Heft ii. p. 10 ff.; and De Wette’s Das Wesen des christlichen Glaubens, §§ 6 and 46.

Modern speculation does indeed leave to Jesus a certain residuum of greatness, in virtue of which He was capable of being the ‘occasion’ of the rise of a new faith. Yet this greatness is of an indefinite kind, and in no case constitutes a specific distinction between Him and all other men. As a proof of this equality, two maxims are brought forward which are evidently regarded as fundamental axioms. One of these axioms is, ‘ that the first in a series of developments cannot at the same time be the greatest;’ the other, ‘that it is not the manner of the idea to realize itself in a single individual, but only in the sum-total of individuals,—in the genus.’ If the first axiom held universally and necessarily true, we should be driven to conclude that the moral greatness of Jesus did not surpass the succeeding links of the chain of development realized in the Christian world and the relative eminence of Jesus, His character as our pattern, would thus be destroyed. But if the former axiom were shown to be inadmissible, and there remained only the second, this latter would, if applied to Jesus, at the least exclude the possibility of believing in His absolute moral greatness, and consequently do away with His typical relation to men.

In both these propositions, individually considered, there is a certain amount of truth; but in the application made of them to the founder of Christianity, we find but another exemplification of the erroneous tendency of modern speculation to merge the particular in the general, the concrete in the abstract; and this tendency we cannot but decidedly oppose. It is perfectly correct to say that in certain spheres of life the first in a series of developments is not at the same time the most perfect,—the commencement is not also the fulfilment. But it is no less true that in other spheres the first of a series must be also the highest, as certainly as that there would be no development at all were it otherwise. For our present purpose, we shall distinguish between the spheres of science, of art, and of the moral and religious life. In the first department, all is dependent on the range of knowledge; in the second, on the inventive intuition of genius, and the distinctive capacity to give shape and form to that which is imagined; in the third, on the entire inner life, in so far as it takes up a special position to things human and Divine. Knowledge is by nature progressive, because, on the one hand, it is dependent on experience, whose circle is widened only gradually, and by the co-operation of many; and, on the other hand, because it is based on processes of thought, which become ever deeper in their course. Consequently, if this progress goes on unimpeded, the later inquirer ordinarily surpasses the earlier. Here the axiom mentioned previously, holds good as a general rule. It is not possible that one man should comprehend in himself all that can be known. Least of all can this be expected of him who is the pioneer in any special branch of science or knowledge. Every inquirer and knower is complemented by other inquirers and knowers. It ie. true that at certain epochs giant minds arise, which either unite the elements they find at hand in higher combinations, or sagaciously anticipate the future; but even they cannot pass beyond certain definite limits, and it cannot fail that some of those who follow after may gain a higher eminence. It is quite different even in the sphere of art. There only those individuals accomplish anything great who are endowed with special creative powers, and with remarkable talents of execution; there, the most important works owe their origin not to a co-operation of many, but to the intuitions and technical skill of individual genius. In this department, supposing that the masters who arise, possessed of higher genius, do form schools, they ordinarily surpass their scholars and successors, and thus, whilst first in the order of time, are also relatively the most eminent. It is even conceivable, that a master endowed with the very highest powers should produce works in his department, which remain pre-eminent and unequalled in all subsequent times. The case is different, again, in the matter of religion. Religion has indeed an element of knowledge in common with science, and one of intuition and representation in common with art; but in its inmost nature, it is a peculiar state of being affecting the whole life of man,—it is that reference of the life of the individual to God which governs every thought and action. Here the personality, as such, is all in all. Everything depends on the manner in which it stands inwardly related to God. To speak of the gradual introduction of an essentially new form, of a principle of religion, by the combined exertions of many, is almost preposterous; for the life, the consciousness, is not the joint product, the joint result of the efforts of a community, but must originally reside in One, from whom it then passes on to others. He through whom a new religious life and consciousness are produced in others, is the founder of a religion; and he will naturally be the most perfect, as well as the first, in the series of development of which he is the originating cause. Only once can a peculiar religious consciousness be said to dawn for the first time; only once can there be a really original religious life; and of necessity the life and consciousness will be present with the greatest freshness, purity, and energy in the spirit of him in whom they take their rise. He who should surpass the founder of the system to which he belongs, in the intensity and energy of his religious life and consciousness, would himself become the founder of a new religion, and be the first in a new series of developments.

A speculative system which treats religion as a mode and branch of knowledge, and considers it, in contrast with philosophy, but an imperfect, elementary, childish knowledge, may find it very natural to conceive of piety as gradually progressing from a lower to a higher state (like all things else), and may consequently be unable to consider the founder of a religion as even relatively the greatest, for he is in its view only the occasion of its existence. But it is quite incredible that such should be the actual state of the case, because religion is not mere knowledge, and therefore its development is governed by totally different laws from those which hold good in the case of science. In one aspect, undoubtedly, religion may be classed as knowledge; that is, so far as it is a doctrinal system. On this side, religion may undergo a development through the co-operation of many. This is the domain of theological science, and in it the later may far surpass the earlier. But surely the more recent theological science is generally acknowledged to have gained at least one step,—to have established the principle, that religion is not properly knowledge, that Christianity is not originally a system of doctrine, and that the nature and functions of theology are quite distinct from those of religion. In religion there is ever an element which is primitive, underived, direct, which does not gradually arise, but is present perfectly, undividedly, and originally; and this is the case simply on account of its being life, consciousness, a peculiar state of the whole soul. No thought of individuals supplementing each other, especially when the institution of a religion is concerned, can possibly be entertained. If a new religion is to arise, that which constitutes its vitality must at first exist in a single individual. And if this has once been the case, there is neither room nor need for others to contribute aught else to this its essential foundation. Sound sense, on the contrary, will not fail to recognise in the originator of the new religious life the greatest in his own peculiar sphere; and in fact there is no historical religion which does not in this sense place its founder at the, head of its community. Moreover, a glance at actual history necessarily raises the question: If Christ is not to be considered the most perfect in that whole series of development, of which He was the first, who in the whole Christian world, during its successive ages, is to be regarded as having actually surpassed Him? A most expressive and intelligible silence is its only answer.

Still Jesus might, as the founder of Christianity, have been the greatest within the Christian community, without being therefore absolutely perfect. We may admit that He is an example, without absolutely regarding Him as our prototype. Against the latter criticism urges, that ‘it is not the manner of the idea to realize itself in one individual, and grudgingly to deny itself to the rest; it realizes itself in the totality of individuals, in the race. Consequently, where an individual is represented to be the absolute embodiment of the idea, there is a transference to it of that which properly holds good only of the genus, for the individual is but a symbol of the totality.’ In this objection also there is an element of truth. The idea does undoubtedly realize itself in humanity as a whole. Otherwise what significance could we attach to the existence and development of mankind? But in order to get at the whole truth, the other side must be taken into consideration, namely, that the idea realizes itself in humanity only in and through individuals. So far from the former excluding the latter, it is not even conceivable without it. All development in humanity has its ground in personalities: the higher the sphere thereof, the more certainly is this true. All great men derive their chief significance and importance from the fact that their life is not something isolated, but that whilst itself having its foundation in the foregoing development of humanity, it passes over into and becomes part of the succeeding development. The more fully this can be affirmed of any person, the greater he is; and if there existed a spirit possessing the capacity to diffuse and expand its inner life till it should become the life of entire humanity, we should be under the necessity of esteeming it absolutely great.

In connection, however, with the question as to the realization of the moral idea, everything will depend on the way in which we define the idea of humanity. The idea of humanity does not relate to any special sphere, such as that of science, or art, or political wisdom; nor can be said to have attained its realization in the perfection of any endowment which belongs exclusively to one of these spheres. The idea of humanity comprises in itself that which all men, as men, are bound to accomplish,—that for the performance of which, each, apart from his special talents, is endowed with the requisite capacities,—that which may be described as the universal task,—the task which all men, as such, are bound to accomplish, whatever other powers or gifts may have fallen to their share. Now this absolutely universal thing is religion and morality. These belong to all men alike,—make man in the full sense man, in relation first to himself, then to human society, and specially in the highest relation of all,—that, namely, to his holy Creator, Lawgiver, and Judge. If we recognise the highest aim of all humanity, and of every individual, to be the attainment of perfection in piety and morality, or, in other words, the state of perfect union with God, and the holiness which has its ground therein, we shall be driven to concede at once, either that this ideal perfect condition is never realized at all, or, that such realization takes place, first in the individual personality, and then, through it, in a greater or less number of individuals, but not in the race as such.

The fundamental thought ever firmly embraced by modern criticism is, that the idea is by no means a something lying beyond actuality,—a mere ‘ought,’—but that it necessarily enters into real existence. This is, moreover, equally the result of our conviction, that the idea of man, which we recognise as Divine, but which we can only regard in God as creative, would, if it remained unrealized, be but empty and unreal. For if the idea. of man originated with God, and if man must therefore have been conceived of as perfect, as fulfilling, and not in conflict with, his destiny,—if, moreover, we are necessitated to ascribe reality to the thoughts of God,—we must assume that the Divine idea of man will in some way, and at some time, arrive at realization. But where is the realization to be met with? Modern speculation points us to the race, to the totality of human individuals forming a complement to each other. But from this standpoint, though original sin is denied, it is confessed that, taken together, we are sinful and imperfect beings.

Strauss, Glaubenslehre, B. ii. p. 184.

JESUS CHRIST, viewed simply as a sinless and holy being, is undoubtedly a phenomenon of extreme significance, and must be admitted, on this account alone, to be invested with incomparable dignity and unimpeachable majesty.

The immeasurable pre-eminence of Jesus, as the absolutely perfect One, is shown especially in the fact that no delineation of His life and character can possibly exhaust its subject, and that His moral greatness does but appear the more exalted in proportion to the elevation attained in a moral sense by him who contemplates it. It might be said that, in this case, as in that of lofty mountains, the whole altitude is not apparent until the observer stands upon an opposite height. The comparison, however, fails, because it deals with an elevation which, after all, it is possible to attain and to measure while the moral eminence of Jesus, on the contrary, is a height ever unattainable by us. The absolute and majestic pre-eminence of the morals phenomenon presented by the life of Christ, as bearing on it the direct impress of the Divine, has been well brought forward by Ph. A. Stapfer in his Versuch eines Beweises der göttlichen Sendung and Würde Jesu aus seinem Charakter, Bern 1797, rendered into French in Vinet’s Mélanges Philosophiques par Stapfer, Paris 1844, vol. ii. pp. 464-514: see especially pp. 467 and 493-95. To the two sublimities asserted by Kant, viz. the starry heavens above, and the moral law within us, Stapfer beautifully adds a third, viz. the fulfilment of the moral law without us, in the Person of Jesus Christ (p. 494, note 1). I would also refer the reader to Dandiran sur la Divinité du Caractère Moral de Jesus Christ, Geneva 1850.

Sec. 1.—The Human Nature of Jesus.

As we have seen at an earlier stage of our inquiry, although sin has its true home, its central abode in the will, yet it is not limited to this sphere of our being. On the contrary, the whole spiritual and physical life of man, though in varying proportions, is ever found in sympathy therewith. The same thing may be affirmed of sinlessness, only in an opposite direction. Wherever sinlessness is realized, it cannot at all be conceived merely as a quality of our volitions and actions alone, but must ever be regarded as inseparably co-existent with the perfect purity and full development of all the powers of our nature.

This applies first to intellectual knowledge in matters which concern religion and morality. Such knowledge is not indeed the sole, nay, not even the highest and most prolific, element in the religious life; and yet it forms so essential a component thereof, that the existence of perfect religion in general is inconceivable apart from it. On the other hand, if the sinless perfection of any one person is proved, this will be the most valid and direct guarantee that he is possessed also of perfect and complete knowledge in the spheres of religion and morality.

In this sense, above all, does Jesus express Himself. Even when speaking in general terms, He ever combines the knowledge of Divine truth with the moral condition. It is in the Sermon on the Mount

Matt. v. 8.

Sec. 2.—Inferences in respect to the Divine Nature of Jesus.

The Christian Church, in all its genuine branches, confesses and teaches, besides the true humanity, the proper Divinity of Christ, and has from its earliest days laid down, in very definite formulae, the manner in which the Divine and human natures are inseparably united, and yet distinct, in the Person of the God-man. To test these formulae, or even to enter into any general examination of them, is beside our purpose, which aims rather at an apologetic than a doctrinal treatment of our subject. On the other hand, it is, however, quite in keeping with this, to direct attention to the fact that the article of faith which is now in question is not a matter of merely ecclesiastical or doctrinal detail, but one founded upon primitive evangelical testimony. It rests, moreover, not on the testimony of the apostles only, but on that of Jesus Himself. In this last respect, then, to treat of the internal verification of this testimony, is to deal with a matter which has a very decided bearing upon the sinlessness of Jesus. And here we would, first of all, call attention to the following facts: how the Lord Jesus, with a confidence raised above the very slightest degree of hesitation, makes Himself the central point of His work of redemption, the object of saving faith, and the beginning and end of His mission. He attributes to His death the most wide-reaching results for all mankind, and combines with His own exaltation the sending of the Holy Ghost. He institutes baptism as the sacred act by which all nations are to become His disciples, and the Lord’s Supper as a celebration of His death until His coming again. He says of His words, that though heaven and earth shall pass away, they shall not pass away. If, then, no other particulars of His life were known to us than these, we should even then be constrained to infer that He was assuredly conscious of being more than man. In all this, the limits of the human are far surpassed; for it is absolutely unbecoming in any created being to make himself an object of faith, an object of religion and religious worship, and to place his own person in such a position with regard to the salvation of the whole human race, as Jesus undoubtedly does.

Besides, it is no less certain to all unprejudiced minds, that He ascribes to Himself in plain terms, besides human existence, a nature superhuman, heavenly, and Divine. And this not only in sayings recorded in St. John’s Gospel, but also in sayings essentially agreeing with these in the other three Gospels. The very manner in which He calls God ‘the Father’ His Father, points to a relation of a peculiar kind; still more so, that in which He represents Himself as ‘Son of God,’—not as a son, but as the Son, in a sense unparalleled; for it is only He, as being this Son, who fully knows the Father, and is, on His part, fully known by Him.

Matt. xi. 27; Luke x. 22; John vi. 46.

What, then, is the relation between this self-testimony of Jesus and the doctrine of His sinlessness? Evidently this: that if there are good grounds for accepting the latter, there must be equally good grounds for believing the former. The two must stand or fall together. He who was perfectly pure and sinless, and who must therefore have been most moderate and conscientious, could never have affirmed aught concerning Himself of so supremely exalted a character, unless He had felt a certainty, surpassing every other certainty, that such pre-eminence was indeed His own. Besides, the bare fact that a being actually appeared who, on the one hand, assumed such a position with respect to God and a higher world, and, on the other hand, displayed such mental and moral sublimity, is inexplicable, on moral or psycho-logic grounds, unless this position to God and a higher world be a true and genuine fact. The reverse would indeed be far more incomprehensible. It would be a mental aberration, to estimate whose greatness no standard could be found, and utterly incompatible with every established fact of a mental and moral kind, which has been handed down to us concerning the Lord Jesus. If, in this highest of all respects, either self-delusion or wilful deception of others were found, such an error would be one which must necessarily pervade the whole nature of Jesus; and, in this case, far from being the sinlessly perfect One of the Gospels, He could not be the mentally and morally exalted character which even rationalism esteems Him, but something for which the correct expression has yet to be invented.

Nevertheless, in this respect also, it is not our purpose to appeal to the expressions Christ Himself as our sole authority. Here, too, the doctrine of His sinlessness furnishes an internal proof of the doctrine in question, which, in an apologetic point of view, must be by no means overlooked.

In our contemplation of the moral phenomenon presented by the life of Jesus, we saw that there was everywhere originality and absolute independence, that it exhibited a harmony in which all the antagonisms of human existence were reconciled. A life of such perfection gives a direct impression of being the result of a Divine operation. Where the human is the only element, we ever meet with some measure of dependence and imperfection, some conflict between flesh and spirit, some antagonism between the intellectual and the moral, or some other disproportion or irregularity. Where, however, we find the reverse of all this, we already discover in this very fact a trace of the Divine. To this same inference are we also led by that quality which we recognised to be the principle of the life of Jesus. This principle is holy love. Now holy love constitutes the nature of God Himself; hence, in the same proportion in which this principle is found to be present and effective in a personality, are we constrained to conceive God Himself to be present. Consequently, where a perfect manifestation of holy love takes place, there must we believe also in a perfect indwelling of God.

But to say this, might seem to be affirming a principle of gradation, which might in its application to the Lord Jesus exhibit Him as merely possessing in the highest degree that which others shared in their measure. We perceive, however, in Him something besides, and that a thing entirely peculiar,—even the grand peculiarity of His sinless holiness. Others may be found truly pious, glowing with holy love, and in whom, therefore, God’s more abundant presence must be assumed; but we do not meet with one who is sinless,—one who, absolutely conscious of His sinlessness, succeeds in making Himself acknowledged as such,—however carefully we may scan the boundless field opened before us by the history of the known races of men. An explanation, then, of this absolutely unparalleled phenomenon

Pelagianism denies that Jesus was an utter exception in a moral point of view. It is therefore driven to maintain that it is possible for other men to be sinless. If it was possible for Jesus in His human nature to remain sinless, it must also be possible for others, inasmuch as, according to the Pelagian doctrine, all men enter life with their moral powers in perfect integrity. Even if Christ were the only example of sinless perfection hitherto seen, there is no reason why there may not arise another like Him in the course of time. This particular view is connected with the entire Pelagian conception of Christianity, in which the idea of the Redeemer is left quite in the background, and example and doctrine alone are considered to be essential. Along with Pelagianism, Nestorianisin has been reproached with holding the same view: this was so, at all events, in the West, where it was supposed to be connected with Pelagianism. It was argued, that if the Divine and human natures are distinct, and holiness and sinlessness are regarded as the privilege only of the human nature, it follows that other men may attain the same moral elevation, without special communion with God. Compare Gieseler’s Ecclesiastical History, Pt. i. § 86, especially the Observ. p. 447. This was, however, an inference from his doctrine, which Nestorius would never have conceded; for he did not in reality maintain such a separation of the Divine and human, and the presence of such a complete moral power in human nature in its present condition, as that deduction presupposes. It is a remarkable fact, that a renowned teacher of the ancient Church, the father of orthodoxy, Athanasius, seems, although from an utterly different point of view, to assume the sinlessness of other human individuals besides Jesus. He says not only generally, ἐξ ἀρχῆς μὲν οὐκ ἦν κακία· οὐδὲ γὰρ οὐδὲ νῦν ἐν τοῖς ἁγίοις ἐστίν, οὐδ᾽ ὅλοις κατ᾽ αὐτῶν ὑπάρχει αὕτη (Contra Gentes, ab init. t. i. p. 2, edit. Colon), but also, developing the thought with greater specialty, he observes further, that the character of the Divine image, of the Divine Sonship in Christ, cannot consist merely in moral unity with God, because in that case other spiritual beings also, and especially liken, might be designated sons of God: hence the peculiarity of Christ must rest rather on His oneness of nature with God. In the sense of moral unity with God, he adds, patriarchs and prophets, apostles and martyrs, and even Christians now living, might be called the sons of God; for they resemble God, and are compassionate, like their Father in heaven,—they are imitators of the Apostle Paul, as he imitated Christ (Contra Arianos, Orat. iv. t. i. p. 455, and especially pp. 462, 463, edit. Colon). Still we cannot with perfect certainty conclude from these expressions that Athanasius distinctly held the view that other individuals were sinless besides Jesus. In the first passage, it is to be remarked that the word κακία is too general and indefinite. In the other passages Athanasius avails himself of the thought of a repeatedly occurring moral perfection, only to strengthen another doctrinal line of argument; and it is doubtful with what degree of definiteness, and to what extent, this notion was applied by its author.

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.

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

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.

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.

Matt. xi. 28.

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;

John v. 26.

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,

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.

CHAPTER I.

EXPLANATION OF THE DETAILS.

IN the first .place, there arises the question as to the meaning of the several temptations. This has, as is well known, been made the theme of frequent discussion. And yet the opinions even of the most recent commentators differ so widely, that it may well repay our trouble if we submit this point to a more minute investigation.

The temptation which both Matthew and Luke agree in giving as the first, consists in the call addressed to Jesus to change stones into bread. Now it is self-evident that such a temptation, if it were to have any meaning, could only be made under certain conditions. Manifestly the person to whom it was addressed must, on the one hand, have been so constituted that he could feel a want of food, which at that moment could not be gratified in any ordinary way; and again, he must have been one who was supposed to possess the power of satisfying that want in an extraordinary and miraculous manner. Now, to the former of these conditions, the intimation of the evangelist, that Jesus was then an hungered, and that He was in the desert, where the ordinary means of support were wanting, exactly corresponds; the latter, again, we find in the opening words of the temptation, ‘If Thou be the Son of God,’ which at once bespeak a personality possessed of supernatural powers. Hence this temptation may be represented as follows: it was an attempt to persuade a person endowed with miraculous power, to use that power for the purpose of satisfying his bodily wants; and the point against which this attempt was directed, was the urgent physical need which he was at the time suffering. It is obvious that the need which the miraculous power was to supply was that of the person tempted; for though it has been remarked

Pfeiffer, die Versuchung des Herrn in the Deutschen Zeitschrift, 1851, No. XXII. p. 177.

CHAPTER II.

GENERAL VIEW OF THE HISTORY OF THE TEMPTATION.

IF commentators have been divided in their opinions concerning the details of this history, we shall find that they differ far more widely in the views which they take of the whole narrative. Here we meet with a graduating scale of expositions, embracing all conceivable diversities, from the spiritualism which regards the history as nothing more than a figurative mode of inculcating doctrine, to the realism which receives every word in its most literal acceptation. We may, however, make a general division of the various explanations into two principal classes: the first consisting of those according to which the whole narrative is a mere product of thought, having no basis in actual facts and the second, of those in which an actual historical substratum is recognised, which allow this passage to be the record of a real temptation to which Jesus was actually subjected. For the reasons adduced in our treatise, we take up a decided position on the latter side of the question. We must, however, consider somewhat particularly the explanations of the former class, in order, by a brief refutation of these, to prepare the way for that view which appears to us the true one.