LITERATURE OF THE SUBJECT. Ir is well known, that the doctrine of the sinlessness of Jesus has been repeatedly discussed already. Every theological system must take notice of the doctrine; and it has also given occasion to numerous particular treatises. For the sake of presenting a view of the literature of the subject, I would cite the following works, some of which, I regret to say, I have had no opportunity to examine. The passages in the Christian Fathers, which treat of this subject, are cited very fully by Suicer, in Thes. Eccl. 1. pp. 287 -289, under the words avaμaqrnoia, åvaμáprytos. In the middle ages, the controversy respecting the immaculate conception of the virgin was designed, principally, to affect the question of the sinlessness of Jesus. Among the schoolmen, Duns Scotus maintained the possibility of Christ's sinning (humanam naturam Jesu non fuisse avauάoryrov), and he was attacked on that ground. By modern, particularly Protestant theologians, the doctrine has been discussed with greater circumspection. Among the older theological systems of our church are especially to be cited, Buddeus's Compend. Theol. Dogm. p. 497; Gerhard's Loci Theol. III. 373, and Cotta's Observations appended. Still more may be found in Baumgarten's Untersuchung Theologischer Streitigkeiten, II. pp. 449, 529 seq., and in Bretschneider's Systemat. Entwickelung, p. 562. Among the more modern systematical works, which briefly treat of the doctrine, are particularly to be mentioned, Doederlein's Institut. II. p. 206 seq.; Zachariae's Biblische Theologie, III. pp. 38-46; Reinhard's Dogmat. II. § 135 and 138; Wegscheider's Institut. § 122, pp. 390, 391; Daub's Judas Iscarioth, I. pp. 55, 64, 73, and in many other passages; Knapp's Vorlesungen, II. § 93. p. 151; Schleiermacher's Christ. Glaub. II. pp. 221, 222, and in many other places; De Wette's Christl. Sittenlehre, 1. pp. 173-193. Separate treatises on the subject are, Walther's Diss. Theol. de Christi Hominis 'Avaμaqtnoią, Viteb. 1690; Ejusdem Diss. de Dissimilitud. Ortus nostri et Christi Hom., in his Diss. Theol. accedd. ed. Hoffman, pp. 207-244; Baumgarten's Diss. de 'Avapaornola Christi ejusque Necessitate, Hal. 1753; Erbstein's Gedanken über die Frage, ob der Erlöser sündigen konnte? Meissen, 1787; Ueber die Anamartesie Jesu, in Grimm's und Musel's Stromata, St. 2. S. 113; Weber's Progr. Virtutis Jesu Integritatem neque ex ipsius Professionibus neque ex Actionibus doceri posse, Viteb. 1796.-Detached passages will be occasionally quoted from other writings. AN APOLOGETIC VIEW OF THE SINLESS CHARACTER OF JESUS. PREFATORY NOTE. [THE following Treatise, über die Unsündlichkeit Jesu, is the first article in the first number of the Theol. Studien und Kritiken; a periodical established in 1828, and edited by Professors Charles Ullmaun, and F. W. C. Umbreit, of Heidelberg. The treatise has exerted a visible and salutary influence in Germany. In 1836 three editions of it had been called for by the public. The translator has taken the liberty to divide it into sections, as it was not divided by the author. An incidental design in translating the article has been to show the state of theological discussion in Germany, and the wants which evangelical Christians there are compelled to meet. The reader will find, in it a dignity and dispassionateness, a freedom from forced constructions and personal censures, which it were well for our controversial writers to imitate. The main design, however, of the translation has been, to exhibit the connected proof of a proposi tion that is generally taken for granted; and thus to render our faith in that proposition more rational, and by consequence more animating and stable. The Saviour is more honored by one who worships him, with a clear view of the reasons for such worship, than by one who yields to mere authority and blind impulse. It is a great mistake to suppose that argument is always useless, where the conclusion will be admitted without argument. The consecutive proof fastens the attention upon the principles to be proved; and by holding them up before the mind, secures their appropriate moral influence. Some American preachers, it is to be feared, are prone to urge upon the conscience the obligation to a particular feeling, without presenting to the intellect such ideas as are requisite for the exercise of that feeling. They are too apt, it may be, to forget that an affection is not elicited by mere command or exhortation, but rather, in union with these, by the development of the appropriate object of affection. The spotless character of the Saviour is so presented in this treatise, as to exhibit winning reasons for our confidence in him, and to show the intimate union between the doctrine and the life; between purity of purpose and unexceptionable conduct. The author of the treatise is Dr. C. Ullmann, one of the editors of the Stud. und Krit. He has been favorably known, since 1821, as an author, and enjoys a very high reputation as a lecturer. Some of his writings, particularly in the department of Ecclesiastical History, have attracted great attention. In 1829 he was called from the University of Heidelberg to that of Halle, but has recently been called back to Heidelberg, where he is again associated with Umbreit in literary labors. He is between forty-five and fifty years of age. He is said to be a particular friend of both Tholuck and Gesenius.-TR.] SECTION I. Introduction.-Comparison between the external and internal evidence in favor of the christian religion.-Reasons for confining ourselves, in this treatise, to the internal evidence.-Importance of proving the sinlessness of Jesus.-Plan of the treatise. In modern times it has become more and more obvious, how incalculably important for the proof of historical Christianity, is a clear and positive knowledge of the inward religious character of its Founder. The sum of the spiritual life of Jesus is the central point of the whole christian system. From this all rays of light, and all operations of moral power proceed; and to it all must be traced back, so long as Christianity shall have, on the one hand, a sure historical basis, and on the other, an inward moral excellence. The apostles, indeed, do not represent the superior purity of Christ's religious character and the superior elevation of his whole soul, as the only reason why he appeared to them so peculiarly entitled to adoration. They formed their conception of him, (as they might do with good reason and certainly without unfair accommodation), by viewing his character more historically. They were convinced of his Messiahship, not only by the loftiness and divinity of his whole spiritual appearance, but especially by the miracles that were wrought by him and upon him, and by the agreement of his acts and destination with the prophecies of the Old Testament. Still from every thing which they have left us, it is very evident that they had an additional reason for believing in the Messiahship of Jesus. This reason was, that his words were those of eternal life, and his acts were a spiritual exhibition of something truly divine. The apostles would not have acknowledged him to be the Saviour, had he not stood before their minds in all the fulness of spiritual dignity. Without the unweakened influence of his inward character upon their moral and religious consciousness, they could not be firmly convinced that he was a pure image of the invisible God by the most astonishing perfection of his power. It was only because he approved himself to them as a living representation of the divine love, truth and rectitude, that they were able to discover in the extraordinary effects which he produced, evidences of a peculiar connection with the Deity. The nature of the case and the necessities of their contemporaries fully justified the apostles, in proving the divine mission and the Messiahship of Jesus by the argument from miracles and prophecy. But the necessity of the times and of individuals may in this respect vary, and although the gospel in its essence remains the same, and contains eternal, unchangeable truth, yet in a different age, a different method of proof may lead more immediately to the acknowledgement of this truth. In our own time, it seems proper to fix our eyes especially upon the spiritual character of Jesus, in order to obtain satisfactory proof of the divinity of his mission and instructions; not because the apostolical mode of proof has become untenable, but because this other mode has a more vital efficacy on account of the style of education prevalent at the present day. We do not find ourselves in immediate, conscious connection with the spirit and prophecies of the Old Testament, as the Jews were in the time of the apostles; we live among contemporaries to whom miracles are more a ground of doubt than of faith; we should not forget, that the proof from miracles exerts its full power, properly speaking, on none but the eye-witnesses of them, and conducts us to the desired conclusion |