does not experience this moral failing, and who with vast mental power, and with cool discretion, bears testimony to his own perfection of virtue, then, unless this testimony be destitute of other criteria of truth, we have no reason to reject it. We have no reason, as sin must not be considered necessary to man, to refuse such testimony, even if, at first view, it be not entirely obvious how a being, who belongs to a corrupted race, can yet be free from the common corruption.

There is another objection. It is said,1-" So far as the virtue of Jesus was human, it must have had a mixture of the sensuous, from which no human resolution is entirely free; and in being thus subjected to a law of sense, there is such an imperfection, as is incompatible with the idea of absolute completeness of virtue." There is some truth in this idea. We cannot deny that the sensuous principle, which imparts excitement to the resolutions and acts, was intimately connected with the virtue of Jesus. We cannot deny it, so long as we suppose, that he had necessarily the same connection of soul with body, which other men have. It is not to be conceded, however, that in this sensuous element of the voluntary and of the external action, there is anything in itself evil and sinful. As soon as the last and highest impulse to the volition and the outward act goes forth from the appropriate leading power, from spirit (pneuma), the volition and the act are morally good; even if in the progress of these there be conjoined, as is inevitable, an excitement of the animal sensibilities. The excitement of sense is evil, only when in opposition to higher spiritual principles. But we do not find this opposition in Jesus, neither in suffering, nor in acting; and wherever, as the result of his human nature, any enticement arises from his animal sensibilities, the enticement is overpowered by the spiritual nature. If then an operation of the sensuous principle is exhibited in the conduct of Jesus, it is still in harmonious subordination to the ruling spiritual power. Now the excitements of this principle are actually essential to human nature; if we should suppose them to be at all sinful, we must ascribe the guilt to the author of them. That these sensuous impulses, however, operated unsuitably, even in a single instance, as the means of determining the will of Jesus, can in no way be shown. Still less is it evident to me, how any one, without considering

'De Wette Christ. Mor. I. p. 188.

every created being as an apostate from God, and without adopting the representations of the oriental Gnostics and of Origen, how any one, I say, can speak of Jesus as "guilty in having a finite nature;" and can make the remark, that "as a human being, he must have been finite, and therefore a subject of the contractedness and guilt, which belong to the finite state, as such." Every being, as is obvious, is perfect only according to his constitutional structure. The perfection of a finite nature is therefore by no means absolutely identical with the perfection of an infinite; the highest and purest human virtue is yet not the holiness of God, for this holiness is conjoined with the comprehensive whole of his nature and attributes. But the finite being is not guilty on account of this difference. Whatever corresponds with the origin and design of his constitution is right; all that belongs to pure humanity2 is, as such, perfect. If we impute finiteness, as a sin, to a finite nature, then again the sin lies at the door of him who has actually made that nature as it is, made it not infinite. But yet the perfectly virtuous will of man, though it be finite, may correspond with the holy will of God, which is infinite; and the human, in the sphere of operation assigned it, may harmonize with the divine. This is all which we assert, when we ascribe to Jesus, in his mere human nature, innocence and holiness. Only when the finite will goes out of its appropriate sphere, does it become guilty for its finiteness, and just so far guilty, as it puts itself forward for something different from what it actually is, (and comes short of what it pretends to be.) This charge however is not brought against Jesus; at least not in the preceding objection.

Finally, it is still objected,3" The feeling of humility in the breast of Jesus resulted from the consciousness of being imperfect and circumscribed; and of having some vitiosity and guilt. This humility is an essential feature of the moral perfection of man; by it man purifies himself from the guilt cleaving to him; and therefore Jesus, when he humbles himself as a finite nature, before the heavenly Father, is in this respect also an example for us." But if a self-consistency must be ascribed to the character of the Messiah, we cannot admit this assertion. The same Jesus who declared himself free

1 De Wette, Christ. Mor. I. pp. 189, 192.

2 [Whatever belongs to the constitution of man as he came from the hand of God.-TR.]

Ibid. I. p. 192.

from every fault, who was confident of his oneness with God, who was immovably persuaded that in all his life he represented the character of his Father, could not have been humble on account of any, even the slightest feeling of moral deficiency and guilt. It was only from a generous condescension, that he was humble. It was only for the sake of being an example to the race, for the sake of attracting and elevating men to himself, by the power of a selfdenying love. The general truth is, humility does not distinctively consist in the consciousness of our moral imperfections and faults; this is the feeling of guilt. Humility is the modest estimation of the good which belongs to ourselves, the mild judgment respecting others of inferior worth, and the conviction that none of the good which we possess is of our own acquisition, but is the gift of a higher power and love. And this humility we find in Jesus. He allowed no splendid exhibition of his high and peculiar excellences. He was always mild and condescending; so that he might bless the weakest with the beams of his light, and the power of a better life. And above all, in every thing which he said and did, he pointed to the fountain of truth and goodness; to the Father, who permitted the Son to have in himself, and to exhibit to man a heavenly life that was pure, perfect and self-sufficient.1

1 It is indeed true, that the heaven of heavens is destitute of the degree of purity which belongs to God, and may therefore be called comparatively impure; and the angels are destitute of the degree of wisdom, which belongs to Him, and may therefore be charged with comparative folly; and all finite beings are necessarily, in the strictest sense of the term, imperfect, and are bound to feel and acknowledge their inferiority to Him, who only is absolute perfection. Hence the angels veil their faces before God, and fall prostrate. Hence Christ, as a man, was "meek and lowly," and cried “not as I will but as thou wilt." These created intelligences are perfect relatively to their capacities, but as they are not perfect in the absolute sense, they feel bound to appreciate their inferiority, as it really is. This heart-felt appreciation may be termed humility; a generic word, which, though it ordinarily includes the specific idea of penitence for sin, does not always, nor necessarily. See De Wette, Christian Morals, Vol. I. p. 192.—TR,]

SECTION IX.

Concluding Remarks.—Jesus is the only perfect man.-Dependence of one part of our nature upon another.-Intellectual character of Jesus.-His testimony concerning the origin of his doctrine.-A revelation increases rather than decreases the mental activity of the recipient.-Faith a rational principle.

Even in view, then, of the preceding difficulties, the conviction of the pure sinlessness of Jesus remains unshaken; and he appears still more clearly before the mind's eye, as the realized ideal of the highest spiritual perfection, as the perfect image of holy, God-like humanity. But it is still necessary, that we make some concluding remarks, which are suggested by the principle that we have been endeavoring to establish.

In the first place, Jesus is the only one, of whom history testifies that he has lived without sin, pure and holy, and in respect of whom the truth of such testimony can be substantiated. Of all other men, even the best and noblest men, the most that can be said is, their failings were outweighed by their virtues; but of Jesus we can entertain the well-grounded belief, that he was altogether without fault and defect, and was the purest image of perfection. By this he stands out in the world's history, alone, as a moral wonder ; and, considered even as a mere man, he is lifted up above all other men, whose common lot it is to be imperfect. Pure innocence and holiness make a distinction between the character of Christ and that of all other men; a distinction not merely in degree, but in kind also, not for a brief period, but forever. The moral consciousness of every other mortal, tells him without gainsaying, that he is stained with sin. He feels the purity of his soul tarnished by the remem

"A man, who was subject, like other mortals, to every temptation to sin, and still fell not, was not defiled by the slightest breath of iniquity, wandered not once in his life, not even a hair's breadth, from the path of virtue; such a man is indeed no less a wonder in the moral world, than one raised from the grave, and lifted up with a visible body to heaven, is a wonder in the physical world." See ORELLI, on the controversy between Rationalism and Supernaturalism, p. 26.

brance and the continued operation of his earlier iniquities. He beholds himself at all times encompassed with imperfection, every instant exposed to the possibility of leaving the safe path of the divine will; and he is compelled to renounce the hope, that he shall attain, at least within the limits of the present life, perfect purity of virtue. On this height of the unclouded spiritual life, however, Christ is exalted. He is the pattern of humanity, to which indeed we may make an approximation, but to which we never completely raise ourselves. The figure of Jesus always moves above us in unattainable purity and dignity; and the more we model ourselves according to it, so much the higher is the standard it holds out for our endeavors. Truly the distance which every healthy eye discerns between ourselves and the Redeemer, a distance which is incalculable and which we shall never entirely pass over, ought to fill us all with the deepest and holiest awe of his person. It ought also to make us constantly mindful of our obligation to recognize in him an intellectual as well as moral nature, which, in the department of ethical and religious truth, has an altogether superior degree of knowledge, and on that account can make altogether peculiar pretensions. But this will be made still clearer to us by the second consideration which follows.

In whatever way the faculties of the mind may have been distinguished and separated, still, as a matter of fact, this mind is not partitioned out in the frame work which psychology has contrived, but is one simple spirit, which acts in various directions, and exhibits itself in various modes. The threads of the undivided, active spirit are so intertwined, that every impression affects in some way the whole soul; and every operation, even of an apparently isolated power, stands in some close connection with all the remaining powers. Never can the thinking faculty be in operation, without some influence upon the feeling and the will; nor can the faculty of will be in operation, without the activity of the intellect, and an excitement of the affections. This indivisible oneness of spirit then being considered, it is not conceivable that a soul should stand at the highest point of perfection in the department of morals and religiona department which has immediate reference to the will and the conduct, and yet should be subjected to imperfection and fault in the department of thought and knowledge. Perfection of act presuppo