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 everything 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

only by a circuitous path. On the other hand, a vivid apprehension of the inward character of Jesus brings us nearer to the operative centre of Christianity, and at the same time makes us feel the influence of the moral power, which goes forth from that centre. Here, faith in Jesus rests immediately on himself; it is free, spiritual confidence in his person. As with his contemporaries everything depended on the yielding confidence with which they received the favors which he brought them; so likewise with us this confidence may be the element of a full belief in Christianity, and is, at all events, a condition of receiving benefit from our Redeemer.

While, in what follows, we intend to enlarge upon this mode of proving the divinity of the christian religion, it is by no means our design to represent this mode as the only right one, and to reject every mode that differs from it. It always tends to retard the dissemination of religious and moral truths, to make any one argument for them exclusively valid, and thus to forget, that in this case very much depends upon each individual's mental peculiarities and degree of education. The same God, whose will it plainly was that there should be an immeasurably rich variety, as of natural productions, so also of minds, has opened, for the various intellectual organizations, various ways of arriving at the one truth which Christ came to disclose. But in whatever way we are led to the acknowledgement of the christian system, this system is of such a nature, that it makes itself entirely master of the mind which it has seized; and from whatever point we step out into the great and well closed circle of christian truth, we shall always see, as we follow on with connected thought and feeling, that we are surrounded by the whole circle.

It is evident, that the inward character of Jesus can lay the foundation for such a pious faith in him, as shall cause everything that comes from him, to appear holy and true simply because it comes from him, (though it may also be proved true from internal reasons), -it can lay this foundation, only so far as we have the assurance, that his spiritual nature was in every respect faultless, that his desires and feelings were free from every breath of sin, his thoughts from every momentary lapse into error. If Jesus is holy in feeling, without a stain; correct in judgment without any mixture of mis

See Note A, at the close of this Treatise.

take; if there are realized in his person those combined, purest ideals of holiness and truth, which in the view of all other men seem too lofty to be attained; then is he, by this very circumstance, raised above the common lot of mortals, for they without exception are subject to sin and error; then are we morally and religiously bound to revere his decisions as words of the highest truth; and there cannot be imagined a nobler endeavor, than to assimilate ourselves to the unsoiled image by which his life is represented, to cast our own moral natures into the mould of his. But if the contrary be supposed, if he were not only susceptible of sin and error, but also subject, even incidentally, to the one as well as to the other, then the case stands differently with Jesus and our relation to him. Then he ceases to be to us what he was to the apostles and all the faithful, the image of Deity, the purest pattern of consummate virtue, the perfect representation of eternal truth in the speech and life of man, the King in the invisible realm of truth. Then does he no longer stand out alone in the world's history, but steps down from that relative elevation, upon which, to the eye of christian faith, he seemed to stand, and mingles with the company of the wise and noble of our race, as a great and superior man indeed, but yet as one of their fellows, who as well as they is obliged to pay the tax of human infirmity and narrowness. He is a great truth-seeker and truth-finder, but not the Truth. He is a good and great man, perhaps the best, but not the Holy One of God. His life and his instructions are no longer the unimprovable standard of the good and the true; but are subject,-who can tell how far?-to improvement and correction. His example and his words have no longer an authority absolutely binding. The system of historical Christianity which is founded on his character becomes brittle in its ground-work, and the ecclesiastical community, which is built upon that system, must either be dissolved, or must become in its inmost character something different from what it was originally, and from what it has been until the present time. Yea, Christ ceases to be the Redeemer; for, if he himself is subject to sin, how can he make others free from the power of the same? How can he obtain that commodious solid standing place, outside of a sinning world, by which he will be able to raise up, as it were, the world from its worn out poles? How can he become the Creator and the Fountain of a new, pure, sanctified life? If then, as error always enters the mind in conjunction with sin, Je

sus were also not free from error, how could he redeem mankind from it? And in what inconsistencies do we find ourselves entangled, when we compare with such suppositions all those lofty remarks of Jesus, in which he represents himself as the Truth which only can make men free!

Thus important in all respects, is the certainty that Christ was elevated above all sin and error. This is a foundation-rock of historical Christianity; and especially in our own day, the trouble of examining thoroughly the firmness of this foundation will be certainly repaid. In the ensuing remarks, I would contribute somewhat to establish this fundamental principle; and shall consider, first and principally in its historical aspect, the position that Jesus was sinless and holy in his character, and shall then attend to the consequences which result from this principle in favor of the truth and divinity of the Saviour's instructions.

SECTION II.

Definition of sin and sinless.-Natural power of Christ to sin.-Fearful consequences which would result from his sinning.-Certainty that he would not sin.-Principles and mode of reasoning in this treatise.

If, in the ensuing treatise, we take as a basis that definition of sin which is both truly biblical and also generally recognized in the theological dialect,' and if, accordingly, we define sin to be the deviation of a free nature from the moral law of God; the disagreement of the moral life, that is, the intentions, the general aim of the will, or a single act of the will, and the outward deeds, with the divine law; we must then assign for the first meaning of the word sinlessness, nothing more than the absence of such a disagreement, the non-existence of a contradiction between the individual free will and the will of God, which latter includes the universal law. But we cannot stop with this mere negative definition of innocency. As sinlessness is an idea applicable only to beings, who are so constituted that they must act morally, and who cannot even omit moral action without violating law in the very omission, the idea must necessarily

1 For Bretschneider's definitions of sin, see Note B, at the close of this Treatise.