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

ses directly a like perfection of knowledge, and every defect in knowledge brings after it a corresponding fault in act. Experience indeed shows us, that the power of the soul may be brought forward principally in one direction, while it suffers manifest want in other directions. A man may, for example, have an excellent moral character, without especial culture of the memory, or taste for the fine arts. But there is a radical self-contradiction in supposing that in the very same province of the spiritual life, there may be an absolute perfection of practice, conjoined with an imperfection of theory. On the contrary, in this province a practical faultlessness presupposes a theoretical. Our most immediate concern with Jesus, as the founder of a religion, respects his moral and religious life merely; and it is precisely here, if anywhere, that thoughts and acts, theory and practice stand in inseparable interchange and connection. Every sin operates upon our thoughts, to dim them; and every error of moral principle imprints itself also, in some way, upon the will and the conduct. On the other hand, clearness of knowledge on moral subjects exerts a purifying influence upon the will, and the purification of the will makes still clearer the thoughts and the knowledge. Both applications of the mind, then, the theoretical and the practical, meet together, ultimately, at the innermost point of the character, and by means of this inseparable connection between the different parts of the character, both modes of applying the mind have, in their complete development, such a reciprocal influence, that every impression and every reaction in either department is communicated necessarily to the other department. If, therefore, the inmost principles of the soul, in its practical development, be pure and perfect, they must be likewise pure and perfect in its theoretical development, in the thoughts, in the knowledge. The same is true conversely. Holy innocence and unerring perception of the truth reciprocally imply each other. Jesus would not have discovered the truth in its full celestial purity, had not his soul been free from sin; neither could he have been holy, and free from sin, without the purest and most perfect perception of religious truth. His moral and his perceptive powers must develop themselves in true proportions, in pure, perfect and undisturbed harmony. If then we confide firmly and unconditionally in the moral perfection of Jesus, we are obliged in all reason to transfer the same confidence to his knowledge of truth, and the instructions which spring from it. If his life is to us a rule

of moral perfection, and a perpetual example, then his declarations on moral and religious subjects must be our rule of belief. If Jesus, as we do not doubt, was holy without a fault, so likewise was his knowledge correct without an error.1

Add to this, there is in a general view somewhat of a contradiction, between the acknowledgement, on the one hand, that Jesus was the purest and most elevated spirit, and, on the other, that he was subject to errors and weaknesses in his meditation on moral and religious subjects; to such errors and weaknesses as would scarcely ever be chargeable upon a man of even inferior understanding. It is well known that a venerable theologian, now in glory, has pointed out in full, what peculiarly noble qualities of mind and character were requisite, to devise a plan for the general blessedness of mankind, and to accomplish it as it was accomplished by Jesus. This theologian supposed it unreasonable to regard local and temporary causes, and the ordinary methods of human education, as sufficient to account for the development of that mind, which originally devised such a plan and executed it in such a way. Hence he infers, that Jesus was sent and sustained in an especial manner by God. If now we hesitate to follow Reinhard in this inference,3 we must still consider it as a fact universally acknowledged, that we are not only allowed, but, as rational beings, are absolutely obliged to reverence most deeply the mind from which the new, all-embracing creation of the christian system proceeded. Indeed it was the noblest thought, and the most worthy of a divine being, to establish an order of things, by the operation of which, all mankind in all times and all lands, even to the remotest eternity, may be blessed. The mind, which was the first to embrace all human beings in its uncontracted view, the heart which was the first to beat for the salvation of the whole human brotherhood, must be called great, if anything can deserve that name. Nothing but a union of the greatest intellect with the most expanded heart made such a thought possible. And noble

1 Consult Schleiermacher's Dogmat. 2. p. 223, and in other places; also his fourth Feast-day Sermon, referred to above, especially p. 96.

2 [No private individual, of ordinary powers of mind, would, while in fact imperfect, have made such pretensions as Christ made to perfect virtue; would have been so ignorant of his true character, and of his relations to the divine law; or would have demanded such respect and reverence from others.]

3 [See Reinhard's Plan, particularly Part III. and Appendix F.—TR.]

as was the thought, the expression of it was equally bright and glorious. The brief, unostentatious, and altogether spiritual activity of Jesus has produced the deepest and the most wide-spread effects, for nearly two thousand years. These effects have extended over a great portion of mankind; and even now warrant the lively hope, that they will be extended, in still wider circles, over the whole race, and will carry freedom of spirit and the truths of a divine life to the most distant people. Never was there wrought a greater, more fundamental, more comprehensive change for the better, than that wrought by Jesus. At least, therefore, we are intellectually compelled to acknowledge, that he possessed a mind of the most profound and extensive views, and one from which effects have gone forth, that surpass everything in the history of the world, for purity, goodness and extent. Could now this greatest of men, with all his superiority of mental power, have been subject to the common errors of his time?-for to suppose that he accommodated himself to them with the conviction that they were errors, would imply that the origin of Jesuitism may be traced back to Jesus himself,-could the greatest clearness of thought have coëxisted with fanaticism and with dimness and confusion of view? Would not, rather, everything in the province of morals and religion, and especially would not his relation to the Godhead, have been clear and plain to him? But this mind, be it remembered, which conceived the great scheme that has blessed our race, protested in repeated instances and in various forms, that his instructions were not from himself but from God, who sent him; he spoke not his own words, but what the Father commanded him to teach, that only did he communicate to men.' With the same high self-confidence, which he displayed in speaking of his unspotted holiness, he declared that he came into the world for the purpose of testifying to the truth,' yea he designated himself expressly as the Truth! All these expressions are found in the simplest prosaic style; and are almost universally so unambiguous, that, without a mingling of a priori principles in the interpretation, they would never be misunderstood. When Jesus says that he did not come into the world of himself (uq' έavtou), and did not teach of himself, neither the usus loquendi, nor the sound, simple intent of the passage, properly allows us to restrict the expression to this, that he did not teach with the desire and intention of aggrandizing himself; but the meaning is, that he came and taught for the furtherance of the di