The New-Testament writings bear unequivocal and
harmonious teslamony to the truth of this doctrine^ Christ is described in them as the Holy One, the Just and Righteous (Acts fii, 14; xxii, 14; 1 Pet. iii, 18; 1 John ii, 1, 29 ; ill, 7) ; as tempted '*like as we are, yet without sin" (Heb. iv, 16) ; as our example ** who did no shi, neither was guile found in his mouth" (1 Pet xi, 21, 22); as "a Iamb without blemish and without spot" (1 Pet i, 19); as "an high-priest who is holy, harmless, undefiled" . . . **who needetii not daily to offbr sacrifices" '* for his own sins," as did other priests (Heb. vii, 26, 27) ; as the MedUtor " who knew no sin" (2 Cor. V, 21). These writings, indeed, are full -of proofe that his aposties and followers recognised in Christ, because of his holiness, as well as his wonder- working power, the Messiah foretold by prophecy, coining in the fulness of the divine spirit to be the founder, lawgiver, and king of the kingdom of God on earth.
Christ no less unequivocally claims for himself such perfection of nature and life, hi the assumption of one- ness with Crod (John x, 80), in the fact, that he no- where prays for forgiveness of his own sins, or recog- nises that sin exists in himself, and, specifically, in the expression " which ofyou convinceth me of sin" (John viii,46).
ly. Objediona. — ^But brief notice can be taken here of the objections to this doctrine, which are grouped by UUmann (p. 148) under two classes, viz. (1) those rest- ing " on a denial of the actual sinlessness of Jesus,** and (2) those resting ** on a denial of the possibility of sinlessness at all in the sphere of human life; and by Weiss (/. c.) under three heads, vix. (1) that unique individuality (JEimigkeit de* Individmtmt) contradicts both the nature of Uie individual and the idea of the human race and its development ; (2) that sinlessness is irreconcilable with the nature of man ; and (8) that the same is irreconcilable with tiie actual sinful con- I dition of mankind. The former classification seems the simpler one, and we prefer to follow it. In re- gard to the objecti<ms of P6caut, wliich belong to the first class, it may suffice to say that all of them ex- cept the last are founded on incorrect conceptions of the spirit and purpose of Christ in the several actions noticed, and of the duty which his office as Messiah imposed on him. Viewed in the proper light, no dis- obedience of or disrespect to his parents, no outburst of angry passion, no wanton destruction of the property and disregard of the rights or feelings of others can be found. Attention to the scope and import of the ques- tion of Christ to the young man, " Why callest thou me Good?" (n fu Xiyn^ aya^ov), will show that he does not reject the titie good, but seeks to lead the questioner to its true application ; the emphasis, as the order of the words shows, rests not on the expression good, but the vAy. **God only is good; but he that hath seen me hath seen the Father."
In reply to the objection that the Idea of sinlessness is inconsistent with the growth in wisdom and the development of his moral nature which the Gospel portraiture of Christ assigns to him, we may say that growth and develqiment do not necessarily or com- monly imply imperfection. A human being, possess- ing in infancy and boyhood the maturity and complete development of manhood and age, would be a mon- strosity. We expect fVom infancy, youth, manhood, and a^ what befits each period, and regani as irreg- ular and imperfect what is contrary thereto. Again, finite nature is not necessarily imp^ect The perfect action of such a nature in conformity with the laws and limitations of its being cannot be sinftil, or evi- dence of imperfection as finite existence, but just the contrary.
The notion that individual pre-eminence is incon- sistent with the nature of the individual or the nature of the race is not warranted by the actual past and present history of man. We see that through all pe- riods of time individual men stand out prominentiy en-
CHRIST, ORDER OF
268
CHRISTENING
dowed aboye their fellows. Is it then imtional to suppose that in view of the great work which Christ came to do, he would be superior in purity to those whom he sought to elevate ?
In all the relations of his life on eaxtli, Jesus always did what was due to them. He did not seek, in vhrtue of the connection of his humanity in one personality with his divinity^ to exempt his human nature firom the influences which legitimately operate on it; but meeting fully lifers duties as they came to him, he as- serted in himself the triumph of one nnfallen nature over the power of evil in the world. Thus his perfect holiness of life stands out clearly in the moral heavens, the unchanging, ever-brilliant star of hope whose light no cloud can ever dim, a safe and surely-guiding bea- con to those who traverse the sea of life in seaz^ for the Promised Land.
ii^eratore.— Ullmann, The Smiasntti of Jesus (Ed- inb. 1858, 8vo); Schaff, The Person of Christ (Boston, Am. Tract Society, 16mo) ; Martensen, Christian Dog- matics (Edinb. 1866, 8vo) ; Knapp, Christian Theology, p. 836, 7 (PhUa. 1853, 8vo) ; Weiss, in Hensog's Real- EncjfVopadie (Supplem. i, 193 sq.) ; Domer, De la Sanc- (iti parfaite de J. C, (in 8iq^, to Revue ChrMienne, Nov. 1861); Domer, Perjon of Christ (passim); Nie- mann, Jesu Sittidenlotigbeit (Hanover, 1866).