I.

THE HISTORY AND LITERATURE OF THE SUBJECT.

THE great importance of the sinlessness of Jesus, with regard both to Christian faith and to that impression thereof which we designate doctrine, has at no time been ignored. The attention paid to it, however, by Christian teachers and theologians, has been by no means uniform. The importance of the fact, and its manifold consequences, have not been at all times equally perceived, while its relation to other elements of Christianity has been variously estimated, and its treatment has been undertaken with different purposes and in different manners.

A complete statement of the various ways and modes in which the dogma of the sinlessness of Jesus has in different ages been viewed, proved, and applied, carried out with relation to the whole course of development which doctrine and practice have gone through in the Church, might well form the subject of a separate treatise of no slight interest. Such an undertaking would far transcend our limits. We feel, however, that it is due to our subject to follow up the allusions given in the Introduction by a few general outlines, and especially to make the notice there given of its literature more complete.

To the Christians of the apostolic age, and to the most distinguished of the apostles, the sinless perfection of their Master was an inalienable element, nay, a fundamental factor, of their faith in Him as the Messiah sent by God, the Son of God and Son of Man, the Reconciler and Redeemer of mankind. With them it was not a subject of reflection. They merely reproduced in very decided and pregnant statements the impression which Jesus had in this respect made upon themselves, and plainly indicated the inseparable connection existing in their eyes between His; sinlessness and other elements of Christianity, especially the atoning and priestly agency of Christ.

In the further development of the doctrine of Christ within the Church, this apostolic view of the subject continued to prevail. A more explicit reference to the doctrine of the sinlessness of Jesus, especially in its historical bearings, was nowhere attempted; because it was regarded as an absolutely sell-evident fact, and as an article of belief essentially interwoven with the whole organism of the Christian religion. But as soon as the doctrine of the Person of Christ began to be more fully elaborated, this article of belief was most prominently brought forward.³²⁷³²⁷   The first writer who uses the technical expression ἀναμάρτητος with reference to Christ is Hippolytus (Galandii Biblioth. 466). Then we find the term repeatedly employed by Clement of Alexandria; still he uses also the word ἀνεπιθύμητος (Stromat. vii. 12),—a word which, more than the other, has reference to the inward state. We find this already in the writings of Irenæus and Tertullian, of Clement and Origen.³²⁸³²⁸   It would lead us too much into detail were we to give all the passages of the fathers referred to. The reader may consult Duncker’s Christologie des Irenæus, S. 219 ff.; Hagenbach, Dogmen-geschichte, B. 1. § 67; and Baumgarten-Crusius’ Dogmen-geschichte, vol. ii. p. 162. Suicer also, in his Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus, gives a tolerably complete collection of passages from the fathers under the words ἀναμαρτησία, ἀναμάρτητος,—vol. 1. pp. 287-289. But they give the subject a different form and position. 256Generally the difference is this: either the sinlessness of Christ is inferred from His Divinity, as by Tertullian; or it is regarded, as by Origen, as a peculiar property of the human soul of Jesus,—a property resulting from a free undisturbed love of all that was Divine and good, and making that soul capable and worthy of perfect union with the Divine, eternal Logos.

In the Christology of Apollinaris this doctrine has a peculiar import attached to it. He proceeded from the belief that along with human nature there is always mutability and change in the moral life, gradual development, conflict, and therefore sin: in his view, it is impossible to conceive of a complete man without sin. But as, according to his own belief, the Redeemer of men must Himself be free from all sin, nay, elevated above all conflict therewith, he was thus led to form the opinion, that in Christ the Divine and eternal Logos had taken the place of the necessarily vacillating and sinful human soul. This Logos being in itself immutable and self-determined, is thus supposed to have imparted to every action and emotion of Christ an irresistible tendency towards the holy and the Divine, and to have raised Him above all conflict with sin. Now even if by the adoption of this view the doctrine of the sinlessness of Christ seems to be placed upon a firmer basis, an evident injury is thereby done to another most vital doctrine, namely, that of the perfect humanity of Christ, and the truth of His typical character as a real man; because both these truths rest upon the assumption of a rational human soul in Christ.

Hence the importance of holding fast the doctrine of Christ’s sinlessness along with that of His true human nature. Both were fully recognised by Athanasius, who directed attention to the fact that sin, although found by experience to be really present in all mankind, yet belongs not to human nature in itself considered, whose original state was, on the 257contrary, a state of sinlessness. Hence it was possible for Christ to take upon Him the whole nature of man, without thereby becoming subject to sin; nay, He must have done so, in order that He might thus show that it was possible for one who is entirely human to preserve himself free from sin. Since His time, both truths have continued to be recognised in the Church—the perfect manhood of Christ, and His absolute sinlessness. In the creed of Chalcedon (451) this doctrine first found expression as an article of faith. In this creed, while testimony is at the same time borne to His proper Divinity, Christ is spoken of as ‘truly man, with a rational soul and body, of like essence with us as to His manhood, and in all things like us, sin excepted.’

This settled the doctrine, at least within the domain of the Church and no important change of opinion with respect. to it afterwards took place. It now became more a subject of theological discussion, although it was not treated in a comprehensive spirit until modern times.

In the Middle Ages, theologians were content to abide by the decisions of the Church; but at the same time they fully recognised the importance of the subject. The Schoolmen indeed allowed, that if the human soul of Jesus were viewed independently, and its union with the Divine Logos left out of the question, the possibility of His sinning could not be denied.³²⁹³²⁹   Peter Lombard says, Lib. sent. iii. 12: Non est ambiguum, animam illam entem unitam verbo peccare non posse, et eandem, si esset et non unita verbo, posse peccare. On the other hand, however, the fact of His perfect sinlessness was most expressly acknowledged. This feature was prominently brought forward as a thoroughly essential one in the character of Jesus from the most opposite quarters,³³⁰³³⁰   This was to be expected in the case of theologians. I will here name only two poets: Otfried von Weissenburg, who, in his Poetical Version of the Gospels, iii. 21, 4, uses the expression, ther suntiloso man, concerning Christ; and Dante, in whose view Christ is like Himself alone, and who on this account never makes his name rhyme with any word but itself, nor permits it to be uttered in hell on account of its supreme dignity, says, Inferno, xxxiv. 114, 15, ‘Where the man who was born and lived without sin, perished.’ and we may regard it as not improbable that, in 258the well-known controversy of the Thomists and the Scotists about the immaculate conception of the Virgin, one chief point of interest for the defenders of that tenet was, by proving the perfect original purity of the mother of our Lord, to establish that also of the Saviour Himself. But this dogma was damaging to the position of Christ in another aspect. For hitherto Christ alone, according to apostolic testimony, had been regarded as free from all sin, hereditary sin included. Now, however, this quality began to be attributed to His mother and thus not only was the uniqueness of Christ in this respect done away with, but His dignity as the world’s Redeemer was impugned, together with the indissoluble connection between the work of redemption and absolute sinlessness. For if there really existed a human being . besides, nay, before Him, entirely unaffected by sin, the necessity of being redeemed and sanctified by Christ would be no longer absolute and universal. Consequently His position as Redeemer would be lowered and though this took place in fact only at a single point, yet in principle the whole doctrine would be affected. That this was the case was immediately felt and expressed. At the very first appearance even of the dogma of the immaculate conception, St. Bernhard despatched an epistle to the Canonist of Lyon, who had about the year 1400 introduced a new festival in honour of this doctrine, in which, among other things, he says: ‘If it is given to some few of the sons of men to be born in holiness, it is not given them to be thus conceived, that thus this pre-eminence of holy conception might continue to be His alone who was to sanctify all, and who alone coming into the world without 259sin, was to effect the purification of sinners.’ In a similar manner do several other excellent authorities express themselves; among whom we may specially name the Dominican John of Montesono, who, in 1367, published at Paris several theses on this controversy.³³¹³³¹   These may be found in Dupin’s edition of the works of Gerson, vol. 1. p. 693. In thesis x. it is said, ‘It is expressly contrary to our faith to hold that any except Christ has been born free from original sin;’ and in thesis xii., ‘It is as contrary to Holy Scripture to say that one human being besides Christ is excepted from original sin, as to say that ten are.’ In thesis ix., moreover, it is laid down as a general axiom, that, ‘to declare anything true which is contrary to Scripture, is most expressly contrary to our faith.’ The movement, however, continued, and an increasingly idolatrous honouring of the Virgin prevailed, until at last, in our own days, though not without a partial protest by the more pious and enlightened of Romish theologians, the dogma of the immaculate conception was formally promulgated by the Roman see.

While the theology of the Middle Ages continued in theory unwaveringly faithful to the decisions of the apostolic, and the ancient Church concerning the Person of Christ, a corruption of another kind set in; not, in the first instance, within the sphere of theology, but in that of the Church and of Christian life generally. Christ, while strictly adhered to doctrinally, began to disappear from Christian consciousness as a living, directly operating personality, and as the only medium of salvation. The Church, with its mediation of priests, put Him more and more into the background, while His pretended earthly representative usurped His place. The chief merit of the Reformers consisted in restoring the Divine and human Person of Christ to its central position as the one only ground of salvation, and re-establishing the direct character of the relation of believers to Him, and, through Him, to God the Father. They did this, because they felt Christ present to their inmost soul in His Divine 260and human dignity, in His redeeming and saving power; and they sought for no further proof of that which was to them a second nature, and which was confirmed and sealed by the word of God and the testimony of His Spirit. They received the doctrine concerning Christ as set forth by the Church,—the Church universally Christian and truly catholic; and since the sinlessness of Christ formed an essential part of that doctrine, we find it also enunciated in their writings.³³²³³²   E.g. by Luther in the Larger Catechism. A minute discussion of it would, however, have been at variance with their spirit; to them it was not a matter requiring proof, but an immediate certainty, far removed above all controversy. As soon, however, as evangelical doctrine was formed into a systematic whole, this dogma had to undergo a more thorough discussion. This is first found in the writings of the dogmaticians of the second generation after the Reformation;³³³³³³   See Schmid, Dogmatik der ev. luth. Kirche, pp. 231, 236; and Hase, Hutt. rediv. § 96, p. 226, 7th ed. and not less so in those of subsequent systematizers, particularly in works on doctrinal and on moral theology. But it is in modern times that the subject has been most prominently brought forward, owing to the growing consciousness of the extreme importance of the doctrine of sinlessness in treating of Christology, and indeed of Christianity in general.³³⁴³³⁴   Among the works of the older Protestant theologians the following may be specially noticed:—Gerhard, Loc. theol. Pt. iii. p. 237; and Buddeus, Compend. theol. dogm. § 497. Among modern writings in which the doctrine is briefly or extensively treated, may be mentioned:—Doederlein, Institut. ii. pp. 206, etc.; Zacharias, bibl. Theologie, Pt. iii. pp. 38-46; Töllner’s theolog. Untersuchungen, vol. i. Pt. ii.; Reinhard’s Dogmatik, § 91; Bretschneider’s Dogmat. vol. ii. §§ 135, 138; Wegscheider, Institut. § 122, pp. 446, 447, 7th ed.; Knepp’s Vorlesungen, Pt. ii. § 93, p. 151; Schleiermacher’s christl. Glaube, Pt. ii. in the whole section concerning Christ, especially pp. 39 and 86 of the 2d ed.; De Wette’s christl. Sittenlehre, Pt. i. pp. 173-193, and Wesen des christl. Glaubens, § 53; Nitzsch, System der christlichen Lehre, § 129; Rothe, Theolog. Ethik. vol. i. § p. 279, etc.—Remarks on the subject will also be found in Daub’s Judas Iscarioth, No. I. pp. 55, 64, 78; and Steudel’s Grundzügen einer Apologetik, pp. 56, etc. It is also discussed in Steudel’s Glaubenslehre der evangelisch-protestant-Kirche, Tüb. 1834, pp. 233-245; in Sack’s christl. Apologetik, 2d ed. p. 201, etc.; Hase’s Leben Jesu, pp. 23, 32; and Jul. Müller’s christl. Lehre von der Sünde, 3d ed., in various places. Among the latest works, compare the doctrinal writings of Grimm, Schweizer, Lange, Schoeberlein, Liebner, and Martensen; die biblische Dogm. of Lutz, pp. 293-299; Dorner’s Entwickelungsgeschichte der Lehre von der Person Christi; and Schumann’s Christus, vol. i. pp. 284-297.

And nothing has done more to awaken this conviction than the doubts which have arisen in recent times upon this subject, even within the domain of Christian belief and of theology. Indeed the development of the doctrine which we have sketched above had not been carried far enough for the sinlessness of Christ to be at once recognised by all men, at all times, as a perfectly unquestionable fact. As early as the ages of ancient Christianity, we see suspicions arising and limitations adduced in isolated instances.³³⁵³³⁵   Basilides, the Gnostic, appears to have been the first who entertained doubts concerning this doctrine. He even applied to Christ, as man, the maxim that every one who suffers, does so as an expiation for his own sins. Yet he shrinks from charging Jesus with actual sin, and places Him, in this respect, on a level with children, who suffer indeed, not on account of sins committed, but because of the inclination to sin existing in them,—because of the ἁμαρτητικόν. Clemens, Strom. iv. 12; Neander, gnost. Syst. pp. 49-53. Arius and Theodore of Mopsveste admit only the moral perfection of Christ in a more limited sense. See Baumgarten-Crusius, Dogmengeschichte, p. 164, note 1. But it is in modern times that we first find the doctrine an object of decided and detailed attack. And here we have not so much in view the application—made with greater or less directness against the sinlessness of Christ—of the position, that Christ did actually share our sinful flesh;³³⁶³³⁶   See on this subject the note on p. 125. we rather refer to the direct calling in question of sinlessness as a possibility and as a fact, as it has been called in question by rationalism, both deistic and pantheistic.³³⁷³³⁷   The Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist is, with respect to our subject, the advocate of the former; Strauss, in his Glaubenslehre, vol. ii. pp. 190, etc., of the latter. Pécaut, whose still more recent work has been already so frequently alluded to, may also be mentioned as belonging to the deistic side.

These doubts, based as they were, not only upon historical and critical, but upon very decided and utterly negative doctrinal prepossessions, assailed the very heart of Christianity; and there could not fail to be a reaction against them from the Christian side. If, in former times, the moral character of Christ had often been the subject of special discussion, this. was now of necessity much more the case; and we find a whole series of single works upon this subject, with direct reference to the question of sinlessness.³³⁸³³⁸   Among works entirely devoted to this subject are the following:—Walther, Dissert. theol. de Christi hominis ἀναμαρτησίᾳ, Viteb. 1690, and Dissert. de dissimilit. ortus nostri et Christi hom., in his Dissertatt. theol. ed. Hoffmann, Viteb. 1753, pp. 207-244; Hoevel, de ἀναμαρτησίᾳ Christi ejusque necessitate, Hal. 1741, recusa 1749, 37, p. 4—(this treatise, whose author, Carl Ludwig Hoevel, is a pupil of Baumgarten, is strictly orthodox, and written with much scholastic acuteness. It follows Wolf’s method of demonstration, and bases the sinlessness of Jesus upon the unio personalis of the Divine and human natures. In the first part the necessity of this doctrine is laid down; in the second it is defended against objections);—Erbstein, Gedanken über die Frage ob der Erlöser sündigen konnte? Meissen 1787—(this work, denies the possibility, in opposition to Doederlein, Institt. § 234);—Ueber die Anamartesie Jesu, in Grimm’s and Muzel’s Stromata, Pt. ii. pp. 113, etc.; Ph. A. Stapfer, Versuch eines Beweises der göttlichen Sendung und Würde Jesu aus seinem Charakter, Berne 1797; and in French in the collection of Stapfer’s writings recently published at Paris—(it contains a very spirited and eloquent description of the moral manifestation of Jesus, and such inferences therefrom of His Divine dignity as were not easily drawn in that period of rationalism);—J. L. Ewald, über die Grosse Jesu und ihrem Einfluss auf seine Sittenlehre, Hanover 1798; also his erste Forts. Beantwort. verschied. Einwürfe, Gera 1799; M. Weber, Progr. Virtutis Jesu integritatem neque ex ipsius professionibus neque ex actionibus doceri posse, Viteb. 1796; and in his Opusc. Acad. pp. 179-192—(Weber, while firmly adhering to the sinlessness of Jesus, insists upon grounding this doctrine solely on the inspired testimony of the apostles, and thus of God Himself, who, as knowing the heart, can alone pronounce authoritatively in this case);—Fr. von Meyer, war Jesus Christus der Sünde fähig? in the Blättern für höhere Wahrheit, new series, 2d collection, Berlin 1831, pp. 198-208; J. G. Rätze, die Heiligkeit und die Wunderthaten als die höchsten und genügenden Beglaubigungsgründe der Gottheit des Welterlösers, Zittau and Leipsic 1834—(it is possible that miracles, inasmuch as they differ from the ordinary phenomena of nature, may be doubted both on historical and philosophic grounds; but such doubts are extinguished by the holiness of Christ’s Person and life. A holiness manifested by precept and example, and in accordance with the religious and moral ideals of reason, is its own best credential; and they who deny it, would at the same time deny the consciousness of the Divine existence and the moral law);—Al. Schweizer, über die Dignität des Religionstifters, in the theol. Stud. und Kritik. 1834, No. III. pp. 521-571; No. IV. pp. 813-849—(Schweizer here endeavours to prove, in a speculative way, the necessity of the absolute religious perfection, the infallibility and sinlessness of Christ, from the notion and nature of the Founder of that religion which is to be the religion of the whole human race);—Christ. Frid. Fritzsche, de ἀναμαρτησίᾳ Jesu Christi Commentationis, iv., Hal. 1835-37—(the author criticises the treatises on the Sinlessness of Jesus by three theologians of Halle, viz. Hoevel, Weber, and myself, and makes objections against those of the first and last. An answer will be found in the theol. Stud. und Kritik. 1842-3);—Hase, Streitschriften, No. III. 1837, pp. 105-114—(an excellent and acute refutation of rationalistic objections)—Guil. Naumann, Dissert. de Jesu Christo ab animi affectibus non immuni, Lips. 1840; Gotth. Ferd. Doehner, de dictis aliquot Jesu Christi quæ ἀναμαρτησίαν ejus infringere videantur, Zwiccau 1840—(the contents of these two works are cited and condemned in an article by Theile, Litt. Blatt. der allgem. K. Zeitung, Feb. 1841, Nos. XIX. XX. XXI.);—Theile, über die sittliche Erhabenheit Jesu allg. K. Zeitung, June 1841, Nos. XCII. XCIII. XCIV.—(a good description of the typical nature of the character of Christ, and of its significance for Christianity).—Remarks referring to our subject will also be found in Käuffer’s Jesus Christus unser Vorbild, Dresden 1845, especially p. 98, etc. An article in Swedish against my views, by Prof. Thomander of Lund, in the quarterly paper edited by himself and Reuterdahl, unfortunately did not come to my notice till it was out of print. I am, however, able to refer to a more detailed review by Prof. Van Oordt, in the Gröningen journal, Waarheid in Liefde, 1838, No. I. pp. 117-224, especially pp. 218 sq. But not only were more numerous works thus called forth,263—there was also a more acute apprehension of the idea of sinlessness, and a more profound investigation of the questions involved in it. Nevertheless, two distinct modes of treatment were followed; some theologians dealing with the subject in a manner purely doctrinal, while others, taking it up chiefly in its historical aspect, used it also in the interest of apologetic aims. In the former aspect, the influence of Schleiermacher in itself marks a fresh era. He, as is well known, defines Christianity as fundamentally a 264system of redemption, and makes redemption consist essentially in the communication of the sinlessness of the Redeemer. In doing this, however, he not only specially vindicated, for the doctrine of Christ’s sinlessness, a position which, however modified, will still retain its importance; but he gave to the discussion of this doctrine an impulse which has caused the feature of sinlessness in the character of Jesus to be regarded, in general, in a manner totally different from that in which it had hitherto been viewed, and has placed this essential trait in a point of view more particularly apologetic. The manner in which it has been treated in more modern times, in this latter aspect, need not, after what has been stated in the Introduction and notes, be further alluded to here.