Sec. 2.—Morality and Religion united in Holiness.

Another circumstance must now be taken into consideration. Not only have morality and religion, individually considered, appeared under new aspects in Christianity, but a blending of the two, such as had never before existed, has been by it introduced into human life. This union of the religious and moral elements, which we call Holiness, is the 91highest quality attainable by man, and furnishes another point whence the sinlessness of Jesus may be inferred.

Undoubtedly a reciprocity of action between religion and morals may be found even beyond the province of Christianity. All vigorous piety manifests itself by moral results, and all deep morality is in some way or other based upon piety. If we conceive of either as existing independently, as entirely severed from the other, we should have, on the one side, a piety either of a sickly and internal character, confining itself to contemplation and emotion, or consisting solely of merely outward observances; on the other, a morality which, keeping closely within the bounds of legality, would exhibit a virtue, strict perhaps, and immoveable, but austere, and lacking all genuine warmth and heartiness. We are not, however, speaking of a greater or less degree of reciprocal action, but of a perfect fusion,—of such a oneness of religion and morality, that the one can never be found without the other;—no feeling of piety without moral worth and moral results, and no moral action which does not spring from piety. For holiness, as a human quality, exists only where a being, who has either continued free from sin, or, having sinned, has again become free from every stain of guilt, and victorious over every temptation, is ever, both in will and deed, following after good; and this not only from motives of duty, not merely for the sake of good itself, but for the sake of God; impelled, therefore, by that love which, like the Divine love itself, finds its objects even in the undeserving and the lost, and is ready to make any sacrifice for their deliverance.

Where, then, do we find even the notion of such a holiness as this?

We cannot seek for it in the heathen world. Even here the distinction between the profane and the sacred, between the impure and the consecrated, was understood, and its 92nobler spirits, at least, conceived that the pure alone could be worthy of fellowship with Divinity. But the Divine itself was not in its view perfectly holy. Heathenism is essentially the religion of nature, and consists either in the deification of nature, or the introduction of the Divine into natural life. This naturally and necessarily excluded from the sphere of the Divine the stricter notion of holiness; and where this was already wanting in the province of religion, it would be vain to seek for its impression in that of morals. In fact, though we do find in the ancient world the ideas of justice, of virtue, and of the good and beautiful, we by no means meet with that of holiness.

The revelation of the Old Testament is based on an entirely different foundation. Here the holiness of God, the free Creator and Governor of the world, forms the central-point, and the precept, ‘Be ye holy, for I am holy,’¹¹⁹¹¹⁹   Lev. xi. 45, xix. 2. is, as it were, the root-word of the ancient covenant, the whole aim of which is to sanctify all to Jehovah, and to hallow all through Him. But, powerfully as this key-note pervades the whole of the Old Testament dispensation, the revelation of the Divine holiness itself is not as yet absolutely perfect. Far greater prominence is given to the unapproachable majesty and glory of God, than to His mercy and condescension: the full impress of His holy love is yet wanting; and hence that which is enjoined with respect to human sanctification and holiness still bears rather a preceptive, legal, and ceremonial character, than one truly spiritual, mental, and moral. It is only where the prototype of holy love is seen in God, and where man has become an image of that love, both in the relation he occupies towards God, and in his desires and external conduct, that holiness, in the full meaning of the term, is possible.

And this we find in Christianity. Here first, and here 93only, do we meet with that perfect idea of holy love in which piety and morality are indivisibly united. Christianity, moreover, does not regard this idea as a standard exalted above ordinary practice, but cherishes the most assured confidence of its realization, even in the sphere of human life. Not till the appearance of Christianity did a community exist whose fundamental characteristic and aim were not any one particular virtue or religious exercise, but sanctification; and that a sanctification extending from the inmost heart to every circumstance of life,—an existence wholly in God and from God, as religious in its motives as it is moral in its activity. Whence, then, arose so deep-reaching, so wondrous a change? Was it effected merely in the way of reasoning and instructing? Such an issue would be contrary to all analogy. It could only have been brought about with the results which actually accompanied it in the way of life; in other words, by the appearance of a person who should make a profound impression that he possessed such holiness in unmistakeable perfection, and should thus set up an entirely new standard of excellence within this sphere of life. It was precisely in this manner also that the type of truly classic excellence was introduced into the province of art. This was not effected by devising beforehand some theory of beauty, but by its actual exhibition in the creations of some more than usually gifted artist.

We have now, however, reached a point which will give rise to a special discussion. For it might be said: Granting that what has been hitherto advanced is correct, is it certain that the reality of a sinless life is needful to account for it? Might not the mere idea, the mere belief in such a life, produce the like effects? To this subject, then, we shall now devote a few words.