ART. V.-The Dogmatic Element in Ullmann's "Sinlessness of Jesus."

WE

E have not been slow to express, in the pages of this journal, our high regard for Dr. Ullmann's truly classical work on the "Sinlessness of Jesus," considered according to its professed aim and general execution, as a work on apologetical theology. There is a beautiful freshness of thought in it, and the charm of a fine morale, which have justly rendered it extremely acceptable to a circle of readers whose intellectual and spiritual powers of appreciation render their verdict valuable, and their favourable verdict gratifying. In that verdict we have oftener than once expressed or indicated our acquiescence, and do not mean now to qualify, but rather, in a word, to re-affirm it. We do not think, however, that we would be doing justice to the interests of truth, nor putting our views of the excellence of the book, considered as a whole and in all its aspects, in the form in which we would wish them finally to rest, if we did not indicate somewhat distinctly our conviction that in its bearings on Christian doctrine it requires to be estimated at a different value from that which properly belongs to it as a contribution to apologetics. For this reason we have always regretted that the work had not terminated-where as a work in apologetical theology it really does terminate-at the close of Part III. Not that in that case we could have homologated all its statements. The book is pervaded by one serious error in reference to the person of Christ, against which we could not in any circumstances have refrained from reclaiming. But in Part IV., entitled "Inferences from the Foregoing," the author really enters on the field of dogmatical theology; and we are convinced that, in that department, he is not by any means so much at home, nor, therefore, entitled so much to be accepted in the character of a guide, as he may fitly claim to be in the field of apologetics. We have no intention of disregarding the protest which he has recorded in the closing sentence of his introduction, when he says: "We enter our protest against anyone applying to our discussion a measure by which he would be justified in determining upon a dogmatical treatment of the subject." We fully recognize the author's right to adopt his own method of treatment; and we cordially express our conviction that, in the general scope of his work, he has advanced upon his important theme from the right point and in the right direction, his aim being to educe from the

Inconclusive Reasonings.

97

sinlessness of Jesus an argument in defence of Christianity as a Divine Revelation. It is not that we desiderate a dogmatic treatment of his main theme, but that we take exception to the substantive dogmas or doctrines which, in the closing part of his volume, he professes to deduce as inferences from his own apologetic treatment of it. For we are deeply convinced that his chapters entitled "Inferences in Respect of the Divine Nature of Jesus" and "Inferences in Respect of His Mediation between God and Sinful Man," present neither conclusive reasonings nor correct conclusions.

I. With regard to the Divine nature of Jesus we find Ullmann saying (p. 238), "From his sinlessness we may equally deduce the pure and perfect humanity and the true divinity of His person." Now, it would surely require very great confidence in the deductive process gone through, to place these two inferences, in point of conclusiveness, so completely on a level as this sentence does. The first is scarcely to be called an inference at all. It scarcely differs by a hair'sbreadth from the fact from which it is said to be deduced. Unless by "sinlessness" we understand something merely negative and against this notion the author repeatedly protests-we confess we can hardly distinguish between the sinlessness of the man Christ Jesus and the purity and perfection of His humanity. The inference of His Divinity from His sinlessness, to our mind, stands in a very different category. We very much doubt whether any competent or possible application of deductive logic can enable us to infer the one from the other; and we are thoroughly convinced that Ullmann has not succeeded in accomplishing it.

He dwells at some length, and seems to lay much stress as supporting his position, on the fact that in Jesus we have not only the unique phenomenon of a sinless man, but a sinless. man in the midst of a world of sinful men, solicited on all sides by sinful influences, and living in perfect purity, so to speak, in an atmosphere of sin. But his attempt to establish a nexus between this fact and the Divinity of Christ is obviously unsuccessful. Had it been the will of God to present to us an instance of human nature perfectly sinless, and circumstanced in the main as the man Christ Jesus was, it does not appear why this could not have been attained by the inhabitation of God by His Spirit in a mere human person. To affirm the contradictory proposition were manifestly to limit the Divine Omnipotence. The omnipotent will of Deity could have directly secured this result without one of the Persons of the Deity assuming human nature into personal union with the Godhead. To say otherwise is surely to limit, with

VOL. XIV.-NO. LI.

Н

out the shadow of a reason, either the power of the Divine Being, or the capacities of human nature, or both.

The intellectual and especially the moral beauty and perfection of Christ's teaching are next adduced as sustaining the same inference of His Divinity; and it is impossible not to be arrested and charmed with the brilliant passage in which he presents to us his profound appreciation of Christ's discharge of His prophetic office. But neither during the currency of the long and beautiful paragraph (pp. 240, 241), nor at its close, does he indicate any logical nexus between the Godhead of the Teacher, and the matchless characteristics of the teaching.

He makes a more explicit attempt to connect inferentially the Divinity of Jesus with His miracles; and here his logic is still more at fault, as was indeed to be expected; for the argument is now burdened with the necessity of showing that the sinlessness stands logically connected with the miracles, and then the miracles with the Divinity. He refers to an earlier stage of the inquiry, where he had directed attention to the difficulty of proving the Divinity of Jesus from His miracles (p. 241). And so long as the enchantments of the Egyptian magicians and sorcerers are borne in mind, no one, we presume, will deny this difficulty, or hesitate to admit that the exhibition of supernatural powers is not per se any necessary, any direct and immediate, evidence of a Divine commission. Ullmann thinks, however, that "it is another thing when he who is reported to have performed miracles is recognized as sinless." And so, rightly regarded, it is. The syllogism, then, is of the simplest form: Sinlessness is exclusive alike of falsehood and presumption; Jesus asserted that His miracles were wrought by the finger of God, an assertion in which there was either falsehood or presumption, or both, if He did not with absolute conviction know it to be true; therefore, it was true, and He was the sent of God. But the logic of Ullmann takes a very different form from this; or rather undertakes a very different task, in reality turning aside from the object which he professes to have in view. Instead of really carrying on the demonstration of his proposition, that miracles by a Sinless One are a proof of his Divinity, he substitutes the affirmation of another proposition, as if it constituted a proof of the former, while even of this new proposition itself he furnishes no proof whatever, and does not seem to see that, even although proved, it would be in no respect helpful towards proving that which he professes to establish. We give his words (pp. 241-2): "It is another thing, however, when he who is reported to have performed miracles is recognized as the Sinless One. Then miracles are seen to be

Miracles and Sinlessness.

99

only a natural outflow of that which is already contained in the personality, they are of the same significance, in respect of the natural powers, as sinlessness is in respect of the moral powers. To recognize Jesus as sinlessly holy, and to deny the miraculous element in His career, would be self-contradictory. On the contrary, if such an element were wanting, we should feel that there was deficiency. Sinlessness itself involves the miraculous, in principle. It is a new commencement in the midst of a sinful race, which can only be explained by a Divine causality; and, as has been justly remarked, a perfectly sinless man is no whit less miraculous a phenomenon in the moral world than a man raised from the dead is in the natural world. The fundamental miracle of Christianity, the resurrection of Jesus, is closely connected with the fact of His sinlessness for by reason of the connexion between death and sin, death cannot have the same significance for one who is perfectly holy as it necessarily has for the sinner."

Now, why should it be affirmed to be self-contradictory to recognize the sinlessness of an agent, and to deny a miraculous element in his career? And if the severance of these two things involves a contradiction, how could the absence of one of them present itself as merely a "deficiency," or present itself at all? But where is the contradiction? There is no contradiction in terms. There is no contradiction in thought; for the ideas of sinlessness and of the absence of supernatural physical powers may be conceived as realized in the same individual, and were, indeed, realized, in point of fact, in the first Adam in Eden. Ullmann gives no pretence of proof of this self-contradiction; he merely affirms it, and goes on to say that sinlessness involves the miraculous. Moreover, it is utterly out of place to allege that sinlessness in the midst of a sinful race can only be explained by a Divine causality. We at once admit that; and we add that sinlessness in heaven even can only be explained by a Divine causality. But to call in a Divine causality is something very different from inferring the Godhead of the Sinless Man. It is equally out of place to refer to the resurrection of Jesus, unless it were in order to bring into view that aspect of His resurrection in which He is seen to have, by His own Divine power, raised himself from the dead, as He received commandment from the Father to do, according to His own saying: "I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it again: this commandment received I of my Father." Except in this view, the resurrection of Jesus has no bearing on the argument which Ullmann professes to have in hand. For it is not as the object on whom miraculous power was exercised, but as the agent by whom miraculous power was put forth,

that it behoves him for his present purpose to contemplate the Sinless One. He has undertaken to demonstrate the Divinity of Jesus from "the way in which He discharged His duties as a teacher and in which He wrought His miracles." He has expressly affirmed that miracles are seen to be "only a natural outflow of that which is already contained in the personality of one who is recognized as sinless." We confess we have not seen this; and we are sure that Ullmann has not shown it-that he has not even tried to show it, but only, after affirming it, gone on to make some other and irrelevant affirmations.

But the inconclusiveness of these reasonings, however unfortunate as fitted to weaken the real polemic value of the work in its own proper sphere of apologetics, is a matter of little moment compared with the question, What is the real conclusion at which these reasonings aim? Is it really true and proper Godhead that Ullmann, though thus unsuccessfully, attempts to vindicate for the Sinless One? We have very serious doubts as to this. Among the various expressions he makes use of, there is scarcely one which is not equivocal or ambiguous, and some that are even positively erroneous, and, taken in their obvious and natural meaning, inconsistent with the idea of Jesus being a Divine Person. He speaks (p. 239) of the humanity and the Divinity of His person "interpenetrating" each other, and this as something in addition to "union." Again, he speaks of Christ's Divine humanity—a phrase which is either absurd and meaningless, or must be regarded as implying a confusion of the natures. For, however much such an expression, and the cognate one of "the Divine Man," may have come into vogue in some quarters, and be helped into currency by some who have no thought of propagating error, we are convinced that they are as truly, though not so obviously, erroneous, as if we were to reverse the adjective and the noun, and talk of Christ's human Godhead, or designate Him as the human God. The offensiveness of these expressions is more glaring, but they do not more decisively imply a confusion of the natures. While using expressions like these, Ullmann never once directly asserts that Jesus is a Divine Person. He argues that is sinlessness indicates the presence of a Divine element; and again, that it compels the recognition in Him of a higher principle, a principle which lies beyond human nature and human powers. But for aught that his dogmatic embraces, this supernatural principle or element need not be the Godhead itself as furnishing the entire of Christ's personality, according to the faith of Evangelical Christendom and even of the Church of Rome itself, but merely Divine