from the supreme King; it is the priestly work of Christ to obtain salvation for souls, and to give them immortality. Christ is precious to us, and worthy of our veneration, in that he procured us the hope of escaping the deadly torments, and of attaining everlasting life. This he has promised; and he has shown, by his deeds, that he is able to perform his promises. Christ died in order thereby to confirm his promises, and especially to assure his followers of the certainty of their own immortality.

In Lactantius, (A. D. 306-320,) likewise, there is not a trace of any proper expiation of mankind by Christ, whom he very emphatically sets forth, on the other hand, as a teacher and an example. Jesus was sent by his Father in order to convert mankind from their godless and vain practices to the knowledge and worship of the true God; to lead them from folly to wisdom; from unrighteousness to righteousness; to transfer the divine religion from the perfidious Jews to the Gentiles; and to give his new worshippers a new law. The example of Jesus, especially, is very important and precious, in that he thereby showed the practicability of the precepts he gave, and took away from man the evasive plea that obedience to them was impossible. The perfect teacher must be God, in order that his laws may have proper authority; and it was necessary that this God should take a human body, so that, by fulfilling in himself his own commands, he might obligate others also to obedience.

Of the death of Jesus, Lactantius specifies two objects. At one time, he treats it as an example for men, that they should continue faithful to virtue, even unto death: 'As 'God determined to liberate mankind, he sent on earth a 'teacher of virtue, who should train them to innocence by 'his precepts, and open to them the way of righteosuness; 'by walking in which, and following their leader, men 'can arrive to everlasting life. He therefore assumed a 'body, and clothed himself in flesh, that he might give to 'man, whom he came to teach, an example and an im'pulse to virtue. As he gave tests of his righteousness in 'all the transactions of his life, so he committed himself 'into the hands of the malicious nation, in order to teach 'man patience in sorrow, and contempt of death, by which

'virtue is perfected. For this, he bore tortures, blows, ' and thorns. Finally, he hesitated not to undergo death, 'that mankind might the more easily triumph over the 'fear of death, which has been conquered and fettered by 'such a leader.' The other object which Lactantius ascribes to the death of Jesus, consists in its having procured a happy immortality for mankind. He died that he might descend to the under-world, [Hades,] and open it, in order to confirm men in the hope of victory over death, and admit them to the rewards of immortality.

Concluding Remarks. A survey of the views held by the early Christians concerning redemption, leads to many interesting results. In the first place, it is as instructive as it is remarkable, that in the present period so little was definitely settled on this point, and that so little weight was given to precise determinations of it. That Christ came into the world, and died, for the salvation of men, the Christians unanimously taught; yet, as to the manner in which the advent and death of Christ availed to this end, there were indeed particular opinions, but no generally received decision. All the teachers, however, including even the Gnostics themselves, were agreed that Jesus merited much of mankind by his instructions and example, since he thereby led them to a virtuous life, and gave them the true knowledge and worship of God. The merits of Jesus, as a teacher, were estimated the higher, inasmuch as they regarded the Son of God as the author of all the earlier divine instructions which the patriarchs and the Jewish people had received, whether by immediate communications, or through the prophets. For, according to the unanimous opinion of the Christian doctors, it was the Son alone, and never the Father, who revealed himself to mankind. It is, therefore, an altogether erroneous position, that the fathers of the three first centuries nearly excluded the teachings and the example of Jesus from the work of redemption, or that they but seldom and casually touched on these topics. The passages already quoted from the fathers, demonstrate the contrary.

* It seems that some modern writers had asserted this position. EDITOR.

Besides the benefits of his doctrine and example, the ancient fathers assign to Jesus the merit of having subdued the evil spirits, and destroyed their dominion. How this was done, they do not explain after a uniform manner. Sometimes they represent that it was effected by his having overthrown idolatry, which was regarded by the Christians as the worship of the devil and wicked spirits. Sometimes they treated the sufferings which Jesus underwent, as a contest with the evil spirits, in which he obtained a glorious triumph by his resurrection, and made it the easier for other men to achieve a similar victory. Sometimes, again, it was supposed to consist in his having himself cast out demons, and given his disciples power to do so, by calling on his name.

Finally, the fathers reckon the attainment of immortality and eternal happiness among the consequences of Christ's death. The most of them arrive at this conclusion, from the obscure and metaphorical idea that, by his death and resurrection, Jesus so restrained the power of death, that it could no longer hold dominion over its subjects. As a principal means in the work, they regarded his descent to the under-world, [Hades,] by which he broke asunder the walls of the realm of shades, and transferred the souls of the pious, who were already dead, into Paradise, and opened the way to this place for the pious who should die in after times.

On the other hand, it is remarkable that the fathers of this period say so little of any atoning virtue in the death of Jesus to reconcile men with God. True, if we are disposed to rely on single expressions, we can indeed find proofs enough that Christ is called a sacrifice for sins, a lamb sacrificed for us, a high-priest, a redeemer, and the like. Such terms occur too frequently in the New Testament itself, to be omitted by the Christian fathers. The question, however, is not, Did they often use such phrases? but, In what sense did they use them? Accordingly, when we bring their explanations together, leaving out a few ambiguous expressions, we find that none of the fathers has advanced the idea of a vicarious satisfaction made by Christ to divine justice. As to any satisfactio activa, [Christ's active obedience, as it is called by

the schools,] it is indeed out of the question; for it is contradicted by the doctrine of the ancients concerning human freedom, and the divine retribution. Only one passage, already quoted from Irenæus, seems to favor this mode of representation; and this passage is properly but an imitation of St. Paul's words, Rom. v. 18, 19. Concerning a satisfactio passiva, [Christ's passive obedience,] all the fathers are silent, except Irenæus and Origen; and each of these is so far from being consistent with himself, that we readily discover how little stability there was in their ideas on this point, especially if we view them in relation to the general doctrine of the church. Neither of them say that God remits to men the punishment of their sins, because that Jesus has borne the punishment in their stead. They either regard the death of Jesus as a ransom-price paid to the devil, or, when representing his death as a means of procuring the favor of God for men, they add such explanations as forbid the idea of a vicarious expiation. It may be observed, however, that by the speculations which they connected with the scriptural terms debt, ransom, &c. they opened the way to further inquiries, and laid the foundation for theories which later. ages have built up.-Münschers Dogmengeschichte, Band ii. S. 204-242.

H. B.

2d.

ART. XIII.

Ministerial Relations and Duties.

THE well-timed and interesting article in the last Expositor, entitled "The Minister and the Pulpit," commends itself, in the most impressive manner, to every minister of every denomination. At the same time, it supposes a corresponding change in the nature and character, in the whole range of the various duties and relations, expressed and implied, at present generally subsisting between minister and people.

Every particular calling or profession presupposes a number of relations and duties, which determine its character, and make it essentially what it is. In other words, any given vocation has relations and duties peculiar to itself, and which otherwise would have no existence. Powers and rights exist and are exercised, that are wholly unknown under other circumstances; and acts and duties may, and must be performed, to which the individual can make no pretensions in any other capacity. And a greater or less number of persons are made to feel an interest in, and to have claims upon, the individuals filling peculiar stations, which, but for those relations, had never been felt or known.

It is equally certain that the aspects and nature of such relations and duties vary materially at different periods of time, and under different conditions of society. Social habits and political institutions will exert their appropri ate influences here, as well as in everything else that concerns mankind. Sometimes these changes are great and apparent; but they are more commonly effected by slow and almost imperceptible gradations. They are effected, notwithstanding; and they give to subsisting duties and relations quite another, perhaps a new, charac ter. And it is impossible to look back on the history of man, or around upon the world as it is, without being convinced that, with the same nominal professions, the relations which they involve, are modified by every change in the state of human society.

The introduction of the gospel, and the establishment of the Christian ministry, gave rise to a new order of relations among men. There was no common resemblance between the relations of the apostles to the world around them, and those of any other class of instructers, whether secular or religious. But these apostolical relations and duties were not so fixed and permanent as to admit of no modification. They, too, have been touched by those mighty influences which have wrought such wonders in the social world, and in every department of science, of mind, and of morality. From generation to generation, the relations between ministers and people have been marked by changes corresponding with the state of the