debt, as in the Cur Deus Homo, but the restoration of our fallen nature that is prominent in the minds of the writers, as the main object of the Incarnation. They always speak, with Scripture, of our being reconciled to God, not of God being reconciled to us. On the other hand, they are far removed from the modern Socinian or Rationalistic view, which sees in the death of Christ only an attestation of His teaching, or an exalted model of heroic virtue, or a practical evidence of the love of God. They ascribe, with one voice, a real and most vital efficacy to the 'sacrifice' of Calvary in restoring us to life and immortality, but without attempting any precise explanation of how the result is brought about. The obedience of Christ is emphatically dwelt upon, as an integral part of His redeeming work, but a special virtue is assigned to His 'death,' and His blood,' the latter being occasionally, as by Hippolytus and Irenæus, mentioned in connection with the Eucharistic chalice. His abiding priesthood in heaven is continually dwelt on, while some, as Cyprian, insist also on its earthly realization, through the ministry of His appointed representatives. Barnabas and Ignatius are the first to speak of His conquest over Satan, which assumes an increasing prominence in subsequent writers. In the hands of two it becomes the basis of a distinct theory of satisfaction, and to these we must now turn our attention.

St. Irenæus treats the question mainly in connection with two passages of the New Testament: Rom. v. 19, "As by one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the obedience of One shall the many be made righteous," and Hebrews ii. 14, where' destroying him that hath the power over death, that is the

Devil' is set forth as the object of the Incarnation. And he accordingly makes the work of redemption consist principally in two points: the restoration of our corrupted nature through the gift of a new principle of divine life, and the triumph over Satan. It is in the exposition of the second point that his teaching goes beyond that of his contemporaries, and contains the first explicit statement of an opinion which continued for a thousand years to influence Christian theology, till it was finally sifted and discarded by Anselm (who has been followed by later writers, with a few exceptions) on the obvious ground, that, though we had justly incurred punishment at the hands of the Evil One, he could have no right over us but by the permission of God.* The original suggestion of this theory came from the Gnostic heresy. Irenæus ascribed to the Evil Spirit that power over men, as their seducer, which Gnosticism gave him as their Demiurgus or Creator. They had voluntarily placed themselves under the Devil's power; and, though God might have delivered them by force, it was more accordant with justice to compensate, by a perfect obedience, that original disobedience from which all his rights over them were derived. I will extract, at length, the passage in which Irenæus introduces his view.

"The powerful Word and true Man reasonably redeeming us by His blood, gave Himself a ransom for those who had been led into captivity. And since the apostacy (i. e. Satan) unjustly ruled us, and when we belonged by nature to Almighty God, alienated us

* Quamvis enim homo juste a diabolo torqueretur, ipse tamen illum injuste torquebat, Anselm. Cur Deus Homo, i. 7.

against nature, and made us his own disciples, the Word of God, being all-powerful and not wanting in justice, dealt justly even with the apostacy itself, buying back from it that which was His own; not violently, as he (Satan) had first gained dominion over us, by snatching greedily what did not belong to him, but by persuasion [by a method which convinced Satan his rights were at an end*] as it became God to receive what He willed by persuasion and not by force, so that neither might justice be violated, nor God's ancient creation perish. The Lord, therefore, redeemed us by His own blood, and gave His soul for (èp) our souls, and His flesh for (avrí) our flesh, and poured out the Spirit of the Father for the union and communion of God and man, bringing down God to men through the Spirit, raising men to God through His Incarnation, and firmly and truly giving us incorruption in His advent, through communion with God." For this redemption from Satan's mastery there was required a perfect obedience; compensating our disobedience through His obedience;' and hence in one passage Irenæus says, the price of our disobedience in Adam was paid by Christ's obedience in the Three Temptations; a statement which, I think, stands alone in patristic literature. This perfect obedience could only be rendered by Him who was both God and man: "For if Man had not conquered the adversary of man, he would not have been justly conquered. And, again,

* This seems to be the obvious meaning, and not, as some understand it, ‘by persuading men.'

+ Lib. v. 1.

Et tertio itaque vincens eum de reliquo repulit a semet ipso quasi legitime victum; et soluta est ea quæ fuerat in Adam præcepti prævaricatio, per præceptum legis quod servavit Filius hominis, non transgrediens præceptum Dei. Ib. 21.

if God had not given salvation, we should not have had it securely; and unless man were united with God we could not partake of incorruption."* Hence the Incarnation was necessary, that a perfect obedience might be offered, but the obedience of a man. Yet this obedience was not the means but the condition only of redemption; that had to be won by the Redeemer's death.† But how the Devil, to whom this death is ascribed, came to accomplish an act so fatal to himself; whether, as the Gnostics hold, from being deceived as to who Christ really was, or not; and again, what exactly was the connecting link between the Redeemer's conflict with Satan and His death, and how this last brought about our redemption—all this Irenæus leaves unexplained. He certainly regards Christ's death not as a punishment inflicted by God, but as the work of Satan, and temporal death itself rather as a blessing than a curse, introduced at the fall of man, to limit his opportunities of sin. On our deliverance from death, and him who has power over it, follows the restoration of our corrupted nature: "In His incarnation and manhood He recapitulated in Himself the long series of mankind...... that we might recover in Christ what we had lost in Adam, being made after the image and similitude of God." There is no

* Lib. iii. 18. 6. Cf. also v. 1. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἦν ἀληθῶς σαρκα καὶ αἷμα ἐσχηκὼς, δι' ὧν ἡμᾶς ἐξηγοράσατο, εἰ μὴ τὴν ἀρχαίαν πλάσιν τοῦ ̓Αδὰμ εἰς ἑαυτὸν ἀνακεφαλαιώσατο.

† Pro nobis mortuus est et sanguine Suo nos redemit. iii. 16. 9.

Prohibuit autem ejus transgressionem, interponens mortem, et cessare faciens peccatum, finem inferens ei per carnis resolutionem, quæ fieret in terra. iii. 23, 6. § iii. 18. 1. Cf. v. 16, 1. There is an allusion to the distinction drawn between the image and likeness of God; the former representing the perfect type of humanity (or what the schoolmen call the 'integrity of nature'), the latter the superadded gift of grace, or 'original justice.' (See Clem. Alex. Strom. ii. 180,

need to dwell on those aspects of the author's teaching which are shared by his contemporaries.

Where Irenæus had left the question in the second century, Origen, who, notwithstanding his eccentricities, is justly styled the Father of theology,' took it up in the third; and what before had been an uncertain and fragmentary hypothesis assumes, under his creative touch, shape and consistency. With his peculiar views on the preëxistence and successive metempsychoses of souls, on the final absorption of all bodily natures (including apparently our Lord's)* into the Divine essence, the extension of the efficacy of redemption to the whole creation in heaven and earth, and the ȧTокαтáσTaois, or ultimate restitution of all fallen spirits, human or angelic, we need not here concern ourselves. Nor is it necessary to dwell on those parts of his teaching about redemption which do not materially differ from what has been already noticed in previous or contemporary Fathers. And in dealing with so voluminous a writer it will, of course, be impossible to point out all, or nearly all, the passages bearing on our more immediate subject; it must suffice to refer to such critical statements as supply an adequate exhibition of his manner of handling it.

Origen regards the redeeming work of Christ, as a whole, under five aspects. It includes His teaching, as the revelation of absolute truth; His works, as cleansing the temple, and especially His miracles, to

and the Fathers passim.) There is also a reference to the idea of Christ's predestined humanity being the image on which ours was modelled. Ad imaginem Dei fecit hominem, scilicet Christi.' Tertull, adv. Prax. 12. cf. Petav. De Trin. vi. 6.

*Orig. De Princip. iii. 6, 1.; ii. 3, 3.

E