Vol, iv

22 moniing and evening, accompanied hv cereal oblations and by libalions(Kx3n3»«', Nu28>-»). On holy days it was celebrated on a magnilled scale : on the Sabbath two pairs of lambs were offered (N u 2^^' ^^) ; at the New Moon, at the Passover, and at the Feast of Weeks it consisted of two bullocks, a ram, and seven he-lambs, with corresponding iiicrta, <- of the concomitant offerings (v. 11").

— T/ie purpote o/ the liuriit-offering may be so far understood from its use as tlie constant element in the organized worship of the community. It was not connected with anv particular form of transgression, hut was appropriate as the means of approach to God ot a people, or ot individual persons, sensible of God's majesty and holiness, and of their standing in Uis sight. The effects are described from three points of view— that it isa 'savour ot rest-giving' (i.e.

acceptable) to God (n'in'}"n'l Lv 1'), that it surrounds the worshipper with a ' covering' (v^;; nj;^ 1^), and that it cleanses from ceremonial Impurity (14=0). On this point see Propitiation, § 4. The later period of the monarchy \yas a period of national calamities, culminating in ruin and exile, which were inleipreted by the piophets as a judgment upon national sin.

Under these con- ditions there was naturally a strong disposition to strengthen the nation's interest with Jehovah by the nuilti[)lication of solemn sacrifices, and during the Exile future safety might well seem to lie in the development of the system of bloody sacri- fices. It is thus th.

at the tact has been plausibly accounted for that two kinds of sacrifice, which occur only in name in the earlier history, figure in Ezekiel somewhat prominently, while in P they almost rival in importance the liurnt-ottering. These are the Sin-oUering and the Uuilt-oUering (AV Trespass-offering). (6) The Sin-offering (njien, LXX {i»l ripl or i^rif i/iccprw) is mentioned 2 K 121', init there signifies presents or fines paid to the priests.

In EzeUiul the special occasions on which it is prescribed are the dedication ot the altar (43i»"), the annual cleansing of the sanctuary (45i'-lf), the consecration of prince and peojiie on festal occasions, including Passover week (4.1— '^1), and the return of a priest to duty after purification (44'-!)

In the ritual the outstanding features are tlie sprinkling ot the blood of the victim on the doorposts of the temple (4013) and on the four horns of the altar (4;i'-'"), and the burning of the carcase without the sanctuary (v.'-l). The regulations of P may bethussumniarized:— (1) Beneficiaries ami aijprnpriate iiictiins. For a ruler the suitable offering was a he-goat (Lv 4'^).

for an ordinary person a she-goat (4'-'), a ewe-lamb U^-), a turtle dove or young pigeon (f)""), or a cereal offering (fill) ; for priests (48), Levites at their installation (Nu 88), and for the whole congrega- tion (Lv 4'-'), a bullock, tor the latter also a he-goat (Nu 16^). On the IJay ot Atonement a bullock was offered for the hijrh priest, and two he-goats for the congregation (Lv IC"" ).

(2) 'J he ritual included the following acts : (u) imposition of hands, and slaughter of the victim by the offerer (4<) or the representa- tives of the cj)ngregation (v.ic) ; (d) manipulation ot the blood, which was sprinkled before the veil, smeared on the horns of the altar, and poured out at the base (v.

7) ; (c) disposal of the carcase, whereof the choice and fat portions were burnt on the altar, while the skin, entrails, and (in some cases) the ordinary flesh were burned without the camp (v. 6"). The remaining llesh was not burnt, but fell to the priests, when the offering did not concern themselves (,'.13 lonar ). (:i) The ohjrct of the sacrifice is otherwise conceived than in Ezekiel.

With the latter it mainly ajipears as a service of consecration for holy places, in P it is de- signed for the 'covering 'of minor offences (Lv 6i-<i), the removal of ceremonial uncleannes8(12i'-"ii'-).and alonenientfor sinsof ignor- ance (naj,'? 4'- M ^. By the last it might bo understood, either that the'wrong-doer was ignorant of the law. or that he acted io forgetfulness ot the law. (4) As to the effect of the sacrifice.

It is declared that a ' covering ' takes place and the sin is forgiven (428. 3i). (0 The Gullt-offerlng, AVTrespass-offering (C'»'f:(LXX niwif iyttixi, TO »rV rXr./j.iMiXt.a.s, n i^.rjiti""""], 'offence,' then repara- tion made for the same), occurs in this general sense in th» older history (1 S 63'^., 2 K 12"). The allusions to it in Er.

ckiel are incidental, and show that in his time it had already gained a footing, and that its special character was generally understood (40^11 421S 44'^ 4tt'-'"). — '"if occasion of the (luilt-offering, according to P, is unwitting trespass against the ordinances ot God, in respect either of holy things (Lv lii'') or of the rights of property (Giif).

The special feature ot the regulations is that reparation is demanded for the trespass, with the addition ot a line, ono- flfth of the value ot the thing to bo restored, which goes to the priest (!ii«). Where the injury is a private wrong, restitution is niaile to the injured party, failing whom or bis heirs it goes to the priest (Nu 13" ).— 'i'Ac t'ii'fim is usuallv a ram (.V), and the ritual is similar to that ot the Sln.offering (Lv 7').

The ' cover- ing' of the trespass and the forgiveness ot the oHender follow upon the acceptance ot the offering (0'). The distinction of the Sin-ollering and the Cuilt- offering has been felt to be a matter of some diffi- 338 iSACRIFICE SACRIFICE culty, aggravated by the fact that the latter was wron;^Iy suppo.setl to be in view in Lv o^*^^.

The principal views which have been held are — (1) that the Sin-otfering was for sins of omission, the Guilt- olfering for sins of coinmb^sion ; (2) that the former operated objectively by averting punishment, the latter subjectively by appeasing the conscience ; (3) that the former was offered because of open, tlie latter because of secret sins.

Unmistakamy, however, the specific feature of the Ouilt-oflering is the preliminary act of restitution ; and its occasion would thus seem to be those cases where the sin which had been committed allowed of an act of reparation. The Sin-ottering was re- quired in cases where the liarm done could not be undone or measured.

The designation of the Buttering Servant as a Guilt-ottering (Is 53^^ not ottering for sin') indicates that the highest degree of efficacy was ascribed to this form of ottering. In the ritual of the Day of Atonement the bloody sacrittces were combined in an impressive way, and invested with peculiar features. (d) The Peace-offering (-S?-, D'pS^f' nji, LXX unu»r. [Bviria], rtn-Y.flio) is brought under fixed regulationg.

In Lv 7nff- three varieties are distinguished — (1) thank-offerings (nypin n^i), (2) votive offerings {^nj njT), and (3) free-vnll offerings (njl njTi). The view of Henystenberg, that the thank-offering is an alternative generic name, equivalent to peace-offering, and that the votive offering and the free-^nll offering are the speciea, is inconsistent with the fact that a different treatment of the sacrificial flesh is prescribed for (I) as compared with (2) and (3).

As to the distinction of the three varieties, the most satisfactory explanation is that which interprets the thank-offering as a resjionse to experienced acts of Divine goodness, while the voti\e offering and the free-will offering are conmrcted with expectation of benefit and supplicatory' prayer. The first, in short, was contemplated only after blessmgs received, while the last two were decided on when some special blessing was still awaited at the hand of God.

The supplicatory pair, again, were distinguished in this way, that the free-will offering was presented in support of the prayer, while the votive offering was promised as conditional on the granting of the boon. ' The latter did not need to be pre- 8ent«d if the prayer was not granted, the former had already been presented, even if the request continued imfulfilled' (Kurtz, Sac. it'orship, Eng. tr. p. 262). — (a) The iHciimsa.

Te the samtaAS in the holocaust — oxen, sheep, and goats, but not pigeons. It was accompanied by a cereal offering mingled with oil (Lv 71-). In view of the less solemn character of this offering, the regula- tions as to quality are relaxed : the female animal is allowed as well as the more valuable male (Lv 3^), and for the free-will offering the principle of the unblemished character is not rigidly insisted on (2223).

(b) The ritual corresponded in its first stages with that of the Bunit-offering and the Guilt- offering. The imposition of hands, the killing of the victim, and the sprinkling of blood upon the altar are common to it with the holocausts, (c) The distribution of the sacrifice includes God's portion — consisting of fat pieces (33"), the priest's portion — consisting of the breast (njn) and the right fore-1^ (PP'C p'^P 730.32)^ while the worshipper received the residue.

The parts assigned to the priest were handled in a peculiar way, on account of which they are described as the breast of the wave-offering, and the thigh of the heave-offering (Kx 2927). The ceremony of the wave -offering (hd^jpi, ^jn) consisted in moving the portion backwards and forwards in the line of the altar, with a motion somewhat similar to that of a saw (Is 1015).

'The swinging in a forward direction,' says Oehler, ' was a declaration in action that it properly belonged to Him ; whilst the movement back again denoted that God on His part returned the gift, and assigned it as His own present to the priest' (I.e. ii. 6). The handling of the heave-ofTering (n"nn) is interpreted in a similar way by Kurtz, following the Jewish tradition, as a s^-mbolical act, whereby the offering was presented to God by being lifted njiward (I.e. p. 269 ff.)

; but according to most moderns heaving wa^ not an act of worship, but only the preliminary act of detac-hing a portion from the rest of the carnase for consecration (see Offer, $ 5). In any case it is certain that the mode of viewing the waving must soon have extended to the heading, and marie it equally a religious ceremony and a vehicle of ideas of consecration. The breast which was waved fell to Aaron and Ills sons (Lv 7^^), the heave- Bhoulder to the officiating priest (733).

(,/) The portion of the tcitrghippers waa enjoyed at a sacrificial meal. In the case of the thank-offering the whole had to be consumed on the day of the sacrifice (Lv "i^^), while the feast furnished by the two other varieties might be extended over the second day" (v. 16). At the end of the fixed time the remnants were burned with fire without the camp. (e)The effect of the Peace-offering is only referred to in a general way: it is a 'savour of rest-giving' unto the Lord, 1.0.

acceptable to God (Lv 3^ On a review of the regulations which have thue been sketched, it appears that the following dis- tinctions may be drawn : — (1) In respect of destina- tion, the Peace-oiiering stands by itself as a sacri- licial meal, while the remaining tnree are conveyed entire to (iod or to God and His ministers.

(2) Jn respect of ritual, certain acts are common to all — the imposition of hands, the sprinkling of blood on the altar, the burning of the fat portions, but the other portions are either burned on the altar (Burnt-offering) or outside the sanctuary (Sin- offering and Guilt-offering).

(3) In respect of occa- sion, two were elements of normal public wor- ship (Btimt-offering and Peace-offering), two pre- supposed exceptional relations between God on the one hand and the community or the individual on the other (Sin-offering and Guilt-offering). It is indeed too much to say that in connexion with the former the sacriHcer always stood upon the ground of salvation, in connexion with the latter he had fallen from a state of grace.

The use of the Sin-offering in the matter ot the consecration of temple buildings and furniture does not suggest the rupture of covenant relations, nor does it appear that the sacrificer of a Guilt-offering had fallen from a state of grace more surely than any ordinary member of the community. He was probably a man of unusual sanctity and tender- ness of conscience, and the point was, not that his sin was particularly heinous, but only that it was particularly definite.

Moreover, it was only on the assumption that he was still * in a state of grace ' that he was allowed to sacrifice at all : for the sins which led God to cast men off no sacrifice was accepted. The view, in short, that there were two classes of sacrifices contemplating re- spectively the pardoned and the unpardoned is much less tenable than the view that all four were at one in contemplating the community as being in a state of guilt, and requiring to be constantly reconciled to God.

They have, ic fact, become — not excepting the Peace-offering in its later interpretation — piacular sacrifices which dispose God to mercy, procure the forgiveness of sin, and avert punishment. Behind this lies the question as to the ground of its efficacy, or the viodu^ operandi, which in view of its importance will be treated in a separate section. (ii.) Vegetable offerings consisted of the produce of the tilled field and of the vineyard, but not of garden-herbs or the fruits of the orchard.

They were sometimes an accompaniment of the bloody sacrifice, sometimes independent. The Meal- (AV Meat-) offering (vol. iii. p. 309) (nijp of P, LXX huffia) was a preparation of flour and other ingredients. lo the older practite tlie quantities probably varied, and features of the later pniclioe which have been noted are the fixing of the measure (Ezk 4tl5- 7- n. U)^ the prohibition of leavened bread and honey (Lv 2i')i t^nd the substitution for ordinary meal of a fine sort of flour(Wellh. i.c.

p. 441). (I) Among the iiulepejuient Meal-offerinqs we place the list in Lv 2, although it haa been strongly contended, chiefly on dogmatic grounds, that a bleeding sacrifice is presupposed as a basis (see ^e^iew of opinions in Kurtz, p. 304 ff.) (a) VnHetifs are distinguished according to the different processes used in preparing the flour, viz. kneading it with oil, baking it in an oven, a baking- pan, or a frying-pan, and bruising ears of com.

(') Other ingredients added were, in all cases salt (2^'X in most case oil, in one case incense (v.l*). Under stress of poverty a cereal oblation might also be presented as a Sin-offering, but with- out oil or incense (5"^ )- (c) The ritual resembled that of the Sin-offering so far as consistent with the difference of material — a portion being consumed by Are on the altar, while the remainder fell to the priests (Lv"614b).

(rf) The effects of cover- ing sin, and delivering from its consequences, are .ascribed to it in common with the Sin-offering (5i3, but see Prohtiatios, 5 11 g). Special effects which are attributed to it are such ai the insurance of the reliability of the trial by ordeal (Nu 6n'''.X where oil anri incense are excluded. (2) As a. enncomit ant oftheanimnl sacrifice* the Meal-offering had a prominent place in the sacrificial sjTtem.

It was indeed laid down that no Burnt-offering or Peace-offering was legitimate without the cereal oblation (Nu 15. 2S. 29). In the public worship of common days and festivals it bore a stated proper J SACRIFICE SACRIFICE 339 tlon to me number and material of the hiirnt'Offerinps (Nu )5iffV Occasions where the material and the ritual undergo Uiodiflcation are the consecration of the priests (Lv b'-), the pre^t-ritation of a thank-off eriut; (7^^), and the Bocriflccs of the NiiziritefNuGlT).

The Shewbread Is regulated by a minute ritual (Lv 24'"'"), specifyini: the material, the number and size of the cakes, Uie manner of their arrangement on the table, and the use of incense (v.") The sacrosanct character of the offeriuij, of wiiich part foil to the priests, is emphasised, and it seems to have the epecial signiflcanc^ of recalling toUod the terms of His covenant (v.7). See, (urth ^, art. Shkwbrbao. (iii.) DrinJc-oJferings and Incense-offerings. — The libation (t;?

;, LXX (nrovS^) appears at tliis stage only as an accompaniment or element of another kind of ottering. We have already met with oil as an ingredient of sacrificial cakes. Ezck. {Aifi*^- 46H) and P (Numb.) fix the quantity, though with variations, required in consideration of the number and quality of the victims. Neither in this case nor in that of wine (Nu 18) is anything said of the manipulation of the Prink- offering.

The oil was probably used in part for kneading, in part treated as a libation. The wine was probably poured into a gutter, whence it drained into the ground. On the Incente-ofering (rrjbp, LXX BvutiuM.^ C'3p ^'p^) •ee art. Incense ; and on other fonns which would fall to be Dociced here, see First-fruits, Titub, and art. Priksts and LlviTls, patuiin, 2.

The Efficacy of the Bloody Sacrifices is of such imj>ortance, and has figured so largely in the history of theologj% as to call for separate treat- ment. Tiie questions that have to be discussed are two — (1) the nature of tlie benefits which were conceived to flow from the sacrilicial worship ; (2) tlie manner in whicli the ollerings were con- ceived to operate so as to procure the desiderated boons. ( 1 ) The Benefits procured by sacrifice.

— These fall into two classes, which, to our thinking, are very clearly distinguished. In one group of cases the purpose is the cancelling of guilt, in tlie other the removal of cereuiuiiiai uncleanuess. In otlier words, sacriiice has both a moral and a physical occasion. (rt) Tlie Expiation of guilt is the leading purpose of the Levitical sacrilices. Their olfice is to cover or make atonement for sin. The word employed to describe this specific ellect is 125.

This elHcacy is connected with all four kinds of principal otl'erings : the objects of the covering are persons and sins, the covering takes place before God, and it stands in a specially close relation to the sprinkling of the blood and the burning of the sacrilicial liesh (Lv 1* etc.)

The view that the main purpose of the Levitical sacrifices was the obliteration of guilt has, however, been traversed by Kitschl, who finds the necessity for the covering, not in the moral but in the natural attributes of God, not in the sinfulness but in the creaturely condition of man {Lehre von der liechtfcrtigung u. Vemoknungt Bd. iL). 193, originally to cover, then to expiate — either ae pleasing Ood by covering His table, or by hiding from His sight (cf.

old Babylonian Bocritlrial term kijyjmrxt, ' to wash away, atone,' Zimmem. op. cit., Vorwort). But from what, acoonling to Rltachl, does sacrifice hide? Throughout the OT there is evi- dence for the belief that to see or meet with God involved destruction fOn 8'230 Jacob, Jg fiS nideon, 1322 Manoah), and this being BO it was necessary to take measures for self -protect ion. This was found In sacritlce.

' From the majesty of ii<Hl per m tbe destruction follows of those who come before His face as perishable creatures — provided that their life is not jireserveti of divine R-race' (p. 203 fT.)- To the common view, which makes the ancrillce an atonement for sin, Hitachi objecte that it is in- credible that God would have prescribed for His covenant people a system which presuppost-d that they were to be per- manently under Ilia wrath.

Hut we have no analysis of the consciousneas of thosi; witnessing a thcophnny which makes it clear that It was the mere presence of God, nut of God as Imly that led the Israelite to expect death. In the later perifKl at all evenu.

when the holiness of Ood and the prevalence and heinousnesn of sin had been so profoundly realized, It is impos- nblo to doubt that what invested the approach to Ood with its c^racter of peril was above all the consciousness of the con- trast between Divine holiness and human guilt. The strength of this penitential feeling no doubt varied in the case of dif- ferent offerings, as well as with different worshippers, but it could never be wholly absent from the educated theocratic conscience.

See, further, art. Propitiation, esp. $ 17. [b) Purification from physical uncleanness, aa a condition of re-entering the relij^ious life of tlie community, is also an important tunction of sacri- fice. The circumstances constituting this cere- monial uncleanness are mainly three — participation in the processes of sexual life, contact with a corpse, and recovery from leprosy. (a) As regards the first categon,', there were degrees of unclean- ness.

and the major degree, which entailed a sacrificial puri- fication, attached only to morbid sexual conditions and to the position of a woman after child-bearing (Lv 15. 12-'f"). The sacrifices prescribed for the purification of a mother were a iamb for a liurnt-offcring and a dove for a Sin-offering. (p) The defilement diffused by a dead body was intense, long- sustained, and removed in a peculiar wav (Nu Ifli^. is sii'-).

Tfie Sacrifice of the Red Ue\fer{^\\ lOi""-), which was appro priated to purify from this form of defilement, presents certain curiovis features of ritual. The victim is a red heifer without spot (v. 2). The use of the blood is confined to sprinkling seven times towards the sanctuary. With the Sin-offering it has a certain affinity, but in this case the whole of the carcase — skin, flesh, blood, and dung, mixed witli fragrant ingredients — is burned without the camp.

The extraordinary feature of the offering, however, is that the main purpose is the procuring and resen'ation of the ashes (v.y). These gave its virtue to the holy water which was sprinkled on the third day on those contaminated by the neighbourhood of the dead, and this procured them purification on the seventh day (v,l2). por a discussion of the symbolism see Kurtz, p. 422 ff. ; for the evolutionary aspect, iiS^ pp. 351, 354, 376. See, further, art. Kgd IIkiker.

(>) The recovery of a leper was marked by two series of rites (Lv 141-^2), In tije first stage one bird was killed over a vessel of running water, and another, after being dipped in the coloured water, was allowed to escajje (w.**- 7). in the second stage the man offered a Guilt-offering, a Sin-offering, and a Burnt-offering (vv. 13. 3l)_with the peculiar provision that blood from the Guilt-offering was smeared on the right ear, the right thumb, and the right great toe of tlie offerer (yM).

The same rite was observed for the purification of houses infected in some such way as is typified to us by * dry-rot ' (1433ff. ; gee art. Lkprost). In the matter of these purificatory rites, two outstanding facts have to be explained — the temporary isolation of persons and families under certain physical or pathologieiU conditions, and the association of sacrifices of an expiatory kind with their readniission to the life of the community.

The temporary isolation has its manifest explanation in a regard to the nealtli of the community, wliich recognized permanent sources of danger in the sexual life aa well as in leprosy and the death- bed. Less apparent is it why the same kinds of sacrifice whiih expiated guilt should have been required in coniiexiou with events with no moral complexion — such as the natiu'al calamity of disease, and the joyous event of birth.

But the matter becomes partially intelligible when we recall the doctrine, widely operative in OT, as to the strictly retributive character of natural evils. When sickness was interpreted as a judgment because of open or secret sin, when deatli, especially premature or sudden death, was similarly construed, the obvious pro- cedure was to apprnarh God with a remembrance of the pro- curing cause, and to make atonement for tlie guilt.

Nor is it ditlicult to bring child-bearing within the same sphere of ideas The pangs of child-birth were naturally regarded from this standpoint as penal : in J they were inten'rt.'ted oa a punish- ment expressly Inflicted because of woman's share in the prunal sin (Gn S^^); and it is quite intelligible that on restora- tion to the fellowship of her people the mother's sacrifice should be directed to cancel the gudt in which her sufferings were believed to have their spriDg. See, further, art.

Unclkan, Unclbannebb. (c) The Consecration of persons and things for sacred uses appears as a further prominent function of the Levitical Sacrifices. The ceremonies at the consecration of the priests have been discussed elsewhere (see I'liIKSTS AND Lkvites, pp. 70f., B'^). The consecration of the teni])le, fiirniture b^' means of sacrifice, esp. the Sin, olVerinp, is a pmminent feature in the ordinances of Ezekiel J4;jjMr.

j [jj KxoduH minute instrtictionH are ;;iven as to the conHcciation of the tahornade in all ity parts by means of holy oil (30, ''- 40>"**, of. Lv j^io. iij ')^\^^. \^\^.ix of giving to a building and to its furniture the character of physical holiness was certainly antique, and even v<-'t maintains it.4 ground in oppositi<m to the view that the only character which consecration can confer on mntorial objects is reservation for religious uses.

It hod its 340 SACKIFICE SACRIFICE roots in the conception tliat God is merely a visitor on eartli, and tliat He can only appear in those places which ha%-e been detached from the earthly sphere, and which have acquired certain of the characters of His heavenly home {Jn 4-''- ^'). (2) The Sacrificial Theurij vf the Lcvitical legisla- tion.— The theory has been the subject of keen and prolonj;ed controversy.

That the sacriliiial worship was ordained as a means of grace, and indeed as a condition of pardon and communion, is evident ; but we have further to ask wliat was the precise function ascribed to sacrifice in the legal economy. And at this stage, it may be conlidently premised, the sacrilicial theory has shed the anthropopathic ideas which oiieratcd in the earlier ages.

If the ritual embodieil forms and phrases descending from the period of religious childhood, the crude ideas whicli first shaped thtm had been outgrown and forgotten. The theology of the prophets had too deeply saturated the religious thought of Israel to make it possible for any but an elevated doctrine to gain official recognition.

The gift-theory of Spencer, as Bahr observed, is involved in insurmountable dilliculties if the attempt is made to prove its vitality and persistence in an age whose conscious- ness was dominated by the unity and spirituality of God (Syinbdik, ii. 275).

Equally does the same objection press against the view that the sacrifice may still have been construed as a gratifying meal ; while it is generally admitted that tlie theory of a communion physically mediated by tlie sacri- licial feast, whatever part it may have previously jilayed, was now quite outside the horizon of Israel's religious teachers.

Another theory, which has also had some vogue, may be summarily set aside as belonging to a plane of thought incom- patible with the deeply religious spirit of the Pentateuch. This is the view which reduces the system to the level of police regulations by inter- preting the sacrifices as essentially hues, and as [)riniarily designed to punish and check wrong- doing.

The explanations of the Levitical sacri- ficial tlieory which have so far survived in the controversial struggle operate with higher forms of thought. These explanations vary not a little in detail, but substantially they may be reduced to three types according as they seek to elucidate the subject with the help of the three Christian categories of substitutionary satisfaction, prayer, and sacrament.

In addition, there is a widely dillused ojiinion that either no sacrificial theory is propounded, or that it is not consistently carried through in the later legislation. (i.) The theory of a Penal Substitution is entitled to precedence, not only on historical grounds, but also because of the primd facie support « Inch it has in the biblical evidence.

The salient points of the theory may be summarized as follows — (1) as a sinner the offerer was under the wrath of God, and his life was forfeited ; (2) by a gracious provision he was permitted to substitute an immaculate victim, to which his guilt was transferred, and which was put to death in his stead ; (3) the vica- rious death of the victim was accepted by God, who, on the gro\jnd of the satisfaction ofl'ered Him, received the worshipper to peace and fellowship.

As to a fourth point — wherein the ground of the satisfaction iay — opinion has dillered within the school. The usual Protestant view has been that the ultimate ground of the sinner's acceptance was the sacrifice of Christ which the victims typified, and even that reflective minds might have risen at the OT stage to a realization of this real ground of forgiveness with which tlieir typical ritual brought them into touch.

Others held that the sacrifices had /ler se a true expiatory cHicacy in relation to the sins of the offerers (see Outram, p. 248 ff. J Fairbairn, ii. p. 304). The essential feature o( thia theory, then, U that the death oj the animal victim was of the nature of a vicarious punishment — i.e. ' some evil indicted on one party In order to expiate the ^11 of anotlier, in the sense of delivering the guilty from punishment, and procuring the forgiveness of sin' (Outram, ib.)

The evidence on wiiicli chief reliance is placed is contained in the ritu;il of the D.ay of Atonement (see AZA/.EL). In this ceremony it is distinctly stated that tile high priest confesses the iniquities of the children of Israel over the scapegoat, that the goat carries their ini()uitie8 away into the desert, and that he who lets the goat go uicura deflfement (Lv lO^uif). In the case of the Sin-offering there it a similar contamination conveyed by the victim (v.

^), and, although the transference of guilt is not e-vpressly mentioned, it is argued that this offering is clearly governed by the e^ime ideas.

Further, it is contended that the acts common to tb« ritual of all of the bloody sacrifices are expressions of the Bubstitutionarv idea, (a) The immaculate quality of the victim fitted it to take the place of the guilty ; ((/) the imposition of hands had the significance of setting it apart as a substitute, or imputing to it the sinner's guilt, or both ; (c) the slaughter of the victim was the carrying out of the penal substitution ; (ci) the sprinkling of the blood on the altar attested to Uod that an animal had been slain as an atoning sacrifice ; (e) the con- sumption by fire had the significance, on the older view, of the consignmetit of the substitute to eternal fire, — on the newer, of bringing the transaction before the mind of God (Kurtz, pp.

123-149; Fairbairn, ii. p. 30'2ff. ; Cave, p. 123 ff.)

In the judg- ment of most modem scholars, the theory in question is un- tenable, and for the following reasons : (at) the death of the victim cannot have been ncarious, since sacrifice waa not allowed for sins which merited death (Nu 153»), only for venial transgressions ; (3) a cereal offering might also atone (Lv 511-13), and in thia case there could be no idea of a penal substitution ; (y) the victim waa slain by the offerer, but on the theory in question should have been put to death by the priest as Ood'a representative ; (S) the assumption that the imposition of hands involved a transmission of guilt is inconsistent, not only with other references to thia practice, but W'ith the fact that the sacrificial flesh waa treated as most holy, and might be eaten by the priest ; (i) the central act of the sacrifice was, not the act of slaughtering, but the manipulation of the blood, which was viewed as the seat of the aninvd soul, or oa a life which was presented to tiod (Dillmann, AUIrst.

Thcol. p. 408. On the Imposition of Hands, see Driver's note in PrUtthood and Sacrijice, p. 39). Of the above arguments, at least (a), (7), and (J) are of undeniable weight ; but how much do they prove? Simply this, that the idea of penal sub- stitution is not one which has teen consistently transfused throughout the entire sacrificial system.

The various kinds of animal saciihce, with their common element of ritual, are certainly not the creation of one man, or of one school, by whom they were shaped with a single eye to making them the vehicle of a particular sacrificial theory. The sacrificial system of P clearly embodies a laige inheritance of forms and usages which had been created by earlier modes of thought, and the legislators did not feel called upon to recast every rite in a spirit of doctrinaire consistency.

But when this has been said the possibility still remains that the sacrificial forms of most recent growth, and the most likely therefore to reveal the ideas of the compilers, embody the idea of propitiation through penal substitution.

In the case of the sacrifice on tlie Day of Atonement, as we have seen, there is a transference of guilt, and the con- clusion is drawn that the flesh becontes unclean ; in the case of the Sin-oll'ering as much is suggested ; and it is a reasonable view that the interpretation thus given was meant to supply a key to the less articulate language of the other bloody sacrifices. The locus classicus, Lv 17", is not suHitiently definite to serve as a ground for rejecting the view.

Moreover, the presuppositions of such a sacrificial theory were already recognized in OT religion. That sin is universally jirevalent, that it provoke* the Divine anger, and that its due recompense is suU'ering and death, had long been axiomatic in the higher teaching, and had been imptcsscd upon the popular mind by numerous cxami les of public and private judgments.

Further, the pro- phets had been wont to describe the judgiuents of God upon the nations as sacrifices, and it was a familiar enough idea that the consummated sacri- fice was one in which the vengeance of God waa fully wreaked upon a people in the carnage of a battlefield, or in the atrocities of the sacked city. SACRIFICE SACRIFICE 341 On the prophetic view, indeed, as has been main- tained, theie were only two possible modes of Divine reaction against sin — viz.

the execution of the destroying purpose, or forgiveness on tlie ground of repentance and reformation. But there was a third possible development of thought. The Bacrilicial system was maintained, and even grew in honour, and it was an obvious reflexion that, in place of the consummated sacrifice of destruction spoken of by the prophets, Uod accepted as a surrogate the sacritice of animal victim.s.

That the idea of substitution was already familiar appears from Gn 22'^ (ottering of a ram in place of Isaac), and at a late stage the vicarious idea is used to explain the sufferings of the righteous Ser^'antof Jehovah (Is 53).

And given the doctrine that sin entailed death, and that one being might sutler in room of another, it was a highly natural, if not an inevitable step, to go on to 8up])0se that the rite of sacritice combined the two ideas, and that the slain victim bore the penalty due to the sinner, (ii.)

The Prnijer-thtory may serve to designate the group of interpretations which rest on the fundamental idea that the eilicacy attached to sacrifice was due to the fact that it symbolized the religious sentiments which are the cumlition of ac- ceptance with God. While on the former view the victim is held to take the place of the otTerer in bearing the doom which he has merited, on this view it is held to be the mere vehicle for the expression of his devout sentiments and longings.

The purpose of the sacritice, as with pra\ er, is to serve as an index of what is in the wor.sliipper's heart, and its virtue is exhausted in bringing this before God. Further, as prayer is of various kinds, so ditrerent ^Titers have given to sacritice varj'ing interpreta- tions corresponding to these kinds : by Philo, e.g.

, it is construed as chiefly expressive of spiritual aspiration, corresponding to the prayer of supplica- tion ; for Biihr it has tiie function of expressing hatred of sin and self-surrender to God, correspond- ing to the praj-er of confession and supplication ; while Maurice also emphasizes the note which oorrespoiids to the prayer of adoration. The vtewBof Biihr. though he adopte a different rubric, belong to this t}!)*.

lie tln'is the lit y of ttic nysteni in IjV 171* — • the soul plocinj; itself at the disposal of tJod in order to receive the ^ft of true life in BunctiQcutioo ' ^p. 211). From this point of view the ritual undiT^'oes a new interpretation.

A valual>le and un- blemished victim is selected a^ a^ mbolical of the excellence and purity to which theofTereraspires; thedeath is necessary only in order to procure a life which may be offered to God ; the sprink- ling of tne altar is the presentation of the life, still resident in the bloo<J, to God. A simpler version of the theory is jciven by Oehlcr.

who emphasizes the vital point in sayinp that * the self- ■urrcnder of the pcrw)n sacriflcinp waa accomplished vicariously in ttie otTerin^'' (p. G32) ; and the discuaaiona of .Maurice centre round the same idea (p. G7 ft., ' The l^gal Sacrifices '). Schultz holds that the Priestly Code wa« strongly dominated by tbo teaching of the prophetJi, and that the signillcance of all kinds of ofleritiKB was simply that which belonKS to genuine worship. The Uurnt-oflcrinj.'

s and the Pcace-olTerings were a mode of adoration, while * the ground of purification in the Sin-offering (and the Guilt-ofTerintj) is that Ood accepta the sacrifice, ana that man in this ofTering. enjoined by God as the embodied prater of a penitent, expresses his confession, his regret, hia petition for forgiveness' (Amtr. Joum. Theol. 1900, p. 810X The exegetical arguments by which this view has been supported are of no great cogency.

Lv 17", on whicli Biihr places such reliance, is at the most a contribution, though this doubtfully, to the view that the atoning element was the pure life which was ottered, not the death through which it pa-ssed. In any case it does not give ex- prc8.sion to the characteristic idea of the symboli- cal theory. * It is never said in any manner of circumlocution that the blood of the animal slain atones for the otl'erer by symbolically representing the soul of the otVerer ' (Cave, p. 250).

The inarticu- late evidence of the ritual is no more favourable. It is true that it can be so interpreted as to fall in with the theory, but no part of the rites or appended commentary speaks so strongly for the theory as do the sacrifices of atonement for the idea of vicarious punishment.

A further objection which has been pressed by Kurtz and others is, that it is alien to the spirit of revealed religion as the religion of grace, inasmuch as it grounds the acceptance of the sinner upon his own worthiness, or at least on the worth of his sentiments and resolutions. This, however, is indecisive : to sa.j that prayer alone is efficacious is not to say that it is meritorious.

Weightier is the objection, that on the Prayer-theory correct ritual could not i laim the paramount importance which it possesses in the Priestly Code.

Further, the view could never be popular that sacrifice had no etlicacy other than that of a vehicle for the expression of the spirit of worship ; and the Priestly Code, which lias all the character of a popular religion, may well be supposed to have taken account of the common need, and to have supplemented the spiritual- ized thought of the prophets on the subject of sacritice with a theory which made the otlering an objective, an independent, and as such a deeply efficacious ground of obtaining or preserving the favour of God.

(iii.) The Sacramental idea has also been widely used to elucidate the sacrificial theory of the Pen- tateuch. But to describe the sacrilices as of the nature of sacraments does not supply a definite theory as to the real questions at issue.

The category called in to explain the problem is itself ambiguous, and when it has been acceiJted it has still to be explained whether the etlicacy of a sacrament is understood in the lioiiian or the Zwinglian sense, or in accordance with an inter- mediate type of doctrine.

Thus a Protestant theologian claims for the sacrifices that they possess the sacramental notes ; they were signs of spiritual realities ; they not only represented but sealed and applied spiritual blessings, and their efficacy w.-xs proportioned to faith (Scott, Sacrifice, p. 288).

Similarly, a Roman Catholic divine teaches that there were certain ^losaic ceremonies to which something of a sacramental character attache<), notably the Passover, which corresponded to the Eucharist, the puriflcatory rites, which corresponded to the aacranient of penance, and the consecratory sacrifices, which corresponded to the sacrament of ordination (Hunter. Dog-mat. Theul. iii. 172).

But tliis means only that they have agreed to use the same name, not that they are at one as to the theory of the modus operandi — which is the point in dispute— of the OT sacrifices. That the use of the sacramental rubric, so far from introducing us to a definite theory, rather serves to obscure the issues, appears from the fact tnat it is adopted by writers who differ tola coeto as to the rationale of sacrifice.

The acceptance of the sacrifice by Jehovah,' says Bahr, 'and His gift of sanctiflcation to the wor- shipper, gives to the sacrifice thecharocter of a sacnunentalact (ii. p. 211). At the same time Cave, who devotes considerable space to the refutation of Biihr's distinctive positions, discuase* the nature, the method, the extent, and the ettliyicy of the Mosaic atonement under a title which alllriiis that the Mosaic sacriticcs had ' a sacramental significance ' (p. 138 IT.)

Yet again the sacramental title bos been claimed by Robertson Smith for the idea, which is not alleged to be consciously present in the Priestly Code, that the union of the worshippers with their Qod was cemented by the physical bond of a ooumion meaL Reasons might, indeed, be ^ven for resting satistied with the Sacramental interpretation — as that it does justice to the clement ot mystery, or that it contributes a formula in which tliose may rest who think the controversy fruitle.ss.

But an independent theory it is not, and when closely examined is founef to branch otf either into the Prayer-theory, or into some modification of the doc- trine of an objective atonement, which has its chief illustration in the theory of penal substitution. (iv.) There remains the view that no sacrificial theory underlay the Leviticnl code.

The earlier ideas, which attached themselves to the efficacy of a gift or of a uniting meal, had been discredited in the course of religious progress, and the legisla tion, it is supposed, had nothing definite to )mt in their place. 342 SACRIFICE SACRIFICE A precise answer to the question how the sacriflclal worship Influenced God, men were unable to give.' What was certain was that it was of Divine appointment; tor the rest it was a mystery.

• When, in the blood of the Sin-olTering, the tie be- twuen Cod and His people was renewed, wliat was felt was the weird influence of the incoinpreliensible ' (Smend, p. 824). The impression made by the code, however, ratlier is tliat tlie matter waa so well understood as not to require explanation, than that it was so mysterious as to be incapable of explanation (cf. Lv 17").

It seems, besides, improbable, in view of the share that the mind invariably claims in religion, and of the fact that every preceding phase had its accompaniment of illuminating idea, that at the culniiiiatint< stage thought abnegated its function, and took refuge in the category of mys- tery.

iMoie likely is it that the step deemed by Holtzmaiiu inevitable at a later stage was already taken, and that the chaos of confused ideas result- ing from the discredit of old views was averted by the assertion of the substitutionary idea.— 'the most external, indeed, but also the simplest, the most generally intelligible, and the readiest answer, to the question as to the nature of expia.tioB' {Neutest. Theol. i. p. 6S). vii. Sacrifice in Judaistic Practice and Doctrine.

— The authority of the Pentateuch en- sured for its sacrificial legislation a prominent place in the religious life of the Jewish people subse- quent to the Exile. By the destruction of the Second Temple, a revolutionary blow was subse- quently struck at the sacrificial system, inasmuch as oflerings could no longer be presented at the place and in the manner appointed by God.

In the necessarily brief sketch of this part of the subject, we confine our attention to the two points of out- standing interests— the theor>' of sacrifice prevalent in the Jewish schools before the rise of Christianity, and the way in which Judaistic thought, after the destruction of Jerusalem, accommodated itself to the suspension of its sacrificial cult. 1.

The old Jewish theory of sacrifice, could we be confident of recovering it, would possess priceless interest as helping to elucidate the sacrificial ideas of those who, like St. Paul, passed through the school of the synagogue. Unfortunately, the dat« of the material collected by Weber {Jild. Theol.^ 38 ft'. ), and utilized by Pfleiderer and Holtzmann, is somewhat uncertain ; and it is always open to doubt whether a dictum is not a product of later Talmudic reflexion.

The ideas and tendencies most satisfactorily vouched for may be thus sum- marized : — (a) Sacnfloal worship wu not regarded as of pre-eminent Iniportance, but was co-ordinated, as a condition of pleasing God, with knowledge of the Law, and with the performance of good deeds. That a higher valuation of sacrifice did not ob- tam was due partly to, prophetic influence, partly to the later developments of the religious life.

The temple had now its complement and competitor in the synagogue, which was the sphere of the larger part of religious activity, as being the orduiary place of woreliip ; and, as the exposition of Scripture and tradition was the most prominent element in the worship of the synagogue, the Rabbi and the scribe tended to over- shadow the priest in popular estimation. Thus a dictum ascribed to the period of the Second Temple has it that an Ignorant high priest is inferior to the wise man.

even thouirh the latter be a ' bastard ' (Weber, p. 3S). (d) Recognition is accorded to a class of acts seri-ing a function similar to animal sacrifices, hut belonging to a higher order To this category belong the merits of the forefathers. The merits of Abraham, in particular, served to cover the sins of his posterity Suffering especially had expiatory iiualitv. Ilv penal and disciplinary sufferings, and above all by death, atonement was made for sin.

A much higher degree of elHcacv atUchcd to the sufferings and death of the righteous, as foreshadowed in Is 5S. The death of the righteous is expressly compared, in point of emcacy, to the Day of Atonement (Pesikta, 174ft). The trial of Abraham, the lamentations of Jeremiah, all the dolour of the prophets, and all the anguish of the martyrs, constituted a ground for the forgivenc8.s of sin in Israel.

Even the penal •uffenngs inflicted by God upon the Egi-ptians and other hereditary foes of Israel have the character of a ransom for the ;hosen people (» clwr. p. S2«fl. ; cf. Uoltanaon, A'ctKssc. TheoL. t p. 64 tl,> (c) Interpretation of sacrifice In the sense of substitution. The nse ot ideas of substitution «nth imputation of gmll and ment has been indicated in the previous section.

If as is probable, these were already associated with the sacrificial system, it can be readily understood how they were extended to explain the nients and the sufferings of the fathers. If, on the other hand, they originated independently, itcannot be doubted that at this period they profoundly infiiienced the sacrificial tlieory. ]. rom the belief in the vicariousness of the death of the righteous, it was an easy, an inevitable transition, to belief in the substitution of the animal victim.

The idea of penal substitution supi.

lied an intelligible popular answer to the question, which could not fail to be raised, as to why and how sacnfice procured the favour of God; and although express statements of the idea are few (2 Mac 7^7, 4 Mac 6») the evi- dence points to this mode of thought having become current, bverything pressed towards the assumption that the offering or a life, substituted for sinners according to God's appoint ment, cancelled the death penalty which they had incurred, and that consequently the ottered blood of the sacrificial victims expiated sin as a surrogate for the life ot the guiltv' (Uoltz- ni.

-jun, p. 68). The Philonic interpretation of sacrifice as 8\m- bolio of self-sacrifice was too philosophical and mve too littla religious assurance for general acceptance. During the period in question, the sacrificial regulations were observed witli the utmost scrupu- losity, and with all due pomp and solemnity.

But at the same time a process was going on which was loosenuig the hold of sacrifice upon the Jewish mind, and in which the conviction was already finding half-articulate expression, that it was not a complete provision, and even that it was uot vital to the communion of the people with God.

Had no such loosening taken place, it is diffi- cult to conceive how faith in God could have survived the blow which at one and the same time robbed the Jews of their fatheriand and their organized national worship. A living belief in the necessity would naturally have issued, when sacrifice became impossible, in apostasy to heathenism. Of sacrificial practice at the close of the period some glimpses are given in NT.

Allusion is made to the sacrifice ot the iiiinot Buriit-oflienng at the presentation of Jesus (Lk 224), the sai-nfice of the Passover (Mk 1412), the union in sacrifice ot a Oalilisan group (Lk 13'), the ofi'ering after recovery from leprosy (Mt S-") the votive offering (Ac 2128), and money offerings (Lk 214) Josephus gives a somewhat minute account of the sacrificial system for the information of the Gentile worid (Ant.

passim) lea\Tng the impression that it was thoroughly normative for con- temporary practice. The Intermission of the sacrifice offered for Cajsar's prosperity marked the beginning of the Jewish war (.BJ u. xvu. 2). The seizure by John of the store of wine and oil. used in the Burnt-offerings, and their distribution among the multitude, made the Roman conquest, he thinks only a merited counterpart of the doom ot Sodom (v. xiii. 6). 2.

Readjtistment of Judaistic thought tcith the cessation of sacrifice. — To the new conditions cre- ated by the destruction of the Temple, theology accommodated itself by the theory that otlier observances were accepted as a substitute for sacrificial worship. The study of the Law took the place of the rites of the altar, and even took over the characteristic designation of the latter (.-niy).

The knowledge of the Law, it was taught, was more valuable in the sight of God than the con- tinual Burnt-ofl'ering, and even than the building of the sanctuary (Megilla M, 166). In particular, it was held that the duty of offering the legal sacrifices had been superseded by the duty of studying the laws relating to the subject (Pesikla 606).

The other observance which is treated aa an equivalent for the abolished serrtce is Prayer, in accordance with which a paral'elism was worked out between the order of the daily sacrifices and the order of daily prayers, and also between the varieties of sacrifice and the difi'erent kinds of prayer (Weber, p. 38 ft".) It was also natural that the idea of the merits of the righteous, especially of pious sull'erers, should continue to gain in siomificance and em- phasis.

The destruction of Jerusalem compre. nended an unparalleled tale of horrors, and involved in suffering and death many innocent and right SACRIFICE SACRIFICE 343 eous persons ; and it might well be believed that this was a consummated sjicrilice whereby full atone- ment had been made for national sin (Weber, p. 32:* f.) B. TOE SACRtFIClAL DOCTRINE OF NT.

It 13 open to question whether in an undisturbed course of development sacritice would have main- tained its place in the religion either of the Jewish or of the (jrra?co-K()man world.

On tlie one hand, it possessed many features which justilied its posi- tion as the central relij^ious rite — it lent itself to imposing ceremonial, it was peculiarly fitted to thrill the physical nature of the worshippers, it satisfied tlie instinct which prompts men to give to God what costs them something, it supplied an external ground of confidence, and it was hal- lowed by its immemorial antiquity.

I5ut, on the other hand, it was menaced oy more than one factor in the higher civilization of the ancient world. On the aesthetic side there must have been some considerable feeling to the effect that the public slaughter of cattle, especially with such accompaniments as were observed at Koman festivals, could not be retained in a period of advamiug refinement as the appropriate form of worship.

Still more, the conceptions of God prevalent in the Stoic and I'latonic schools raised the question as to whether animal offerings were really acceptable to God, while the scepticism of others turned upon the system the shafts of ridicule. The Jewish Church, in its turn, con- tained within it, in the prophetical teaching, a Bet of principles which at least involved the con- clusion that sacrifice was unnecessary, from which it was no long step to the position that it should be discontinued.

But, whatever the issue might have been in the natural progress of refinement and theological reflexion, the question was settled both for the Jewish and the Gentile world by two extraordinary events. The destruction of Jeru- salem, as we have seen, brought about the aboli- tion of sacrifice in one way, and in another Christianity destroyed tie system in the name of a higher fulfilment. f. NT Api'Rrciation of thii OT Sacrifices.

— The teachinpr of Jt'HUs on thin subject, as recordt-ti in the Synoptic report, haa two outstanding feuturea : (1) the recof^iltion of the Divine ■ tithority of the sacrificial law, and of its bindinjf character upon the Jews ; (2) the accentuation of the prophetic doctrine of the pre-eminence of the moral over the ceremonial, lie anumes that His hearers offer sacriflce (Ml b"^), and He enjoins a recovered leper to make the ofTerln^f required in the Law i^*).

I>id He Himself Join in the sacrificial worship? He whose presentation as an infant was accompanied by a liurnt- offerin^, whose death was preceded by the celebration of the Passover, and who made it a maxim to conform to llie laws of the Jewish Church even when knowing Himself unbound by them, certainly did not hold aloof from the temple-worship of wliich sacrifice was the central act.

With equal certainty we may assuriic that it was only as an element of collective worMhip that sacrifice was use<l by Him. But, while at this statre sanc- tioning sacrifice. He adopts the sayinu of Hoses that ' Ood will have mercy ana not sacrifice' <Mt 9'^ 127), and accounts the scribe who gives a similar valuation as not far from the king- dom of Ood (Mk 12'0). The second prophetic axiom, that sncrl- flco Is worthless with unrepented sin in the background, finds utterance in .Mt VO. u.

Had this been all the evidence, it could have been held, and witli greater conlidence than in the case of the prophets, that Jesus contemjilated the continuance of aicrillce as a sutiordinato element in the religious life. The alK)lltion Is Involved in theonnouncenientof theentahlishmentof a new covenant (Mt 2Sa, Mk 14^, l.k 22»), with the implication of the disappearance of the old economy and all its sacrifices. The rlirect references of St. Paul to the subject are not numerous.

Thoobsorvanceof the sacritlclal law was still iiiain- t.aini'<I to some extent among the Jewish Christians, and the apostle on one occasion associated himself with four men who went through a purification ending in ofTcnng (Ac 212").

In ] Co inis he speaks as if the purjiose aii'l signiflcjince of one kind of sacrifice were well understood, i >-ns dpstgned to esmlJisb communion or fellowship with Uod, It might be wTin ncmoiis, and of the worshippers one with anollicr, through the medium of the sacrificial meal. The principal aspect in which the OT sacriflres pr«sent4d themselves to him was the tvpical.

In theuisulves they belonge<l to the beggarly elements, but they pointed forward to a satisfying and oudurimr ground of recon- ciliation with Ood. The Epistle to the Hebrews contains an express and full discussion of OT sacrifice. As kinds it distinguishes gifts and sacrifices — ue. unbloody and bloody offerings, and regards the sacrifices of the Day of Atonement as the crown of the Byateui. The purpose was deliverance from sin (51).

the beiieDciaries were priests and people, but the contemplated end was not fully attained. That they were ineffectual for the purpose in hand was proved from the restricted scope of their claim ('sins of ignorance," 9"), from the imperfections and burdened consciences of the worshippers (102- :), from the necessity of the repetition of the offerings (v.2), and from explicit declarations of God (V.).

The conclusion is that they accoiiiplislied only a bodily orceremonial purification (9'^), and that, as merely tvpical of a real salvation, they were a transitory provision (lOi"). In so far OS blessing Howea from them in the olrl dispensation it was attached to the faith accompanying them (11-*X In general we should distinguish two stages in the thou"ht of the apostles on this subject. In the |)re-Christian stage they had believed in the full ellicacy of the Levitical .

sacrifices, and in the Christian they regarded them as chiefly valuable because of their witness to their own inadequacy, and to the complementary work of Christ. ii. The rEEFECT Sacrifice of the New Covenant. — It was, then, axiomatic for the NT writers that the system of OT sacrifices had been abolished by Christ.

This conclusion was not, however, founded on the belief that sacrifice was a superfluous rite, but on the conviction that the OT sacrifices, which had possessed some value rela- tive to their time, had been superseded by a sacrifice of a nobler nature and of absolutely certain efficacy. This was the sacritice offered u]> by Christ.

In the NT doctrine of Christ's sacrifice, now, we may distinguish five points, on three of which the testi- mony is unmistakable, while the other two are left in some obscurity. The points on which the teaching is clear are (1) the sacrificial character of Christ's death, (2) the blessings which proceed and flow from it, (3) the conditions on which these are apjiropriated.

The debatable ground is reached when it IS attempted to fix the NT conception of (4) the nature or material of Christ's offering, and (5) the manner in which it operated towards God as the procuring cause of the blessings of redemp- tion. (1) The interpretation of Chriit's death as a sacrifice is imbedded in every important type of the NT teaching (Kitschl, ii. p. 161 ; C.ive, p. 284). The silence of St. James and St.

Jude raises no presumption against the idea being part of the common stock of Apostolio doctrine. It has been denied that St. Paul adopts the category (Sclunidt, Die paul. Christologie, p. 84), but the denial rests on dogmatic rather than on exegetical grounds (Kitscnl, ii. p. 161). The interpretation was given by Jesus in connecting His death with the Sinaitic sacrifice of the Covenant (Mt 26^, Mk U~\ 1 Co 11^), and it is expanded and presented by the apostles under various points of view.

The evidence for the Apostolic construction Is as follows : — (a) It is expressly stau>d that Christ was offered as a sacrifice —tft^t'f (Eph 6', He 9'''), Bko-. (Eph 62, Ue 9^). ((,) A saving efllcacy is ascribed to the blood or the cross of Christ, and in these cases the thought clearlv points to the forms of the altar (Bo 3'^ 69, 1 Co lOiu, Eph 1' 2i3, Col !»>, Ho lUl '«, 1 P 1- iw, I Jn V b^- **, Uev l^).

(c) The correspondence is worked out between Christ's death and tlie different OT sacrifices— esp. the Siii-olTering (Ko 8^, He 13", 1 P 3i»), the Covenant- sacrifice file 91'*''^. the sacrifices of the Day of Atoneinent (He 2" 912U ), and the Passover (1 Co 57).

(d) The distinctive acts of the OT sacrificial ritual are shown to have been repeated in the experience of Christ — the slaying of the Immaculate victim (llev (,» 13S), the sprinkling of the blood, both In the sanotuary as in the sin-olTering (Ho 0i3'f-)and upon the people as in the Covenant-sacrifice (1 P 1-), and the desmifiioii of the victim, as in the case of tlie Sin-offering, without the gate (Ho 13i>) (Hitachi, 11. p. l.'i'lT.; San'lay ■ Ileaillani, Jiomant, n. 91).

fill The s))ecific effect of sacrifice— ex|iiation or pardon of sin— oeiiig ascribed to Christ's death, points in the same direction lib.) Nor for the apostolic ago was the description of Christ's death as a sacrifice of the nature of a mere illustration. The apostles held it to be a eocrifice 344 SACEIFICE SACEiriCE in the most literal sense of the word, .'uitl it is not difficult to apjireciate various reasons why thej' clung to, and even gloried in, this interpretation of the deatli.

It was not merely that they received it with the impress of Christ's own authority. It pro- vided tliem with their best defemeajrainst a popular calumny : without altar and ofVering Christianity lent colour to the suspicion tliat it was at bottom irreligious if not atheistic, and the one ellective means of removing the natunil prejudice was to show that it embodied the doctrine of a literal and necessary sacriliie.

Further, it solved to their own minds the speculative difficulty arising out of the death of Christ. Judged by acknowledged canons, His crucifixion had the aspect of a retributive judgment, — at the least, of a repudiation of His mission by God ; but this explanation, in view of their faith in Christ and the event of tlie resur- rection, was an impossibility.

On the other hand, it was not intellectually satisfying to treat it as a mere mystery, and to point to the fact that it had been foretold by the prophets. The needed intel- lectual relief was found in bringing it under the category of the victim-death which God had of old appointed, not as the punishment of the victim's sin, but as a means of blessing to others, .

\bove all, the sacrificial interpretation met a religious want — the need, all but universally felt, of a ground of confidence external to self on which to rest in approaching the majesty and holiness of God. (2) The benefits procured by Christ's sacrifice are coextensive with the blessings of tlie gospel, and may be distinguished as primary and derivative. The primary effects are that it sets man in a new relation, on the one hand to God, on the other to sin. By St.

Paul special prominence is given to the new relationsliip which it establishes between God and the sinner ; on this ground the sinner is justified or accepted as righteous (SiKaioi<n!, Ko 3-''"*), adopted (vloeeaia., 8">), and placed on a foot- ing of reconcUiation {KaraWayi), S"). Elsewhere tlie emphasis is laid rather on its efficacy in pro- curing the forgiveness of sin, i.e. in saving from the penal consequences which otherwise the curse of tlie broken law inevitably entails.

It is upon this aspect that Clirist fastens our attention in speaking of His Covenant-sacrifice {S.<pecni rdv afiapTiuv, Mt 26^) ; the idea of cancelling guilt, of which a vital moment is liability to punish- ment, is associated with Clirist's sacrifice in He 2", 1 Jn 2- (VKiaKeaBai witli d/iopr/os as object, and 60 ' to expiate ') ; and the redemption series of terms (Xirrpop, diroXurpunris, i^ayopa.^ei.

i>), while com- prehensive of all the aspects of spiritual deliver- ance in Christ, has spec^ial reference to emancipation from the curse of sin or its merited penalties (Eph 1', Col 1"). Upon these fundamental boons of i)eace with God and forgiveness follow, in the order of grace, the gifts of the Spirit as the energy of sanctitication (Gal 5'-'^-), and as the spring of boundless consolations — v\z.

peace, joy, hope, assurance, with their fruits (ito S'"'-), while the consummation is reached in the heavenly inherit- ance that is the meet portion of the sons of God (Ro 8"). In brief, the sacrifice of Christ is represented as the ground of all filial communion with God, as the condition of pardon, as the source of all noble endeavour and true comfort in the life which now is, and as onr one warrant for con- fidence as to the world to come.

(3) The conditions on which the blessings are pro- cured, on which the hypothetical becomes actual, are repentance (Mfrdj/om) and faith (irfirret). As to the necessity of these conditions the NT writers speak with one voice. Even St. James must have considered faith of vital importance, since otherwise he need not have become a Christian at all. The one question in regard to which the teaching is somewhat fluid is as to the precise object of the faith which unlocks the treasury ol reuomption.

In Hebrews the conception is very generiil — tlie object is God and| His promises. In tlie I'auline theology it is brought ii.to ilie most intimate connexion with Christ, and includes belief in Him as Messiah, crucified Saviour, and risen Lord (Ro 4** 10", 1 Th 4'''), issuing in union with the crucified and exalted Christ in trust and self-surrender (Gal 2-").

(4) The nature of Christ's offerinq, and (5) The mode of its operation, are two questions which are so closely inter-connected that they may best be discussed in conjunction. So far we have been dealing with the facts of the Atonement as to which the biblical teaching is full and express.

These data are, to adopt an old formula — the disease, sin ; the remedy, Christ's sacrifice ; the application of the remedy, salvation here and hereafter on the ground of repentance and faith But the medical analogy suggests that the remedy may cure the disease, while yet it may be obscure to the patient wherein precisely the virtue of the curative agent lay, and how it aflected his system so as to overcome the disease.

Similarly, theology has its questionings, which the NT teaching does not unmistakably answer, as to the precise ' what ' of Christ's offering, and as to ' the principle on which the forgiveness of sins is connected with it* sacrificial quality' (Ritschl, ii. p. 185). (a) Tlie references of ChriH to His own death, while representing it as conditioning the highest blessings, do not elucidate the connexion between the work and its eti'ects.

The passage in which Christ speaks of Himself as come 'to pive his life a ransom for many' (ilk 102-^, Mt 20'*), has been supposed to contain in ntice the solution of the problems of the Atonement.

A ransom implies captives (sinners), a hostile power which holds them in thrall (God as the repre- sentative and indicator of the outraged moral law), operation of the ransom (the death of Christ accepted as a substitute (or that of sinners), specific effect (dehverance of sinners from the penalties of sin). This elaboration has, however, been chal- lenged at almost every point.

It is maintained by Ritschl that the key-word of the passage is erroneously rendered ' ransom,' that as the equivalent of "irs it has the significance of a protec- tive covering, and that the way in which it operates to protect us is by stimulating us to sel(-den.\-ing imitation of Christ {Recht/. u. Vers. ii. S5).

Wendt adheres to the ransom idea, but maintains that the specific effect is to deliver from bondage to Buffering and death, and that it accomplishes this by teaching us to adopt Christ's sanguine valuation of these eWls {Lehre Jesxt, ii. 237). According to Beyschlai;, the evil from which it was to emancipate was worldly ambition and similar forms of sin, which could not survive the ruin of earthly hopes in the tragedy of the Cross {Seutest. TheoL i. 153).

The error of this group of interpretations lies in disconnecting Christ's death from the immediate specific effect of expiation or the forgiveness of sin, while the older interpretation unduly exploited the metaphor. All that the passage teaches is that the death of Christ was the means of effecting a redemption from sin (ireXurpma-K) which accrues to the benefit of many.

The institution of the Lord's Supper supplies an important reference to our Lord's death: — 'This is my blood of the new Covenant, which is shed for many'(Mk 14^4); 'this cup is the new Covenant in my blood ' (1 Co 11^5), to which St. Matthew adds the definition of the specific effect—' for the remission of sins' (26'-^). These words are important as comparing the death of (Christ to the Covenant-sacrifice which accompanied the giving of the I.

aw at Sinai (Ex '24*^, and as suggesting that it resembles the latter in its operation and effect. As to the effect of both sacrifices there is not much room for doubt. The Covenant-sacrifice of Sinai ratified the legal covenant between God and His people, the Covenant-sacrifice of Calvary established the Covenant of grace foretold in Jer 3131^ in which the cardinal boon, as specified in St. Matthew's addition, is ths remission of sins.

As to the manner of its efficacy we are hampered by the uncertainty as to how the sprinkling ot the people with blood in the Sinaitic sacrifice operated, or was understood to have operated, in establishing the Old Covenant. According to the traditional view, the blood of the animal victims, slain in room of the guilty people, and sprinkled on them, was accepted as atoning for their gTiilt, and hallowed them for entrance on their new relation with God.

Again, it has been supposed that the fundamental idea was that the victim represented the two parties in the Covenant, and the killing of it meant that so far as the Covenant was concerned they had no longer will or life, ».e. the (^>veuant was iramutabl* SACEIFICE SACRU-"ICK 345 ^VeHtoott, llehrexrg, p. 301). Yet a^in It has been Interpreted u of tiie nature of a honorific ^ift which as such was acceptable to t;o<J (Wendt, op. cit. ii. 237).

And once more, recurring to the evolutionary account, we might utilize the idea that by sharing the blood God and His people were knit into a close physical union and communion. Corresponding to these accounts the aacritice of Christ would be necessarily interpreted as ettlcocious as a penal substitution, as an act declaratory of the inmiutability of God's gracious purpose, as an acceptable gift of perfect ol>edience, and as a sacramental act uniting Cod and man.

It thus appears that the conce)>tion of the death as a Covenant-sacrifice docs not itself yield a theory, but otdy supplies a form which con be utilized to illustrate a theory otherwise grounded. Probably Christ's meaning was simpler than any that has been specified, viz. that it was God's plan to seal a covenant by a socrilice, and that, like the Old, the New Covenant, which provided for the remission of sins, had a sign of ita origio and validity in the shedding ood sphiikiing of blood.

(6) The Pauline Epistles bring us closer to the familiar theological issues. In view of his specu- lative interests, it is antecedently probable that St. Paul had reHected on the problems which have proved so fa.scinating to later Christian thoufjht, while his rabbinical training must have lelt a dcjiosit of answers to similar questions touching O'V sacrifice. As a fact, he makes a large con- tribution to a theory of the Atonement.

(«) The element of Christ's sacrifice to which decisive import- ance attaches b llie death upon the cross. So vital is this that the gospel may be summarily described as the message of the cross ^1 Co lis). It is in the death of the Son (lio 5l»), in His cross, m the blood of His cross (Col 1^), that the procuring cause is found of the blessings of redemption. It is obviously true that St. Paul recognizes other elements without which the death would have had no significance.

Especially does it derive its value from the dignity of the person of liim who was Messiah, declared to be the .Son of God in the resurrection, and who is now exalted (Ko 1^, Col li-"^-). But it waa not •imply as obedient (Ko .^Ifl, Ph 2«), it was as the obedient One who was slain, and whose blood was spilt, that He had power and prevailed (Ro 323). n jg upon the moment of death that 'iie grounding of salvation is exclusively concentrated ' (Holtz- raann, Snitfgf. Throl. ii. p. 111).

(3) The sacrifice of Christ had the significance of the death of an innocent victim in the room of the guilty. It is vain to deny that St. Paul frcfly euiploys the category of substitution. Involving the conception of the imputation or transference of moral Qualities. He does not, indeed, expressly say that Christ nie<l in our stead («r?/) : the phra.se is 'on our behalf iyip, Ito 68 8^-, 1 Th 610 etc.), or 'on accoimt of our sins' (8j«. Ro 4^6 ; wtoi, 1 Co 15^).

But the idea of an exchan^eof parts *» netwixt Christ and man is unmistakable. Chnst suffers death, which is the penalty of our sins, not of His own ; man is the recipient of a righteousness which he has not built up, but which is won for him by Christ (2 Co 521). From his reference to Christ as a means of propitiation (jXaerrn^'dv, Ro 323) it is probable that the apostle conceived of Christ u expiating guilt through the vicarious endurance of itfl characteristrc penalty.

It does not, indeed, follow that he conceived of Christ as becoming the object of the Father's wrath, and construed the cross as having the quality of a punishment indicted upon Christ and recognized as such, or the content of an erjuivalentof the misery of the lost (Pfleiderer, I'aulinUmug, p. ^ZB.) (r) The necessity of Christ's sacrifice tiad Its ground in the Divine Justice.

"The economy of grace, which includes the Atonement, Is indeed derived, as its ultimate spring, from the love of God(Ro6iH0 8M-«'); but the justice of Ood had a voice in the shaping and developing of the economy. The atoning sacrifice was necessary in order 'that God might be just' as well as 'the Justifier of them that believe' (Ro 825). But this answer only opens up new vistas of questionings. Why was Christ's vicarious death demonded by God in virtue of His justice?

We nmy safely say that neither the Orotian Iheorj — to prevent the spread of sinful disorder by an example of {lunishment, nor even the orthodox view — because Divine justice ty its very nature insists on punishment or satisfaction, lay within the apostle's horizon. The ground of the necessity was something more positi\'e, viz. that God, whose word could not be broken, had enacted and provided In Scripture that sin would 1« punished with death.

According to PHeidcrer, this is one of the instances of the contnulictions of Paulinism. The Law, which the apostle pronounced to be temporary and now abrogated. Is here utilized to lay the foundation of the doctrine of the Atonement (op. eit. p. 103). But the proclamation of death as the wages of sin is not confined to the Lnvi ; It goes bock to the patriarchal and earlier times (On 3»), In which St. Paul always recognized an anticipation of the religious condi- tions of the age of the gospel.

(>) The sacrificial death of Christ was an event which broke the power of sin as the dominant principle of humanity. It does not exhaust St. Paul's t«a<:hing as to the mode of Its elllcocy to say that, on the ground of the sacrifice, God accei>t« and sanctifies the sinner. lie also teaches that In the death of Christ there took place a death of mankind to sin, 'If one died for all, then all died" (2 Co 5'«, c». Ro if).

Humanity was then in a manner comprehended In Him, and, although the realization was to be partial and gradual, contemporaneously with His death it died in principle to the old order in which the flesh held the nobler elements in thrall. Christ routed sin in the sphere of human nature, and a new humanity was thus potentially created.

While insuthciently recognizing the for- ensic aspect of Christ's work, Weizsiicker justly observes ; 'it consists not only with his doctrine of the Person of Christ, but also with the severul modes of thought of the great apostle, that Christ's work in death appears to him under this highest view-point of the destruction of a world and its power through a higher power and order, and that this clistiiiclion should take place in its own province, so that flesh is vanquished in the flesh, law through law, death through death' ( Avast.

ZeUalt. p. HO). (c) The Epistle to the Hebrews, though dealing very folly with the sacrifice of Christ, cliielly dwells on its parallelism to the Levitical sacrilices in re- spect of the ritualistic acts of the manipulation of the blood, and its superiority as regards its range and efficacy. There are, however, two points at whicli it propounds or develops a rellexiun which is of far-rcacliing importance in the field of specu- lation.

The iirst relates to the question as to the precise nature of Christ's oflering, or the element whicli gave it its atoning value. In common with the apostles, the writer fixes our attention closely on the event of the bodily death as that which con- stitutes Christ the sin-bearer (9-^) and tlie instru- ment of our sanctilication (10'°). Hut behind tliis lay the question wherein the sacrificial value of the death consisted. Was the material of the .

sacrifice the sum of the physical anguish, and of the accom- panying distress of spirit, which immediately pre- ceded death, and especially of the agony, the humiliation, and the dissolution of tiie final event? Or was it tlie spirit of self-sacrificing love which prompted Jesus to lay down His life? In other words, wa.s the sacrifice of Christ etticacious in virtue of its quality of a eufi'ering unto death, er in virtue of its quality of an obedience unto death ? Already St.

Paul, in whose scheme of thought it was of vital consequence that Clirist sutt'ered the physical consequences due to human sin, had given expression to the thought that an element of fundamental value was the obedience of Christ. That we are justified by Uis blood, and that we are justified by His obedience, are parallel conceptions (Ilo S'-'"). This conception, which with St.

Paul comes in somewhat incidentally, is very directly stated in He 10°-' 'Sacrifices and oflerings and whole burnt-ofl'erings and sacrifices for sin thou wouldest not ; then liath he said, Lo, I am come to do thy will ' (vv.*- »). Here the contrast between the Levitical sacrifices and the s.acrifice of Christ is developed in a peculiarly suggestive way. It docs not consist in this, tli.

it in the former case animal victims are slain, in the latter a victim of pre-eminent dignity, but in the circumstance that in the one case the oll'ering is a material, in the other a spiritual oblation. The second inijiortant passage is that in which the writer develops the parallel to the action of the high priest in the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement. Even as the high priest entered the Holy of Holies, bearing with him .

sacrificial blood, which he ollered for himself and the peoiile (9'), so Christ entered heavenly places ' through his own blood,' or to present His .sacrifice before (!od (9""' v.^). From this representation it would ajipear that the vital moment of tlie sacrificial act was the presentation of His blood.

And as it may be maintained that the object in presenting the blood was, not to bring into God's presence evidence of the consummation of the death, but to oiler that which the OT dcacribed as the seat of life, it would follow that the quality of satisfying God attached to Christ's oll'ering of a stainless sotil or a [lerfected obedience.

The issue may be more sharply defined thus : Was the satisfaction rendered by Christ the death to which He voluntarily submitted, or wa- 346 SACELFICE SACRIFICE it the lifelong obedience which found in the death its last an<l most signal expression ? To many ujinds the thought embodied in the second alter- native has brought welcome intellectual relief.

For the hard saying that God could be satisfied only by the death of His Son it substitutes the reasonable and even natural idea tliat the filial obedience manifested in the whole life of Jesus — in His inner life, and His ministry of teaching and beneficence, as well as in His faithfulness unto death — constituted the oirering with which God was well pleased, and which brought humanity into a new relation to God.

While eusrpestinff the higrher conception of the nature of Christ's offering, the Epistle does not free itself from the idea that the physical event of death came into account as some- thing additional to the obedience. It accepts the principle that ' apart from 6he<lding of blood there is no remission ' (922), and indeed knows nothing of a sacrifice which does not involve sutTering and death as an essentia] element of it (9'-^).

The following utterance seems to come near to the eventual teaching of the Epistle. ' It has been said that Christ's perfect sacri- fice is wholly inward, of the heart. But is it not essential to sacrifice that it should be the outward act by which the inward intention is realized, is pledged, is sealed? The inward self- dedication only becomes sacrificial when it has discovered the appropriate offering by which it can verify itself.

Only through attaining this expression, in outward realization, does the language of sacrifice apply to it' (Scott UoUood in Priesthood and Sacnjice^ p. 85). (rf) In the JoTumnineiDritings the centre of gravity shifts from the Atonement to the Incarnation. In the Pauline theology the capital tlieme is the sinner's acceptance and pardon on the ground of Christ's atoning sacrifice ; in the Johannine it is the possession of eternal life in intimate and vital- izing union with the Word made flesh.

The key- note of the one is reconciliation, — of tlie other, communion. It is indeed a difi'erence of emphasis, not of inclusion and exclusion. As St. Paul also ex- perienced and chronicled the inspiration and spirit- ual energy enjoyed in mystic communion with the exalted Christ, so the Johannine writings also embody numerous references to the importance of Christ's sacrificial death.

They preserve the Baptist's testimony to Christ as the lamb-victim, whether the Paschal lamb or the suffering Servant of Jehovah (Is 53"), that takes away the sin of the world (Jn 1®); His work is paralleled, as in Hebrews, to that of the hi"h priest on the Day of Atonement (17'") ; and His death, which is conceived as a Sin- oftering, has manifestly expiatory value [IXarrixb^ wcpl anaprtSv, 1 Jn 2-', cf . 4"").

But the group of ideas con- nected with the Atonement is felt to be accepted and reproduced as part of the common stock of Christian beliefs, rather than to have been assimi- lated and developed under the progressive guid- ance of the Spirit of truth. It haa sometimes been affirmed that St. John unfolda * new theory of redemption. Not by dyin',', but hv shedding abroad a revelation of God and true life from His Divine-human person, did Christ come to drive away darkness and sin (cf.

Holtzinann, ii. 474). In other words, his soleriological theory waa Greek— th.at sin is jgnorance, and its remedy light. But his being possessed with the marvel of the Incarnation was not incom- patible with the loyal acceptance which he intimates of the general belief as to the significance of Christ's death.

In Uoman Catholic and Anglican theology there is a similar in- sistence on the pre-eminence of the Incarnation dogma, coupled with a certain reserve, but assuredly no want of faith, in regard to the Atonement. Such being the perspective of the Johannine theology, there is not much ground for expecting answers to questions raised in the theory of the Atonement.

It accentuates by preference moral aspects of the Atonement, but without entitling ns to infer that Christ's sacrifice only influences God indirectly through the change which it pre- viously produces in believers. As examples of^its moral influence may be noted that in the Caper- naum discourse Christ views His death as the preliminary to pi%'ing His flesh for the life of the world (6"), and that at a later period it is spoken of as destined to exercise an irresistible magnetism (12''^).

But that its influence was not in the first instance merely subjective, appears from the fact that it is represented as a transaction in which Satan joined issue in decisive conflict, was beaten back, and in consequence was shorn of his power (16" 12^').

And with this direct transcendental efl'ect clearly predicated, it becomes the more prob- able that in the Johannine teaching the sacrifice of Christ, when likened to an expiatory or pro- pitiatory sacrifice, was understood to have an effect upon God unconditioned by its after, fruits in human experience. To sum up, we find that the NT ^vriters are unanimous and distinct as to the .

saving signifi- cance of Christ's sacrifice, as to the blessings which flow from it, and as to the conditions on which these are appropriated. As regards tlie precise nature of the ottering, and its mode of working, our Lord says nothing definite. St. Paul certainly holds the satisfaction of Divine justice through a vicarious death ; the Ep. to the Hebrews emphasizes the germinal thought that the ofl'ering was the obedience or spiritual perfection of Christ ; St.

John's record chiefly confines itself to its moral bearings. Upon the points in question, indeed, they have more to teach if we could handle the key. To their thinking, and to that of their readers, these points were elucidated by describing Christ's death as a sacrifice, especi- ally a Sin-ottering ; but, as we cannot say with confidence what was the accepted theory of the significance of sacrifice, the elucidation has in its turn become a problem.

From this condition of mingled certainty and uncertainty several infer- ences may fairly be drawn. In the first place, it may be surmised that the sacrificial category, while emphasizing certain vital aspects, was m- adequate to the expression of the full signifi- cance of the work of Christ, and that the old sacrificial doctrine was providentially left in ob- scurity at those points where it was least adequate.

In close connexion with this it may also be sug- gested that there was a design not to bind up the work of Christ so intimately with the interpre- tation of an obsolescent institution as to prevent its receiving fresh illumination from other fields of human life.

From this would follow, further, a commission to theology not to regard itself as bound by the fragmentary NT data for a theory of the Atonement, but to reinterjiret by its own thought the nature, the grounds of the necessity, and the mode of efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ.

In the exercise of this commission modem theology has very generally become penetrated by the con- viction that the sacrifice of Christ is too narrowly interpreted of His death, and that the atoning etticacy attaches to the whole life, in which active and passive obedience are interwoven as warp and woof.

Meanwhile the uncertainty which attaches to certain stages of the process only throws into bolder relief the apostolic certitude as to the fact that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. iii. The Sacrifices of the Chri.stian Life. — The NT doctrine is tliat Christ ottered a sacrifice which established peace with God, and which pro- cures the forgiveness of sins.

But with this the conception of ofiering was not wholly detached from the sphere of human service ; on the contrary, a place is reserved for human ofl'erings of a com- plementary or secondary kind. (a) The graces and the activities of the Chris- tian life have a sacrificial character.

In the Prophets it was a frequent thought that the forms and expressions of the devout life — the broken spirit, the voice of adoration and aspiration — were SACRIFICE SACRIFICE 347 sacrifices of peculiar value ; and such spiritual exerci-es continued to be described as oblations. The NT doctrine of the priesthood of believers also involved the idea that they had somewliat to oiler. The in.iterial of such otlVrings is the Christian per- sonality (Ko 15", cf.

Jnde ■■'), or the body regarded as the "instrument of Christian service (Ro 12'), or the exercises and actinties of the Christian life (1 P 2'), including prayer (He 13"), beneficent deeds (v."), money gifts (Ph 4"), or the graces in which service has its spring (faith, Ph 2") (Cave, p. 40G IT., who treats this subject very fully and suggestively). The immediate effect attributed to these ollerings is that they are pleasing to God (Ko 12'), are to Him as the odour of a sweet smell (Ph 4'").

But the further question arises whether God, as pleased with these sacrifices, and on the ground of the offerings, bestows upon the Christian any special corresponding blessing. It may safely be said that tliey are not regarded as expiatory ; only faith comes into account as connected with the forgiveness of sin, and then as the mere con- dition of obtaining the boon of which the real ground is the sacrifice of Christ.

But certain of the offerings specified have at lea-st a puriliiatory virtue — faith which overcomes the world, and hope which purifies. As regards forms of Christian service, it is antecedently probable that they were regarded as procuring certain benefits. To call an act a sacrifice, was clearly to imply that a benefit followed ; and to say that God was well pleased, was equally to imply that He would practically manifest His approbation.

From the NT stand- point, indeed, the motive for rendering spiritual sacrifices is gratitude to God for His inexpressible magnanimity ; but it does not thence follow that they do not receive a rich Divine recognition. In the paralile of the Unjust Steward it is taught that wealth might be .so used as to procure an abundant entrance into the everlasting habitations [Lk 16"-), and it is no unfamiliar thought of the ipostle of grace that God will specially reward the work and labour of love.

But what is the precise nature of the Divine response to the offerings of service? The current reply is that in the present it takes the form of mward enrichment and growth in grace, and that in the world to come it will be manifested in a distinction of degrees of glory. Hut it may be doubted if this e.xhausts the NT concejjtion of the efficacy of the secondary sacrifices.

The life that utters itself in the forms of sacrifice would appear to evoke a response additional to strengthening grace, which is of the nature of a special provi- dential discipline or blessing, and which, resting on the individual or even the house, makes "ener- ally for their protection and well-being (^It 6'"). So St. Paul, after specifying the acceptable sacrifices of the Philippians, concludes that God will supply all their need (Phil 4''').

^n ezpiatory chancer mi^ht appear to t>e ascribed to one cloiw of ttpirilual sacriQces, viz. the sutTerin^s of Itie sainU. ' I reloice in inv sufTeriiiga on your behalf,' sa.vs the npoalle, 'and fill up wliat 19 larking of the atllictions of ChrlHl in my tiesh on behalf of hia body, which is the Church* (Col IW). "By some Rom. Cath.

excretes it has been ar^^ued that the afllictions of the saints are regarded as comliined with the passion of Christ 'o constitute the satisfaction on the ground of which God pardons sin. But while the apostle atflruis that his sutTerings are for the good of the Church, he <ioe8 not say that it is as propitiatory, and the mo<le of conveying benefit may well have been that, bv the apostolic example of patient obedience, the body was edified.

But how do they fill up what was la<^king of Christ's sufferings? The idea may either be that the apostle desired to approximate to the standard of Christ's sulTerings (Weiss), or that he desin-tl to entluro his share of the sutTerings which Christ, through Ills Cburch-bodv, has yet to •uner(AI- ford, in loe.) See also Lightfoot and Abbott.

(h) The worship of the Church embodies a sacri- ficial element ; but this is not to be identified with the Eucharist, nor can the latter be scripturally in- terpreted as having the character of a propitiatory .sacrifice. To say that worship is sacrificial is to repeat what has already been said of the NT spiritual sacrifices.

The faith and hope and love which find expression in praise ami prayer, the money gifts which are devoted to the work of Christ, are declared by the apostles to have this character. Specially is the celebration of the sacrament of trie Lord's Supper, evoking, as it does, faith and hope and the sentiment of gratitude, the occasion of the presentation of spiritual offerings.

The special question is whether the Eucharist is a sacrifice in a peculiar specific sense, and if so, what is its precise character and efficacy. The question as to whether it may be called a sacrifice is not of vital importance. It may easily be brought within the compass of our working defini- tion. ' In a certain loose sense the Lord's Supper may be called a sacrifice, inasmuch as it was deliberately associated by its founder with the sacrificial rites of the O't" (Cave, p. 439).

The really important issues are raised by the Roman doctrine, which interprets it as continuous with the atoning sacrifice of Christ, and as therefore possessing a propitiatory character. • By the consecration of the bread and of the wine a conver- sion ia made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood ' (llec. Cone. Trident., Sesa. xiii. cap. 4).

' Forasmucii as, in this Divine sacrifice, which ia celebrated in the Mass, that same Christ ia contained and immolated in an unbloody manner who once otTered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the Cross, the boly Synod teaches that this sacrifice is truly pro- pitiatory, and that by means thereof this ia effected — that we obtain mercy and find grace if we draw nigh contrite and penitent,' etc. (Twenty-second sesa. cap. 2). 'Wherefore, not only for the sins, etc.

, of the faithful who are living, but also for those who are departed in Christ, and not yet fully purified, it is ri^rlitly olTered ' (I't.) At the same time, it is held that propitiation is not the only, or even the principal, fruit (cauoo 6 of thirteenth aess.) It would be out of place to develop the general objections to this view, which involves the grave religious defect of suggesting tli.at s.ilvation rests on an incomplete and therefore iiiseiure founda- tion.

The relevant objections are that the tenet of transubstantiation, which is the presupposition of the theory, has no scriptural warrant, while the interpretation of the Eucharist as a per]ietual propitiatory ofl'ering is inconsistent with the NT teaching tli.at the sacrifice of Clirist was e.'jpiatory, and was ollered once for all (Ro 6'", He 7" 9"- «•■ 10">- "• ", 1 P 3"*).

According to a modified view, the Eucharist ia a perpetuation of Christ's sacrifice, but not of the propitiatory sacrifice which lie ollered on Calvary. Attention is here transferred to the sacrifice which Christ presented, and continues to present, in the heavenly sanctuary (He 8'-'), and it is maintained that in the Eucharist the Church presents an offering which is organically connected with the ceaseless offering of her Head.

'The offering of our Heavenly High Priest,' to quote an Im- portant atatcuient of this view, 'includes in it a present and eternal offering of His life in heaven.' Rut the duty of the Ohurcll fa to repeat and represent the life of her Head in another and higher world ; and in the Eucharist she 'appropri- ates and reproduces the priestly offering of Him in whom she livea.

Aa our Lord's oficring of Himself never enfls or can end, so In that offering Hia people, organirally united to Hhii, one with Him. must be ollered, anrl must offer themselvea ; and this they do in the expressive and touching symbols of the Eucharist' (Milligau, Ucaixnly PrieMood, p. 'iOO). On this view, then, the Eucharist is a sacrifice which not only represents, but also, a.s a coii.

se- quence or Chnst's union with the Church, forms a part of the offering made by Christ to God It IS commended on the ground that it satisfies the legitimate demand for a perpetual oblation which IS unscripturally ministered to in the sacri- 548 SACRIFICE SACRIFICE fice of the Mass. But tlie scriptural evidence IS in conflict with its cardinal positions.

Tlie ofloring of Christ, wliich is the ground of our salvation, was, according to passages already quoted, one which does nut need to be repealed, and we are therefore forced to seek it witliin the compass of Christ's earthly life — either in His death or in His obedience unto death.

It is said, indeed, that that which is undiangeable and ever- lasting is not repeated, but it is hardly disputable that «liat was present to the mind of the writer to the Hebrews was the contrast of the ever-renewed to the completed, not to the never-ending ottering.

Nor was it declared in the words of institution that the special purjiose of the Eucharist was to furnish the Church with an ordinance which should be a counterpart, and even a part, of the activi- ties of Christ s heavenly priesthood. Rather is it brought into close relation with the obedience unto death which preceded His entrance into glory.

On the whole, it may be concluded tliat, while the Eucharist, more than other means of grace, has the form of a sacrifice, it is at bottom, like them, only the occasion of sacrifice, i.e. of the presenta- tion to God of spiritual offerings. Wliether the outward act be prayer, or praise, or the Eucliarist, the offerings therein rendered to God are the faith, the penitence, and the self-surrender to wliich it gives expression, and which are sustained by the rite.

The Typology of Sacrifice, which has been inci- dentally touched on, requires more direct con- sideration at the close of this study, in which we have seen the sacrificial worship of the earlier dispensation disappear in the sacrifices of the New Covenant. From the typological point of view, the Levitical sacrifices come under the category of prediction.

They difl'ered from the predictions proper in form, — Ijeing enshrined not in word but in institution and rite, — but they served the same end of testifying beforehand to the person, the life, and the work of Christ, and to the contents and conditions of His salvation. In the older works the study of sacrifice as prediction and ful- filment was assiduously prosecuted as at once alVording the deepest gratification to the believer, and furnishing a weapon of distinct apologetic value.

In labouring at this task. Christian piety gave free play to fancy, and every feature of the OT ritual became eloquent of the unspeakable riches of Christ.

Dogmatic prepossessions also supervened to dominate the discussion ; and, while the Romanist discovered in the Levitical system a foreshadowing and corroboration of the distinc- tive sacerdotal and sacramentarian tenets of his communion, the Protestant found in it an equally good witness for every fundamental article of the evangelical system of doctrine (Fairbairn, Typology of Scripture).

The luminous and thorouph monograph of Principal Cave Is distinfc'uished, in its treatment of the typical aspect of sacrifice, by great sobriety of judijnuiit. A tj-pc is defined as an enacted propliecy, and three essential notes are diatinjuished : it ad- umbrates something ; it adumbrates some future thing, and it is specially designed by God to adumbrate that future thing (p. 158).

The eaoriflcial practice he divides into two branches — that which was concerned with atonement, and that which was concerned with the presentation of the offering. And to these types respectively correspond, as their antitypes, the death of Christ and our spiritual sacrifices. 'The atonement by blood has its antitype in the atonement made by .Jesus. In the activities and passivities of the Christian life are Xo be found the intit.

\pe of the Mosaic injunctions other than those concerning the methods of atonement, the high priesthood, and the tabernacle' (p. 419, cf. 406ff.) The precedent for treating the OT sacrifices typologically, i.e. as predictive in character and design, is set in the NT. As certainly as re- liance is placed on fulfilments of OT verbal pre- dictions IS use made of antitypal fulfilments to attest the Messiahship and the redemptive mission of Jesus.

But while the OT sacrifices are thus accorded the dignity of OT predictions, they must also share in the consequences of the altered view as to the precise nature and soope of prophecy viewed as prediction. What has become increas- ingly clear is that OT prophecy does not consist of chapters of detailed history written before the event.

Proplietism was in essence faith in God as tlie righteous Governor of the world and the gracious Guardian of His people, and on the basis of this faith it cherished a confident expectation of the realization on earth of a kingdom of righteous- ness by the instrumental uy of a divinely commis- sioned King, who should through suti'ering establish His dominion (Bruce, ^/)c/t)p'.- p. 25711'.)

Similarly, the typical element in the Levitical code cannot be regarded as coextensive with its multifarious forms and ritualistic acts. The Pentateuchal code of sacrifice is not a mj-stical version of the Christian religion, whose every form and rite was shaped by a design to show forth the story of our Lord's passion, or to elucidate the ' activities and the passivities ' of the Christian life. The witness which it bears to Christ is less voluminous, but not necessarily less weighty.

The OT sacrifices expressed a need which Christ satisfies, and embodied a faith which Christ justifies. The need to which they gave utterance was that felt by tlie human heart for some ground of religious confidence external to itself ; and this, which the animal victim only seemed to supplj', is fullj' met in the Christian conviction that sin is forgiven, in some real deep sense, for Christ's sake.

The faith which they declared was that God had provided a means by which man could enter into communion with God, and the great expectation which they expressed has its realization in the filial relations with God into which the Christian is brought by Christ. Yet once more, the institution emliodied the con- viction, which was also a prediction, that the sovereign boon of union with God is not won with- out labour and cost. The victim was slain, the oflerer denied himself for God.

And this prin- ciple only attained to a fuller and deeper realization when, on the one hand, Christ died that He might bring men to God and reign in human hearts ; and when, on the other, it was seen that self-sacrifice is the ritual of the lives that He moulds. LrrsRATURB.— Mishna np "no (iJerum sanctarwm ordc), espw D'nnt (d« Samfidis), ed. Surenhusius, vol. iii., Amsterdam, Vjm.; Philo, d« Vxdimis (Yongc's tr. 185.5, vol. iii.)

; Outram, de SaerificiU, London, 1677 ; Spencer, de lecfibus Uehrieorum rittuililjiig (lib. iii. ' de ratione et origine Sacriticiorum '), Cantab. 1727 ; S\kes, Ussay on the Nature, etc., of .%tcri/icet, London, 1748 ; liavison. Origin and Extent o/ Primitioe Sarrifice, Lon- don, 18'25 : Bahr, Symbolik dejt Mosaischen Cultus, Heidelberg, 1837 ; Kurtz, Der AT Op/ercidtus (Kng. tr.), Edin. 1865 ; Oeliler, Theol. dee AT (Eng. tr.), Edin. 1S82 ; Fairbairn, The Tyijulo:!)/ of Scripture, Edin.

1817; Cave, Script. Doct. o/Sacriiee, Edin. 1877 ; \Vcllhausen, I'roleg. zur Gesch. Isr. 1883 (Kng tr. with additions, Edin. 1885); Nowack, Lehrb. der hebrdisclien Archd- oloijie, bd. ii., Freiburg, 1894 ; lienzinger, llelj. Arch., Freiburg, 1895; Riehm, Attlest. Theol., Halle, 1889, p. 114 f. ; Smend, Lehrb. der AUIest. Retirjiomgeachichte^, Freiburg, 1899, J) 9, 17.

For discussion of special points the following reffs, may b« given: Stade, ZATW, 1894 {sacriDces of Cain and Abel); Kamphausen, Da^ V^erhtiltniss des M enschenop.feri zur israeL Reliiiion, Bonn, 1896 ; Trumbull, The Blood Covenant, New York, 18S6; Wilcken, Ueirr doi Haaropfer, Amst«rdam, 1SS8; Kiehm, ■ Ueber das Schuldopfer,' in SK, 1854, i. p. 93 IT. ; Rinck, til. 1855, ii. p. 369ft. ; U. Schultz, 'Significance of Sacrifice in OT,' in AJT, April 1900.

The theological aspects are pro- minent in the following: Warburton, Divine Legation o) Moses, London, 1738 ; Magee, Script. Doct. of Atoneinrjit and Sam/ice, London, 1812 ; Payne Smith, Power! and Duties o) tlie Priesthood, London, 1868 ; Maurice, The Doctrine o/ Sacri. fice, Ixjndon, 1879; Jowctt in Epp. to ThessaL etc.* ii. S60, London, 1894 ; Delitssch, Pom. on Ueb. (Eng. tr.), Edin. 1868 ; A. B. Davidson, Com. on Ueb., FAin.

1882 ; Mflhgan, The Ascen- sion ami Ih-avejiiy Priesthood of our Lord, London, 1892 ; Priest' hood and .Sacrifice (Report of Discussion at Oxford), ed. Sanday, London, 1900; Scott, Sacrifice: its Prophecy and Fulfilment, Edin. 1894; Baxter, Sanctuary and Sacrifice, London, 1806) Jloberly, Atonement and Personality, London, 190L SADDUCEES SADDUCEKS 319 The diBcuflsion of the ori^n and evolution of Semitic sacriflce to dominated by Wellhausfn, Skuz^m u. VorarOeiifn, liesU arab.

Ufutenthums^, Berlin, 16«7,aud cap. \V. R. Smith, /W2, London, l»y4, examined by .Marillicr in lieu, de ChUt. des llel. (1897-98); Hubert et Mauss, ' Essai sur le nature et ia fon^tion du sacrifice,' In L'Aniifr Sociolmi'nu for 1SU7-98, I'aris. For the place of Bacritiee in tiie lieathen reiipons see de ia Saussave. Lt)irb.

der Jietiffiontyejii:/iir/tte, Kreibarjf, 1SS7 ; Tiele, Get-c/iichte der lieL im AUerUtum, (^otha, 1803; Jevons, An Introduction to the Butirry qf Hetigiun, London, 1890; Tylor, Primitive Culture^, London, 1891 ; il. S[>encer, Principles of Sociolofftjy London, 1876; Lubboclc, Orvjxn o/ Civilization^ London, 1889; Frazer, The Gulden Bowjh'-, London, 1900; Zimmern, lieitriLfje zur Kfnnlnins der babijlon. Rcti(jion, Leipzig, 1&9C: Na^elsbach, Homeritiehe Theoio'jic^.

Niirnberg, 1884; Famell, t'uitg of the Greek States, Oxford, l&t»(J ; Fowler, The Roman FejiticaU of Ui» Period of th* Republic, London, 1S90. W. P. Patkbson.