(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 : —