To claim for the death of Christ that it is a com- pleted act of reconciliation, the ground of the be- lieving sinner's justification, and thus alike the subject of adoring gratitude and the source of re- newed moral effort, is to establish a doctrine satis- factory to reason rather because it sets the several parts of Scripture and Christian teaching in an intelligible proportion to one another, than because it is itself rationally explained. The Cross estab- lishes the Law (Ro 3^'), and, as thus interpreted, manifests and supjilies the need of the human spirit, and thus finds its justification in experi- ence. But propitiatory sacrifice remains to Ije apprehended rather than understood. This is Ije- cause it is a fact of religion rather than of ethics. Men have felt the need of something to set them right with God, even when they have been far from knowing that He is love. If this distinction be not perceived, we shall fail to see the true bear- ing of the evidence from Comparative Religion for the universality of the idea of atonement as mani- fested in myth, ritual, and custom. Thus Sir Oliver Lodge (see art. 'Suggestions towards the Reinterpretation of Christian Doctrine,' Hibbert Journal, vol. ii., No. 3), while admitting the cogency of the universal belief in immortality, sees in the crudities of the widespread practice of sacrifice only a reason for discounting this ele- ment in traditional Christianity. There can be no doubt that atonement is fundamental to the idea of sacrifice (see Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites, Lect. vi. p. 219 ; Lect. xi. pp. 377-384), and that this idea of ' covering ' is prominent in the ritual of the OT (see Schultz, OT Tkeol., Eng. tr. vol. i. pp. 384-400).
Far from deprecating, or even ignoring the ancient sacrifices, the NT, as we have seen, pre- sents Christ as the 'Lamb of God.' And in the Ejiistle to the Hebrews the Son is explicitly set forth as 'Himself the victim and Himself the priest,' manifested once at the consummation of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of Him- self (He 9=5). Though, unlike St. Paul, who sees the analogy between heathen sacrifices and the Christian Eucharist (1 Co 10'-'), the author of this Epistle confines his .-ittentiiin to the wor.ship of the Hebrews, the ar^nuimiil iii:i\- be legitimately extended to embrace thi- • l.loi,,! .'.i bulls and goats' offered under any systuui lor whut in view of the Cross is seen to be a tyjiical, conventional purifi- cation and approach to t4od. Tliere is, however, one important point in which the Mosaic sacrifices differ from all others. They fulfilled the primary condition of Divine appointment, and therefore availed within the limits of the institution. They were inadequate, not because, like the oblations of the heathen, they were material, but because, un-
138
ATONEMENT
ATTRACTION
liko the oU'ering of Christ, tliey were triinsitory (He^lO^-"), and alien to those who brought them (913. 25j_ Christ, who elsewhere in the NT appears as the Mediator, Saviour, Word made flesh, here becomes specifically the Priest (2" [o ayii^on' = ' priest ' ; the act of consecration is identified witli the Cross in 13'=, cf. 2?- '"] 3' and passim), the ap- propriate scientific term, as we may call it, for whoever establislies tlie proper end of religion, communion with God. His is a ' finished work,' because by Divine appointment (3^ 5'- •'•'') He is ' a priest for ever ' (S'" 7-'- ^), who ' through the eternal Spirit ' (9") obediently (5« 10') fulfilled tlie priestly function (8^) in ofi'ering the body prepared for Him by the will of God (lO^"'") as an eternal sacrifice (10'-, cf. 5'). This is no metaphorical self-sacrifice, the essence of which is undeviatin
conformity to the general law which conditions human life. It is ' through his own blood ' (9'^) that He enters once for all into heaven. This lays the emphasis on His death as the means through wliich He makes that purification of sins (1^ O''') whereby access is gained to the throne of gi-ace (10'" 4'''- '"). Tlie open way witnesses to a sacrifice already offered and accepted (10'" ^7100-- fi^vot not ayia^ofiei/oi, W* TfreXeiwxev [cf. Jn 19™] Tovs ayiaio/i^fovs, which RV rightly translates 'them that are [not 'are being'] sanctified'). The new covenant is thus dedicated with blood (9'*"~), not because life is liberated through deatli (for why should death effect tliis result except according to Oriental mysticism ?), but bpcansc a death must have taken place for tin- ivil(iii|.t ion of trans- gressions (91s 10=», cf. Mk M-' an.l ].aiallcls), which IS, in the pliraseology of sarrilicr, «liat St. Peter says when he declares that ' Christ bore our sins in his body on the tree' (1 P 2^).
Minds to which sacerdotal ideas are repugnant will always resent such language as sophistical and superstitious, and, if they do not reject, will endeavour to explain away what is certainly the meaning of the Epistle to the Hebrews. No (loubt this particular mould of thought is not necessary to the gospel, Avhich is content to assert tliat Christ died for our sins. Yet the consequence of reject- ing it is likely to be a denial of the atoning char- acter of Christ's death. To describe the central fact of the gospel in ethical terms as a revelation of love, an exhibition of obedience, or a manifesta- tion of the Divine character, expresses a side of truth, apart from which a doctrine of substitution may become, if not immoral, at least supersti- tious. But such descriptions cease to be true, if they are taken for definitions. The Cross is no longer a revelation, if it be not a redemption. If it be large enough to deal with a situation of which the factors are God, man, and sin ; if it be a fact of religion through wliicli men ajmroach that Personality in whom they have their ueing, its .significance cannot be understood unless it be recognized as a mystery, illuminating and illumi. nated by life and experience, but itself not re- ducible to simpler terms. It is at this point that 'mysteries,' in the Greek sense of the word, have their place. No organized religious system can entirely dispense with them. And Christianity with its sacraments of initiation and membershii) bears witness to the 'mystei-yof godliness' (1 Ti 3'*) preached by it among the nations. Whatever may be the case with individuals, the race has found no language in which to expre.ss its need towards God but that of inopitiatory sacrifice. To the method of its satisfaction many analogies point, but all taken together cannot sum up tlie Cross. For it is essentially an eternal fact, em- bracing but not embraced by experience ; and its theory, though to the spiritual man increasingly rational, must ever be less than that which it seeks