a low form, as if the deity were
pleased with human loss and suffering, or as if human enjoyment were
antireligious,[1875] sometimes approaches the conception of the unity of
the worshiper with the object of worship.[1876]

+1041+. A special form of the gift-theory, with a peculiar coloring, is
that which holds that some object is substituted for the worshiper who
has fallen under the displeasure of the deity and is in danger of
punishment. This conception, however, is found only in the most advanced
religions. The cases in which an animal is substituted for a human
victim[1877] are of a different character--they are humane
reinterpretations of old customs. In early popular religion the only
examples of a deity's deliberately inflicting on innocent persons the
punishment of another's wrongdoing are connected with the old conception
of tribal and national solidarity--OEdipus, Achan, David, and others,
by their crimes, bring misfortune on their peoples; when the guilty have
received their punishment the innocent are relieved. A real vicarious
suffering is not found in these cases or in any ancient sacrificial
ritual--the victim is not supposed to bear the sin of the
sacrificant.[1878] It is only in comparatively late theological
constructions that vicarious atonement occurs. Some Jewish thinkers were
driven to such a theory by the problem of national misfortune. The pious
and faithful part of the nation, the "Servant of Yahweh," had shared in
its grievous sufferings, and, as the faithful did not deserve this
punishment, the conclusion was drawn that they suffered for the
iniquities of the body of the people;[1879] their suffering, however,
was to end in victory and prosperity. In this conception the theory of
solidarity is obvious, but it differs from the old tribal theory in that
the suffering of the innocent brings salvation to the whole mass. In the
prophetic picture there is no explanation of how this result was to be
brought about--there is no mention of a moral influence of the few on
the many--only there is the implication that the nation, taught by
suffering, would in future be faithful to the worship of the national
deity. It does not appear wherein the ethical and religious significance
of the unmerited suffering of the pious consisted; apparently the object
of the writer is merely to account for this suffering and to encourage
his countrymen. In another passage,[1880] suffering is represented as
having in itsel