Sacrifice

A. SACRiricE I.N OT Times. i. Definition and Name. ii. The Origin of Sacrifice. iii. Semitic Sacrifice in the pre-Mosaic period, iv. Sacrifice in ancient Israel. V. Tlie Prophets as reformers of Sacrificial worship. vL The Sacrificial system of the Priestly Code : 1. Forms of Sacrifice ; 2. Etlicacy of the Bloody Sacrifices. vlf. Sacrifice in Judaistic practice and theory. B. Sackificial DOCTRINK OP NT. i. Appreciation of OT Sacrifices. Ii. Tile perfect Sacrifice of the New Covenant.

liL The Sacrifices of the Christiaa life. Literature. A. Sacrifice in OT Times. I. Definition and Name.— The rites which are comprehended under the name of Sacrifice, while exhioiting inany forms and embodying an equal complexity of ideas, yet display certain constant features which invest them with a character of unity. Four notes will serve to elm idate their place and function in distinction from other manifestations of the religious life. (a) .

Sacrifice belongs to the class of specifically religious acts, known as cultus or worship, by which man seeks to draw near to God. When religion is permeated by intense moral earnestness, greater importance is ascribed to character and conduct than to worship, yet even in the perfectly ethical religion of Christianity the cultus has sur- vived as at once a cherished privilege and a sacred obligation.

In those religions in which tlie ethical interest is weak or absent, the paramount interest attaches to the aiMiropriateness and imjircssiveness of the ceremonial aiiproach to the Deity. And amonj' the elements of the cultus, by the consent of antiquity, the rite of sjicrifico excelled and over- shadowed all other ordinances in the ellicacji of its appeal to the object of worship.

— (: ) Sacrifice is distinguished from other ordinances of worship in that it takes tlie form of the rendering to (iod of a material oblation. The ejeineiits of worship are at bottom two — forms which express the con- descension of God to man, and forms which express the appeal of man to God. Of the.

se the first has its familiar example in the proclamation SACRIFICE SACRIFICE of the word of God, the second in P^-ayer- ^ncl rnce'from threatened evil and possession of coveted ance •'""' formula roufh y expresses the end ot °°i- nC in vkw of tie ancient and commonly ^^Xd^o^ition oTsalrlhce as the staple reli^^^^^^ Xervan^e. it follows that commumonwah a D^ v •„ , ..tSfii thp security involved m sucn com Son? must al^ote ti.e end generaUy contem- plated in sacrificial practice.

used in the o^a.. ^no,^ ^ '^I'^^l^^'' ^°tf ^"fl^^^Si ordinate class of cereal offermss (Lv -). ^ne fc^"""- .,^^ tion oj -cnflce^...J. ^ /-^^(^Crn/m inverted order. 'AT l").' ^Vldea S"aUo Lpre-ed by enu-nemUng tour varieties (ll>»). ,„„„^<..».i. of freauent occurrence, being in'er^LS^ ^^'•^"^'^S^^^^Sf T^^JS^ tvpe Exceptionally RV retains it as translation of in (PsU8 ). a r'of nn3-(141=). in NT it renders fo... and 8^.., and >s some- ttaes dlSn^s.4d from the • offering' a« the bloody from th.

unbloody. ii The Obigin of SACRIFICE.-The controversies in vhich this subject has been so fru tful have nassed throu-h tv o phases. In the earher period ?hf keenly debated issue was whether the institu- t on was o'^: Divine appointment, or merely devised Tmras an instruii^ent for satisfy in ^^ tion is that it is framed inth 7'"^;''!,,'?;"the questionable piacularsacriflces and furt;e^ that. ^ assumption that tliepiacuiarsJi-rm^." , ;.

v,pd a sat sfaction the object of worship and secured Uivine favour. Summing up, then, we define sacrifice as an act, belo.™in.' to the sphere of worship in which a mated ^oblation fs presented to the Deity and consumed in His service, and -^''''^ has a i^s object to secure through communion with a Divine being the boon of His favour. sphere of holy things, or in wie "h'"' . „„.,;i.\i\iiT ordi- pre-Chr stian """^"P- The groug M »o a ^^^^_,^^,^.^, ",^rthit'?Sic°»^hr?«^^^^^^ t°rr^™" '"<i'»- S?'

°- ^^prarJo^rtnvol^ed Ihe ''■'^.fri'flLla «mmonly re,en«i to in OT by «P«'' jf,X^° leading varicties-vij. the Bumt-oilen.ig (n^-y), and the Sam flcial Feast (:Ss'). There are, however, two terms, which have " geneT^ well as a specific meaning. The ..np (a gift) wa. I;^"^S '^t;i^e:"'V;;^e;;nniin^s^he ^nuin Thtorietas to ttie significance origina y attached to the rite, its primitive form, and the stages in the evolution of sacrificial ritual. while strongly ^nt^nded for by ■^anj kc „^„alive.

cannot be sustained e^en on the b^^s Of t ^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^ The argument on which ';'"f ' [.^'"'.rujce (Gn 4!"), and the -s'yeS^.;^« =J £»ra%iS:^ sarily implies that there !""'' ^a ,e '.|'^etnfent ^presupposed assurance ?f the Divnne nonn controversy is disclosed assurance of the D'vnne nonne^ a,.. ^... w . -_;^- -r ^,,^,^,- ^ perhaps, of the zea on tins side of the cont J^^^ , ^^^ in the argument that ^,''™^" °7,fp (ii,,;^,';,,^;.,., Col 2'-^), apostolic ^"demnation of «.lUvoi^h.

p m ' prerogative ^","h' ^''irThoW th n^ Con'ceSe that sacrifi'ie, the dis- in the sphere of ho > tnmp^- ^^^„ devising and yet tinctive teature of 01 "°^!"JP' "rt, i„„ossible to make good acceptable to God and it "came in possinie^ b ^^ against Roman, Lutheran and Anglican prac ^^^.^^^ .^ festivals or rites ^""J'';^ thirdOL^.alic prepossession has 8cript.ure As the f?

* ^^ ^'^''^fn^S^ u,at the ^vill-worship' coiisideraby abated It is^easj to -un^^ ^ ^^ ^^^^^ to Spencer, a« ^oY'uv discussed bv Fairbaim {Tvpolog;/ o/ subject 18 '^'so„\">,'"' J ""'dvances the additional argument Smptur,; y •^6 J:\ ,'''2^8^ ,,a"ents ' co.ats ot skins '(On 321) that in making '°'-°"'' S JhertVwhich serves as a covering God prompted and authonzed the rite ^Ml 1^ ofthesoul. Uispositionis.ho e^eramcuia^^B^^^ rS'^se^1-.eSnt°to;?;of wo.h,p but^..

i^^^ existence altogether '" P^^"^"^^'^ '^Sse o? modified eon- eonilicting tniSitio^^and st.1 mo^-^becau^ ,„ scripture, there T'ZT. gro'«^n" inSiV^ition <« use the scnptural matenal ITa basis f'or a 'i^'^^^'i^i':';:^^:^^: JXl'^ZZ U Divine nstitution, it should ■'' ,'"™' „!r,r,hia theorv has even ?'>^..''^T^;°al s%^5,Ts'b«n v^;!"^ nem^yf abt'dlT<P The only in theological schools oecni I r>,t, ^ ^ ^ that, by creating sense in "■'ji'^h t^he Div ne orig n can be hel .^^^.^^^.

J^„ „,, j^^ man tor religion, God '^ the •"'"'" ^ universal expression. ''"^''^j^frr^^^SA «^^:"o .«^;« a Hu^an origin ma, SACKIFICE SACRIFICE 331 hrre be briefly outlined, inasmuch as, while operating mainly with general anthropological material, they seek confirmation to flome extent in the Diblical sacrificial system. These theories may be best grasped in accordance witii the views which they presuppose as to the primitive form of reli^'ion, and by which.

It may be added, they must mainly be jud;,'t_-d. 0) In the first place, we meet with two theories which rest on tlie assumption that the reli^on of primitive man was a monotheism. Either by way of mtuitiou, or as the result of rtllcxion on the world and man, it is supposed that the human mind hod acquired a knowledge at least of the unity and of the <;inlinal attributes of God.

Uniler the Impression of this kiiowledj^e uian may be supposed to have gone on to shape bacniicial rites, and that from either of two motives, (a) The Expiatory tfi>ortj is to the effect that man, conscious of sin aiKl of the punishment which it merits, substituted an animal victim which should endure the penalty due to himself, and so make his peace with God.

This interpretation of the rite, it is true, has usually been identified with the advocacy of a DiWne institution, but it at least holds its place in the popular niinii— apart from any question of orijjin — as furnishing the explanation of the a^je-long searching after God through tile ritual of the slaujihtered victim and the smoking altar.

— (t) The Uonia^e theorij of Sacrifice has been more favoured by those writers who regard the institution as a natural out- growth from a priulitive monotheism. On this view man was mipelled to seek closer communion with God, not out of a sense of guilt, but rather out of a desire to acknowledge his dependence and profess his obedience. To give expression to these devout sentiments he fell back on the language which is more powerful than speech— the language of action ( Warburton, Diti. Lrg.

iv. 4). 'To such men (Cain and Abel) there came Uioughts of one who is ruling them as they rule the sheep, who in some strange way makes the seeds grow which they put into the ground. . How sliall they confess Him, and manifest their subjection? Speech, thanksgiving are not the moiit chillilike way of testifying homage. Acts go before words' (Maurice, Sacrifice, p. C).

The fundamental objection to the above two theorie* is that they attribute to primitive man a theologv which it is hard to associate with the childhood of the race. The Expiatory theory not only presupposes a primitive knowledge of God transcending the thoughts of childhood, but it credits man ivith a sense of sin, and with a valuation of death as the wages of sin, which Iwlong to a later period of spiritual development.

Sloreover, the theory conflicts with the preponderantly joyous character of early sacrifice. The Homa'_'e theory is attractive to spiritual and uhilosophical minds when seeking a justification for sacri- fice, nut can hardl.v be sujiposed to have originated it;. C!) A second group of theories is connected with the as.sumption that the deities of prmiitive man were beings of a low anthropomorphic order — whether nature -spirits, or ancestral ghosts, or fetishes.

From this point of view it naturally seems that the worshipper has somewhat to offer which bis Deity needs and will gratefully accept. How man ministers to this need, and how his ministering proves effectual, may be conceived in various ways suggested by examination of the possible motives. (o) The Gijt theorji has it that the offerings were viewed •s presents, and that the offerer reckoned on their beuig received with plea.sure and gratitude.

A chief or a king is approached with gifts, and the gods expect the same. The currency of this interpretation in classical antiquity is vouched for by Cicero. ' Let not the impious dare to appease the gods with gifts. Let them hearken to Plato, who warns them that there can be no doubt of what GtKl's dis7>osition toward them will be, since even a good man will refuse to ocxieiit presents from the wicked ' (ifc Leg. ii. 10).

In the older literature it is lnain;ained by Spencer, who thinks it self-evident that this was^ the idea cherished by man in his primitive simplicity (ii. HVlt Tylor ami Herbert Spencer, though differing as to the primitive object of worship, find the origin of sacrifice in the idea of a gill.

Accoriling to the latter, ' the origin of the practice is to be found in the custom of leaving food and drink at the graves of the dead, and as the ancestral spirit rose to divine rank the refreshments placed for the dead developed Into sacrifices ■ (/'nnciycs 'if Sociotog]/, § 130 ff.) Among the older writers it was comn-only held that such an account of the origin of sacrifice could not he accepted in view of the place which it fills in the system of revelation (Biihr. Sinnliolik, I. p.

270); but within the lost generation it has come to be regarded as by no means axiomatic that value implies dignity of origin. A more forcible objection is that the blood, which figures so prominently in sacrificial ritual, can scarcelv have been selecle<l as a desirable gift. And this criticism is effective In so far as it compels the admi.viion that the whole svstem of sacrifice has not been shaped by the idea of the gift, there is, besides, reason tor holding that the fund.

imental conception, ivhile akin to that already stated, la more definite and euggistive. (t) Tha TabU-bond theory exchanges the general conception of a gift for that of a meal of which the Deity partakes in company with the worshippers. The germ of the theory is to he found in Sykes, who traced the eHic.

icy of sacrifice, which is comuionly a Joint-meal, to the tiwt that 'eating and drinking together were the known ordinary symbols of friendship, and were the usual rites of engaging In covenants and leagues' i^^taure of Sncrifice^.p.l!,). On this viewsacriflcchiis more virtue than a mere gilt ; it knits the god and the worshippers together by the bonds created by the interchange ol hospitality. In the tands of W. K. Smith (iiS p. 201) IT.)

the theory was developed by the addition that the Deity was united to the worshippers, not merely because of His gratification, but because a comnioq meal physically unites those who partake of it.

Whether this latter conception of the tiwdiu up-rraridi of the meal be primi- tive is open to doubt, but in view of the materials and form of early sacrifice the conclusion seems irresistible that the original idea of the worshippers was togratilv their Ood, and strengthen their position in Uis favour, by joining with Him in the repast (c) The Iheury of a materialintic .'acravtental communion is a special development of the lost.

The h>-pothesis sUrts from the obsenation that ot certain stages of civilization religion takes the form of animal-worship, or of the reverence lor oniinals which are believed to share along with man in the Divine nature. At this stage, also, it happens that the sacred animal which is commonly proscribed as food, is on solemn occasions made to furnish the material of a sacrificial meal.

In other words, there is occasionally permitted what has been bluntly described as 'eating the god' (Krazer, Golden Bough) The motive for this is suggested by a widespread idea of physical virtue. In eating an animal or a human being the savage is supposed to incorporate 'not only the physical, but even the moral and intellectual qualities which were characteristic ot that animal or man.'

Similarly it was easy to believe that, it the Divine life resided in a group ot sacred animals, a particle ot the precious deposit would be distributed among all the recipients, and incorporated with their individual lite (/iS2p. 313). As to whether we may regard as primitive the totemistic conception ot the Divine-human affinity of animals and ot the assimilation ot the Divine life through eating the totem, there is grave reason for doubt.

The totemistic theory of the origin ot worship has been widely propagated through the brilliant and learned monograph ot W. E. Smith (Joum. I'hilot. ix. 76 IT.), and its fascinating exposition bv Jevons (iTUroduction to the Uistori/ of Iteligum, 1890); but "the main body of English anthropologists refuse to regard it as primitive, while in France the hypotliesis has been subjected to close and learned cnticism (Marillicr, 'La place du Totemisme dans revolution religieuse,' in Rev. de lUist.

dee Religinns, lS97-9ti) Totemism seems most intelligible when viewed as formed under the play of savage thought or misconception, and as intruiling upon and overrunning earlier forms of worship which found a god in nature or the spirits of men. The theories above mentioned assume that sacrifice was directly called into e.xisteuce by the religious idea.

Another possibihty is that the slaughler'ng ot animals or men came to awaken awe and misgivings in the breast ot the savage, and that he sought to reassure himself bv a procedure which in vested such acts with a religious character and sanction. Amid this mass of speculation the mo.st certaii; conclu.sion seems to he lliat -sacrilit'e ()ii;.'iiiated in childlil<e ideiis of God, ami that the fundamental motive was to gratify Him hy giving or sharing with Him a meal. iii.

Semitic Sacrifice in the phe, Mosaic I'EumD.— For the period between the dim region of origins and the consolidation of Israel as a nation a certain amount of material is jirofessedly contributed in the i)atriarchal narratives of ,\.

The representation driven is that sacrifice origin- ated in the first family when the bloody oflcnng of Abel was accepted "((-n 4'') ; that Noah oflored burnt -offerings after his deliverance (S'-") ; and that by Abraliam and his line it was practised under a variety of forms and with some diversity of ritual. The chief occasions were times of meet- ing with God, and other solemn moments of life : the kind.

s of olleriiig in vogue were tlie I'eace- otl'ering (Gn SI"), the Burnt-oliering (22"), the Covenant Sacrifice (15"-), and the Libation (28'") ; the sacrificial material consisted of clean beasts and fowls (8-'"), especially cattle, goats, sheep, and pigeons (15"). Human .sacrifice, it ii- made known to Abraham, is not required by God ('ii'"'). It is also recognized that sacrifice is practised outside the pale of the chosen line (Ex 18", cf. Nu 23"''). That the kinds of .'

^acrilice thus distinguished, the material of sacrifice, and otiier features, corre- spond to the us.

age of an early period in the history of Israel is quite certain ; but the references do not carry us back to the earliest phases in the evolution of Semitic sacrifice, lietween the primi- tive form of sacrifice ami the coiiipiirativcly com- |)lex and elevated cultus niirrorcit in these nar- ratives there lies a course of development on which attention has been recently focussed owing to the researches of Wellhausen (Reste arabUchen Hei(lcyitkum.i) and of W. R. Smith (RS).

For the rediscovery of the stages and factors of this de- 332 SACRIFICE SACRIFICE velopment, reliance is placed on the survivals from heathen Arabia, on the vestiges of Phcenician and other Semitic cults, and especially on the gift of divination which wrests from the phenomena of the matured institution a confession as to tlie course of its earlier life-histoi*y.

The special features of Smith's treatment are his insistence on the con- nexion of primitive sacrifice with totemism, and his scheme sliowing the derivation of the varieties of sacrihce from the alleged primitive form, while he also supplements WclUuiusen's elucidation of the growth of sacrificial ritual and the progressive modilication of sacrificial ideas. This reconstructed chapter of history may be outlined as follows : — (a) Evolution of the varieties of Seinitic Sacrifice.

— The orig-inal point of departure, as we have already aeen, is, according to Smith, the sacramental meal, at which an animal wa3 devoured which was akin both to the god and hie wor- shippers, and which in virtue of its sacred properties served as a cement to bind together in closer unioo the I)ivine and the human sharers of the repast {RS^ 313). On this followed a process of differentiation, giviog rise on the one hand to the Sacrificial Feast, on the other to the holocaust.

The distinctions between the original sacramental meal and the Sacrificial Feast are two ; the former occurs at rare intervals and the tlcsh is deemed most holy, the latter occurs frequently and the flesh is in use as an ordinary article of diet. The transition is explained on the one hand by the cessation of the belief in the atiinity of animals to man, on the other by times of scarcity and a grow- ing- taste for animal food.

Less obvious is it why the primitive sacrifice, which was essentially a joint -meal, should have developed along a second line into a holocaust. The nexus is supplied by the following train of speculation. So long as the victim was a sacred animal there was but one type of sacrifice — the sacramental meal.

When totemistic modes of thought disappeared, and domestic animals supplied the sacrificial material, the victim, since it was no longer deemed to be kin, no longer fulfilled the condition necessary to unite the god and his worshippers. The only victim that fulfilled the condition of being akin to worshippers and worshipped was a human victim, and soon solenm occasions recourse was had to human sacrifices.

The eating of human tlesh was, however, re- pugnant to natural feeling, and the human victim was therefore offered as a holocaust. And, naturally enough, when an animal came to be substituted for a human victim the holocaust per- sisted as the ap|>ropriate form (Lect. x.) By this account the evolution is carried for^vard to the point represented in the beginnings of Hebrew history — where the Sacrificial Feast and the Burni-offering exist side by side. (6) Develitpment of Sacrijicial Kitxial.

— The oldest Semitic form of ritual, it is supposed, is preserved in a description by Nilus of a Saracen sacrifice. 'The camel chosen as the victim is bound upon a rude altar of stones piled together, and the leader of the band, after inflicting the first wound, in all haste drinks of the blood that gushes forth.

Forthwith the whole company fall on the victim with their swords, hacking off pieces of the quivering flesh and devouring them raw, with such wild haste that in a short interval the entire camel, body and bones, skin, blood, and entrails, is wholly devoured' (/i6'2 p. 338). In this savage rite we see the first stage of usages which were to undergo numy niodificatioiis before reachmg familiar shape.

— (1) The manipulation of the blood, so im- portant in sacrificial ritual, here begins in the form that the worshippers lap it as it flows, ami tlie god s portion runs out upon the stones. Later the repulsive draught is eschewed, and they are content to be smeared with it — a portion being sprinkled for the god upon the altar or running into a gutter, while some is sprinkled upon the worshippers.

This double sprinkling survived to hist^jric times in the Covenant-sacrifice, Ordinarily, however, the whole of the blood was treated as the god's portion, and was conveyed to him on the altar in peace- offerings and burnt-offerings, and also in the later piacular sacrifices. — (2) Conveyance of other portiotis to the god. Assum- ing that the above-mentioned rite IS primitive, the god origin- ally received nothing save a share of the effueetl blood.

Gradually, however, other portions, as fat and entrails, were assigned to him, and the question emergt-d as to how they were to be conveyed to him. In the case of libations of blood or wine, they could be supposed to rea*;h him by absorption in the ground, while fat was seen to melt, but the solid in- gredients presented a ditficulty. An earl.v idea was to expose them, and allow them to reach their destination through being devoured by wild beasts.

Next, the use of fire came in— originally, as Smith thinks, simply to get rid of the remanent portionsi but afterwards as the means of canying into the sphere of the gods the sublimated essence or the sweet savour of the meal. The usage in which, while the blood is poured out on the altar, the essence of the offering ascends in fire from the altar, is that which has been firmly established at the dawn of Hebrew history- (Wellhausen, op. eit. 110 ff., 'Opfer u. Gaben ' ; liS^, Lect. ix.

X— (3) Modificationi of the hwnan m^al. Like the drinking of the warm blood, the eating of the raw flesh had to yield in the course of time to more refined methods. With the appearance of the Burnt-offering it went partially out of use, while in the Sacrificial Feast it appears to nave been at first boiled, at a later period roasted.— <4) Growth of opinion as to the siffniJicaJice of Sacrifice.

The primitive interpretation of the rite as cementing the religious relation- ship through the eating of the sacred animal disappeared when the people reached the pastoral stage, although the idea lingered that food of any kind had a unitint; virtue, and the illicit mystic forms of cultus which continued to be practised to some extent embodied the original idea. A new interpret tation gained ground with the rise of the institution of pro- perty.

The worshipper now had somewhat whereof he waa absolute disposer, not joint-trustee along with tlie Deit}', and it had thus become possible for him to confer on the latter a favour by the bestowal of what the worshipper was person- ally entitled to enjoy. In this way the Gilt theory, whicb is imbedded in so many terms of the sacrificial vocabulary, came into existence.

The institution of property, in fact, from the first exercised an influence that on the whole has worked for religious deterioration. At a later stage the gift was understood to be in some sense a substitute for the wor- shipper. The Welihausen, Smith contribution to the evolutionary account of Semitic sacrifice is a brilliant piece of work which has profoundly influ- enced research in cojj:nate fields.

Hut the attrac- tiveness of the ingenious combinations, supported as they are by vast and rechercM erudition, neces- sitates a reminder of the extremely speculative and precarious character of many of the positions. The theory credited to Semitic heathenism in its primi- tive stage, as already pointed out, is highly proble- matical.

The construction in question postulates the idea of a communion between the gt>d and the worshippers due to their assimilating the same food, but it cannot be held to be proved that this natural enough idea sprang ultimately from a theory that the sacritice was ethcacious because the victim was akin to both.

Further, if the god and his votaries were already kin, it is not clear that their union could be more closely cemented by eating an animal which imported into the union no more than was already found in it.

As regards the genealogical scheme, while Smith makes the holocaust a late derivative, and bj* a complicated process, from the sacramental meal, the truth is that the two types are always found existing side by side — among the Phcenicians as well as among the Hebrews; and, so far as historical evidence goes, there is no strong reason for according priority to either (Hubert et Mauss, p. 32 ti'.)

A weakness of SfnitVs position is that his exposition of primi- tive Semitic ideas is largely based on late Arab practice ; and the next stage must be to test his speculations by the results of the researches now being activelj* pro.secutcd in the older iicld of Babylonian and Assj-rian worship (Zimmern, Beit- rdqe ztir Kennt, der hab. Relig.) Iv. Sacrifice ix Ancient Israel.

— From the speculative iield of preliistoric evolution we ad- vance to the period wliich extends from the Kxodua to the rise of the 8th cent, prophets. The question which encounters us on the threshold is whether, and to what extent, Moses organized a system of sacrificial worship. The Pentateuch, in its main body, represents the work of Moses in this depart- ment as epoch-making and final.

The Priestly Narrative, in the first place, makes no mention of a use of sacritice anterior to Moses, and thua suggests, not indeed that it was not previously practised, but that it had then no place in the re- ligion of the chosen line, and that it had no Divine sanction.

In the next place it ascribes to Moses, as the instrument of God, an elaborate code which preciselj', and with an aspect of finality, deter- mines the when, the where, the by whom, and in a very special manner the how of sacrifice ( Wellh. Uist. Isr. p. 52). Hut the representation is in both particulars unhi.storicaI. Tlie use of sacrihce in primitive Israel, antecedently more than probable, IS vouched for by independent tradition.

The promuljjiation by Moses of an elaborate sacrificial code, wnich treats ritualistic correctness of detail as of paramount importance, is in itself improbable, and is Inconsistent with tlie highly flexible practice SACRIFICE SACEIFICE 333 under the Judges and the early nionarcliy, as well as with the prophetic conceptions of tlie nature of the Mosaic legislation (see below).

It is indeed diilicult to believe that Moses left no iiiijiress upon the forms of the relit;ious life of the people wliich remembered him not only as emancipator, but as prophet (Dt 34'"), and it may well be hupiio.-.ed that he stands for an early stage in the evolution of the in.siitution which culminated in the system of the l^riestly Code ; but it would be a hopeless task to try to disengage the Mosaic element in the archaic usages which P certainly embodies.

In these circumstances it is desirable to base the account of ancient Heb. sacrifice on another group of sources. Foremost among these is JE, whose patriarchal narratives illustrate a comiiaratively early cycle of ideas, and the Cook of tlie Covenant (Kx 20^-23"), which clironicles or corrects certain features of ritual practised down to the 9th century. In addition, great value attaches to the incidental references in Judges, in the hooks of Samuel, and in the early Projiliets.

(1) The Saerifciul mutcrinl consisted of the agri- cultural produce of Canaan, animal (Ex 22*'), cereal, and liquid (v.^). The victims included — of large cattle, the old and young of the ox-kind ; of small cattle, sheep and lambs, goats and kids. Of birds, the pigeon might be used in the Burnt-ollering. Wild animals and fish, which figure in the liaby- lonian ritual, were not oflercd.

The blood and the fat were specially appropriated to Jehovah, and of animal products presented to Him we hear of wool (Hos2'), but notof the libation of milk. Meal, which was baked into cakes (Jg C", Am 5-^), was the com- mon form of the cereal offering. The valuable pro- ducts of oil (Gn 2S'», Mic 6') am"! wine (1 S 1=«, Am 2*) were ingredients of the sacrificial meal, and were doubtless also offered in the form of a liljation. The sacrifici.

al material of the Carthaginians agrees with this, except that their code allowed many species of birds and also milk {CIS i. 237). (2) T/te varieties of sacrifice were of two types — that in which the ofrering was wholly devoted to < lod, and that in which He received a portion and the worshippers feasted on the remainder. Of the former u.

se the typical example is the Burnt-offering, of the latter the Sacrificial Feast (Ex 10== 18'^ 20") ; but there are other kinds of offering that have to be described which bear distinct names either because of the peculiarity of the ritual, or of the special end which they were designed to serve. ('() The Sacrificial Feast was probably the oldest form, was in early times by far the most common, and gave satisfactioo to normal states of religious feeling.

The n&mes by which this type of otferln^^ Is dfstinpruished In FtV are Sacrifice and Peace-olTfring. ' Sacrifice ' (njl) is Borae- limea cooCnst«d with the old generic name (.in;'3 1 8 2'-'^), but ottener with the Burnl-offcring (Ex 102», 1 8 «"), and in both caae« It Is * the general name for all sacrifices eaten at feuts ' (Oxf. Heb. Lex. i. n;i).

The sacriBce in the narrower ftnfle Is synonymouB with the Peace-ofTering (D;y), which is BimUarty used to desi^^nate the division of offerings wliicb were divided between God and man (Ex 2u24, Am 6^). The original meaning of the dV^' is obscure. The interpreta- tion of ovir versions rendered' by Pence-oITerinK (LXX 6vf!

» Mi^iixx) conceives it as the sacriilce offered when friendly re- lations existed towards God (O^V, to be whole or at one ') — In contnuiiMtinntion to the piacular sacriflccs which presupposed estrungL-tuent. Ueihopjer is somewhat similar in idea. An alternative rendering derives it from D^C 'to malco whole,' 'make restitution,' in which case it would be originally an offering of reparation (Rrglattun(Tgf>p/fr). and by an intelligible transition a payment of vows or thanit-onering (Luther).

The occasion of the Peace-offering was some ■nch event a« prompts human beings to come tog(ther in a festive spirit. Even in the modern World the joyful event provokes demonstrations and rejoicings which are felt to have their fittest culmination in the banquet, and the Peace-offering was simply the form taken by the festal banquet in an age thoroughly permeated by the religious spirit.

The opportunity for such celebrations is given, not only in the life of the nation and of the community, but in that of the kindred stock and of the family. In the national life such occa- sions for rejoicing occurred in the successful con- clusion of a campaign (lb 11'°, cf. Jg lU^), in the cessation of a visitation of famine or pestilence (2 S "24"), and in the accession of a king to his throne (1 K l'").

In the last case, and also at the dedication of the temple, the provision naturally was on the most magnificent scale (1 K 8'"). The smaller unit of the local community had its special occasion for rejoicing in the events of the agricul- tural year: firstlings and first-fruits supjdicd the material of a sacrificial meal (Ex 22-'"""). The visit of a notable prophet to a town also suggested the recognition of the privilege by a sacrificial feast (1 S 10').

The sept or larger family professed and strengthened its kinship by an annual reunion wliicli took the form of the sacred bancjuet ('20*). Similarly, family religion found occasional ex- pression in the pilgrimage of man and wife to a local sanctuary, where tliey ate and drank before the Lord (1 S l').

Other events in this sphere which were similarly hallowed were the de)iarture on a momentous journej' (Gn 31°), the arrival of a guest of consequence (IS'"), the embarkation on a new career (1 K 19='). In general it served to keej) alive the sense of dependence on God for pro tcction and the natural blessings of life, while it had the social value of promoting the solidarity of the nation and of its component parts.

i\) A course of preparation was required before taking part in the sacred observance ( 1 S 10°). A period of continence was ordained (21°, cf. Ex 19"''''') ; and lustrations and a change of garments constituted the physical holiness which was deemed seemly and necessary in approaching the Deity (Gn 35^ Ex 19""'-). Naturally, al.so, it was made the occasion for the display of finery and orna ments (Hos 2'").

There was recog;nizcd, however, the necessity of a more spiritual preparation in which the heart was touched, or even renewed by God ( 1 S 10'). (2) T/ie ritual necessarily varied with the material. In the case of the animal sacrifice, the blood and the fat were approjiriatcd to God (1 S 2"), and were consumed on the altar. To lessen the temiitation to sacrilege, it was provided that the fat should be given to God immediately after the slaughtering (Ex '23").

The accompany- ing offering consisted of unleavened bread {ib.}. The remaining portions were divided between the priests and the offerers. The sin of the sons of Eli was that, instead of taking the share allowed by ancient custom, they dipped with a rapacious flesh-hook into the cauldron, and also that they encroached on the Divine portion by claiming their share before the fat had been conveyc<l to God (1 S 2'="'-).

At this stage the sacrificial tlesh was boiled, and it is represented as an objectionable innovation that the prie.'its demanded their |)ortion raw with a view to its being roasted. The custom of boiling the flesh is al.so commemorated in Ihe prohibition of seething a kid in its mother's milk (Ex 23'") — which probably had its origin, not so much in a feeling that the practice was of the nature of an outrage, as in heathen associations connected with the .sacrificial use of milk.

(3) The reliqiints ej/iracy of the Sacrificial Fca-st was doubt- less dillerentlj' interpreted according to the degree of spiritual enlightenment. The popular idea prob- ably was that God was entertained at a feast, in which He received His portion in the form of fire- food, and that the honour and gratification thus afforded Him rendered Him well disposed to the 334 SACRIFICE SACRIFICE worshippers.

The offering would tlius be con- sidered elHcacious as l»riiiging tlie response whicli is naturally elicited by a gift or service. The command, ' none shall appear before me empty- handed ' (Ex 23'* 34-"), su^'gosts that the practice of approaching a monarch with gifts was regarded as typical of the approach to Jehovah with offer- ings. The use of .in;;? (gift) in a comprehensive .sense points to the same interpretation.

With tills, doubtless, was also associated the conviction that by eating and drinking along with Jehovah friendly relations were both e.\pressed and strength- ened. That the sacred life-blood of the animal was conceived as cementing the union by constitut- ing a physical tie is more problematical (Schultz, AJTh, 1900, p. 269). But these interpretations were beginning to be challenged. The higher theo- logy excluded the idea of God as a fellow-guest.

A striking saying, ascribed to Samuel, declares offerings worthless without obedience (1 S IS-''). (p) The Burnt-offering, nSy (LXX oA«e«uiwju«, oxaxt^uraurn, cXoxxfirMuM, t>\cKupTtuffti\ ' that which ascenda,' is so called either as that wliich is elevated to tlic altar (Knobel, Oehler, Nowack), or wliich ascends in flame (Bulir, Keil, Delitzsch).

It is usually synonymous with 'the whole Burnt-offering,' though originally the distinction may have obtained that the portion of any bloody sacritiGe consumed on the altar was designated the npv, while only the Burnt -offering consisting of an eotire victim was a "j'^s (Nowack, Arch. ii. 215).

If the bright side of human experience, which gives birth to joy and hope, had its characteristic rite in the Peace, offering, the Burnt, offering answered to the mood in which the predominant feelin" is grief, apprehension, or awe.

In certain situations, of course, there is a combination of joyousness and solemnity, of hope and fear — as at the coronation of a monarch, or the conclusion of a national covenant with God, and in such cases the double aspect has its expression in the com- bination of the two types of offering (I S 10', Ex 24*). But on occasions of extraordinary solem- nity or gravity the Burnt -offering stood alone.

The deliverance from the Flood, accompanied as it may be supposed to have been by overwhelming awe at the sweep of God's devastating judgment, was marked by the sacritice of the Burnt-offering (Gn 8""). Similarly on the occasion of a theophany, when the sense of privilege is overborne by the sense of danger in tlie presence of Jehovah, the Burnt-offering is the appropriate rite (Gn 22'", Jg Vi"').

At the beginning of a war, when the danger and the dubious issue are keenly realized, it alone bespeaks the Divine aid ; nor does the leader of the host embark without this appointed service on his hazardous enterprise (Jg Q-"). It would even seem that in perplexity it was used with the divinatory purpose, which in Babylonia had been one of the principal uses ( Jg 6"*-).

When one was driven to extremity by the hatred of a powerful opponent, it miglit be offered in the hope of God interposing to change his heart (1 S 26'"). In time of peril it might be promised by way of vow on condition of success ( Jg 11).

It has indeed been alleged that in periods of national calamity it was not oll'ered — the idea being tliat this was useless so long as the wrath of Jehovah was fierce against king or people ; but this view rests upon an incident in the life of David (2 S 24") when acting under proplietic guidance, and cannot well be supposed to represent the prevalent belief. (1) The sarrific.

ial material had consisted, from very early times, in one or other of the following : the ox-kind, the goat, the slieep, the turtle-dove, and the young pigeon (Gn 15"). (2) The ritual of the Burnt-offering exhibits survivals of ancient usage. Though tlie usual custom now was to slay the victim beside the altar, there are traces of an older practice of slaying it upon the altar (Gn 22", cf. 1 S 14'^).

The ritual of Gideon is peculiar : th« Hesh of the kid is boiled, it is then put in a basket along with unleavened cakes and placed on the altar, while the broth is poured either over it or on the ground ( Jg 6'''- -"). The token of accept- ance is its consumption by lire. In the later period the broth played no part, the flesh being consumed raw upon tlie altar. (3) The signifirance of the Burnt-offering is sug- gested by what has been said of its occasions.

Its object was to secure protection against tlireatened danger, success in the hazardous conflict, deliver- ance from the sore calamity ; and if in some in- stances it has the appearance of a thank-offerin" after deliverance, the dominant thought may still have been that security was sought against a recur- rence of the judgment. Furtlier, it is clear that the idea was to ensure safety by performing an act which was acceptable to God, and thus dispose Him to maintain the worshippers' cause.

The intention was not inv.ariably to propitiate God in the sense of altering His attitude from hostility to clemency ; the sacrifices of Abraham and of David are rendered when God is already at peace with them, but they were always at least propitiatory in the secondary sense that they v.-ere designed to prevent God from changing His attitude of clemency into an attitude of hostility. As to how they were supposed to influence God we cannot very confidentlj' speak.

The old Hebrew idea was that the food actually reached God in the form of the fragrant flre-distilled essence, and thus gratified Him as an agreeable gift (Gn 8-'). In this point of view it was more efficacious th.an the Peace- oft'ering, inasmuch as it paid to God greater honour, and made Him a more costly gift.

Tlie story of the sacrifice of Isaac suggests the theory that the animal was substituted for a human victim, but it does not say that Isaac was to die for Abraham, and it therefore does not involve the idea that the animal victim was understood to bear the penalty due to the sin of the offerer. On this view, the animal victim represented only the substitu- tion of the less valuable for the more valuable gift.

As in the case of the Peace-offering, it is certain that the reflexion which was rooted in the higher faith gradually worked its way to a nobler conception than that of gratifying God by the delights of a repast. Old forms of expression, such as 'sweet savour' and 'bread of God,' con- tinued to be used even when it liad come to be realized that the quality which pleased God was the piety which prepared the tire-food.

Human SacHjicex, of which OT contains some record, come under the category of the Burnt-offering. That they occurred in the heathen stage through which tlie progenitors of the Hebrews passed in prehistonc times, can hardly be questioned. The practice prevailed throughout Semitic heathendom ; it la abundantly vouched for among the Arabs and the Carthaginians, and it was in use among the Moabites (2 K 3^).

The story of the sacrifice of Isaac (Gn 2211) clearly implies that the custom had been deeply rooted in the past ; the history of Jephthah furnishes an indubitable instance from the period of the Judgea (Jg ll^ff-): iid its persistence down to a late period may be collected from various prophetic references (Mic 67, Jer 731, Ezk 2026 2337).

The main point in dispute is whether 'human sacrifices were an essential element of the Mosaic cultus* (Ghillany), or whether they 'were excluded from the legitimate worship of Jehovah ' (Oehler). The argument for the legitimacy of the practice would be considerably stronger if we could regard as huiiian sacrifices the slaving of Zebah and Zalmunna by Gideon (Jg si»'i), and of Agag by Sanmel (1 S 1633, cf. 2 S 21^) : but these acts m.ay be assigned to the different category of executions.

In the case of Jephthah it is hard to suppose that he expected other than a iiuman beinij to come forth to meet him, and the most that can be said is that the narra- tive seems to recognize in the issue a merited punishment. The manifest moral of the sacrifice of Isaac is that the practice wae 'an alien element repudiated by conscious Jahwism' (Hol- zinger on On 221'' 20).

As to the commarnlroent of Ex 22'-»,— 'the firstborn of thy sons Shalt thou give unto me,'— it is an exegetical possibility that the words point to human sacrifice ; but as a normal demand of OT religion, and indeed of any Bane religion, it iB inconceivable (see art. PaiKSTS add LBViru, p. 70''). SACRIFICE SACRIFICE 335 (c) The Corenant-Bacrifice iaclosely relat«<l to the Peace-offering, fclthouifh it may be considered to be intermedial* between the n^i' and the njj.

The pecuharity Hea partly in the specific object,— which in to seal a compact, partly in the rilual. Ac- cordinif to antique practice tlie lonnution of a covenant or an alliance waa sealed by a variety of rites. One form is the Bprinklincof each party with the other's blood, or the coinDiing- Ung of the blood of both by smearing it upon stones. In a second form animal blood is employed.

Another is the partition of a carcase, with the paisiii^'eoi the covenantinij parties between the divided parts. Of the latter custom there is an evident trace in 1 S 11'. After being chosen as king, Saul ' took a yoke of oxen and cut them in pieces, and sent them throughout all the borders of Israel.'

In the text it is interpreted as a threat of a like fate being visit«d upon rebels ; but the form, which is reminiscent of the passage through a sundered %ictim, rather conveys an invitation to the tribes to join with him in a cove- nant. The form is also recognizable in the ritual employed in God's covenant with Abraham (Gn 15).

A heifer, a ram, and a she-goat are sundered in twain; and after nightfall a flaming torch, which clearly represents God in its action, passes between the divided pieces. Another noteworthy feature oi the narra- tive is that at first birds of prey descend upon the carcase and are driven away— not improbably a deliberate repudiation of the ancient practice of exposing the god's portion to he consimied bv wild creatures (v.")

The second important instance of the Covenant-sacrifice connects itself with the usage of cementing an alliance by an interchange of blood. At the making of the covenant between Jehovah and His emancipated people, Burnt- offerings and Pea';e-offering8 are sacrificed; and in connexion with the burnt-offering, as it would seem, Moses pours half of the blood upon the altar for God, while the other half is sprinkled on the peojile (Ex 240 »).

in this ti-pe of sacrifice a different idea from tnat of propitiating God by a gift is clearly preserved —that, ^iz., of the establishment of communion of Ufe through assimilation of the same blood. id) V-fjetahle nfcrings were later in origin, and in less repute, but must have fonned an important division of the offerings at the sanctuaries. Meal, baked into cakes, was doubtless a common form of oflering (Jg 6^^, 1 S 1^). The most interesting example of this class is the bukwkkbad (o^r? ^O!?

?""* I^utioi, c(. Lv 24W-)- Tl'i^ ofTering, even as regards the number of the loaves, is anticipated in the far older Babylonian ritual (Zini- nicm, lieitrage). The ritual in the first stage followed the method of exposure — the bread being laid out on a table in the sanctuarj- ; but the Divine portion is conveyed to the Deity in •he end by being allotted to the priests. The vegetable ofTer- Ings. it should he added, were often associated with animal offerings.

The Book of the Covenant prohibits the use of leavei:cd bread in connexion with the Sacrificial Feast (Ex 2;il«). (e) The Libation was originally a libation of blood, possibly at a later stage of milk and of water (1 S 7'^ 2 S 23if> preserve a recollection of the latter), but in tlie historical period the chief material is oil, wliich also naturally went along with the cereal ofTerings.

The rarity of the mention of the libation of wine, which was certainly" in use, is not improbably connected with the incongruity to more elevated thought of the idea of ofTering to God a festal" banquet, and also with offlcial opposition to the excesses to which the prominence of this element led (1 S l''*). Tliere could not be wanting an instinct that the hbation of wine was most in harmony with the unethical genius of heathendom. V, The Phoi'Iiets as Refokmers of Sacri- ficial Worship.

— The sacrificial system of ancient Israel was the result of a long and com- plex format ive process. A remote heathen past supplied the rudimentary forms, and these had under^'one modifi(-ation under the influence of a progressive civilizjil ion, and of the early stages of a gradual revelation. The system of ordinances thus historically given was now to be subjected to a testing ordeal.

The knowledge of God and of His will, which had been conveyed through ilis dealings with Israel, and which had been under- stood in essence by Moses, attained to great clear- ness and consistency in the consciousness of the 8th century propliots ; and, possessed as they were by this knowledge, they were comp'llcd to examine in its light the past and the future of the Seople, and to sit in juagment on all the present oingB of the house OI Israel.

In particular, they eould not hut ask whether the sacrificial cult, which to popular thinking was all but coextensive with religion, was needed and justilied in view of the better knowledge of (iod. As a fact this was a subject which bulked largely in their teaching ; it lupplied the occasion of much of their strongest Invective ; and so unqualified was their denuncia- tion that it is a debatable question whether tliey proposed the abolition of all sacrificial worsliip, or only its reform.

That the religious ideal of the prophets involved the abolitioa of sacrifice, as attirnK-d by various mo<lern writers, is a thesis which rests on a partial view of the evidence. 'Their opposi- tion to sacrifice,* says Kayser, 'was founded on principle, and the real significance of their language is: "No offermg, but love and right knowledge of God"^ {Altteet. Theol.^ p. hMS).

This, it is held, is the natural sense of a group r)( passages which represent God as declining offerings, as sated with ihem, and even loathing them. 'To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to me? I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats. Bring no more vain oblations' (Is lUff., cf. Am .')2i 25^ Hqs 6--', Mic ti^ff.) Hut such expressions may as naturally be understood of a conditional as of an absolute rejection of sacrifice.

The people addressed was a sinful nation, persisting in ita sins, and the repudiation of offerings at its hand by no means implied that sacrifice would be equally uiiucce}»table at the hand of a penitent and regenerate people (cf. Suiend, Altleat. Theol. p. 168). And the view that the rei>udiation is merely conditional is borne out by hints that accompany the more extensive prophetic prospects.

Thus, Hoi^ea looks forward to the cessation of sacrifice as a national punislnnent or calamity (349111.); Isaiah predicts that the E^'yptians will bring sacrifice and oblation to Jehovah (11)-'). while Jeremiah very emphati- cally includes sacrifices in the purified worship of the future (;i3if* 172C). In short, those who regard the prophets as aboli- tionists make a mistake which is common in studying polemics —viz.

of misconceiving an attack on abuses as an attack on the institution which they have infected. A second argument adduced is that the prophets lay great stress on the fact that in the Mosaic period sacrifice was neither rendered nor ordained (Am 5^5, Jer T^i-*'"), whereby they are supposed to claim for a policy of abolition the sanc- tion of a sacred period of antiquity.

These remarkable pas- sages are of great weiglit in the controversy as to the Mosaic contribution to sacrificial legislation, but in the present con- nexion they are not convincmg. That Israel did not sacrifice during its wanderings (Am 525) ^as not necessarily an argument for cessation, but might equally have in view to win tlie people to a doctrine which certainly was included in the prophetic programme— viz.

that the place of sacrifice in worship was not the all-important, or even pre-eminent, one that was commonly supposed. The prophetic progrnmme of reform in this field embraced both sacrihcial practice and sacri- hcial theory. (1) Among the practical reforms the foremost place belonged to (a) the prohihi- Hon of hcathf.n sacrifices — i.e. those ottered to other gods, to idols (Hos ll^, Jer IP*), to the dead (Ps 106^), and to sacred animals (Ezk 8^").

In connexion with these the practice of kissing the idol is noticed (Hos 13-). To the class of heathen sacrifices we maj' also refer those mystic rites in which the victim was an unclean or re- pulsive creature (the swine Is 65", the mouse 61)"), and which ma}' have been an underground survival from a very early cult (7t'.V- p. 357 tl. ). (6) The prohibition of certain Iritnis of sacrifice is also enforced — notably human sacriiicea (Ezk 20*^).

It is, moreover, dilticult to resist the impression, in view of the disparaging references to the number and costliness of the ollerings (Is 1", Mic iV, Am 4^ Ezk 2(i^). tliat the school preferred fewer kinds and greater simplicity. In particular, antagonism to the Sacrihcial Peast is strongly sug- gested by (r) condemrnytion of the excesses which connected themselves with the sacrificial cult.

The sacritices of this type naturally gave occasion for revelry, and even for drunken and licentious orgies {Hos 4'^ Am 2^), and thus an institution conceived to honour God became a main instrument in pro- moting a national corruption, which called down the vengeance of Heaven.

While, therefore, w<^ cannot regard the prophets as against sacrilice in principle, it is at least a probable view, in con- sideration of the organic connexion of tlie sacri- ficial meal with the indulgence of tleshly lusts, that they meant to discountenance the Peace- otl'ering as the mjiin source of evil, and laboured to enhnnce the credit of those other varieties which pre<*lnded its characteristic temptations.

(2) It was, however, on the theoretical side tbnr the projihetical protest went deepest, and uu>st loudly challengetl the existing order, (a) It de- manilcd a revision of the popular estimate of tlie place of the cultus in religion, and in a minor degree of the place of sacrihco in the cultus.

The current 536 SACRIFICE SACRIFICE conception was that religious ordinances were the grand means of pleasing God, and to this the prophets sliarply opposed the doctrine that in God's view ceremonies are unimportant in comparison with morality. Latent in Mosaism, this view found strikin" expression in a saj^ing already quoted — ' to ohey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams,' 1 S 15-^.

It is the main burden of the prophecy of Amos, and finds its classic expression in the ' what doth the Lord require of thee?' of Micah (G"*-, of. Hos 6«, Pr 17' 21'). The secondary importance of the cultus, in fact, was the obvious consequence of the soteriology of the prophets. According to tlieir teaching it wa.

s only on condition of right- eousness, after backsliding on condition of repent- ance and amendment, that the Divine favour could be ensured ; failing the fulfilment of this condi- tion, ceremonial religion only provoked the Di^^ne anger ; and it was therefore out of the question to treat the two as of co-ordinate rank. And, further, even within the sphere of the cultus it is not granted that it is the all-important form of 'service.'

Hosea attaches high importance to the teaching function of the priests (4*), while in more than one passage preference is manifestly exhibited for the exercises of prayer (' calves of the lips,' Hos 14-) and for sacred song (Ps 27'). (i) The significance of sacrifice for the prophets remains to be considered. With the cultus thus depreciated, and the pre-eminence of sacrifice in the cultus challenged, in what sense was it possible to maintain its efficacy ?

After what has been already said, it is inconceivable that they supposed it to be acceptable to God In the capacity of a gift. The God who claimed the whole life for duty was not likely to be influenced hy a present or a meal. And from the point of view of their high theology the Gift-theory fell to the ground as untenable, even ridiculous.

In the first place, God did not experience the wants which the ofl'er- ings supplied ; in the second place, even if He did, the oiterings were already God's property, not man's to present (condensed in Ps 51)'"). If sacri- fice had any efficacy at all, it needed another explanation for those who had realized the true God. This it possessed as a vehicle for the ex- pression of the sentiments, and for the revelation of the spirit of the life, of those who sincerely served or sought God.

Its efficacy, in short, was neither more nor less than that of prayer, which, on its part, is of value not as an act considered in itself, but in virtue of the aspirations and the sincerity which find voice in it. That in the pro- phetic valuation the function of sacrifice was identical with that of prayer, cannot indeed be conclusively proved, but it is the view which best harmonizes with their religious theory ; and it derives confirmation from several considerations.

In the patriarchal narratives, which embody a measure of the prophetic spirit, it is usually associated closely with the prayer of adoration and petition, suggesting that the spoken word serves the purpose of making the action articu- late. In the case of the sacrifice of Abel, again, the ground of accejitance manifestly was the disposition of the worshipper, which disposition prayer equally with sacrifice would have served to bring to expression.

Especially significant is the fact that in certain passages the ofl'ering of words is demanded (Hos 14-) — the implication being that they served the same purpose as sacri- fice in making the ap[>e.il of i>rayer to God, and that they were preferable in that they were less likely to foster evil practices and to encourage superstition. The Dcnteronomic Reformation made the influ- ence of the prophetic school to tell along another line on the development of the sacrificial system.

The suppression of the local sanctuaries, and the con- solidation of worship in Jerusalem, which had its spring in prophetic inspiration, had far-reaching consequences. One immediate consequence was to detach sacrifice from the everyday life of the people, and to reduce it in the main to an element in the worship in which national religion found expression.

Naturally also the Sacrificial Feast ceased to be as practicable as when it had been observed in their several districts by the smaller units of the family and the clan, and it tended to give place to the type of the holocaust in which the people looked on at the consumption of the offerings in the service of God, whether directly or by His priests.

With the decay of the Sacri- ficial Feast, moreover, the spirit of worship was altered — the joy of the table being swallowed up in a deepening sense of the solemnity of the col- lective worship, and of the more imposing rites to which it gave prominence (Wellh. Proleg. Eng. tr. p. 76 fi'.; Nowack, Arch. ii.) Sacrifice in Deuteronoiny. — \AliiIe in general Deut. rf fleets the prophetic doctrine of the superiority of morality to csreniony.

It is far from representing the abolitionist standpoint ascribed to Amos. Its list of offerings includes burnt-offerinjs-s, peace- olTerings, heave-offerings, votive-offerings, free-will offerings, first-fruits, while it prohibits human sacrifices (181*5), t^e drink- ing of blood (12'.

^), hair-offerings and mutilations {14iX Among its leading interests are to conserve somewhat of the jojous char- acter of sacrifice in spite of the centralization of worship (12^, and to ensure a sufficient portion to the priestjs from the sacrifices, — in the case of animal offerings the shoulder, two cheeks, and the maw (183). The animal victim, it is also emphasized, must be without blemish (171).

The sacrifice in expiation of an uncertain murder (21^) is interesting for its peculiar ritual, manifestly antique, while it is obviously excepted from the centralization of the worship. vi. The Sacrificial System of the Priestly Code. — With tlie downfall of the kingdom of Judah, involving the destruction of the Temple and the deportation of the people, Hosea's pre- diction of the cessation of sacriticial worship was fulfilled.

Whatever relief individuals might there- after find in recurrence to simple forms of offering, or by conforming to heathenism, the nation as such, broken as it was and dispersed, was deprived of the stated means of communion with God. Yet the visitation which had thus overwhelmed Judah, and reduced its institutions to ruins, was not in- terpreted by its religious leaders as a Divine condemnation of its system of worship.

The WTitings of Ezekiel bear testimony to the hopes of a great prophet touching the restoration of the Temple and its solemn ordinances.

The priests who escaped into exile carried with them a minute knowledge of the Temple services, possibly also written summaries of the rules that had governed the elaborate system of otl'erings and ritual ; and it may well be believed that, ere tlie Temple with its solemn rites faded from living memory, it was realized to be a pious duty to compile a faithful record of the ancient sanctities and glories.

Cherished as a monument of the past, this record naturally became, in the prospect of a new national existence, the basis of a practical religious jiro- gramme. The dream of restoring the old worship on the old sacred gi'ound, in a second Temple of Jerusalem, was one wliicli must have irresistibly appealed to the pious exile. But restoration did not preclude adaptation and amendment.

Novel cir- cumstances, foreign impressions, deeper reflexion, required that the legacy from the piast should be handled with freedom as well as with piety. The result of the two factors — obscure as was the pro- cess— was the Priestly Code, which was adopted as authoritative at the Reformation under Ezra, c. 444, and which thenceforward regulated Jewish worship and gave its characteristic note to Jewish religion.

The sacrificial system described in this SACRIFICE SACRIFICE 337 code (Leviticus, Ex 25-31. 35-40, Nu 1-10. 15-19. 25-36) we have now to analyze. 1. Fot-ms of SacriJice.—'i'Uc arrangement of the complicated enactments of the code lias been at- tcniiitBd in ditleient ways, but the more satisfactory method is to adopt as the leading clue the distinc- tion of kinds and varieties. Tlie cliissilication of the Levitical sacrifices may, however, be carried out from dill'erent points of view.

The main principle of division has been sought in the distinction of the subjects oa behalf of whom sacrihces were ollered. It is on this principle that Malmonlrles haor-s his interesting and instructive suinniary ot the auorilicial laws (J'r(rlatio in quintain J/uiiice iiiirli-m', iii. IIT.)

- Tin- viirieliis, he premises, may all be reduced to four groups — the Sin-offcriug, tlie Guilt- offering, the Durnt-offcring, and the Peace-oflering ; and the Tictinis were o( Ove species— sheep, cattle, goats, young pigeons, and turtlenioves. In reference to the subjects, his classification (sligbtlv transposed) is as follows : — 1.

Sacrifices offered on behalf of the whole congregation :— (o) in the exercise ot its ordinary religious duty, under a ■Uted ritual, and tied to stated occasions (Saljhath, New Moon, F<;ists) ; (^) on the occasion o( some collective or public traiis^rression. 2. Sacrilicea oiTered on behalf of the individual :— (a) in virtue of his r-onnexion with the theorratic community as an official or ordinary member, e.ti, the Pawover ; (h) on a special occa- aion— «.£/.

a sin of word or deed, a bodily accident, amisfor- tune in business, the end of a flxcd period, the obligation of a vow. The Levitical sacrifices have also been classi- fied with reference to the dill'erent ends which they served in the approach to the Deity. The usual division from this point of view is into horunrijie, designed to render due homage to Ood, and piacular or ex- piaturii, designed to make atonement for sin— to wliich, since W. R.

Smith's work, it luis been usual lo add sacrifices of cum- munion. The distinction wliich (lihler lays at the basis of his discussion is expressed by him (Tlienlog;/ of OT, Eng. tr. p.

423) as follows :— ' We refer the tour kinds of offering to two higher classes— those which assume that the covenant relation is on the whole undisturbed (Peace^)frerings), and those tliatare meant to do awav with a disturbance which has entered into this relation, and' again to restore the right relation (of the peojile or of separate individuals) to Ood ' (Burnt-, Sin-, and Uuilt-offeriugs).

The division founded on the distinctions of the sacrificial maierinl — animal, vegetable, or liquid — is the most obvious, and may be followed here as of adequate importance, while not pre- judging the difficult question of the purpose of sacrifice. (i. ) Animal sacrifices are by far the most im- portant, and in P it appears that a re-valuation has taken place of the two ancient types.

The Peaceofiering of which the worshippers claimed a large sliare is overshadowed by the feurntoHering, with which are now associated two kindred sacri- fices—the Sin-offering and the G nil t-oU'eriug, falling to (jod and Uis ministers.

(o) The Burnt-otrerlng (n^'y Lv 1, Ex 29»<«, No JS"-, Lv CI'), which stands at the head ot the group, owes its position to the fact that its juirpose was the most general, that the victims were ot pre-eminent value, anrl that at this stage it was regarfled as most pertectlv emlwdying the sacriticial idea (Knoliel-Dillmann on Lv 1^). (l) Tht viclinis \yere the oxkind, sheep, goats, turtloKiovcs.

or young pigeons, — in the case of the animals it was prescribed that the victim should be a male, as the more valuable, and without blemish (1», tor a list of blemishes of. 2a*-^). (2) The riltuit to tje observed includes the following points in the cise of the animal victims : — (n) Action ofl/if o/Vrer — imposition of lianrls (Lv H), slaughter of the victim at the door of the tabernacle, to the north of the altar (vv.s- n)^ flaying and cutting uj) the carcase (v.

s^, washing of the entrails and legs (v.f). (X) Action of the /jncnf— manipulation of the bloo<l which is sprinlded aliout the alt-ir (v.B), disposition of the pieces upon the woisl of the altar (v. S), burning the o(TtTing(v,i'). The dove was killed by the priest, and its crop and feathers were flung a«lde as unsuitable (v.l'r-). In the above ritual the occasion presupposed is a private sacrifice, which might lie rendered as the result of a vow or spontaneously (22"). (.

() The oeceunni^ of this sacrifice were in the main connected with the collective worship, of which it formed the chief eienienl. The daily services ot the temple consistetl ot the continual Biimt- •Bering (I'ljp n^V), wherein a he-lamb was offered every