SACRIFICE

SACRIFICE, an offering made to God on an altar, by means of a regular minister, as an acknowledgement of his power, and a payment of homage. Sacrifices (though the term is sometimes used to comprehend all the offerings made to God, or in any way devoted to his service and honour) differ from mere oblations in this, that in a sacrifice there is a real destruction or change of the thing offered; whereas an oblation is only a simple offering or gift, without any such change at all: thus, all sorts of thythes, and first fruits, and whatever of men's worldly substance is consecrated to God, for the support of his worship and the maintenance of his ministers, are offerings or oblations; and these, under the Jewish law, were either of living creatures or other things: but sacrifices, in the more peculiar sense of the term, were either wholly or in part consumed by fire. They have by divines been divided into bloody and unbloody. Bloody sacrifices were made of living creatures; unbloody of the fruits of the earth. They have also been divided into expiatory, impetratory, and eucharistical. The first kind were offered to obtain of God forgiveness of sins; the second, to procure some favour; and the third, to express thankfulness for favours already received. Under one or other of these heads may all sacrifices be arranged; though we are told, that the Egyptians had 666 different kinds, a number surpassing all credibility.

Concerning the origin of sacrifices very various opinions have been held. By many, the Phœnicians are supposed to have been the authors of them; though Porphyry attributes their invention to the Egyptians; and Ovid imagines, from the import of the name victim and hostia, that no bloody sacrifices were offered till wars prevailed in the world, and nations obtained victories over their enemies. These are mere hypotheses contradicted by the most authentic records of antiquity, and entitled to no regard.

By modern deists, sacrifices are said to have had their origin in superstition, which operates much in the same way in every country. It is therefore weak, according to those men, to derive this practice from any particular people; since the same mode of reasoning would lead various nations, without any intercourse with each other, to entertain the same opinions respecting the nature of their gods, and the proper means of appeasing their anger. Men of gross conceptions imagine their deities to be like themselves, covetous and cruel. They are accustomed to appease an injured neighbour by a composition in money; and they endeavour to compound in the same manner with their gods, by rich offerings to their temples and to their priests. The most valuable property of a simple people is their cattle. These offered in sacrifice are supposed to be fed upon by the divinity, and are actually fed upon by his priests. If a crime is committed which requires the punishment of death, it is accounted perfectly fair to appease the deity by offering one life for another; because, by savages, punishment is considered as a debt for which a man may compound in the best way that he can, and which one man may pay for another. Hence, it is said, arose the absurd notions of imputed guilt and vicarious atonement. Among the Egyptians, a white bull was chosen as an expiatory sacrifice to their god Apis. After being killed at the altar, his head was cut off, and cast into the river, with the following execration: "May all the evils impending over those who perform this sacrifice, or over the Egyptians in general, be averted on this head." * Hercules

Had sacrifice never prevailed in the world but among such gross idolaters as worshipped departed heroes, who were supposed to retain in their state of deification all the passions and appetites of their mortal state, this account of the origin of that mode of worship would have been to us perfectly satisfactory. We readily admit, that such mean notions of their gods may have actually led far distant tribes, who could not derive any thing from each other through the channel of tradition, to imagine that beings of human passions and appetites might be appeased or bribed by costly offerings. But we know from the most incontrovertible authority, that sacrifices of the three kinds that we have mentioned were in use among people who worshipped the true God, and who must have had very correct notions of his attributes. Now we think it impossible that such notions could have led any man to fancy that the taking away of the life of a harmless animal, or the burning of a cake or other fruits of the earth in the fire, would be acceptable to a Being self-existent, omnipotent, and omniscient, who can neither be injured by the crimes of his creatures, nor receive any accession of happiness from a thousand worlds.

Sensible of the force of such reasoning as this, some persons of great name, who admit the authenticity of the Jewish and Christian scriptures, and firmly rely on the atonement made by Christ, are yet unwilling (it is difficult to conceive for what reason) to allow that sacrifices were originally instituted by God. Of this way of thinking were St Chrysostom, Spenser, Grotius, and Warburton, as were likewise the Jews Maimonides, R. Levi, Ben Gerson, and Abarbanel. The greater part of these writers maintain, that sacrifices were at first a human institution; and that God, in order to prevent their

their being offered to idols, introduced them into his service, though he did not approve of them as good in themselves, or as proper rites of worship. That the infinitely wise and good God should introduce into his service improper rites of worship, appears to us so extremely improbable, that we cannot but wonder how such an opinion should ever have found its way into the minds of such men as those who held it. Warburton's theory of sacrifice is much more plausible, and being more lately published, is worthy of particular examination.

According to this ingenious prelate, sacrifices had their origin in the sentiments of the human heart, and in the ancient mode of conversing by action in aid of words. Gratitude to God for benefits received is natural to the mind of man, as well as his bounden duty. "This duty (says the bishop *) was in the most early times discharged in expressive actions, the least equivocal of which was the offerer's bringing the first fruits of pasturage or agriculture to that sequestered place where the Deity used to be more solemnly invoked, at the stated times of public worship; and there presenting them in homage, with a demeanor which spoke to this purpose—'I do hereby acknowledge thee, O my God! to be the author and giver of all good: and do now, with humble gratitude, return my warmest thanks for these thy blessings particularly bestowed upon me.'—Things thus devoted became thenceforth sacred: and to prevent their desecration, the readiest way was to send them to the table of the priest, or to consume them in the fire of the altar. Such, in the opinion of our author, was the origin of eucharistical sacrifices. Impetratory or precatory sacrifices had, he thinks, the same origin, and were contrived to express by action an invocation for the continuance of God's favour. "Expiatory sacrifices (says the learned prelate) were in their own nature as intelligible, and in practice as rational, as either of the other two. Here, instead of presenting the first fruits of agriculture and pasturage, in corn, wine, oil, and wool, as in the eucharistical, or a portion of what was to be sown or otherwise propagated, as in the impetratory, some chosen animal, precious to the repenting criminal who deprecates, or supposed to be obnoxious to the Deity who is to be appeased, was offered up and slain at the altar, in an action which, in all languages, when translated into words, speaks to this purpose:—'I confess my transgressions at thy footstool, O my God! and with the deepest contrition implore thy pardon; confessing that I deserve death for those my offences.'—The latter part of the confession was more forcibly expressed by the action of striking the devoted animal, and depriving it of life; which, when put into words, concluded in this manner.—'And I own that I myself deserve the death which I now inflict on this animal.'"

This system of sacrifice, which his lordship thinks so well supported by the most early movements of simple nature, we admit to be ingenious, but by no means satisfactory. That mankind in the earlier ages of the world were accustomed to supply the deficiencies of their language by expressive gesticulations we are not inclined to controvert: the custom prevails among savage nations, or nations half civilized, at the present day. His lordship, however, is of opinion, and we heartily agree with him, that our first parents were instructed by God

to make articulate sounds significant of ideas, notions, and things (see LANGUAGE, N^o 6.), and not left to fabricate a language for themselves. That this heaven-taught language could be at first copious, no man will suppose, who thinks of the paucity of ideas which those who spoke it had to express; but when we consider its origin, we cannot entertain a doubt but that it was precise and perspicuous, and admirably adapted to all the real purposes of life. Among these purposes must surely be included the worship of God as the most important of all. Every sentiment therefore which enters into worship, gratitude, invocation, confession, and deprecation, the progenitors of mankind were undoubtedly taught to clothe in words the most significant and unequivocal; but we know from Moses, whose divine legislation the bishop surely admitted, that Cain and Abel, the eldest children of our first parents, worshipped God by the rites of sacrifice: and can we suppose that this practice occurred to them from their having so far forgotten the language taught them by their father, as to be under the necessity of denoting by action what they could not express by words? If this supposition be admitted, it will force another upon us still more extravagant. Even Adam himself must, in that case, have become dumb in consequence of his fall; for it is not conceivable, that as long as he was able to utter articulate sounds, and affix a meaning to them, he would cease, in the presence of his family, to confess his sins, implore forgiveness, and express his gratitude to God for all his mercies.

The right reverend writer, as if aware of some such objection as this to his theory, contends, that if sacrifices had arisen from any other source than the light of reason, the Scripture would not have been silent concerning that source; "especially since we find Moses carefully recording what God immediately, and not nature, taught to Adam and his family. Had the original of sacrifice, says he, been prescribed, and directly commanded by the Deity, the sacred historian could never have omitted the express mention of that circumstance. The two capital observances in the Jewish ritual were the Sabbath and Sacrifices. To impress the highest reverence and veneration on the Sabbath, he is careful to record its divine original: and can we suppose that had sacrifices had the same original, he would have neglected to establish this truth at the time that he recorded the other, since it is of equal use and of equal importance? I should have said, indeed, of much greater; for the multifarious sacrifices of the LAW had not only a reference to the forfeiture of Adam, but likewise prefigured our redemption by Jesus Christ."

But all this reasoning was foreseen, and completely answered before his lordship gave it to the public. It is probable, that though the distinction of weeks was well known over all the eastern world, the Hebrews, during their residence in Egypt, were very negligent in their observance of the Sabbath. To enforce a religious observance of that sacred day, it became necessary to inform them of the time and occasion of its first institution, that they might keep it holy in memory of the creation; but, in a country like Egypt, the people were in danger of holding sacrifices rather in too high than too low veneration, so that there was not the same necessity for mentioning explicitly the early institution

sacrifice. of them. It was sufficient that they knew the divine institution of their own sacrifices, and the purposes for which they were offered. Besides this, there is reason to believe, that, in order to guard the Hebrews from the infections of the heathen, the rite of sacrificing was loaded with many additional ceremonies at its second institution under Moses. It might, therefore, be improper to relate its original simplicity to a rebellious people, who would think themselves ill-used by any additional burdens of trouble or expense, however really necessary to their happiness. Bishop Warburton sees clearly the necessity of concealing from the Jews the spiritual and refined nature of the Christian dispensation, lest such a backsliding people should, from the contemplation of it, have held in contempt their own economy. This, he thinks, is the reason why the prophets, speaking of the reign of the Messiah, borrow their images from the Mosaic dispensation, that the people living under that dispensation might not despise it from perceiving its end; and we think the reason will hold equally good for their lawgiver concealing from them the simplicity of the first sacrifices, lest they should be tempted to murmur at their own multifarious ritual.

But his lordship thinks that sacrifices had their origin from the light of natural reason. We should be glad to know what light natural reason can throw upon such a subject. That ignorant pagans, adoring as gods departed heroes, who still retained their sensual appetites, might naturally think of appeasing such beings with the fat of fed beasts, and the perfumes of the altar, we have already admitted; but that Cain and Abel, who knew that the God whom they adored has neither body, parts, nor passions; that he created and sustains the universe; and that from his very nature he must will the happiness of all his creatures, should be led by the light of natural reason to think of appeasing him, or obtaining favours from him, by putting to death harmless animals, is a position, which no arguments of his lordship can ever compel us to admit. That Abel's sacrifice was indeed accepted, we know; but it was not accepted because it proceeded from the movements of the human mind, and the deficiency of the original language, but because it was offered through faith. The light of natural reason, however, does not generate faith, but science; and when it fails of that, its offspring is absurdity. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen," and comes not by reasoning but by hearing. What things then were they of which Abel had heard, for which he hoped, and in the faith of which he offered sacrifice? Undoubtedly it was a restoration to that immortality which was forfeited by the transgression of his parents. Of such redemption, an obscure intimation had been given to Adam, in the promise that the seed of the woman should bruise the head of the serpent; and it was doubtless to impress upon his mind in more striking colours the manner in which this was to be done, that bloody sacrifices were first instituted. As long as the import of such rites was thus understood, they constituted a perfectly rational worship, as they showed the people that the wages of sin is death; but when men sunk into idolatry, and lost all hopes of a resurrection from the dead, the slaughtering of animals to appease their deities was a practice grossly superstitious. It

rested in itself without pointing to any farther end, and the grovelling worshippers believed that by their sacrifices they purchased the favour of their deities. When once this notion was entertained, human sacrifices were soon introduced; for it naturally occurred to those who offered them, that what they most valued themselves, would be most acceptable to their offended gods. (see the next article.) By the Jewish law, these abominable offerings were strictly forbidden, and the whole ritual of sacrifice restored to its original purity, though not simplicity.

All Christian churches, the Socinian, if it can be called a church, not excepted, have till very lately agreed in believing that the Jewish sacrifices served, amongst other uses, for types of the death of Christ and the Christian worship, (see TYPE.) In this belief all sober Christians agree still, whilst many are of opinion that they were likewise federal rites, as they certainly were considered by the ancient Romans. *

Of the various kinds of Jewish sacrifices, and the subordinate ends for which they were offered, a full account is given in the books of Moses. When an Israelite offered a loaf or a cake, the priest broke it in two parts; and setting aside that half which he reserved for himself, broke the other into crumbs, poured oil, wine, incense, and salt upon it, and spread the whole upon the fire of the altar. If these offerings were accompanied with the sacrifice of an animal, they were thrown upon the victim to be consumed along with it. If the offerings were of the ears of new corn, they were parched at the fire, rubbed in the hand, and then offered to the priest in a vessel, over which he poured oil, incense, wine, and salt, and then burnt it upon the altar, having first taken as much of it as of right belonged to himself.

The principal sacrifices among the Hebrews consisted of bullocks, sheep, and goats; but doves and turtles were accepted from those who were not able to bring the other: these beasts were to be perfect, and without blemish. The rites of sacrificing were various; all of which are minutely described in the books of Moses.

The manner of sacrificing among the Greeks and Romans was as follows. In the choice of the victim, they took care that it was without blemish or imperfection; its tail was not to be too small at the end; the tongue not black, nor the ears cleft; and that the bull was one that had never been yoked. The victim being pitched upon, they gilt his forehead and horns, especially if a bull, heifer, or cow. The head they also adorned with a garland of flowers, a woollen infula or holy fillet, whence hung two rows of chaplets with twisted ribands; and on the middle of the body a kind of stole, pretty large, hung down on each side: the lesser victims were only adorned with garlands and bundles of flowers, together with white tufts or wreaths.

The victims thus prepared were brought before the altar; the lesser being driven to the place, and the greater led by an halter; when, if they made any struggle, or refused to go, the resistance was taken for an ill omen, and the sacrifice frequently set aside. The victim thus brought was carefully examined, to see that there was no defect in it; then the priest, clad in his sacerdotal habit, and accompanied with the sacrificers and

and other attendants, and being washed and purified according to the ceremonies prescribed, turned to the right hand, and went round the altar, sprinkling it with meal and holy water, and also besprinkling those who were present. Then the crier proclaimed with a loud voice, Who is here? To which the people replied, Many and good. The priest then having exhorted the people to join with him by saying, Let us pray, confessed his own unworthiness, acknowledging that he had been guilty of divers sins: for which he begged pardon of the gods, hoping that they would be pleased to grant his requests, accept the oblations offered them, and send them all health and happiness; and to this general form added petitions for such particular favours as were then desired. Prayers being ended, the priest took a cup of wine; and having tasted it himself, caused his assistants to do the like; and then poured forth the remainder between the horns of the victim. Then the priest or the crier, or sometimes the most honourable person in the company, killed the beast, by knocking it down or cutting its throat. If the sacrifice was in honour of the celestial gods, the throat was turned up towards heaven, but if they sacrificed to the heroes or infernal gods, the victim was killed with its throat towards the ground. If by accident the beast escaped the stroke, leaped after it, or expired with pain and difficulty, it was thought to be unacceptable to the gods. The beast being killed, the priest inspected its entrails, and made predictions from them. They then poured wine, together with frankincense, into the fire, to increase the flame, and then laid the sacrifice on the altar; which in the primitive times was burnt whole to the gods, and thence called an holocaust; but in after-times, only part of the victim was consumed in the fire, and the remainder reserved for the sacrificers; the thighs, and sometimes the entrails, being burnt to their honour, the company feasted upon the rest. During the sacrifice, the priest, and the person who gave the sacrifice, jointly prayed, laying their hand upon the altar. Sometimes they played upon musical instruments in the time of the sacrifice, and on some occasions they danced round the altar, singing sacred hymns in honour of the god.