SACRIFICE
319
SACRIFICE
burned, the remainder of the flesh was regarded
as holy sacrificial food, and was eaten either by the
priests or by the offerers in a holy place (or even at
home) with the idea of entering into communion.
The chief element in the sacrifice, however, was not
the sacrificial meal, .but rather the sprinkhng of the
blood, which, as the bearer of life, was clearly in-
tended in many religions to represent man himself.
This idea of substitution is seen with overwhelming
clearness in the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.
Among all peoples the sacrifice, as the chief and most
perfect function of religion, was surrounded with the
greatest pomp and solemnity; the celebration was
usually of a light and joyous character, especially
in the case of the sacrifices of praise, petition, and
thanksgiving. With joyous heart man consecrated
himself to the Deity through the medium of the
gifts he offered. External adornment, music, song,
prayer, and dance heightened the festive joy. On
the other hand the expiatory sacrifice was of. a serious
character, whether it was intended to atone for mis-
deeds or to avert misfortune. Not every private
person was competent to offer sacrifice; this function
pertained only to certain persons or priests, whose
office was immediately connected with the sacrifices.
In the earliest time the head of the family or tribe
performed the functions of priest — in ancient Egypt
the king, as even to-day the emperor in China (see
Priesthood). Sacrifice and altar (q.v.) are, like
sacrifice and priest, correlative terms. Originally
the altar consisted of a single stone, which by conse-
cration became the dwelling of God (cf. Gen., xii,
7 sq.; xiii, 4; xxviii, 18 sqq.). Among many peoples
the place of sacrifice was either the house (for private
sacrifices) or the open air (for public sacrifices).
In the latter case specially selected places (trees,
groves, heights) in an elevated position were preferred
for sacrifice. Among the Romans altar and hearth
(ara et focus) were regarded as indispensable requi-
sites for sacrifice.
(4) Origin of Sacrifice. — Since sacrifice is a regular concomitant of every religion, sacrifice must, accord- ing to the law of causalitj', have originated simultane- ously with religion. Consequently, sacrifice is as old as religion itself. It is evident that the nature of the explanation given of sacrifice will depend on the views one takes of the origin of religion in general.
(a) Widely held to-day is the theory of evolution, which, in accordance with the principles of Darwin, endeavours to trace th(! origin of religion from the degraded stage of the half-animal, religionless prime- val man, and its gradual development to higher forms. The scheme of development is naturally different according to the personal standpoint of thf; investigator. As the starting-point for the comjiara- tive study of the lowest religious forms is usually taken the uncivilized savage of to-day, the true por- trait of the primeval man (Lubbock, Tylor, etc.). An attempt is made to construct an ascending scale from the crudest Fetichism to naturalistic Polythe- ism, from which develops ethical Monotheism, as the highest and purest product. Until recently the Animism (q. v.) proposed by Tylor was the prevalent theory; this traced religion from the ancient worship of souls, ghosts, spirits of ancestors, etc. (under the influence of fear). At this original stage sacrifice had no other purpose than the feeding and enter- taining of these deified beings, or their appeasement and conciliation, if hostile dispositions were ascribed to them (demons). In recent times this explanation, once honoured as dogma in the history of religions, is most vigorously combated by the experts them- selves as untenable. It has been recognized that Animism and the kindred Fetichism and Totemism represent only secondary elements of many nature- religions, not the essence. "In any case," says Chantepie de la Saussaye, "a purely animistic basis
of religion can nowhere be shown" ("Lehrbuch der
Rehgionsgeschichte", I, Tubingen, 1905, p. 12).
But if the origin of the idea of God cannot be ex-
plamed from Animism, entertainment cannot have
been the original idea of sacrifice, especially since,
according to the most recent investigations, the
primeval religions seem to converge rather towards
Monotheism. Just as in the consciou.sness of all
sacrificHig peoples the gods remained sublime above
souls, spirits, and demons, sacrifice as a religious gift
far transcended food and drink. But, wherever the
gods are represented as companions at the banquet,
there always appeared the right idea, that by his
participation in the sacrificial gifts man enters into
communion with the gods, and (e. g. in the case of
the ancient Indian sotna drink) even partakes of
divine strength. The obscuring of this idea by an-
thropomorphic errors, fostered by priestly deceit, did
indeed here and there lead to the one-sided "feeding of
the gods" (cf. Dan., xiv, 2 sqq.), but this may by no
means be regarded as a primitive institution. Ani-
mism (q. V.) is most successfully refuted by Andrew
Lang ("The Making of a Religion", London, 1898).
(b) A second naturalistic explanation, which may be called the "social theory", derives religion from social instincts and accordingly sacrifice from the communal meal which was established to strengthen and seal in religious manner the tribal community. These communal meals are supposed to have given the first impulse to sacrifice. These fundamental thoughts may be developed in several ways. As Totemism, in addition to its religious, has also a distinctly social element, and in this respect is on a far higher level than Animism, some authors (especially W. Robert- son Smith, "The Religion of the Semites", London, 1894) believe that the origin of animal sacrifices can be traced back to Totemism. When the different clans or divisions of a tribe partook at the communal meal of the sacred animal (totem), which represented their god and ancestors, they believed that by this meal they participated in the divine life of the animal itself. Sacrifice in the sense of offering gifts to the Deity, the symbolic replacing of human life by an animal, the idea of ex-piation, etc., are declared to be- long to a much later period of the history of sacrifice. Originally the gifts of cereals had rather the character of a tribute due to the gods, and this idea was later transferred to the animal sacrifices. It is however very questionable whether this totemistic theory, notwithstanding some excellent suggestions, entirely meets the facts. Certainly the social force of religion and its significance in the formation of communities should not be underestimated; but, apart from the fact that Totemism is not, any more than Animism, an explanation of the origin of religion, the hypothesis is contradicted by the certain fact that in the earliest epoch the whole or burnt offering existed side by side with the communal meal, the former being equally old, if not older than the latter. In the consciousness of the peoples the sacrificial meal constituted not so much an element of the sacrifice, as the participation, confirmation, and completion of the same. On the same ground what is called the "banquet theory" of the late Bishop Bellord must also be rejected; this theory refers the essence of the sacrifice to the meal, and declares a sacrifice without a meal impossible (cf. The Ecclesiastical Review, XXXIII, 1905, pp. 1 sqq., 258 sqq.). This theory is not in accordance with the facts; for, as it is compelled to refer the es- sence of the Sacrifice of the Mass solely to the priest's communion, instead of to the twofold transubstan- tiation, the truth of the sacrifice of the Cross can be maintained only on the forced and false supposition that the Last Supper in its organic connexion with the Crucifixion imprinted on the latter its sacrificial char- acter. (For further particulars, see Mass, Sacrifice
OF THE.)
