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.