(c.) The typical sense of the meat-offering or peace- offering is less connected with the sacrifice of Christ himself than with those sacrifices of praise, thanksgiv- ing, charity, and devotion which we, as Christians, offer to God, and " with which he is well pleased" (Heb. xiii, 15, 1(5) as with "an odor of sweet smell, a sacrifice ac- ceptable to God" (Phil, iv, 18). They betoken that through the peace won by the sin-offering we have al- ready been enabled to dedicate ourselves to God, and they are, as it were, the ornaments and accessories of that self-dedication. See Peace-okfering.
Such is a brief sketch of the doctrine of sacrifice. It is seen to have been deeply rooted in men's hearts, and to have been, from the beginning, accepted and sanc- tioned by God, and made by him one channel of his revelation. In virtue of that sanction it had a value, partly symbolical, partly actual, but in all respects de- rived from the one true sacrifice, of which it was the type. It invoh-ed the expiatorj', the self-dedicatory, and the eucharistic ideas, each gradually developed and explained, but all capable of full explanation only by the light reflected back from the antitype.
Literature. — This is ver}' copious, as may be seen from the lists of works cited by Danz {\Vdrte7-b. s. v. "Opfer"), Darling (Cyclop. Bibliog. [see Index]), and Malcolm (T/ieol. Index, s. v.), as also from the references in the following articles. See especially Kurtz, Z*??- alt- testam. Opfercultus (Mitau, 1802); tr&ns]. Saaijicial Worship of the Old Test. (Edinb. 1863).
SACRIFICE, Human. The offering of human life, as the most precious thing on earth, came in process of time to be practiced in most countries of the world. All histories and traditions darken our idea of the earlier ages with human sacrifices. But the period when such prevailed was not the earliest in time, though probably the earliest in civilization. The practice was both a result and a token of barbarism more or less gross. In this, too, the dearest object was primitively selected. Human life is the most valuable thing known, and of this most precious possession the most precious portion is the life of a child. Children, therefore, were offereil in fire to the false divinities, and in no part of the world with less regard to the claims of natural affection than in the land where, at a later period, the only true God had his peculiar worship and highest honors.
Under these circumstances, it is a striking fact that the Hebrew religion, even in its most rudiraental condi- tion, should be free from the contamination of human sacrifices. The case of Isaac and that of Jephthah's daughter cannot impair the general truth that the of- fering of human beings is neither enjoined, allowed, nor practiced in the Biblical records. On the contrary, such an offering is strictly prohibited bj^ Moses as adverse to the will of God and an abomination of the heathen. " Thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Moloch: defile not yourselves with any of these things" (Lev. xviii, 21 ; see also xx, 2 ; Deut. xii, 31 ; Psa. cvi, 37 ; Isa. Ixvi, 3 ; Jer. xxiii, 37). Yet in an age in which, like the present, all manner of novelties are broached, and, in some cases, the greater the paradox advanced with the more promptitude and maintained with the greater earnestness, these very clear positions have been withstood, and human sacrifices have been confidently charged on the Hebrew race. In the year 1842, Ghillany, professor at Nuremberg, published a book {Die Menschenopfer der alien Jlehrder), the object of which was to prove that as the religion of the ancient Hebrews did not differ essentially from that of the Ca- naanites — so that Moloch, who had been originally a god
common to both, merely in the process of time was soft- ened down and passed into Jehovah, thus becoming the national deity of the peojjle of Israel — so did their altars smoke with human blood, from the time of Abraham down to the fall of both kingdoms of Judah and Israel. In the same year appeared in German}' another work, by Daumer (Ber Feuer- und Molochdienst der alltn Ile- hrder), intended to prove that the worship of IMoloch, involving his bloody rites, was the original, legal, and orthodox worship of the nation of Abraham, Moses, Sam- uel, and David. To these works a reply was put forth in 1843, by Lciwengard {Jehovah, nicht Moloch, war der Gott der alien Ilebrder), in which he defends the worship of Jehovah from the recent imputations, and strives, by distinguishing between the essential and the unessen- tial, the durable and the temporarj', to prepare the way for a reformation of modern Judaism.
We do not think that it requires any deep research or profound learning to ascertain from the Biblical rec- ords themselves that the religion of the Bible is wholly free from the shocking abominations of human sacri- fices, and we do not therefore hesitate to urge the fact on the attention of the ordinary reader as not least con- siderable among manj' proofs not only of the superior character, but of the divine origin, of the Hebrew wor- ship. It was in Egypt where the mind of Moses, and of the generation with whom he had primarily to do, was chiefly formed, so far as heathen influences were concerned. Here offerings were very numerous. Sac- rifices of meat-offerings, libations, and incense were of very early date in the Egyptian temples. Oxen, wild goats, pigs, and particularlj- geese, were among the ani mal offerings: besides these, there were presented to the gods wine, oil, beer, milk, cakes, grain, ointment, flow ers, fruits, vegetables. In these, and in the case of meat-, peace-, and sin-offerings (as well as others), there exists a striking resemblance with similar Hebrew ob- servances, which may be found indicated in detail in Wilkinson {Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyp- tians, V, 358 sq. ; see also ii, 378), who, in agreement with Herodotus, maintains, in opposition to Diodorus, that the Egyptians were never accustomed to sacrifice human beings — a decision which has a favorable aspect on our last position, namelv, that the religion of the Israelites, even in its earliest days, was unprofaned by human blood. A remarkable instance of disagreement between the observances of the Egyptians and the Jews in regard to sacrifices is that while the Egyptians re- ceived the blood of the slaughtered animal into a vase or basin, to be applied in cookery, the eating of blood was most strictlj' forbidden to the Israelites (Deut. xv, 23). — Kitto.