2. The place where alone sacrifices might be presented was the court of the national sanctuary — the tabernacle first and afterwards the Temple (Deut. xii, 5 sq., 11), and every offering elsewhere was to be punished with death (Lev. xvii, 4 sq. ; Ueut. xii, 13; comp. 1 Kings xii, 27). The place is more exactly called "the door of the tabernacle of the congregation" (Lev. i, 3 ; iii, 2- 8; iv, 4, 14) ; and, according to the Mishna (Sebach. c. 5), the offerings were slain, part on the north side of the altar, part, the less holy, at any place in the court indifferently (comp. Plato, Leges, x, 910). These regu- lations were designed to prevent the itlolatrous worship which might have been concealed under the mask of the legal ritual. Besides, the common place of worship must have had a beneficial infiuence on the spirit of a nation so torn into factions (comp. 1 Kings xii, 27). This common place of sacrifice was not always observed in the time of the judges, nor even of David (1 Kings iii, 2, 3). Sacrifices were made away from the taber- nacle (Judg. ii, 5; 1 Sam. vii, 17; 1 Kings i, 9), espe- cially on high-places (Judg. vi, 2(5; xiii, 19; Hos. iv, 13). Even the law-abiding Samuel did this (1 Sam.
l. c), and David tolerated it (1 Kings iii, 2 sq.). These sacrifices on high-])laces lasted after Solomon's time, even under theocratic kings. In the kingdom of Israel the common place of sacrifice was abandoned. In the time of the judges the irregularity sprang from the con- fusion of jurisdiction and tlie unsettled condition of the people, everywhere pressed by their enemies; yet it is, on the whole, probable that such entire exclusiveness of locality was not so severely demanded by the IMosaic law as later, after the unfortunate consequences of pri- vate and voluntarj' sacrifices were seen.
3. The purpose of the sacrifices was special — either to thank God for benefits received, or to propitiate hini because of sins and errors. Hence the distinction of thank-offerings and sin- and trespass-offerings. The burnt-offerings had a more general tendency (comp. the division of sacrifices in Philo, 0pp. ii, 240 ; see Scholl, in Klaiber's Studien, iv, 1, 36 sq.). The Hebrew sacrifices are enumerated, though not defined with exactness, in Numb. XV, 3 sq. ; Deut. xii, 6 ; Jer. xvii, 26. On the classes of Carthaginian sacrifices, see Movers (P/ioniz. p. 19, 41). These various offerings produced great variety of ceremonies, as now in the masses of the Roman Cath- olics. On great public festivals, great collective offer- ings like hecatombs are mentioned (1 Kings viii, 5, 63 sq. ; 2 Chron. xxix, 32 sq. ; xxx, 24; xxxv, 7 sq. ; comp. Herod, vii, 43; Xenoph. //<>//. vi, 4, 29; Sueton. Calig. 14; Capitol, in Maxim, et Balbin. c. 11).
Offerings were sometimes public (comp. Herod, vi, 57 ; Xenoph. Athen. ii, 9), sometimes private, sometimes prescribed, sometimes voluntary; the latter were some- times family sacrifices (1 Sam. i, 21 ; xx, 6). One per- son had sacrifices offered for another, as the Catholics with masses (Job i, 5; 2 ]\Iacc. iii, 32). Not only the Israelites, but the heathen, were permitted to sacrifice to Jehovah (Numb, xv, 14; 2 Mace, iii, 35; xiii, 23; Philo, Opjh ii, 569; Josephus, Apiun, ii, 5; Mishna, Shekal. vii, 6), and the Jews even made sacrifices for heathen princes on the altars of Jehovah ,(1 Mace, vii, 33; Josephus, Ant. xii, 2, 5). Originally they were of- I fered onh' for the living, sometimes when death was ' near (Sir. xxxviii, 11); but after the resurrection be- came a general belief sacrifices for the dead arose (2 Mace, xii, 43). There is, indeed, no other instance, and perhaps they never were customary, especially as they are not in harmony with the law (see Grotiiis, ad lac). The polemic writers against the Catholic masses for the dead repudiate them indignantly (Chemnitz, Kj-am. Condi. Trid. p. 736 sq. [ed. Francf.] ; Pfaft', Num ex 2 I Mace, xii, 39 sq. adstiiii possint AJissw et Pi'eces pro Defuvctis [Tubing. 1749]), or suppose that the narrator forged the account (Hvper. in the Miscell. Duisburg. i, 453).
4. In the sacrifice of offerings with blood the owner himself (see H<ittinger, De Function. Laic, circa Victim, [Marburg, 1706]), after being cleansed and sanctified (1 Sam. xvi, 5; Job i, 5; comp. Josephus, Apion, ii, 23; Hesiod, 0pp. p. 724 sq. ; Ovid, Metam. x, 434 sq. ; Tibul. ii, 1, 11 : Herod, ii, 37), led the beast to the altar (Lev. iii, 1, 12; iv, 14; xvii, 4). Among the (ireeks and Romans the horns of the beast were gilded (Homer, Iliad, X, 294; Odys. iii, 384, 426; Plato, Alcib. ii, c. 20; Virgil, yEn. ix, 927; JLicrob. Sat. i, 17, p. 29, ed. Bip.) and crowned (comp. Acts xiv, 13; see Ovid, Metam. XV, 131; Lucian, Sacrif. vol. xii; Lycophron. Alex. j). 327; Statins, Theb. iv, 449; Pliny, xvi, 4; Strabo, xv, 732; Athen. xv, 674; see Wetstein, ii, 543; Walch, Dissert, ad A ctn Apost. iii, 200). That this custom pre- vailed among the Jews, at least with the thank-offer- ings, is less clear from Josephus {Ant. xiii, 8, 2) than from the Mishna {Bikkurirn, iii, 2 sq. ; comp. in general Lakemacher, Obserr. i, 79 sq.). The owner laid his hand upon the head of the beast (Lev. i, 4; iii, 2; iv, 4, 15, 24 ; viii, 18 ; comp. the Egyptian custom, Herod, ii, 40). If the sacrifice was that of a community, the elders per- formed this duty (Lev. iv, 15); but when the offering was public, i. e. in the name of the whole people, the