Among the considerations urged in support of the opinion, that sacrifice must have originated in a divine command, it has been suggested as ex ceedingly doubtful, whether, independently of such a command, and as distinguished from veg etable oblations, animal sacrifice, which involves the practice of slaughtering and burning an inno cent victim, could ever, under any aspect, have been adopted as a rite likely to gain the favor of God. Our own course of Scriptural education prevents us, perhaps, from being competent judges on this point; but we have means of judging how so singular a rite must strike the minds of think ing men, not in the same degree prepossessed by early associations. The ancient Greek masters of thought not unfrequently expressed their aston ishment as to how and upon what rational prin ciples so strange an institution as that of animal sacrifice could ever have originated; for as to the notion of its being pleasing to the Deity, such a thing struck them as a manifest impossibility.
(2) Moral Arguments For. A strong moral argument in favor of the divine institution of sacrifice, somewhat feebly put by Hallet (Com ment. on Heb. xi :4, cited by Magee, On the Atone men[), has been reproduced with increased force by Faber (Prim. Sacrifice, p. 183). It amounts to this: Sacrifice, when not commanded by God, is a mere act of gratuitous superstition. Whence, on the principle of St. Paul's reprobation of what he denominates will-worship, it is neither acceptable nor pleasing to God.
But sacrifice, during the patriarchal ages, was accepted by God, and was plainly honored with his approbation.
Therefore sacrifice, during the patriarchal age, could not have been an act of superstition not commanded by God.
If, then, such was the character of primitive sacrifice—that is to say, if primitive sacrifice was not a mere act of gratuitous superstition not com tnanded by God—it must, in that case, indubitably have been a divine, and not a human institution.
If it be held that any of the ancient sacrifices were expiatory, or piacular, the argument for their divine origin is strengthened ; as it is hard to conceive the combination of ideas under which the notion of expiatory sacrifice could be worked out by the human mind. This difficulty is so great that the ablest advocates of the human origin of primitive animal sacrifice, feel bound also to deny that such sacrifices as then existed were piacu lar. It is strongly insisted that the doctrine of an atonement by animal sacrifice cannot be de duced from the light of nature, or from the principles of reason. If, therefore, the idea ex isted, it must either have arisen in the fertile soil of a guessing superstition, or have been divinely appointed. Now we know that God cannot ap prove of unwarranted and presumptuous super stition; if, therefore, he can be shown to have re ceived with approbation a species of sacrifice not discoverable by the light of nature, or from the principles of reason, it follows that it must have been of his own institution.
Some, however, are unable to see that expiatory sacrifices existed under, or were commanded by, the law of Moses; while others admit this, but deny that animal sacrifice, with an expiatory in tent, existed before the law. The arguments al ready stated in favor of the divine institution of primitive sacrifice, go equally to support the ex istence of piacular sacrifice; the idea of which seems more urgently to have required a divine intimation. Besides, expiatory sacrifice is found
to have existed among all nations, in conjunction with eucharistic and impetratory sacrifices; and it lies at the root of the principle on which human sacrifices were offered among the ancient na tions.
This being the case, it is difficult to believe but that the idea was derived, along with animal sacrifice itself, from the practice of Noah, and preserved among his various descendants. This argument, if valid, would show the primitive origin of piacular sacrifice. Now there can be no doubt that the idea of sacrifice which Noah transmitted to the post-diluvian world was the same that he had derived from his pious an cestors, and the same that was evinced by the sacrifice of Abel, to which we are, by the course of the argument, again brought back. Now if that sacrifice was expiatory, we have reason to conclude that it was divinely commanded, and the supposition that it was both expiatory and divinely commanded, makes the whole history far more clear and consistent than any other which has been or can be offered. It amounts then to this—that Cain, by bringing an eucharistic offering, when his brother brought one which was expiatory, denied virtually that his sins de served death, or that he needed the blood of atonement. (See OFFERING.) (3) Literature. Sykes, Essay on the Nature, Origin, and Design of Sacrifices; Faber, The Ori gin of Sacrifice; Davidson, Inquiry into the Ori gin of Sacrifice; H. Clay Trumbull, The Blood Covenant, 1885. The Bible is the best authority, and the truth on this and other subjects must be obtained by comparing Scripture with Scripture.
Figurative. The term sacrifice is often used in a secondary or metaphorical sense, and applied to the good works of believers, and to the duties of prayer and praise, as in the following passages: "But to do good and to communicate forget not ; for with such sacrifices God is well pleased" (Heb. xiii :16). "Having received of Epaphroditus the things which ye sent, an odor of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to God" (Phil. iv:18). "Ye are built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, ac ceptable to God by Jesus Christ" (I Pet. ii:5). "By him, therefore, let us offer tlfe sacrifice of praise to God continually; that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to his name" (Heb. xiii :15). "I beseech you, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, ac ceptable unto God, which is your reasonable serv ice" (Rom. xii:1). "There is a peculiar reason," says Dr. Owen, ''for assigning this appellation to moral duties; for in every sacrifice there was a presentation of something unto God. The wor shiper was not to offer that which cost him noth ing: part of his substance was to be transferred from himself unto God. So it is in these duties; they cannot be properly observed without the alienation of something that was our own, our time, ease, property, etc., and a dedication of it to the Lord. Hence they have the general nature of sacrifices.