restored fellowship, and the highest expression of perfect communion with deity.

All these classes of sacrifices had three elements in In each case there was the ceremony of common. presentation, the act of slaughtering, and the disposal of the victim.

The victim was to be presented at the door of the tabernacle court by the offerer himself, in token of that willing intention which constituted the acceptable element in the oblation. This act was followed by the imposition of hands (semichah), i. e. an actual pressure of both hands upon the victim's head. This rite appears to have implied not so much the idea of substitution, or transference of guilt, though it was ordinarily accompanied by detailed confession of sins, as that of entire self-identification with the victim, or the dedication of it to some special object or office, such as the removal of guilt1. The slaughter of the victim next took place. This was performed by the offerer, not by the priest, except in the case of a sacrifice offered for his own sin, or for that of the whole congregation 2. The slaying, which took place on the north side of the altar-perhaps because the north was regarded as the quarter with which judgment or punishment was connected— seems to have had no independent significance; it served simply as a means of obtaining the blood or

On the see Schultz, i. 391, who seems to give the true account with clearness; cp. Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites, p. 402; Westcott, Ep. to the Hebrews, p. 290; Jukes, The Law of the Offerings, p. 38: 'This act in itself was nothing more than the expression of the identity of the offerer and offering.... The offering, whatever it might be, stood for, and was looked upon as identical with, the offerer.' Riehm, ATI. Theologie, says that by the semichah the victim was made 'Träger der Gesinnungen, die er (the offerer) gegenüber Gott bethätigen will.'

2 See Lev. i. 5, 9: possibly also the priest slew the victim in the rite for cleansing lepers. See Lev. xiv. 13, 25, and cp. Oehler, i. 411. In 2 Chron. xxix. 24 the slaying by the priests seems to be mentioned as exceptional. Ezek. xliv. 10-16 shows that it was an ignoble office.

3 The Heb. vb. is Dn. Cp. Lev. i. 11, and see Isa. xli. 25, Jer. i. 14, li. 48. On the general significance of the slaughter see Oehler, loc. cit.; Schultz, i. 394; Westcott, Ep. to the Hebrews, p. 291.

sacred life. The Law seems to have laid no stress either on the intrinsic fact of suffering, or on the material value of the sacrifice, as is shown by the limited scale of the offerings: neither hecatombs of victims nor human sacrifice were required for the purposes of acceptable atonement. Indeed, it is clear that the significant part of the ceremony was not thought to lie in the death of the victim, but in the application of its life blood'.'

3

And this brings us to the third point-the disposal of the victim: of its blood and its flesh. The blood of sacrifice was the appointed medium of atonement as being the seat of the sacred life, and could accordingly be presented only through the mediation of the priest 2. Without going here into special detail it is sufficient to notice that the mode of dealing with the blood varied, the precise variations being minutely specified. Thus in the case of the burntoffering or peace-offering the blood was thrown or dashed against the sides of the brazen altar; but in the case of a sin-offering part of it was solemnly sprinkled on the horns of the altar when offered for a private person, but within the holy place on the horns of the incense altar when offered for a priest or the whole congregation. On the Day of Atonement there came as it were a climax in the ascending scale. On that day alone the blood was carried within the veil and solemnly sprinkled by the High Priest upon the mercy-seat and before the mercy-seat seven times *. With regard to the disposal of the flesh the Law required that the victim should be flayed by the offerer and divided, and then consumed by fire upon the altar or elsewhere. It was to be wholly burnt in the case of the burnt-offering, in part only if the sacrifice was a sinor peace-offering. The use of fire in this connexion is

1 Religion of the Semites, p. 319.

2 Lev. xvii. II.

3 Heb. P (LXX. πрoσɣeîv). On the disposal of the blood in Semitic sacrifice see Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites, especially lectures v, vi, and ix.

4 Lev. xvi. 14-19.

noticeable. In primitive ethnic sacrifices fire would be regarded as a means of conveying food in an etherialized form to the deity; but in the levitic rites it seems to be employed merely as a safe and appropriate method of disposal, when the flesh of the victim was regarded as a thing too holy to be touched, or disposed of in any other way, even by consecrated persons 1. Through the action of fire the flesh was finally withdrawn from the possibility of profane use

or contact.

of

Besides these general elements common to all sacrifices, there were special features distinctive of each particular class. The sin-offering in some sense ranks above the other sacrifices as being 'most holy 2, that is, entirely withdrawn from ordinary human use. Whether there is any clear distinction between the sin-offering and the trespass-offering is disputed; but one thing seems evident, viz. that the entire complicated system of atonement existed only in relation to minor offences, committed whether through ignorance, carelessness, or infirmity. For open breaches the ten words--sins with a high hand-there was no availing atonement possible; they were to be punished with death. Such sins were theoretically regarded as involving a presumptuous violation of covenant conditions, and a deliberate withdrawal from the sphere in which sacrifice was efficacious. Apparently, however, a distinction was possible in the case of minor transgressions. The trespassoffering appears to have implied some previous act of fraud; some infraction of the rights of ownership; some withholding from God of His due. But any artificial distinction between the sin- and the trespassoffering is precarious. The two species of sacrifice

1 Cp. Schultz, i. 396 note; Religion of the Semites, lect. x.

2 Lev. vi. 17 and 25 foll.

Heb. 71. Num. xv. 30; cp. xxxiii. 3.

On this point see Willis, Worship of the Old Covenant, ch. vii. 2; Schultz, i. 380. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, pp. 74, 75, observes that 'the sin- and trespass-offerings of the Pentateuch still bear traces of

seem, however, to correspond to two different aspects of human sin, regarded as demanding expiation on the one hand, on the other as admitting to a certain extent of reparation.

On the

In the ritual of the sin-offering some special points call for attention: for instance, the exact specification of the victim, which differed according to the grade of the offerer or the dignity of the occasion 1; and the verbal confession of sins which was uttered by the worshipper leaning upon the victim's head. The most characteristic feature, however, of the sacrifice was the ceremonial sprinkling of the sacred blood at spots to which belonged different degrees of sanctity, implying different stages of nearness to God. Day of Atonement, by the sprinkling of the blood on the mercy-seat the highest moment of reconciliation known to the Law was attained: the life of the people being in a representative act of dedication brought into closest contact with the divine presence. Noticeable also is the disposal of the victim's flesh all the fat, as being the choicest part, was burnt upon the altar for a sweet savour unto the Lord; the remainder of the flesh was disposed of in different ways. If the offering was that of a private person it was consumed by the priests within the precincts of the sanctuary; but in certain cases, when the sin-offering was that of a priest or of the entire congregation, it was regarded as too holy to be eaten even by consecrated persons, and it was burned outside the camp, as the safest method of dis

their origin in fines and penalties; they are not gifts to God,... they are simply mulcts payable to the priests, partly of fixed commutation value (Lev. v. 15).' See 2 Kings xii. 16 for a mention of 'trespass-money and sin-money.'

1 Lev. iv.

2 Lev. v. 5; Num. v. 6 foll. Cp. Willis, op. cit. p. 141.

3 Lev. iv. 31.

* Thus the sin-offering retains a relic of the ancient sacrificial feast of communion, only the communion is restricted to the priests. Obs. Hos. iv. 8 implies (1) that some form of sin-offering existed in the prophetic period; (2) that the guilty priests, instead of attempting to stem the sinfulness of the people, longed for its increase with a view to fresh gains. See Cheyne ad loc. in Camb. Bible for Schools.

posing of a most holy thing. The culminating service of national expiation, which was solemnized on the Day of Atonement, is worthy of special study, because it sums up and interprets the significance of the entire system of piacular sacrifice. In the ordinances of that day we see 'writ large' the conditions of access to God, the method by which the state of covenant privilege for Jehovah's people was renewed. At the same time the mark of imperfection was visibly impressed on the whole procedure of the day, and it had to be yearly repeated, as if to remind the people that their tenure in God's house was not absolute, but renewable only from year to year.

The burnt-offering, or holocaust, if we may rely on the early historical notices, was apparently known, but not very commonly practised, in the patriarchal period. There are traces of the yet more primitive slain-sacrifice with its sacred meal in the book of Genesis 1; and the account in Gen. xxii of the offering of Isaac marks, as we have noticed, a critical epoch in the development of the doctrine of sacrifice. The passage illustrates the way in which ethnic corruptions were purified: it disconnects the spirit of absolute devotion from the necessity of any particular material exhibition of it 2. Some writers have supposed that the use of fire had its origin in the custom of human sacrifice; the victim was burned in a spot apart from men, as being too sacred to be eaten but whatever be its origin, the practice of burning the bodies of ordinary animals on the altar very early established itself. The essential idea of the holocaust was probably that of a grateful tribute to God as king. It would be an exceptional form of sacrifice, expressive of man's grateful dedication of himself and his possessions to God. Certainly in its developed form the burnt-offering would present itself to the mind of a devout Israelite as an apt symbol

1 Gen. xxxi. 54; xlvi. I.

2 Westcott, Ep. to the Hebrews, p. 284; cp. Oehler, § 121, note I.