[See page image]
Page 167
187 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA Sacrifice 8acristaa Stengel, Opferbrduche den Grixhen, Leipsic, 1910; well hausen, Heidentum. An important class of books on O. T. sacrifice is that which deals with O. T. theology (fully given in and under BIBUCAL TRRoLoox); the discussion of Pentateuchal origins also brought out much which had to do with sacri fice (see HE%ATEUCH); besides the above, the commen taries on the Hexateuch are of course valuable. Special works are: F. Biihr, Symbolik des moaaisehen Kultus, ii. 189 sqq., Heidelberg, 1837; J. H. Kurtz, Der a1tte8tament liche Opferkultus, Mitau, 1882, Eng. transl., Sacrificial Worship of the O. T., Edinburgh, 1883; J. A. Seiss, The Gospel in Leviticus, or, an Exposition of the Hebrew Ritual, 3d eel., Philadelphia, 1875; A. Stewart, The Mosaic Sacri fices, Edinburgh, 1883; H. C. Trumbull, The Blood Cove nant, New York, 1885; E. F. Willis, The Worship of the Old Covenant, London, 1887; J. G. Murphy, Sacrifice as set fords in Scripture, ib. 1889; A. Cave, Scriptural Doc trine of Sacrifice, Edinburgh, 1890; E. W. Edersheim, The Rites and Worship of the Jews, New York, 1891; A. Scott, Sacrifice: its Prophecy and Fulfilment, Edinburgh, 1894; w. L. Baxter, Sanctuary and Sacrifice, London, 1895; A. Kamphausen, Das Verhdltnisa des Menachenop fers zur isruelitischen Religion, Bonn, 1898; K. Manta, Ge achichte den israelitischen Religion, 3d eel., Strasburg, 1897; Hubert and Manes, in L'Annhe soeiolopique, 1897-1898, pp. 29-138 (important); R. Smend, Lehrbuch den alUes<a mentlichen Reliyionegeschichte, Freiburg, 1899; H. Schultz, in AJT, iv (1900), 257 sqq.; R. C. Moberly, Atonement and Personality, London, 1901; C. Mommert, Men8chenop fer bei den alten Hebrdern, Leipsie, 1905; C. F. Kent, Students' O. T., iv. 227 sqq., New York, 1907; H. L. Straek, The Jew and Human Sacrifice: Human Blood and Jewish Ritual, ib. 1909; S. J. Smith, Relimon in the Ma king, chap. ix_ ib. 1910; 0. Schmitz, Die Opferanachauung des spdteren Judentuma and die Opferausaagen des N. T., TObingen, 1910; Bensinger, Archdologie, pp. 362 387; Nowack, Archaologie, vol. ii.; Schrader, KAT, pp. 594 sqq.; DB, iv. 329-349; EB, iv. 4183 1233; DCG, ii. 542648; JB, x. 815-628; Vigouroux, Dictdonnaire, fasc. xxxv., cola. 1311-37 (a broad discussion). SACRILEGE: In the wider sense, any injury or dishonor done to a sacred object; in the narrower and stricter sense, the theft of a sacred object (see SACRAMENTALB), without necessarily involving per sonal violence. The early Roman law imposed the severest penalties upon this crime ("Let him be treated as a parricide who steals or carries off aught sacred or what is entrusted to a sacred person," Cicero, De legibus, ii. 9); a law of Julius Ciesar, the Lez Julia peculatus, made more detailed provision against it, and it was later definitely distinguished from that of embezzlement, or the illegal appro priation of public funds. The Roman law, how ever, covered only the removal of a sacred object from a sacred place, not from any other place or that of an unconsecrated object from a sacred place. In the imperial period the penalties were graded according to the exact nature of the offense, and culminated in the most severe forms of capital punishment. The Germanic law, which punished severely violations of sanctuary, extended the Ro man principle to cover all thefts of sacred objects from any place, or of any object from a sacred place; and the canon law took the same view. The penalties, besides restoration or compensation, in cluded fines, penances, and excommunication. In the Middle Ages sacrilege was regarded as a crime against both Church and State, and might be pun ished by both. For example the great ordinance issued by Charles V. in 1572 prescribed penalties varying with the offense; thus the theft of a mon strance with the host was punished by burning; that of other consecrated vessels of gold or silver,
or breaking into a consecrated church, tabernacle, or sacristy with intent to steal, by death at the discretion of the court; and the theft of other hallowed objects, or unconsecrated objects from a holy place, with severer penalties than ordinary stealing. Such an attitude was adapted only to the Roman Catholic theory of an inherent sanctity in such objects; but it exercised no little influence on the Protestant state churches, although the severer penalties gradually fell into disuse. (P. HINSCHIUSt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Bingham, Ortgines, VIII., x., %V1., vi. 2325; Gregory of Tours, De glorin martyrum, chap. xvii (for an example of legendary treatment); W. Rein, Das Criminalrecht den R6mer, Leipsie, 1844; K. Binding, Lehrbuch des deutschen Strafrechts, i. 157-158, ib. 1898; KL, x. 1519-21; DCA, ii. 1834-35,(gives list of acts classed as sacrilegious); Vigouroux, Dictionnaire, fasc. xxxv. 1337; JR, x. 828-829.
SACRISTAN, SEXTON: Two forms of what was originally the same word, differentiated in modern English so that the former designates in Roman Catholic churches especially the official who has charge of the vestments and other property kept in the sacristy, while the latter is in more general usage for one who takes care of the whole church building. The title custos ecclesice seems to occur first in the Spanish monasteries, denoting the monk who had charge of the conventual church. Thus Isidore of Seville (Regina, xix.) says: " It pertains to the office of the guardian of the sacristy to have the care of the church, to give the signals in the offices, to take charge of the veils, sacred vestments and vessels, books and other instruments, the oil for the sanctuary lamps, the candles, and other lights." The same term was commonly used in the Frankish church, where it is sometimes applied to the bishop or abbot or pastor of a parish church. From this usage it is found in the Carolingian period frequently used as synonymous with rector. The term was used all through the Middle Ages in cathedral and collegiate churches, but now no longer for the abbot or provost, but for the monk or canon who had the cure of souls. In the more important cathedral churches, e.g., Cologne, the cathedral custos took rank as a prelate. In many collegiate churches his duties included the custody of the corporate seal. In closer harmony with the definition given by Isidore is the Carolingian usage of the term custos thesauri, the official who had charge of the church property, or that cited from an old Ordo Romanus in the decretals of Gregory IX., where the custos eccksite is mentioned as a subordinate of the archdeacon charged with such offices as Isidore describes. The modern use of the term sacristan is derived from this aspect of the functions of the custos, and his duties are minutely prescribed not only in the decrees of Roman Catholic provincial councils but also in numerous Reformation church constitutions, which lead up to the later German precentor and schoolmaster, as to the English parish clerk, who was such an important functionary down to the middle of the nineteenth century.
BmLroeRAPR:: A. L. Richter, Lehrbuch des kntholischen and evangdischen Kirchenreckta, 8th eel., by w. Kahl, p. 458, Leipsic, 1888; F. Dreising, Das Amt des Kasters in den evanpelischen Kirche, Berlin, 1854.