SACRIFICE. Origin of Sacrifice ( 1). Old-Testament Data ( 2). Bloody Sacrifices and Meal Offerings ( 3). The Burnt Offering and Communal Meal ( 4). Sin and Guilt Offerings ( 5). Development of Israelitic Sacrifice ( 6).

Ancient peoples generally, including the Hebrews, were convinced that worship of a deity consisted not only in words, but above all in offering something dear to the worshiper, which he z. Origin of denied himself in favor of his god. The Sacrifice. sincerity and earnestness of worship were usually measured by the extent of self-denial which man was willing to make for the object of worship, particularly where the deity in question had been offended by some transgression of man, so that propitiation had become necessary. In the earlier forms of religion the gods are supposed not only to be well pleased with such sacrifices of gratitude or expiation, but actually to need them, since they are regarded as hungry and thirsty, and thus as dependent to a certain extent on man and his offerings. Even when, at later stages of development, the worthlessness of material goods to the deity is recognized, the conviction still survives that their surrender by man for the sake of his divinity is as pleasing as any other form of renunciation and self-mortification. The attempt has been made to derive all sacrifice from ancestorworship or from the communal meal of the god and his worshipers, but both these theories are untenable and can not be brought into harmony with the data of the Old Testament. The real solution of the theory of sacrifice, the origin of which is prehistoric, must be sought in the childlike dependence of man upon the gods.

In the oldest portions of the Old Testament Yahweh is represented as at least enjoying the savor of the sacrifices (Gen. viii. 21; Lev. i. 9, 13, 17); when he becomes manifest to man, he must receive hos. pitality in the form of a sacrifice (Judges vi. 17


[Page 164]


[Page 165]


[Page 166]


[Page 167]


[Page 168]


[Page 169]


[Page 170]


[Page 171]


[Page 172]


[Page 173]


[Page 174]


[Page 175]


[Page 176]


[Page 177]


[Page 178]


[Page 179]


[Page 180]


[Page 181]


[Page 182]


[Page 183]


[Page 184]


[Page 185]


[Page 186]


[Page 187]


[Page 188]


[Page 189]


[Page 190]


[Page 191]


[Page 192]


[Page 193]


[Page 194]


[Page 195]


[Page 196]


[Page 197]


[Page 198]


[Page 199]


Sanctification Sanday THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG 200

the whole conception. While the term formerly denoted justification by faith and grace alone, rationalism understood by it the inner disposition which is to make man pleasing to God. Consequently the rationalists laid stress upon sanctification in the sense of man's efforts for his own moral perfection. In opposition to this tendency Schleiermacher once more emphasized faith as the truly religious attitude toward God and his revelation, as the condition of heart which is satisfied and feels itself strong in communion with Christ. This condition was developed by the following theologians into the germ of a new life on the basis of which man is justified. Accordingly, the subjective faith of man effects sanctification and lies at the basis of divine justification. This teaching was far removed from the doctrine of the Reformers. Ritschl and his school, however, returned to the latter, especially to that of Luther, by making sanctification dependent upon the justification of God. But according to Ritschl, man is justified only as a member of the Church, his act of conformity to which, and hence to the motives and purposes of God, constitutes the faith which justifies him. Thus here, too, sanctification, conceived as separation from sin, which takes form and accomplishes itself, is made within man and is the basis of justification.

In the Reformed Church and theology sanctification comes into the doctrine of perseverance. Man is justified, indeed, freely by grace; but the justified must perform good works, which he is enabled to do by a second act of grace, inseparably connected with justification. This is regeneraThe tion, which sanctifies him. By this

Reformed regeneration or sanctification, how- View. ever, man does not attain full per fection. His whole consolation rests upon the fact of justification. Sanctification is necessary for the elect and justified, in order to preserve the grace of their justification, and thus it follows justification with an inner divine necessity. Here also, as in Lutheran theology after Luther, sanctification is considered a special work of the Holy Spirit, following justification and conditioned by it. The distinction between the two is hardly more than a technical and controversial one.

Owing to influences from England and America, especially from the Methodists, Baptists, and Salvation Army and.the doctrine of Pearsall Smith, a new doctrine of sanctification has become current, according to which it is not only different from, but even more important than, justification. It is considered as that act of divine grace in which the real tendency of divine revelation finds its fullest expression, while justification is secondary to it.

Upon examination the view of the Lutheran as well as of the Reformed theologians, that sanctification is a special process to be distinguished from justification and following it, is seen to be un acriptural. Just as little authority in Scripture can be found for the view of the Pietists,

Conclasian. of the modern dogmaticians (including Ritschl), and still less for that of the "practical" tendency in church life, according to which sanctification is the chief purpose of the divine plan of salvation. Formal scriptural au-

thority can be found only for the view of Luther and that of the medieval or Roman theology, which designate the whole process of conveying salvation to man as sanctification. Of these two, again, Luther's alone is scriptural in so far as he looks upon this bestowal of salvation as the effect of faith. Bestowal of salvation is sanctification, because it delivers man from sin and brings him into com munion with the God of redemption. It is to be distinguished, though not separated, from the divine sentence of justification, since it is that effect of the grace of God on man which makes him capable of faith and preserves it, which brings him into communion with God and preserves him in it; it is therefore not a single isolated operation but a continuous one. The scriptural term hagiasmos denotes the condition of being sanctified, the action performed on the object as a condition proceeding from and effected by the Holy Ghost who bestows salvation (I Peter i.2; cf. II Thess. ii. 13; I Thess. iv. 7). If it be asked what is the relation of sancti fication to the actuality of Christian life, it appears that man stands by faith in communion with God, and is thus placed in a position from which he is not only able but obliged to resist sin and fulfil the will of God out of love. The bestowal of grace, forgive ness, in a word justification, is actually sanctifica tion; for there is no mightier deliverance from sin than that which is worked by the bestowal of grace or forgiveness, or by faith in the operation of its power. "Christ in us" is nothing else than "Christ for us," realized and held fast in faith. Such action as makes man a partaker of sanctifica tion is precisely the same action as that by which he is made a partaker of justification; it is clear, accord ingly, that in view of the position and meaning of the latter in the scheme of Christian doctrine, the term sanctification is non-essential, if not super fluous. (H. T. CREMERt.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: The subject is generally treated in the works on systematic theology (see under the article DOGMA, DoGmATIcs), while treatises on the Holy Spirit (q.v.) necessarily deal with the topic; another class of works to be used for the Biblical side is that on BIBLICAL THEOIr oeY, especially w. Beyschlag's N. T. Theology, Edin burgh, 1896. Consult further: Walter Marshall, Gospel Mystery of Sanctification, London, 1692, often reprinted, e.g., Edinburgh, 1887 (a classic); E. G. Marsh, The Chris tian Doctrine of San "*ation, London, 1848; J. Q. Adams, Sanctification, new ed., New York, 1863; G. Junkin, A Treatise on Sanctification, Philadelphia, 1864; W. E. Boardman, The " Higher Life " Sanctification Tried by the Word of God, Philadelphia, 1877; J. A. Beet, Holiness as Understood by the Writers of the Bible, London, 1880; J. Hartley, Chapters on Holiness, London, 1883; J. H. Collins, Sanctification, what it is, when it is, how it is, Nashville, 1885; A. Murray, Holy in Christ, New York, 1888; J. Fraser. A Treatise on Sanctification, London, 1897; E. Hoare, Sanctification, 5th ed., ib., 1898; P. T. Forsyth, Christian Perfection, New York, 1899; H. W. Webb-Peploe, Calls to Holiness, London, 1900; A. Kuyper, The Work of the Holy Spirit, New York, 1902; W. R. Inge, Faith and Knowledge, Edinburgh, 1904; H. C. G. Moule, Holiness by Faith, London, 1906; A. B. 0. Wilberforce, Sanctification by the Truth, London, 1906; E. Tobae, Le Problpme de la justification dans S. Paul, Louvain, 1908; DB, iv. 391-395; DCG, ii. 561-566 (adds a bibliography of distinct homiletical value); Vigouroua, Dictionnaire, fase. xasv. 1443-44.