IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) I.U I" I.I 1.25 _ 28 ^ m 1.4 IIM M 1= 1.6 ^ w ,%. /M /a o / /^ Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. 14580 (716) 872-4503 Qp <> CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 1980 Tschnical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which m^y alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D D D D D D D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couieur □ Covers damaged/ Couverture endommag^e Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurie et/ou pelliculAe I I Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes g^ographiques en couieur □ Coloured inl( (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couieur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) n Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couieur Bound with other material/ Reiid avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serrde peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion ie long de la marge intirieure Blanit leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout^es lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t(t film6es. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl^mentaires; L'Institut s mirrofiimA le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a At£ passible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemp^li^^ioii. Let uh leurn h lesBun from the Indians, not only in tolorunce hut in politenosH. Ono of tlio early Juauit niissionaries in Ciuuula recounts how ho pleawed a Huron chief by luH discourse ui)on the cosmology set forth in the Scriptures, and felt that he had secured a convert until the ch.ief, thanking him for his information, added, " Now you have told me how your world was made, I will tell you how my world was made"; and proceeded to give tlu! now familiar story of the woman falling from the sky, and the turtle. He was willing that the priest should retain his belief, with which his own, in his opinion, did not con- flict. Dr. Franklin tells of a Susquehannock who, after a similar lecture from a Swedish missionary, was answered in the same manner ; but this missionary became angry and interrupted tlie Indian, whereupon the latter solemnly rebuked him with pity; "I have listened politely to what you told me ; if you had been prop- erly brought up, you would have believed me as I believed you." Religion, as accurately defined, embraces only the perficient relations between divinity and man, and the mode in which such relations operate. Poi)ularly it includes cosmology and theology. For present convenience- the broad subject may be divided into Religious Opinions and Religious Practices. In this comparison, all religious views person fJly entertained must be laid aside and the study conducted strictly within the scope of anthropology. Modern thinkers adopt the rule not to use a miraculous factor when unnecessary. Nee deus intersit, nisi dignus vindice nodus. It is now regarded as puerile to ex- plain all puzzling phenomena, as was done for ages — " When solved complete was any portent odd By one more story or another god." This attitude, however, is still not universal. When experi- ence of observed facts and of the orderly working of the forces of nature are not sufficient for explanation, some minds yet resort to the miraculous. Others huml)ly confess ignorance and work for light. This light when gained is real and lasting, not the delusive hues of cloud-region, varying with each instant and to each ob- server's eye, and soon resolving into the same old mists and fogs from which escape was sought. In their explanation of phenomena, all the peoples of the world have resorted to revelations. Every myth or early teaching is directly or indirectly through revelation ; but as the revelation is on both sides of the equation, it can be eliminated from any paral- lel such as is now presented. A cardinal of more than titular eminence was rash when, ad- mitting that the doctrine of the devil and his command of demons was first learned by the Israelites during the Babylonian captiv- IHRAELITE AND INDIAN. ity, he insisted that it mi^ht ])o divine rcvj'latiDn, notwithstanding? its imniodiate source. He said that if (iod nuuh* Bahiam's asB speak, it would also he easy for him to urovicUi that the hcatlun should give correct instruction. The non-«*xistenco of Satan is not demonstrahle ; so it may he well to examine into suhjects on which we liave knowledge, such as geology and astronomy. It appears from bricks in palaces at Nineveh that tiie Mosaic cosmol- ogy was also obtained from the same source as the Satanic doctrine. Any revelation on the subject would in order of time have been given to, and according to all evidence was i)romulgated by, the cultured Assyrians, not the ignorant captives. The i)riority, however, is of little moment, as the revolving dish-cover theory, whether as originally noted on clay or on rolls of sheep-skin, is now obsolete. All dependence on revelations practically means that those suiting us are true and all others fals(?. When judgment upon the truth or falsehood of an alleged revelation can be made in accordance with the prejudices of the judge, the subject be- comes too eclectic and elastic to be considered by science, or indeed by common sense. The scope of anthropology is to study within the category of humanity. If theology comes from man's conceptions, it is em- braced in anthropology. If theology is of divine origin, anthro- pology may discuss what men think and do about it. But the truth or falsity of revelation can not be dealt with in this ad- dress. To raise that point acts as a cloture y cutting off all debate. Religious Opinions. — Religious writers have often explained the differences in beliefs among the various peoples of the world on the hypothesis that true religious knowledge was implanted at one time in the ancestors of all those peoples, and that the diver- gence now found is through decay of that supernatural informa- tion. The early missionaries to America, of all denominations, were imbued with this dogma and sought, and therefore found, evidences of the one primeval faith. Sometimes they limited them- selves to the similar beliefs of the Indians and the Israelites, but often they passed beyond that stage to locate the vestiges of Chris- tianity. These they said came by the hands of Christian pre- Columbian visitors, and one explanation was by the importation of the apostle Thomas. The coincidences found were exagger- ated, but when facts were opposed they were not less satisfactory, as the adverse power of Satan then appeared. Such mental prede- termination nearly destroys the value of those nnssionary accounts. The most generally entertained parallel between the Indians and the Israelites, repeated by hundreds of writers, was that they both believed in one overruling God. This consensus, if true, would at once establish a beatific bridge of union between the two peoples, but its iris arch vanishes as it is viewed closely. lO ISRAELITE AND INDIAN. After careful examination, with tlie assistance of explorers and linguists, I reassert my statement, published twelve years ago, that no tribe or body of Indians, before missionary influence, enter- tained any formulated or distinct belief in a single, overruling *' Great Spirit," or any being corresponding to the later Israelite or tlie Christian conception of God. All the statements of the missionaries and early travelers to the opposite effect are errone- ous. Even some of the earliest writers discovered this truth. Lafiteau says that the names "Oki " and " Manito" were given to various spirits and genii. Champlain said that Oki was a name given to a man more valiant and skillful than common, Manito signifies " something beyond comprehension/' A, simke was often a manito, and seldom were snakes molested. "Hawaneu," re- duced to correct vocables, only means loud-voiced — i. e., thunder. ** Kitchi Manito " is not a proper name for one god, but an appella- tion of an entire class of great spirits. So with the Dakota term ** Wakan," which means only the mysterious unknown. A watch is a wakan. The Chahta word presented as "God" for two centu- ries is now found to mean a " high hill." Some Indians, perhaps, had a vague idea of some good spirit or being whom they did not worship and to whom they did not pray. They prayed and sacrificed to the active daimons, concerning whom they had many myths. In their various cosmologic myths there was sometimes a vague and unformulated being who started the machinery by which the myth proceeded ; but when once started no further attention was paid to such originator. Per- haps some modern advanced thinkers have no clearer definition of a great first cause. Praise has been lavished upon the Indians because they did not take the name of God in vain. The true statement, however, has a different significance. Thf^y did not, according to the best linguistic scholars, have any word corresponding with the English " God " either to use or misuse, and they deserve no more praise for avoidance of profanity than for their total abstinence from alcoholic drinks before such had been invented or imported. The terms too liberally translated as " Master of Life " and " Maker of Breath "were epithets merely. Perhaps there was an approach to a title of veneration when the method of their clan system was applied to supernatural persons, among whom there would natu- rally be a chief or great father of the "beast gods," on the same principle as there was a chieftaincy in tribes. The missionaries who have persistently found what did not exist are not without excuse. Wholly independent of any design to force welcome answers, an interviewer who asks a leading ques- tion of an Indian can always obtain the answer which is supposed to be desired. The sole safe mode of reaching the Indian's men- ISRAELITE AND INDIAN. 11 tal attitude is to let him tell his myths and make his remarks in his own way and in his own language. When such texts are written out, translated, and studied they are of great value. It is only within about twelve years that this has been done in a systematic manner, but it has already resulted in the correction of many popular errors. In attempting to translate the epithets mentioned, the mis- sionaries and travelers often honestly used the word which, in their own conception, was the nearest equivalent. An instructive ex- ample is where Boscana describes a structure in southern Cali- fornia as a " temple." It was a circular fence, six feet high, not roofed in — a mere plaza for dancing ; but the dancing was reli- gious, and the word " temple " was the best one he could find, by which mistake he has perplexed archaeologists who have sought in vain for the ruins. A consideration not often weighed is that the only members of the Indian tribes who are willing to give their own ideas on religious matters to foreigners are precisely those who are most intelligent and most dissatisfied with their old stories. There were minds among them groping after something newer and bet- ter, and it would be easy to translate their vague longings into the conception of an overruling Providence. But the people had made no such advance. The missionaries who announced that the Indians were fixed in the belief in one god were much troubled by the statement of the converted native, Hiaccomes, of Martha's Vineyard, who, hav- ing enumerated his thirty-seven gods, gave them all up. This, however, was a typical instance of the truth. The Indians had an indefinite number of so-called gods corresponding with the like indefinite number of the Elohim of the Israelites before the su- premacy of Jahveh. The biblical religion of Israel has been popularly hold to be coeval with the world, but its own beginning was by no means archaic. About a thousand years before Christ i t did not exist, and at least four hundred years were required for its develop- ment. The religious practices of David and Solomon did not materially differ from those of their neighbors in Palestine. Not until the time of Hezekiah, about seven hundred and twenty-five years before Christ, did the Israelite religion attain to a distinct formulation. Its ordinances and beliefs advanced from crudity and mutation to ripeness and establishment. It was a system long in growth, and so could not early possess authoritative docn- ments. The nomad Semite believed, with other barbarians, that he lived amid a supernatural environment. The world was sur- rounded and governed by the Elohim— myriads of active beings, ta ISRAELITE AND INDIAN. seldom with distinct proper names, so that it was easy to regard them as a whole and confound them togetlier. Yet the power bore different names in different tribes. In some cases it was called El, or Alon, or Eloali ; in other cases Elion, Saddai, Baal, Adonai, Ram, Milik or Moloch. The Elohim, tliough generally bound together, sometimes acted separately ; thus each tribe gained in time its protecting god, whose function was to watch over it and direct it to success. In the transition to nationality, the Israelites conceived a na- tional god, Jaliveli. who was not just, being ])artial toward Israel and criH'l toward all other peo})les. The worship of a national god is not monotheistic, but henotheistic, recognizing other gods of other peoples. The work of the later prophets consisted in restoring the attributes of the ancient elohism under the foi-m of Jahveh, and in generalizing the religious cult of a special god. Jahveh was not at first the god of the universe, but subse- quently became so because he was the God of Israel, and very long afterward was claimed to be the only god, mainly because the Israelites claimed to be the peculiar people. Even down to the time of the prophet Isaiah, there was alternation of conflict and of co-ordination between Jahveh and the other gods of Canaan, especially Baal. The revolution accomplished by the prophets did not change expressions. The concept of Jahveh was too deeply rooted to be removed, and the people spoke of Jahveh as they had formerly spoken of the Elohim. He thus became the supreme being who made and governed the w^orld. In time even the name of Jahveh was suppressed and its utterance forbidden ; and it was replaced by a purely theistic word meaning the Lord. Undoubtedly the prophets, at the time of tlie kings and later, taught the worship of one God, but the people were not converted to the doctrine un- til after the great captivity. When established in Palestine, the Israelites entered into com- munion with the Canaanites, their kindred, and worshiped Baal. Later they frequently bowed down to the Dagon of the Philistines, probably because he was the god of their warlike victors. Solo- mon, perhaps from admiration of Sidonian culture, introduced the service of Astarte, which was intermitted ; but later, Ahab estab- lished the worship of tlip Sidonian divinities in the kingdom of Samaria. It was subsequently readopted in the kingdom of Judah, and not until the reign of Josiah were the Sidonian altars finally demolished. The true parallel, therefore, between the Indians and the Israelites, as to belief in a single overruling God, is not that both, but that neither, held it. In the stage of barbarism all the phenomena of nature are ISRAELITE AND INDIAN, «3 attributed to the animals by which man is surrounded, or rather to the ancestral types of these animals, which are worshiped. This is the religion of zootheisni. Throughout the world, when advance was made from this plane, it was to a stage in which the powers and phenomena of nature are personified and deified. In this stage the gods are anthropomorphic, having the mental, moral, and social attributes of men, and represented under the forms of men. This is the religion of physitheism. The most advanced of the Indian tribes showed evidence of transition from zootheism to physitheism. The Israelites, in the latter part of the period selected, showed the same transition in a somewhat higher degree than the Indians did when their independent prog- ress was arrested. It is needless to enlarge upon the animal gods of the Indians, or to furnish evidence that they gave some vague worship to the sun, the lightning, to fire and winds. There is no doubt that the Israelites were for a long period in the stage of zoolatry. They persisted in the worship of animal gods — the golden calf, the brazen serpent, the fish-god, and the fly-god. The second commandment is explicitly directed against the worship of the daimons of air, earth, and water, which is known to have been common ; and the existence of the prohibition shows the necessity for it, especially as it was formulated, after the practice had existed for centuries, by a religious party which sought to abolish that worship. The god of Sinai was a god of storm and lightning, which phenomena were strange to the Israelites after their sojourn in plains. The ancient local god of the Canaanites began in the exodus to affect the religious concepts of the Israelites, so that they associated Jahveh with the god whose lands they were plant- ing and whose influence they felt. Sinai was thenceforward the locality of their theology. Jahveh, through all after-changes, remained there as his home ; he spoke with the voice of thunder, and never appeared without storm and earthquake. Another class of gods connected with beast-worship and also with the totemic institution (to be hereafter specially noted) was tutelar, the special cult of tribes, clans, and individuals. It was conspicuous both among the Israelites and the Indians. Jahveh may first have been a clan or tribal god, either of the clan to which Moses belonged or of the clan of Joseph, in the pos- session of which was the ark. No essential distinction was felt to exist between Jahveh and El, any more than between Ashur and El. Jahveh was only a special name of El, which had become current within a powerful circle, and which, therefore, was an accejjtable designation of a national god. When other tutelar gods did not succeed, there was resort to Jahveh, probably in the early in- ISRAELITE AND INDIAN. stances because he was the most celebrated of all the tutelar gods, and the reason for that celebrity was that the most powerful of the 'clans claimed him as tutelar. Hecastothoism is a title given to the earliest form of religion known, which belongs specially to the plane of savagery. In it every object, animate or inanimate, which is remarkable in itself or becomes so by association, is a quaai god. The transition be- tween savagery and barbarism, as well as between the religions of hecastotheism and zootheism, connected with them, was not sharply marked, so that all their features could coexist at a later era, though in differing degrees of importance. This intermixture is found both among the Israelites and In- dians. An illustration among many is in the worship of localities and of local gods. Conspicuous rocks, specially large trees, pecul- iar mountains, cascades, whirlpools, and similar objects received worship from the Indians ; also the places where remarkable oc- currences, as violent storms, had been noted ; and among some tribes the particular ground on which the fasting of individuals had taken place, with its accompanying dreams. The Indians frequently marked these places, often by a pile of stones. The Dakotas, when they did not have the stones, used buffalo skulls. In the Old Testament frequent allusions are made to a place becoming holy where dreams or remarkable events had occurred. They were designated by pillars. The Israelite compilers adopted the pillar of Bethel for the samt reason that required Mohammed to adopt the Caaba. Though struggling for monotheism, they could not always directly antagonize the old hecastotheism. Future State. — The topic of a future state may be divided into (1) the simple existence of the soul after death, (2) the resurrec- tion of the body, and (3) a system of rewards and punishments in the next world. The classical writers often distinguished two souls in the same person — one that wandered on the borders of the Styx until the proper honors had been given to the corpse: the other being a shadow, image, or simulacrum of the first, which remained in its tomb or prowled around it. The latter could be easily invoked by enchanters. Some of the Indians thought that the souls of the dead passed to the country of their ancestors, from which they did not dare to return because there was too much suflFering on the road forward and backward. Nevertheless, they believed that there was some- thing spiritual which still existed with their human remains, and they tell stories of it. Thus there are two souls, and the Dakotas have four, one of which wanders about the earth and requires food, the second watches over the body, the third hovers around the village, and a fourth goes to the land of spirits. la ISRAELITE AND INDIAN, »5 The Iroquois and Hurons believed in a country for the souls of the dead, which they called the " country of ancest(jrs." This is to the west, from which direction their traditions told that they had migrated. Spirits must go there after death by a very long and painful journey, past many rivers, and at the end of a narrow bridge fight with a dog like Cerberus, and some may fall into the water and be carried away over precipices. This road is all on the earth ; but several of the Indian tribes consider the Milky Way to be the path of souls, those of human beings forming the main body of the stars, and their dogs, which also have souls, run- ning on the sides. In their next world the Indians do the same as they customarily do here, but without life's troubles. The Israelites believed in a doubling of the person by a shadow, a pale figure, which after death descended under the earth and there led a sad and gloomy existence. The abode of these poor beings was called Sheol. There was no recompense, no punish- ment. The greatest comfort was to be among ancestors and rest- ing with them. There were some very virtuous men whom God carried up that they might be with him. Apart from these elect, dead men went into torpor. Man's good fortune was to be accord- ed a long term of years, with children to perpetuate his family and respect for his memory after death. ' The Indians did not believe in existence after death in a posi- tive and independent state. The spirit does not wholly leave the body and the body is not resurrected. Perhaps a good commen- tary upon their belief is furnished by a tribe of Oregon Indians who, hearing missionaries preach on the resurrection, imme- diately repaired to an old battle-field and built great heaps of stones on the graves of their fallen foes to prevent their coming up again. They did not want any of that. Among the Israelites the resurrection of the body was a for- eign idea imbibed during the captivities in Assyria and Babylo- nia. Perhaps the first reference made to it is in the prophet Dan- iel. It was not fully believed in so late as the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate. Among the Indians privation of burial and funeral ceremonies was a disgraceful stigma and cruel punishment. There was trouble about children who died shortly after their birth, and also about those whose corpses were lost, as in the snow or in the waters. In ordinary cases of death the neglect of full and elaborate ceremo- nies caused misfortune to the tribe. The story of the " happy hunting-ground " among the Indians has not been generally apprehended. As regards what we now consider to be moral conduct there was no criterion. A good In- dian was one who was useful to his clan and family, and at the time of his death was not under charges of violating the clan rules. i6 ISRAELITE AND INDIAN. for which the Polynesian word fahu has been adopted. The moral idea of goodness of a Pani chief is to be a successful warrior or hunter. The actual condition at the moment of death decided the condition in the future far more than any conduct during the past. In the portions of the continent where the scalp was taken, the scalped man remained sculped in the world of spirits, though some tribes believed that scalping ])revented his rea(?hing that world. If he had but one leg or eye here, he had but (me leg or eye after- ward. In tribes where they cut off the ears of slain foes the spirit remained without ears. A special instance is where the vic- tim was considered too brave to be scalped, but the conquerors cut off one hand and one foot from the corpse to keep him from in- flicting injury upon the tribe of the conquerors in the next world. Some of the tribes thought that if an Indian died in the night he remained in total darkness ever afterward. One of the most curious of their beliefs was in connection with drowning and hanging, the conceit being that the spirit (which was in the breath) did not escape from the body. This doctrine was made of special application to prevent suicide, which was generally performed either by hanging or drowning, the deduction being that suicides could not go to the home of the ancestors. It is ])robable that the various trials which the spirit is sup- posed to undergo before reaching the other world were devised to secure confidence in the absence thereafter of the ghosts of the dead, because the same difliculty would attend their return. As without the assistance of mortuary rites the ghosts would not be able to reach their final home, their permanent absence was se- cured because there were no repetitions of those rites to assist their return. Fear of the ghosts, not only of enemies but of tlie dearest friends, generally prevailed. After a death all kinds of devices were employed to scare away the spirit. Sometimes a new exit, through which the corpse was taken, was cut through the wigwam and afterward filled up, it being supposed that the spirit could re-enter only by the passage through which it went out. Some- times the whole wigwam was burned down. There was often a long period, which travelers called that of mourning, during which drums and rattles were used to drive away the spirits. After firearms were obtained, they were discharged in and around the late home of the deceased with the same object. The loud cries of so-called lamentation had probably a similar origin, and this is more marked when the lamenters were strangers to the dead, and even professionals, not unlike the Irish keeners. In this general connection it is proper to allude to the common abstinence from pronouncing the true name of any dead person. This is more distinct than the sociologic custom where the man's true name should not be used in his life except on special occa- VOL. XXXVI. — 6 ISRAELITE AND INDIAN. »7 sions. There was some fear that, })y calling his name, he might come back. It would be wrong to accuse the Indians of want of feeling in- dicated by their horror of the dead. In ono of the most ancient accounts — that of Cabeza de Vaca — it is declared that the parents and other relatives of the sick show much sympathy while life re- mains, but give none to the dead — do not speak i»f them or weep among themselves, or make any signs of grief or approach the body. This domestic reticence is entirely different from, but not antago- nistic to, the obligatory mortuary rites which were practiced. To secure the living from the presence of the spirits of the dead was the first object, and the second was to assist those spirits in the journey to their destinaticjn. These were the prevailing ideas of all the mortuary customs of the Indians. It may be true that there was in some cases (though missionary influence is to be suspected) a belief that there were two different regions in which the bad and the good would severally remain, but that was not of general acce^jtanco. There was but one future country, and the only question was whether the spirits got there or not. There was no hell. The Israelites, in their sacred books, do not show the influence of fears or hopes concerning a future state with reference to indi- vidual morality. Among them death at any age was not an inevi- table necessity, as they thought that life might be prolonged to an indefinite extent, but it was inflicted as a punishment and their signs of mourning were acts of penitence and contrition, with the idea that the survivors might have been the cause of the death. All deaths were classed with public calamities, such as pestilence, famine, drought, or invasion, being the work of an enemy~per- hajjs a punishing god, perhaps a daimon or a witch. They re- garded it so great an evil to die unlamented that it was one of the four great judgments against which they prayed, and it was called the burial of an ass. These are tlie inferences to be derived from the books as we have them. It is, however, questionable whether rites attending upon death were not with them similar in intent to those of the Indians— i. e,, to provide, by means of those rites, for the future welfare of the disparted, rather than in accordance with our modern sentiment, to show respect and personal sorrow. Passages of the Old Testament may be noted— e. g., the one tell- ing how the bodies of Saul and his children were rescued from Bethshan and taken to Jabesh, where they were burned and the bones buried. The ceremony in this case and others seems to have been the burning of the flesh and the burial of the bones, as was frequently done by the Indians on occasions of haste, without waiting as usual for the decay of the flesh, the later gathering of the bones being at stated periods of years. There is no evidence that the Israelites feared the corpse and l8 ISRAELITE AND INDIAN. its surroundings "beyond that to be inferred from the ordinances concerning pollution, which, however, are significant. Religious Practices. — There should always be a cross-refer- ence in thought between what in time became a religious jjractice and the earlier sociology, to be mentioned in its place, with which it was closely connected. Josephus remarks about the Israelites that " beginning imme- diately from the earliest infancy, nothing was left of the very smallest consequence to be done at the pleasure and disposal of the person himself." The same is true regarding the Indians. Their religious life is as intense and all-i)ervading as that of the Israelites. It is yet noticed in full effect am(jng tribes as widely separated, both by space and language, as the Zufii and. the Ojibwa, and their jjrac- tices are astonishingly similar in essence and even in many details to some of those still prevailing in civilization. Among the Hurons and Iroquois there were religious rites for all occasions, among others for the birth of a child, for the first cutting of its hair, for its naming, and for its puberty, for the ad- mission of a young man into the order of warriors, and the pro- motion from warrior to chieftain, for making a mystery-man, for first using a new canoe, for l)reaking tillage-ground, for sowing and harvest, for fixing tln^ time to fish, for deciding upon a war- like expedition, for marriages, for the torturing of captives, for the cure of disease, for consulting magicians, invoking the daimons, and lamenting the dead. Shamans. — Among the Indians there was frequently an estab- lished and recognized priesthood, provided by initiation into secret religious societies, corresponding in general authority to that of the Levites, although the order of the latter Avas instituted in a different manner, perhaps imitated jTom the exclusive class of the priesthood in Egypt. The shamans in all tribes derived a large part of their support from fixed contributions or fees. Adair describes a special ceremony for the admission or conse- cration of a priest among the southern tribes, as follows : " At the time of making the holy fire for the yearly atonement of sin the Sagan clothes himself with a white epliod, which is a waistcoat without sleeves, and sits down on a white buckskin, on a white seat, and j)uts on it some white beads, and wears a new pair of white buckskin moccasins, made by himself, and never wears these moccasins at any other time." Similar exclusive use by the high priest of the garments used on the day of the atonement is mentioned in Leviticus. In addition to the organized class referred to, there were other professional dealers in the supernatural who may be called con- jurers, sorcerers, or prophets. They were independent of and often ISRAELITE AND INDIAN. 19 antagonistic to the repjular slianians. Instance tlio Jossakeecl of the Ojil)wa, rivals of the Midt', as the Israciite prophets were of the Levites. At the time of the Judges the i)rophets were isolated and without any common doctrine. These irregular ])ractiti()iiers arrived at recognition individually hy j)ersonal skill in an exhibi- tion of supernatural power — that is, they wrought miracles to ])rove themselves genuine. At the time of the exodus there were, among all the Semitic tribes, sorcerers who possessed mysterious secrets and enjoyed simie of the power of the eloliim. Tiiey were i)ai(l to curse those whose ruin was desired. Balaam was the most distinguished sor- cerer of that time. One of the most freqnent purposes for employing supernatural agency was to bring on rain in time of drought. The practi- tioner generally tried to delay his incantations as long as possi- ble in hopes of a meteorologic change. Sometimes, on failure, he was killed, as he was supposed to he an enemy who possessed the power he professed but was unwilling to use it; and to prevent this dangerous ordeal in a dry season, he charged in advance cer- tain crimes and "pollutions'" against the people, on account of which all his skill would be in vain. The more skillful rain-makers am(jng the Sioux and the Mandans managed not to be among the beginners, but toward the last of the various contestants. The rain would surely come some time, and when it came the incanta- tions ceased. The shaman who held the floor at the right time produced the rain. Freqiient reference to rain-making is found in the Old Testa- ment, in which the prophets were the actors. The mystery-men were consulted on all occasions as sources of truth, not only to explain dreams, but to disclose secrets of all kinds; to predict successes in war; to tell the causes of sickness; to bring luck in the hunt or in fishing ; to obtain stolen articles ; and to produce ill luck and disease. Their processes, together with thaumaturgic exhibitions, included some empiric knowledge, and also tricks of sleight-of-hand and hypnotic passes. The Chahta had a peculiar mode of finding the cure for dis- ease, by singing successively a number of songs, each one of which had reference to a peculiar her!) or mode of treatment. The pref- erence of the patient for any song indicated the remedy. The Israelites believed that diseases as well as accidents with- out apparent cause, and other disasters, were the immediate acts of the elohim or were caused by evil spirits ; therefore they relied upon prophets, magicians, or enchanters for exorcism. Hezekiah's boil was cured by Isaiah. Benhadad, King of Syria, and Naaman, the Syrian, applied to the prophet Elisha. All the people resorted to their favorite mystery-men. 20 ISRAELITE AND INDIAN. Even so late as the time of J(»Hej)]m8 it was believed that Solo- mon hud invented incantations by which diseases were cured, and some handed down by tradition were commonly used. Incenae banifhod the devil, which also ccmld be done by the liver of a fish. Certain herbs and roots had the same power. Their medical prac- tices nii^ht be recited, with slight change of language, as those of the Indians. The further back examination is made into sav- agery and bar])arism, the more prevalent faith-cure aj)pears. Wifches. — The Iniiians were in constant dread of witches, wiz- ards, and evil sjiirits; but the activity of the good spirits was not so inanifest. Tiiey, however, told Adair how they were warned by what he calls angels, of an ambuscade, by which warning they escaped. Bad si)irits, or devils, were the tutelar gods of enemies, to be resisted by a friendly tutelar. The idea of a personal Satan was not found before the arrival of the missionaries. Among the Indians witches were often indicated by the dreams of victims. They were sometimes killed merely upon accusation, and it is interesting to notice, with relation to comparatively modern history, that the accused frequently confessed that they were sorcerers, and declared that they could and did transform themselves into animals, become invisible, and disseminate dis- ease. A sufficient reference to the Israelites in this connection is to quote the ordinance, " Thou slialt not suffer a witch to live." This injunction, in the higher civilization, is observed by destroying the idea that witches live, ever have lived, or ever can live. Dreams and Divinations. — The topics of inspiration by dreams and divination by oracles may be grouped together. The Indians supposed that with, and sometimes without, a spe- cial fasting, and other devices to produce ecstasy, the spirits or daimons manifested themselves in dreams. It was sometimes pos- sible in these dreams for the soul to leave the body, and even to visit the abode of departed spirits. Among the Iroquoian tribes the suggestions made by dreams were implicitly followed, not only by the dreamer, but by those to whom he communicated his dreams. For instance, an Iroquois dreamed that his life depended upon his obtaining the wife of a friend, and, though the friend and his wife were living happily, and parted with great reluctance, the dreamer had liis wish. The same tribe had a special feast which was called the " feast of dreams," and partook of the nature of Saturnalia. Every object demanded by the dreamers must be given to them. In some in- stances they were unable to remember their dreams, and the spe- cial interposition of the mystery-men was invoked to state what their dreams were in fact and what was their significance. Among the invaluable reports of the Jesuit missionaries, one ISRAELITE AND INDIAN. 21 in 1039 gives tlie geimral stattmu'iit tliat the ImliaiiH ooiisulttul dreams for all their decisions, genenilly fasting in advance; that, in fact, the dream was the master (»f their lives; it was the g(j. Similarly, many of the Indians burned down the house where there had been a death. Many writers luive asserted, as one of the excellence's r)f the Isra(4itt} customs, that the " purification " imposed upon those who liad been engage(l in a burial was a sanitary regulation, a measure rendered expedient in a hot country. As no great proportion of the Israelites generally inhabitcid a country liot to the degree indicated, and as none of them had any conception of disease or the cause of death, this explanation is liardly sufhcient. Much later the compilers might have gained some sanitary knowledge liy which the old su})erstition was utilized. Its true explanation is from supernatural, not from natural, concepts. It is probably connected with a point mentioned before — i. e., the avoidance of corpses from the fear of the spirit of the dead and of the bad spirit which had caused the death, and tho purificatory ceremony was for tho daimon, not for the disease. The neglect of sanitation is well illustrated among the Navajo, who are little affected by civ- ilization. Upon the death of one of their members they block up the shelter containing the corpse, and, from fear of the spook or of the agent of death, or of both, not from fear of the corpse itself, they never again visit it. Other tribes simply piled stones on the corj)se, which jn'evented its disturbance by beasts, but did not absorb the effluvium. Still others exposed the dead on scaffolds. To leave corpses to ])utrefy freely is certainly not a sanitary meas- ure, yet it was a practice existing together with the mortuary rites before mentioned, though many of the tribes practiced earth- burial, and a few used cremation. On a broad examination of the topic of " pollution," so styled by most writers, it seems to be best explained by our recent under- standing of tahii. ISRAELITE AND INDIAN. •3 Sarrifirp. — Maiionroimajifinod forcfssniHTiorto liinisclf.wlioyftt could bt) iuvokt'd imd iii()V(!d to und from any purpose. The diviiio world was produced in his own iinaj.';c, and lie ticatt'd its ^'ods as lio liicod to 1)0 truatod by his inferiors. Ho boliuvod that tho way to piacato tho forces surrounding^ him was to win tlunu over as men aro won over, by making' presents to them. This elearly continued amon^ tho Isi'aelites until the (^i,i,'hth century n. c, but it is to Im re^iU'ded as a staj^o succeeding a former condition of zocilatry iiini tottMuism, without notic(3 of wliicdi its details can not be understood. Most people sacrificed to their divinities jilants, fruits, and herbs, and aninuils taken from their Hocks. Peoph? who had no domes- tic animals otfere(l thos(» taken in the hunt. The Indians olVei'ed the maize from their fields and the animals of the chase, and threw into tho lire or wati^r tobacco, or otln^r herbs which they used in tho place of tobacco. Sonu'times these objiH'ts wore liun^ up in the air above their huts. Tho northern AlKon(|uins tied living dof^s to high rods, and let them expire. In a sinular manner other Indians stuck u}) a deer, especially a white deer, on i)oles. Tho l)lains tribes gave tho same ehivation to the head or skin of an albino buffalo on mounds, not having {)oles convenient. The spot- less red heifer of the Israelites may be comi)ared with the spotless white animals of the chase. The southern Indians always threw a small piece of the fattest of the meat into the fire when eating or before they began to eat. They commonly pulled their newly killed venison several times through the smoke of the fire — perhaps ns a sacrifice, and perhaps to consume the life-spirit of the animal. Tliey also burned a large piece and sometimes the whole carcass of the first buck they killed, either in the winter or the summer hunt. The Muskoki hurn a piece of every deer they kill. The Israelites offered daily sacrifice, in which a lamb (except the skin and entrails) was burned to ashes. In some of their sac- rifices there was not only distinction between animals that were fit and unfit, but in the mnnner of treatment. Sometimes tho vic- tim was not to be touched, but slumld be entirely consumed by fire. In otliers the blood should Ix; sprinkled around the altar and the fat and the entrails burned, the remainder of the body to be eaten by the priests. But it was a crime to eat fiesh that had been offered in sacrifice to a false god— i.e., god of another people. The offering of the first-fruits, and therefore of tho first-born, to the divinity, was one of tho oldest ideas of tlie Semites. Moloch and Jahveh were conceived as being the fire, devouring whate\er was offered to it, so that to give to the fire was to give to the god. In time, a substitute was suggested ; the first-born was re[)l{iced by an animal or a sum of money. This was called the " money of the lives." 1 H ISRAELITE AND INDIAN. The " green-corn dance," common to many Indian tribes, is essentially the same ceremony of thanksgiving, or, more correctly, rejoicing with payment, for the first-fruits of the earth. Adair says that at tlie festival of the first-fruits the Southern Indians drank plentifully of the cusseena and other bittei liquids, to cleanse their bodies, after which they bathed in deep water, then went sanctified to the feast. Their annual expiation of sin was sometimes at the beginning of the first new moon in which their corn became full-eared, and sometimes at the recurrent season of harvest. They cleansed their " temple " and every house in the village of everything supposed to pollute, carrying out even the ashes from the hearths. They never ate nor handled any part of a new harvest till some part of it had been offered up ; then they had a long fast " till the rising of the second sun." On the third day of the fast the holy fire was brought out from the "temple," and it was produced, not from any old fire, but by the rubbing of sticks. It was then distributed to the people. Lafiteau says that the first animal the young hunter kills he burns with fire a& a sacrifice. Another festival was a kind of hol- ocaust, where nothing of the victim was left, but it was all con- sumed, even to the bones, which were burned. There were also feasts of first-fruits. The Dakotat" allowed no particle of the food at any of their religious feasts to be left uneaten. All bones were collected and thrown into the water, that no dog might get them or woman tram- ple over them. It was a rule among many of the tribes that no bones of the beast eaten should be broken. There is no doubt that this w.'-s connected with zoolatry, and was intended to prevent anger on the part of the ancestral or typical animal, the result of which would be the disappearance of the game. There were many other ceremonies of the same intent. When the Mandans had finished eating, they often presented a bowlful of the food to a buffalo-head, saying, " Eat this," evidently believing that, by using the head well, the living herds of buffalo would still come and supply them with meat. It is probable that what many authors have called the " day of atonement " or " expiation " was really a general wiping out of offenses — a settlement of accounts between individuals and par- ticularly between clans, after which there should be no reprisal. This is illustrated by a peculiar ceremony among the Iroquois, strongly resembling the scapegoat of the Israelites. A white dog, before being burned at the annual feast, was loaded with the con- fessions or repentings of the people, represented by strings of wampum. The statute of limitations then began to operate. In the Jahvistic version, the passover, an old festival held in the 1 ISRAELITE AND INDIAN. «? spring, was historically connected with the departure from Egypt. The ceremonies are too well known to require narration, but will readily be compared with those of the Indians. Incense. — The. use of incense among Indians was the same as among Israelites — i. e., to bring and to please the spirit addressed. A genuine instance among the Iroquois was where tobacco was offered as late as 1883, and in archaic formal language still pre- served, translated as follows : Address to the fire : '* Bless thy grandchildren, protect and strengthen th.em. By this tobacco we give thee a sweet-t-melling sacrifice, and ask thy care to keep us from sickness and famine." Address to the thunder : " O grandfather ! thou large-voiced, enrich and bless thy grandchildren; cause it to rain, so that the earth may produce food for us. We give this tobacco, as thou hast kept us from all manner of monsters." The Dakotas not only burned tobacco in their " buffalo medi- cine " to bring the herds, but often fragrant grass. Other tribes burned the leaves of the white cedar. These forms of incense were sometimes used to entice the inimical spirits, the shaman being supposed to be able, when they had arrived in the form of a bear or some other animal, to kill them with his rattle. Some of the Indians believed that incense and sacrifices generally were to be used only for the spirits from whom they feared harm. They said it was not necessary to trouble themselves about the good spirits, who were all right anyhow. Fefiches.-— Among many of the tribes of Indians there is a tri- bal toteni (and often several clan totems) which, in later times becoming chiefly symbolic and emblematic, was once used in ob- jective form for the most important religious purposes. Particu- larly, it was carried on extensive warlike expeditions. Adair, who calls it an "ark," describes it as made of pieces of wood, fastened together in the form of a square, to be carried on the back. It was never placed on the ground, nor did the bearers sit on the earth even when they halted. In many other tribes it was a bag of skins and its contents varied, but generally were " blessed '* or "sacred" fragments of wood, stone, or bone. Among the Oma- ha it was a large shell, covered with various envelopes, and was never wholly exposed to sight, for that would occasi of the world, has preserved a clew to the moldered 1.. : .(^ v.f m:in',i early institutions. What is now known of the Claris, trl*^":... rd league of the Iroquois explains what was for- merly mystical about the tribes (^f Israel. Each clan or tribe took as a badge or objective totem the representation of the totemic dairaon from which it was named. ISRAELITE AND INDIAN. 31 It was generally an animal — 0. g., an eagle, a panther, a bniTalo, a bear, a deer, a raccoon, a tortoise, a snake, or a fisli, hut some- times one of the winds, a celestial body, or other impressive object or phenomenon. The Israelites had such badges or totems -which have been called standards. The blessings of Jacob and of Moses, which mention several of them, were not merely metaphoric. In the blessing of Jacob, Judah is named as a lion, Issachar as aji ass, Dan as a serpent, Naphtali as a hind, Benjamin as a wolf, Joseph as a bough. In that of Moses, four such names occur — Epliraim as a bullock, Manasseh as a bison. Gad as a lion, and Dan as a lion's whelj). From all the evidence on the subject there is reason to believe that these were the leading totems in the tribes mentioned, and the discrepancies in the lists may be accounted for by the fact that the head clans in some tribes had changed in the in- terval. David seems to have belonged to the serpent stock. The most prominent among his ancestors bore a serpent name. Some pas- sages in his life show his connection with a serpent totem. Critics have doubted whether Moses was as much oi)posed to idolatry as is asserted in the records, for a brazen serjjent, i»erhaps an ancient idol of Jahveh, said to have been set up by him, was in existence until the reign of Hezekiah, who broke it into pieces. Ti'ue, it may have been an idol of Jahveh, or perhaps it was wor- shiped as a tenipli ; but it nuxy have been simply a totem. Tlie lifting up of the brazen serpent by Moses in the wilderness may be more consistently explained by totemism than by idolatry in its usual sense. Ooverninent. — The Israelites in their normal condition were governed by a number of their elders who were presumed to have the greatest wisdom and experience. S[)ecial powers were conferred in emergencies upon one man and were intended to be of short duration, but while they lasted they were dictatorial. The judges were despots Avithout a standing army or an organ- ized government. Their selection was due neither to inheri- tance, to suffrage, nor to violence, but to ])ersonal superiority in strength, wisdom, and courage. The usujil result Avas, that the power gained by a ruler was held during his life, and it was some- times contended for by one of his sons with temjiorary success. The government of the Indians was substantially the same. The alliance of the tribes was loose. They seldom hesitated to make war upon one another. Even after nationality had been initiated, the genius of David and the magnificence of Solomon could not permanently weld them together ; and doubtless without the later and cohesive establishment of Jahvism they would have often, though perhaps but temporarily, fallen back into an incoher- 3» ISRAELITE AND INDIAN. ent state. Tho Indians did not gain snch a conservative bond, and the alliances of their tribes were more loose and transient. The characteristics of the Israelite and of tlie Indian, as of the Homeric; Acha'uns and of the extant Bedouins, were predatory. The tribe and its clans, with their occasional allies, went fortli against the rest of the world. In tho investigatioii of totemism ar jng the Israelites it is im- portant to observe its continued existence in Arabia, beca.ise i\ve state of society there still remains more primitive than that preva- lent in the land of Israel even at the time of imposing antiquity when the Old Testament was written. A large number of tribes having animal names are still found among the Arabs. Some of these tribal names are Lion, Wolf, Ibex, She-fox, Dog, Bull, Ass, Hyena, and Lizard. The origin of all these names is referred by the ])e()ple to an ancestor who bore the tribal or gentile name. The animal names given in the tribal genealogies are also often found belonging to sub-tribes, the same animal name sometimes occurring in subdivisions of different tribes. These particulars correspond with the Indian clan system. The tribes of the southern and eastern parts of Canaan had affinities both to Israel and to the Aral)S. The Arab i)rinces of Midian were The Raven and The Wolf — heads of tribes of the same names. More than one third of the Horites, the descendants of Seir the He-goat, bear animal names ; so do the clans of the Edomites. The real name of Moses's father-in-law is in dispute, but he had some connection with the Kenites. The list in Gene- sis XXX vi is a count of tribal or local divisions and not a literal genealogy. It is full of animal names. The Antelope stock was divided over the nation in a way only to be explained on the to- temio and not on a genealogic system. The same names of totem tribes that appear in Arabia, rejich through Edom, Midian, and Moab into Canaan, where they slu^w local distribution, which is intelligible only on the assumption that the totemic system pre- vailed there also when the first books of the Old Testament were written. Prof. Robertson Smith gives a select list of about thirty per- sons and towns in point, bearing names derived from animals and plants. Dr. Joseph Jacobs has expanded that list into a humlred and sixty such names, thoiigh he considers their importance to be lessened by the frequency of such names in England, forgetting, apparently, that the clan system also existed among the ancestors of the English people. The twenty-sixth chapter of Numbers gives the clans of the Israelite tribes. Altogether seventy-two clans are mentioned, and of these at least ten occur in two tribes, among which the Arodites or Wild Ass clan, found both in Gad and in Benjamin, should be ISRAELITE AND INDIAN. 5S noted. Other clans also liave animal names: the Shilliinites or Fox clan, of Naphtali ; the Shuhamites or Serpent clan, of Benja- min ; the Bachrites or Camel clan, of Ephraim and Benjamin ; the Elonites or Oak clan, of Zebuhm ; the Tolaites or Worm clan, of Issachar ; and the Arelets or Lion clan, of Gad. A special snggestion comes from the tribe of Simeon. In the blessing of Jacob, Simeon is coupled with Levi as a tribe scat- tered in Israel. Some Simeonites lived in the south of the terri- tory of Judah, but they do not appear there as an independent local tribe. It would seem that Simeon remained as a divided stock, having representatives through the female line in the dif- ferent local groups. When the old system was transformed, Simeon lost importance and ultimately dropped from the list of tribes. The name of the tribe was lost but not the people, as has been noticed also in careful statistical examination of the Indians. The tribe of Judah received the powerful accession of the Dog tribe, the Calebites (to be again mentioned), among whom there were many animal names. In view of the above, and the additional fact that the early Israelites freely intermarried Avith the surrounding nations, it becomes highly probable that the totemic system of those neigh- bors existed in all Israel, as was obviously the case in Judah. Punishment. — In the stage of barbarism man belongs not to himself, but to his clan and tribe. In civilization crime is the act of an individual for which he is responsible to the whole commu- nity, and there can be no crime without a malicious intent. In the totemic stage the clan was responsible to all its members and to all other clans for the offense of any of its omhi members, and the act itself, not its intent, constituted the offense. Hence the rules respecting obedience, punishment, and protection differ from those of civilized man. Punishments among the Indians were chiefly death or expul- sion from the tribe — the latter, from the unprotected state of the offender, being tantamount to death. The code consisted in the application of the lex tdlionis. The vengeance of blood for homi- cide was exacted as a clan duty. It was executed by tlie clan of the person killed, generally by the nearest of clan kinship, and it was required even if the death were by accident, unless the kill- ing was condoned by payment. Among the Israelites the lex ta- lionis was likewise the fundamental law, and the duty of blood revenge also devolved on the kin by the mother's side — i. e., the kindred according to the normal clan system. Sanchiary. — The doctrine that no crime could be individual, but might be committed against a clan by a clan through one of its members, rendered it necessary to have some special provision 34 ISRAELITE AND INDIAN. to restrict ven^^foanco and niaintaiu peace. Hence the right of sanctuary, whicli appcarcMl hiter as a prerogative of religion, was in its origin sociologic. The avenger of blood among the Indians generally had the right to slay the criminal if found within a specihcd time, for in- stance, two days after the act ; but if he sliould escajie beyond such period, the avenger could no longer jjursue, and was himself liable if he shcjuld persevere. The clan or clans concerned interfered at that stage in prescribed modes. Among some tribes localities (called by Adair the " cities of refuge ") were designated, in which the accused could remain in safety until the g(>neral settlement of accounts at the next annual festival. Compare Numl)ers xxxv, 12 : " And they shall ])e with you cities of refuge from the avenger ; that the man-slayer die not, until he stand before the congrega- tion in judgment." The functions of the avenger of blood are only referred to in the Pentateuch, but were well known in ordinary cases. The law treats of the exceptional circumstances of an accidental homicide. There is a trace, in Deuteronomy xxiii, of the general coim amal sanctuary in Israel. It enacts that any town or village shall be an asylum for an escaped slave. In Exodus xxi, the altar (pre- sumably any one of the numerous village altars) is mentioned as a refuge. In the cities of refuge the san(;tuary was used only for the mitigation of the revenge of blood. A mode of bringing to notice the barbarian stage of the Israel- ites at the time under consideration is to translate into English familiar personal names from the Old Testament, such as the Dog, the Dove, the Hyena, the Licm's Whelp, the Strong Ass, the Adder, and the Running Hind. This brings into immediate con- nection the English translation of Indian names, such as Big Bear, White Buffalo, Wolf, Red Cloud, Black Hawk, Fox, Crow, and Turtle. Such Israelite names were probably of Gentile origin, that is, from the clan or gens, for the Israelites were surely Gentiles in the true ^ense, although later they abjured the charge. But individuals among them may also have adopted such names because they could be represented objectively. Such selection is made by some Indians apart from their totemic designation. In- dians possess very few names that can not be represented in ])icto- graphs ; and the very large topic of tattooing is connected with this device antecedent to writing. The compilers of the Old Tes- tament probably desired to break down a former practice, as is shown in Leviticus xix, 28 : " Ye shall not print any marks upon you." And there are other similar indications. Adoption. — The early history after the exodus shows many cases of adoption from among the neighboring tribes in which the captive or the stranger adopted became a member of one of ISRAELITE AND INDIAN. 35 tlio clajis. This was an essential part of tho totoniic system as is ii()tic(!(l univ(M'sally among the Indians. Witliout membershij) in a ohm there could be no status in the tribe. Caleb is first known as tho son of J(>i)lnmneh, the Kenezite. Next he appears as a chief of the tribe of Judah; finally, in the book of Chronicles, his foreign descent is lost. He becomes Caleb, the son of Hezron, the son of ^^udah. This is an instance of adop- tion and is not contradictory. Ho is first described in accordance with his actual descent, but when a(h)pted with his family and followers, who probably formed a snb-clan, he would be called by the name of the family that adopted him. The whole population of the country which, according to Deu- teronomy, was doomed to be exterminated, slowly became amal- gamated with the invaders. In this way alone their rapid increase can be accounted for. The doctrine that no quarter should be shown to the enemy and no alliance should be made with the Goim (a word meaning the " nations," with the implication of " heathen ") was not estab- lished until the late prophetic influence. The use of the word Goim dates from the ninth century B. C. It is gratifying to be convinced that the stories of tho wholesale extermination and cruel outrages injected into the historical narrative were after- thoughts intended to be examples for the future, and that they never actually occurred. If tho stories are true, tho brutality of the Israelites to the conquered was more horrible than that of the Indians, among whom captivity was tempered by adoption. An interesting custom of the Indians connected both Avith the rite of sanctuary and that of adoption is that called by English writers " running the gantlet." When captives had successfully run through a line of tormentors to a post near the council-house, they were for the time free from further molestation. In the northeastern tribes this was in the nature of an ordeal to test whether or not the captive was vigorous and brave enough to be adopted into the tribe ; but among other tribes it appears in a different shape. Any enemy, whether a captive or not, could secure immunity from present danger if he could reach a central post, or, if there were no post, the hut of tho chief. A similar custom existed among the Arikara, who kept a special i)ipo in a " bird-box." If a criminal or enemy succeeded in smoking the pipe contained in the box, he could not be hurt. This corresponds with the safety found in laying hold of the horns of the Israelite altar. Land. — In the earlier history of the Israelites there could be no individual property in land — it belonged to the clan, as it did among the Indians. After arriving at sedentary and national life the Israelites found it expedient to permit a compromise between 36 ISRAELITE AND INDIAN. the penimncnt poHHcssioii of land by the clan Riwl a riKh*^. of indi- vidual occupancy for jjcriods Huthciieiit to offer a i)r<)iH'r stimulus for iniprovonicuts. This was douo by the institution of the 8al)- batical year or the year of jul)ilee. The Indians, not having reached the true Hedentary stage (except in rare instances), were not obliged to invent that device. Thus it holds true among both peoples that no man ccnild accjuire an absolute property in land. The estate was not in him but in his clan. Forbidden Food. — The Indians long observed a prohibition against killing or eating any part of the animal connected with their totem. For instance, most of the southern Indians abstained from killing the wolf; the Navajo do not kill bears; the Osage never killed the beaver until the skins became valuable for sale. Afterward some of the animals j)reviously held sacred were killed ; but apologies were made to them at the time, and in al- most all cases a particular ceremony was ob.served with regard to certain parts of thcjse animals which were Tiot to be used for food on tlie principle of synecdoche, the temptation to use the food being too strong to permit entire abstinence. The Cheroki forbade the nse of the tongues of the deer and bear for food. They cut these members out and cast them into the fire sacramentally. A prac- tice reported this year as still existing among the Ojibwa is in point, though with instructive variation. There is a formal re- striction against members of the bear clan eating the animal, yet by a subdivision within the same clan an arrangement is made so that sub-clans may among them eat the whole animal. When a bear is kille'l, the head and paws are eaten by those who form one branch of the bear totem, and the remainder is reserved for the others. Other Indians have invented a differentiation in which some clansmen may eat the ham and not the shoulder of certain animals, and others the shoulder and not the ham. The Egyptians did not allow the eating of animals that bore wool. This prohibition has been attributed to the sacred char- acter of the sphinx, and it has other religious connections. It is supposed by some writers that the legislation of Moses with refer- ence to forbidden food was aimed to antagonize social union with the Egyptians by prohibiting to the Israelites edibles generally used by the Egyptians, and vice versd. It is true that some kinds of food forbidden to one of these nations were allowed to the other, but the rule was not general, and in particular the abstinence of both peoples from swine is inconsistent with the hypothesis. A more conclusive criticism is that the legislation so interpreted would have been too late for application. The Israelites had left Egypt before even the alleged time of its promulgation. The survival of totemism may be inferred from the lists of forbidden food in Leviticus xi and Deuteronomy xiv. It would ISRAKLITE AND INDIAN. 37 nppcar that about Lho f inio of tlm exoduH tho Israelites worci or- ^.uii/i)(l oil tho hiisis of fiitnilics or clans tracing tlirouj^'h fcmalo litios, and named Hezir (swine), Aclibor (mouse), Aiah (kite), Arod (wild ass), Sliai)lian (coney), and soon. Each of the clanH refrained from eating the totem animal, or oidy ate it sacrament- ally. Ah tho totemic organization decdined, the origin of tho abstinence wcmid be lost, but tho custom lasted, and when tho legislation was oodilied it was incorporated in the code. Tho liyi)othesis would <>xphiin certain anomalies in the list — e.g., coney, or rock badger, for which no other «'xplanation deserving attention has been givon. The division into (dean and unclean food by tho two tests of cloven foot and nuTiiiiation was a later induction from tho animals regardetl as tabu. This is confirmed by the want of ai;y systemization in tho list of birds given in Le- viticus. It would accord with other examples in totomism tluit animal names connected with the animal worship before mentioned should bo adopted by clans, and by individual men among the Israelites. There is some evidence that men, bearing a common animal stock name, thou^'h in dift'ennit tribes or nations, recognized a unity of stock. Our most definite information on tho subject is deiived frcnn Ezokiel viii, which indicates that tho head of each house acted as priest, the family or clan images, whicli are the objects of idolatry, being tho.se of "unclean" reptiles or quadrupeds — i.e., those which are prohibited from use as food. Although the whole inference of Prof. Smith on this subject is not admitted by Dr. Jacol)s, his objection is to tho survival, not to tho early existence, of the cult. No satisfactory explanation of the Israelite division between clean ant' unclean animals, apart from that afforded by tlio totemic system, has hitherto been made. No rational motive can be assigned for tho avoidance of certain animals, in them- selves hygienically good. The explanation that swine's flesh was liable to bring disease, and therefore was prohibited for a sanitary reason only, covers but a small })art of the subject and is not in itself satisfactory. The meat of the hog is, in fact, as wliolesome in Syria as it is in Cincinnati, and tlie discovery of trichinosis had certainly not been made in thi^ timers under consideration. The avoidance of all meat, indeed of all food, for purposes of fasting and producing ecstasy, is in a different category and has already been mentioned. Marriage. — The laws of marriage in the stage of barbarism are intricate, but attention may be directed to a f(>w points which strongly distinguish them from tho marriage laws of civilization. Their most general characteristic is the regulation of marriage within strict limits of conventional kinship. ^ ISRAELITE AND INDIAN. The levirate, named from the word levir, a husband's brother, is in brief the customary right and obligation combined of a brother — normally the eldest surviving brother — to marry the widow of his deceased brother. Prof. E. B. Tylor reports that this law appears among one hundred and twenty peoples — i. e., in about one in three of the distinct peoples of the world. It was almost universal among the Indians, sometimes with additional duties and privileges. A widow, as a rule, could not marry any one but her deceased husband's brother except on his refusing to marry her, nor until after a long time of mourning, or more prop- erly of ordeal, after which she could be freed from the tabu. In several tribes marrying an elder sister gave to the husband rights over all the other sisters of the wife, Sometimes the son- in-law, especially when he married the eldest daughter, became entitled to all the younger sisters of his wife at his option. Other men could not take them except with his formal consent. This right of the son-in-law to all the unmarried younger sisters some- times continued after the death of the first wife. Not unfrequent- ly a man married a widow and her daughters at the same time. Among the Israelites it was common to have several wives of equal status, who often were sisters. A widow had a right to ap- peal to her brother-in-law, or some member of her husband's fam- ily, to provide her with a second husba,nd, and an evasion of the duty in personam was a gross offense. Deuteronomy xxv shows the degrading terms of the formality by which alone the brother- in-law could be freed from the obligations of marriage and the widow be allowed to marry another man. Judah admitted that Ta.nar's conduct was perfectly correct. It was but a legitimate extension of the levirate law. There is the clear statement in Leviticus that the Egyptians and the Canaanites formed such marriages as were in accordance with the totemic system, but which were made incestuous by the Israelite law. The laws of incest given in Leviticus are probably later than the code of Deuteronomy, in which the prohibition is directed against marriage by a man with his father's wife. Tliat precept denounces the practice in Arabia by which the son inher- ited his father's wife. In the framework of the Deuteronomic code there were three incestuous prohibitions, viz., father's wife, sister, and wife's mother. To these offenses Ezekiel adds marriage with a daughter-in-law. According to the prophets, all those forms of 5?/06'i-incest were practiced in Jerusalem ; and the history indicates that all at some time were recognized customs. The taking in marriage of a father's wife was not wholly obsolete in the time of David. As regards the Israelite system of descent in the female line, it may be noticed that the children of Nahor by Milkah were dis- ISRAELITE AND INDIAN. tinguished from his children by his other wives. Rebekah's de- scent is practically valued as descent from Milkah,and the family or clan connection is traced entirely through Milkah and Sarah. Their rules of kinship regarding what we now call incest are part- ly indicated by the following instances : Moses' father married his father's sister; Nahor married his brother's daughter ; A-raham married Sarah, the daughter of his father but not of his mother. A passage in Judges relates to exogamy, recording that Ibzan had thirty sons, and also thirty daughters whom he sent abroad, and took thirty daughters from abroad for his sons. But exogamy could not be kept up after the Israelites had become mainly an agricultural people, and in the times of the kings only survivals of it remained. Mr. John Fenton, in " Early Hebrew Life," makes some acute remarks upon the story of Lot's daughters, but he did not exhaust the subject. According to the clan system, it was not only proper for Lot to marry his daughters, but under the circumstances it was obligatory upon him to do so. The logical propriety of the mar- riage of a father to his daughters, on the ground that they did not belong to the same clan, is clear, and the practice exists to-day among a number of the tribes of Indians not much affected by Eu- ropean intercourse. A father was not of kin to his own children. They belonged to the mother's clan, and not to his. An interest- ing example of this clan law is furnished by Dr. George M. Daw- son as still existing among tribes of British Columbia. A certain rich Indian would have nothing to do with the search for his aged father, who was lost and starving in the mountains. He did not count his father as a relative, and said, " Let his people go in search of him." Yet that son was regarded as a particularly good Indian. There are other instances in which the son would fight against the father to the death. Such cases would occur where, according to the obligations of clan law, a son married a woman of a clan other than that of his father and went to live with her people ; and when there was warfare between her clan and that of his father, the son was by association expected to fight against his father. The real tie of blood gave no reason why he should not be alien and antagonistic to his father and his father's clan. But it is true that, in many tribes of Indians, since they have been observed by Europeans, the marriage of father and daughter has been very rare. It may be suggested as a reason that a grad- ual change has occurred from the mother-right to the father- right, in which the attitude is reversed ; but practically the fact that, by treating the daughter as an object of value or merchan- dise, either the father or mother could secure presents from the suitor, naturally tended to break down this part of the clan mar- 40 ISRAELITK AND INDIAN. riago system before any other, and, the custom ceasing, the prac- tice became wrong. So it is true to-day among Indians, as it was in a much more marked degree among the Israelites at the time of the compilation of the existing version of the Old Testament, that the marriage of a father and daughter is reprobated. In this con- nection it is instructive to notice that the Navajo have a myth, undoubtedly genuine; that in the old time one of their race took his daughter to wife, and their offspring became the ancestor of the Utes, the hereditary enemies of the Navajo. This is a parallel with the stigma inflicted upon the Moabites and Ammonites, who were the descendants of Lot and the enemies of the Israelites who wrote the history, but yet were recognized by the latter as of the same stock. The part of the story of Lot as it appears in our version, which tends strongly to show its later manipulation, is that the authors of that version, having at that time the idea of a hor- rible incest, explained that the man, specially designated by tra- dition as eminently good, was guilty only because he was betrayed through intoxication. They were obliged, in accordance with one tradition, to make him the ancestor of Moab and Ammon. By another tradition he was left without any sons and no wife, the two daughters being all of his family who survived the destruction of Sodom. They reconciled their data, therefore, by , the excuse of intoxication, but there was no occasion for such excuse. In the age to which the tradition related the transaction was perfectly proper, did not involve sexual passion, and was required by law to keep up the stock. The clan rules had been forgotten when the book of Genesis was written. In the stage of barbarism the marriage of brother and sister was common all over the world. Where polygamy existed, as was the case omong the Israelites, and probably among all the Indians, a man, according to the rules of the totemic system, could not marry into his own clan. If he took several wives, they would sometimes be of different clans, not only from his own, but from one another. In such cases, the child of the wife of clan A was not of the same clan as the child of the wife of clan B, and they could marry. The marriage of uterine brothers and sisters was not consistent with the clan rules. Writers on the clan system have extolled it as a system show- ing profound physiological insight respecting the supposed evils of inbreeding; but the best and latest physiologists doubt whether inbreeding is bad, unless there is a taint of blood which should prohibit the marriage of either partj'^ to any one. A true under- standing of the clan system would have shown that inasmuch as it certainly permitted marriage between a man and his half-sister, and between a man and his aunt, his father's sister, if not the ISRAELITE AND INDIAN. 4» more violent case of marriage between fatlier and daughter, it did not accomplish that for which it has been so highly praised. The late prohibition of a man's marriage to his deceased wife's sister can not be successfully defended on any principle of physi- ology or sociology. It is a blunder that perhaps arose in the transition stage from the matriarchate to the patriarchate method. Conclusions. — The Indians have been characterized as pe- culiar among the races of men. One school of writers has pro- nounced them to be fercB natures,, and wholly incapable of receiv- ing civilization. Others have held the opposite view, that they were eminently spiritualistic, as was proved by their having pre- served the pure pristine faith to a degree beyond all other se- cluded peoples. Both of these assertions are disproved. When Indians have been allowed reasonable opportunities, they have advanced in civilization, and have thriven under it. While their religion may in one sense be pristine, it does not differ materially from that found in many other regions. The peculiarity of the Semites, and especially of that branch of them lately styled the Syro-Aramseans (which is only an ethno- graphic name including the Israelites), has been accepted as an axiom. It was pronounced that they were specially adapted to a spiritual religion ; that whether through an exclusive revelation, or because their racial constitution was exceptionally receptive to such revelation, their idiosyncrasy disposed them readily to spir- itual ideas, which to modern minds means monotheism. This is not the record of the historical books of the Old Testament, even after their manipulation. The prophets of Israel declared the exact contrary ; they denounced their own people as rejecting spiritual truth, and as not deserving the favor of Jahveh. The historical books of Israel which we possess are not his- torical records, but are historic legends reduced to writing by writers who had sometimes political and sometimes religious ends in view. The argument of those tales is that all the people habit- ually worshiped Jahveh, and him alone, during which normal period they were prosperous, but that sometimes under evil influ- ence they abandoned him and fell into disaster, until, after suffi- cient chastisement, they returned to the true worship. The his- toric truth is that the old Israelites, when disasters came, as they always do come, gave up the worship of their national god as not a success, and tried the gods of their neighbors. They re- turned to Jahveh because the other gods did not satisfy them any better. In fact, the people had no fixed or distinct faith, and it is not correct to accuse them of backsliding when they were only vacillating. The prophets tried to pull the Israelites too rapidly through 4a ISRAELITE AND INDIAN. the zootheistic and physitheistic stages into monotheism, and spasmodically succeeded ; but the body of the people never reached the stage of monotheism until after the Babylonian cap- tivity. Most writers have explained this on the theory that the terrible chastisement of that captivity finally brought them to submission; but it is more probable that their forced relations with their more cultured conquerors gave them new ideas never before entertained, which infused modifications into their religion. The resulting combination produced those characteristics of that religion which have been regarded as the most admirable. The general account of the Israelite lapses is not unlike that given in modern times by missionaries, who also have been im- petuous in attempting the instantaneous transport of Indians through stages that are marked by ages. Tribes of Indians have been converted, and they were reported and recorded as being in that permanent condition. A few j'^ears later, from some dissatis- faction, they returned to their shaman and their dreams, which return was then reported as a lapse. It was not, in fact, a lapse, but the claim that they had been converted was premature. There is, however, this distinction between the Israelites and the In- dians : that the former were allowed to return to Palestine and carry out their old ideas with improvements ; while the Indians, remaining under the same foreign influences and continually growing weaker, were forced to abandon all their faith and to accept that of their conquerors without composition. The stories of the conversion of Indians by thousands would seem false to one who did not know that they were ready to be- lieve any new thing because they before had no fixed belief. The record of the Israelites is not so clear, because old ; but they surely adopted the Satanic doctrine and the "Mosaic cosmology," and continued adopting foreign beliefs until a late date in their his- tory. The most judicious remarks ever made l)y missionaries were those of the Rev. Messrs. D. Lee and J. H. Frost, M'ho, after ten years in Oregon of what has been considered successful work, an- nounced their abandonment of their former tenet that if the hea- then were converted to Christianity civilization followed of course. They confessed that civilization must begin before Christianity could even be understood. Acute trf'elers throughout the world have perceived the same fact ; and it is not a too violent simile to say that Christianity, belonging to the plane of civilization and to that only, sits on a savage or barbarian as a bishop's mitre would on a naked Hottentot. The Israelites were not suddenly lifted from their barbarian condition. It was not possible. As regards the culture strata we may take a lesson from geology. Coal is not found in the Si- ISRAELITE AND INDIAN. ^% lurian formation, therefore wise miners do not look there for coal. The higher mammals are not found eai'll.er than the Cenozoie, though their precursors are in the Jurassic. Man in the savage stage may be examined in the same spirit as the Jurassic stage is studied to trace what may afterward appear in the barbarian and Cenozoie, and is developed in the present epoch ; but to search for the complete ideas of civilization in the period of barbarism would be as judicious as to dig for manuscripts among the work- shops of flint arrow-heads. The beliefs and practices of both the Israelites and the Indians were substantially the same as those of other bodies of peojjle in the same stage of culture. They were neither of them a " pecul- iar " people. There is, racially, no peculiar people in the sense intended. Mankind is homogeneous in nature, though its divisions at any one time are found in differing and advancing grades of culture. Such advancement has been from causes known to be still in con- tinuous operation. What is called blood in a racial sense may be likened unto the water of the earth : as the water comes from the clouds it is chemically the same, and it is subjected, wherever it is, to the same laws. The early course of a rill may be turned by a pebble, and from the elevations and depressions met it may become a lake, or a river, or a stagnant marsh. From the charac- ter of soil encountered it may be clear or muddy, alkaline, chalyb- eate, or sulphurous. In one sense, which belongs to modern and not to ancient history, the Jews are a peculiar people, from the fact that for many centuries, until lately, they proclaimed them- selves to be such, and observed religiously the doctrine about the Goira, and therefore did not intermarry with other peoples ; but that should not be a reason for their boasting. Persecution made them pariahs and other peoples would not intermarry with them. During recent centuries the so-styled purity of their race has been kept up by isolation, but the assumption of great purity in the stock at the Christian era is not tenable. Now that their prejudices and those of the Goim against them are dissolving, it is probable that what has been improperly called the Jewish i-ace will disappear by absorption as the Indians are now disappearing. To renew the simile, both Israelite and Indian will be lost in the homogeneous ocean which all mankind seems destined to swell. It will be noticed that this presentation of views practically ignores the scholastic divisions of mankind into distinct races. The result of my own studies on the subject is a conviction that all attempts at the classification of races have failed. The best statement of the condition of scientific opinion regarding such classification may be taken from the address of Prof. W. H. Flow- er to the Section of Anthropology of the British Association for VOL. XXXVI. — 14 44 ISRAELITE AND INDIAN. the Advancement of Science. He says : " I am compelled to U86 the word race vaguely for any considerable group of men who resemble each other in certain common characters transmitted from generation to generation." Some satisfactory solution of the problem may be made in the future, but for the present the most useful direction of the work of anthropologists is not in at- tempts to establish racial divisions, but in the determination of the several planes of culture with recognition of specific environ- ments. A rabbinical legend tells that Lot was the first to argue the existence of one god ruling the universe, from the irregular phe- nomena observed or 1(»: id sea and among the heavenly bodies. " If these had power of ttejr own," he said, " they would have had regular motions, but as they had no regularity they were subserv- ient to the occasional exercise of a higher will." In times of greater scientific knowledge these supposed irregular motions are found to be in accordar ' '. ""aws considered to be permanent, if not immutable, and the ':^x" Tuition of such tremendous laws gives a higher conception r F cL* ai' maker. The notion that such laws are or can be ^nspend^d orvk-lfcCtnl i.-!uggests irresolution and caprice, shocks human rea,i. : ■. i nd (.;• :he :;lory of divinity. The doctrine attributed to Lot ji- . •■'. '8, because the con- ception of nature implied in it permeated ail Ibe early philosophy. We now define a miracle specifically as a deviation from the laws of nature. But to those for whom nature had no laws, the prime definition as " the wonderful " was alone correct. A supernatural being could do anything whatever in accordance with his arbi- trary will, and was expected to act in that manner. Men who were inspired or empowered by the supernatural were also expect- ed, indeed were required, to work wonders. It would hardly be a paradox to assert that only the supernatural was natural, and that only the irregular was regular. That both the Indians and the Israelites were in this stage of philosophy has been conclusively shown. It is also evident that the principle of ancientism was potent in their religion. Ancientism, which still has surviving influence, declares the old thought, that of the ancient men, to be always the best. This is false, unless the theory is true that all knowledge comes from revelation, which was given only to the ancient men, who there- fore had it in its pure condition. To cling to the old merely be- cause it is old is bad ; in fact, is the crudest superstition. Some advocates of the old reject all new thoughts, but the more intelli- gent of its praisers seek to force a reconciliation between the old thought and the new. What th»y now believe must be right. What they are not accustomed to is shocking, and therefore wrong. So the old, which was always right, must be distorted so ISRAELITE AND INDIAN. m as to comprehend in it the now, which is also right, and whatever there is of the old that can not be managed otherwise must be ex- plained away. There is an apparent exception in favor of the old thoughts and teachings where there has been a general degradation in cult- ure ; then a return to the results of the former and forgotten culture is most desirable. This is illustrated in the revival of the old learning after the dark ages in Europe, when the classic writ- ings as discovered brought fresh illumination to the world. But this was simply a resumption of advance after a check ; and the wisdom of the ancients, which has appeared marvelous, owes much of its splendor to the intervening darkness. The process of development, not chronology, makes a proper criterion. Though antiquitas sceculi juventus mundi, the archaic is that which relates to the earliest steps of human advance. We have the history of the Israelites for forty centuries ; we have that of the Indians for little more than three centuries ; and, though the Israelites in re- corded times advanced beyond the plane of the Indians, who shall say which of the two peoples is in years the older ? The points before mentioned — that neither the Israelites nor the Indians had any formulated and established faith, and in par- ticular did not believe in a single god, and that they did not have any system of rewards and punishments after death — had impor- tant consequences. They were never persecutors for religious opinion. With regard to the Indians that assertion will at once be admitted ; with regard to the Israelites it will be disputed by those who take the statements of the compilers of the Old Testa- ment as literally historical. I have before mentioned one reason, that of the amalgamation of the Israelites with the inhabitants of Canaan, why there could not have been any such fanatic massacre as is narrated. There are other potent reasons. This plane of culture of the Israelites being established, it is proper theoretically to make the deduc- tions belonging to that plane. The Indians carefully concealed their special mystery-daimons. As a matter of fact, the Israel- ites were generally in accord with their neighbors in religious opinions and practices, so there could have been no antagonism from religious motives. If while worshiping Jahveh they made war for any reason, Jahveh was their reliance, and he conquered or was defeated with them ; but they did not make war to force the worship of Jahveh upon others. They would have regarded that as the worst possible policy, as it would have allowed their enemies to pirate upon their divine monopoly which was the essential part of their military equipment. When men live in the midst of many religions, which imply many revelations, they are charitable to all of them. It is only 46 ISRAELITE AND INDIAN. the isolated and ignorant who are bigoted. A still higher degree of light gained by those who have come out of the caves of super- stition will induce them to imitate the decision of the witty sage with regard to ghosts — he had seen so many that he could not be- lieve in any. When a future state of rewards and punishments, depending upon belief in a particular dogma, has been established, the atti- tude of believers becomes antagonistic. They maintain that a denial of their belief is disrespect to their god, and they angrily stigmatize such denial as blasphemy or skepticism, or use some other term of vituperation, and they say that their anger is right- eous. But it is simply egotistic. The tru'^ ground of their hos- tility to any dissentient opinion is the cloua cast on their title to future happiness. This must be fought as titles are contested in courts of law, or by the last resort of war, or by such persecution as silences the objectors to the title. But as the Israelites claimed no such title, they were not sensitive about its disparagement. In the religious stage described, neither the Indians nor the Is- raelites sought to make religious proselytes. The noble motive of missionaries is to save souls ; but the peoples now compared could not have had, indeed could not have understood, that motive. At the commencement of this address the rule was laid down that it was essential to omit all reference to revelation as de- ciding the points discussed. Many points, however, have been touched upon which properly bring to notice the order of the development of revelation in general, without discussion of its decisive authority. This procedure may be submitted to students of anthropology as applicable to all revelations save those which each one individually credits. It is evident that some practice existed early for which a natu- ral explanation may be given. This practice became a formal custom which, after a time, was considered to be obligatory under the vague but compelling idea that it was " bad luck " not to ob- serve it. Bad luck is necessarily connected with the supernatu- ral. Hence the custom or the congeries of customs became a religion, and that was always supported and explained at a later time by a myth. That was not necessarily an explanation made by imposture or with intent to deceive, but grew from the curi- osity of men and their hurry to account for everything. All such myths are declared to be obtained, through revelation, from a power higher than man. The result is, therefore, that revela- tion, which is the last step in the evolution of religion, is enounced, by antedating, to be the first step. When supposed revelation is once regnant, men cling to it as a refuge from the doubt which must always result from reasoning on subjects which do not ad- mit of demonstration. Such clinging becomes fanatical with most ISRAELITE AND INDIAN. 47 men because they dread as the greatest calamity to be cast into the hands of Giant Doubting, who to them is but another name for Giant Despair. But the path of Doubt leads to the portal of Truth. It has been no part of my purpose in this address to impugn the character of the books of the Old Testament. On the con- trary, I regard that noble work as the most important anthro- pologic record possessed by man — a work which richly repays the most diligent study. I gladly accept it as a genuine record, and believe that, though it has been colored by time and by the work of designing men, it was never invented. It is sometimes said that persons who are absorbed in scientific studies fear or pretend to scorn the Bible. I neither fear nor scorn it. I admire it, and study it, and gain much from it ; but no intelligent person takes as of the same authority all its versions, or, indeed, all the contents of the books which are arbitrarily styled canonical, and about the very names and numbers of which scholars, churches, and sects dispute. The Hexateuch contains that intrinsic evidence of truth which so impressed the Ojibwa elders, before mentioned, who said that the work was true because they and their fathers " had heard the same stories since the world was new." To those who can read it understandingly it is a true story of a plane of culture. " Now as to myself I have so described these matters as I have found them and read them ; but, if any one is inclined to another opinion about them, let him enjoy his different sentiments without any blame from me."