{"collection":"folklore-oral-tradition","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_48236/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_48236","id":"gutenberg_48236","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/48236","summary":null,"tags":["Blood -- Folklore","Category: Archaeology & Anthropology","Category: History - Ancient","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Covenants -- Religious aspects"],"text":"Transcriber\u2019s Note:\n\n  Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.\n  For more transcriber\u2019s notes, please go to the end of this e-book.\n\n\n\n\n  THE\n  BLOOD COVENANT\n\n  A PRIMITIVE RITE\n  AND ITS BEARINGS ON SCRIPTURE\n\n\n  BY\n  H. CLAY TRUMBULL D.D.\n  Author of \u201cKadesh Barnea.\u201d\n\n\n  NEW YORK\n  CHARLES SCRIBNER\u2019S SONS\n  1885\n\n\n\n\n  COPYRIGHT, 1885\n  BY H. CLAY TRUMBULL\n\n  GRANT & FAIRES\n  PHILADELPHIA\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nIt was while engaged in the preparation of a book--still unfinished--on\nthe Sway of Friendship in the World\u2019s Forces, that I came upon facts\nconcerning the primitive rite of covenanting by the inter-transfusion\nof blood, which induced me to turn aside from my other studies, in\norder to pursue investigations in this direction.\n\nHaving an engagement to deliver a series of lectures before the Summer\nSchool of Hebrew, under Professor W. R. Harper, of Chicago, at the\nbuildings of the Episcopal Divinity School, in Philadelphia, I decided\nto make this rite and its linkings the theme of that series; and I\ndelivered three lectures, accordingly, June 16-18, 1885.\n\nThe interest manifested in the subject by those who heard the Lectures,\nas well as the importance of the theme itself, has seemed sufficient\nto warrant its presentation to a larger public. In this publishing,\nthe form of the original Lectures has, for convenience sake, been\nadhered to; although some considerable additions to the text, in the\nway of illustrative facts, have been made, since the delivery of the\nLectures; while other similar material is given in an Appendix.\n\nFrom the very freshness of the subject itself, there was added\ndifficulty in gathering the material for its illustration and\nexposition. So far as I could learn, no one had gone over the ground\nbefore me, in this particular line of research; hence the various items\nessential to a fair statement of the case must be searched for through\nmany diverse volumes of travel and of history and of arch\u00e6ological\ncompilation, with only here and there an incidental disclosure in\nreturn. Yet, each new discovery opened the way for other discoveries\nbeyond; and even after the Lectures, in their present form, were\nalready in type, I gained many fresh facts, which I wish had been\nearlier available to me. Indeed, I may say that no portion of the\nvolume is of more importance than the Appendix; where are added facts\nand reasonings bearing directly on well-nigh every main point of the\noriginal Lectures.\n\nThere is cause for just surprise that the chief facts of this entire\nsubject have been so generally overlooked, in all the theological\ndiscussions, and in all the physio-sociological researches, of\nthe earlier and the later times. Yet this only furnishes another\nillustration of the inevitably cramping influence of a pre-conceived\nfixed theory,--to which all the ascertained facts must be\nconformed,--in any attempt at thorough and impartial scientific\ninvestigation. It would seem to be because of such cramping, that no\none of the modern students of myth and folk-lore, of primitive ideas\nand customs, and of man\u2019s origin and history, has brought into their\ntrue prominence, if indeed he has even noticed them in passing, the\nuniversally dominating primitive convictions: that the blood is the\nlife; that the heart, as the blood-fountain, is the very soul of every\npersonality; that blood-transfer is soul-transfer; that blood-sharing,\nhuman, or divine-human, secures an inter-union of natures; and that\na union of the human nature with the divine is the highest ultimate\nattainment reached out after by the most primitive, as well as by the\nmost enlightened, mind of humanity.\n\nCertainly, the collation of facts comprised in this volume grew out\nof no pre-conceived theory on the part of its author. Whatever theory\nshows itself in their present arrangement, is simply that which the\nfacts themselves have seemed to enforce and establish, in their\nconsecutive disclosure.\n\nI should have been glad to take much more time for the study of\nthis theme, and for the re-arranging of its material, before its\npresentation to the public; but, with the pressure of other work upon\nme, the choice was between hurrying it out in its present shape, and\npostponing it indefinitely. All things considered, I chose the former\nalternative.\n\nIn the prosecution of my investigations, I acknowledge kindly aid\nfrom Professor Dr. Georg Ebers, Principal Sir William Muir, Dr. Yung\nWing, Dean E. T. Bartlett, Professors Doctors John P. Peters and J. G.\nLansing, the Rev. Dr. M. H. Bixby, Drs. D. G. Brinton and Charles W.\nDulles, the Rev. Messrs. R. M. Luther and Chester Holcombe, and Mr. E.\nA. Barber; in addition to constant and valuable assistance from Mr.\nJohn T. Napier, to whom I am particularly indebted for the philological\ncomparisons in the Oriental field, including the Egyptian, the Arabic,\nand the Hebrew.\n\nAt the best, my work in this volume is only tentative and suggestive.\nIts chief value is likely to be in its stimulating of others to fuller\nand more satisfactory research in the field here brought to notice.\nSufficient, however, is certainly shown, to indicate that the realm of\ntrue Biblical theology is as yet by no means thoroughly explored.\n\n                         H. CLAY TRUMBULL.\n\n  PHILADELPHIA, _August 14, 1885_.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n                          PAGE\n\n  PREFACE                  iii\n\n\nLECTURE I.\n\nTHE PRIMITIVE RITE ITSELF.\n\n(1.) SOURCES OF BIBLE STUDY, 3. (2.) AN ANCIENT SEMITIC RITE, 4.\n(3.) THE PRIMITIVE RITE IN AFRICA, 12. (4.) TRACES OF THE RITE IN\nEUROPE, 39. (5.) WORLD-WIDE SWEEP OF THE RITE, 43. (6.) LIGHT FROM THE\nCLASSICS, 58. (7.) THE BOND OF THE COVENANT, 65. (8.) THE RITE AND ITS\nTOKEN IN EGYPT, 77. (9.) OTHER GLEAMS OF THE RITE, 85.\n\n\nLECTURE II.\n\nSUGGESTIONS AND PERVERSIONS OF THE RITE.\n\n(1.) SACREDNESS OF BLOOD AND OF THE HEART, 99. (2.) VIVIFYING POWER OF\nBLOOD, 110. (3.) A NEW NATURE THROUGH NEW BLOOD, 126. (4.) LIFE FROM\nANY BLOOD, AND BY A TOUCH, 134. (5.) INSPIRATION THROUGH BLOOD, 139.\n(6.) INTER-COMMUNION THROUGH BLOOD, 147. (7.) SYMBOLIC SUBSTITUTES FOR\nBLOOD, 191. (8.) BLOOD COVENANT INVOLVINGS, 202.\n\n\nLECTURE III.\n\nINDICATIONS OF THE RITE IN THE BIBLE.\n\n(1.) LIMITATIONS OF INQUIRY, 209. (2.) PRIMITIVE TEACHINGS OF BLOOD,\n210. (3.) THE BLOOD COVENANT IN CIRCUMCISION, 215. (4.) THE BLOOD\nCOVENANT TESTED, 224. (5.) THE BLOOD COVENANT AND ITS TOKENS IN\nTHE PASSOVER, 230. (6.) THE BLOOD COVENANT AT SINAI, 238. (7.) THE\nBLOOD COVENANT IN THE MOSAIC RITUAL, 240. (8.) THE PRIMITIVE RITE\nILLUSTRATED, 263. (9.) THE BLOOD COVENANT IN THE GOSPELS, 271. (10.)\nTHE BLOOD COVENANT APPLIED, 286.\n\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\nIMPORTANCE OF THIS RITE STRANGELY UNDERVALUED, 297. LIFE IN THE\nBLOOD, IN THE HEART, IN THE LIVER, 299. TRANSMIGRATION OF SOULS, 310.\nTHE BLOOD-RITE IN BURMAH, 313. BLOOD-STAINED TREE OF THE COVENANT,\n316. BLOOD-DRINKING, 320. COVENANT-CUTTING, 322. BLOOD-BATHING, 324.\nBLOOD-RANSOMING, 324. THE COVENANT-REMINDER, 326. HINTS OF BLOOD\nUNION, 332.\n\n\nINDEXES.\n\nTOPICAL INDEX, 345. SCRIPTURAL INDEX, 349.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE I.\n\nTHE PRIMITIVE RITE ITSELF.\n\n\n\n\nI.\n\nTHE PRIMITIVE RITE ITSELF.\n\n\n1. SOURCES OF BIBLE STUDY.\n\nThose who are most familiar with the Bible, and who have already given\nmost time to its study, have largest desire and largest expectation of\nmore knowledge through its farther study. And, more and more, Bible\nstudy has come to include very much that is outside of the Bible.\n\nFor a long time, the outside study of the Bible was directed chiefly\nto the languages in which the Bible was written, and to the arch\u00e6ology\nand the manners and customs of what are commonly known as the Lands\nof the Bible. Nor are these well-worked fields, by any means, yet\nexhausted. More still remains to be gleaned from them, each and all,\nthan has been gathered thence by all searchers in their varied lore.\nBut, latterly, it has been realized, that, while the Bible is an\nOriental book, written primarily for Orientals, and therefore to be\nunderstood only through an understanding of Oriental modes of thought\nand speech, it is also a record of God\u2019s revelation to the whole human\nrace; hence, its inspired pages are to receive illumination from all\ndisclosures of the primitive characteristics and customs of that race,\neverywhere. Not alone those who insist on the belief that there was\na gradual development of the race from a barbarous beginning, but\nthose also who believe that man started on a higher plane, and in his\ndegradation retained perverted vestiges of God\u2019s original revelation\nto him, are finding profit in the study of primitive myths, and of\naboriginal religious rites and ceremonies, all the world over. Here,\nalso, what has been already gained, is but an earnest of what will yet\nbe compassed in the realm of truest biblical research.\n\n\n2. AN ANCIENT SEMITIC RITE.\n\nOne of these primitive rites, which is deserving of more attention\nthan it has yet received, as throwing light on many important phases\nof Bible teaching, is the rite of blood-covenanting: a form of mutual\ncovenanting, by which two persons enter into the closest, the most\nenduring, and the most sacred of compacts, as friends and brothers, or\nas more than brothers, through the inter-commingling of their blood, by\nmeans of its mutual tasting, or of its inter-transfusion. This rite is\nstill observed in the unchanging East; and there are historic traces\nof it, from time immemorial, in every quarter of the globe; yet it has\nbeen strangely overlooked by biblical critics and biblical commentators\ngenerally, in these later centuries.\n\nIn bringing this rite of the covenant of blood into new prominence,\nit may be well for me to tell of it as it was described to me by an\nintelligent native Syrian, who saw it consummated in a village at the\nbase of the mountains of Lebanon; and then to add evidences of its\nwide-spread existence in the East and elsewhere, in earlier and in\nlater times.\n\nIt was two young men, who were to enter into this covenant. They had\nknown each other, and had been intimate, for years; but now they were\nto become brother-friends, in the covenant of blood. Their relatives\nand neighbors were called together, in the open place before the\nvillage fountain, to witness the sealing compact. The young men\npublicly announced their purpose, and their reasons for it. Their\ndeclarations were written down, in duplicate,--one paper for each\nfriend,--and signed by themselves and by several witnesses. One of the\nfriends took a sharp lancet, and opened a vein in the other\u2019s arm. Into\nthe opening thus made, he inserted a quill, through which he sucked\nthe living blood. The lancet-blade was carefully wiped on one of the\nduplicate covenant-papers, and then it was taken by the other friend,\nwho made a like incision in its first user\u2019s arm, and drank his blood\nthrough the quill, wiping the blade on the duplicate covenant-record.\nThe two friends declared together: \u201cWe are brothers in a covenant\nmade before God: who deceiveth the other, him will God deceive.\u201d Each\nblood-marked covenant-record, was then folded carefully, to be sewed\nup in a small leathern case, or amulet, about an inch square; to be\nworn thenceforward by one of the covenant-brothers, suspended about the\nneck, or bound upon the arm, in token of the indissoluble relation.\n\nThe compact thus made, is called, _M\u2019\u00e2hadat ed-Dam_ (\u0627\u0644\u062f\u0645 \u0645\u0639\u0627\u0647\u062f\u0629),\nthe \u201cCovenant of Blood.\u201d The two persons thus conjoined, are, _Akhwat\nel-M\u2019\u00e2hadah_ (\u0627\u0644\u0645\u0639\u0627\u0647\u062f\u0629 \u0627\u062e\u0648\u0629), \u201cBrothers of the Covenant.\u201d The rite\nitself is recognized, in Syria, as one of the very old customs of\nthe land, as _\u2019\u00e2dah qadeemeh_ (\u0642\u062f\u064a\u0645\u0629 \u0639\u0627\u062f\u0629) \u201ca primitive rite.\u201d There\nare many forms of covenanting in Syria, but this is the extremest\nand most sacred of them all. As it is the inter-commingling of very\nlives, nothing can transcend it. It forms a tie, or a union, which\ncannot be dissolved. In marriage, divorce is a possibility: not so in\nthe covenant of blood. Although now comparatively rare, in view of\nits responsibilities and of its indissolubleness, this covenant is\nsometimes entered into by confidential partners in business, or by\nfellow-travelers; again, by robbers on the road--who would themselves\nrest fearlessly on its obligations, and who could be rested on within\nits limits, however untrustworthy they or their fellows might be to any\nother compact. Yet, again, it is the chosen compact of loving friends;\nof those who are drawn to it only by mutual love and trust.\n\nThis covenant is commonly between two persons of the same\nreligion--Muhammadans, Druzes, or Nazarenes; yet it has been known\nbetween two persons of different religions;[1] and in such a case it\nwould be held as a closer tie than that of birth[2] or sect. He who has\nentered into this compact with another, counts himself the possessor of\na double life; for his friend, whose blood he has shared, is ready to\nlay down his life with him, or for him.[3] Hence the leathern case, or\n_Bayt hej\u00e2b_ (\u062d\u062c\u0627\u0628 \u0628\u064a\u062a) \u201cHouse of the amulet,\u201d[4] containing the record\nof the covenant (_\u2019uhdah_, \u0639\u0647\u062f\u0629), is counted a proud badge of honor, by\none who possesses it; and he has an added sense of security, because he\nwill not be alone when he falleth.[5]\n\nI have received personal testimony from native Syrians, concerning the\nobservance of this rite in Damascus, in Aleppo, in H\u00e2sbayya, in Abayh,\nalong the road between Tyre and Sidon, and among the Koords resident\nin Salehayyah. All the Syrians who have been my informants, are at one\nconcerning the traditional extreme antiquity of this rite, and its\nexceptional force and sacredness.\n\nIn view of the Oriental method of evidencing the closest possible\naffection and confidence, by the sucking of the loved one\u2019s blood,\nthere would seem to be more than a coincidence in the fact, that the\nArabic words for friendship, for affection, for blood, and for leech,\nor blood-sucker, are but variations from a common root.[6] _\u2019Alaqa_\n(\u0639\u0644\u0642) means \u201cto love,\u201d \u201cto adhere,\u201d \u201cto feed.\u201d _\u2019Alaq_ (\u0639\u0644\u0642), in the\nsingular, means \u201clove,\u201d \u201cfriendship,\u201d \u201cattachment,\u201d \u201cblood.\u201d As the\nplural of _\u2019alaqa_ (\u0639\u0644\u0642\u0629), _\u2019alaq_ means \u201cleeches,\u201d or \u201cblood-suckers.\u201d\nThe truest friend clings like a leech, and draws blood in order to the\nsharing thereby of his friend\u2019s life and nature.\n\nA native Syrian, who had traveled extensively in the East, and who\nwas familiar with the covenant of blood in its more common form, as\nalready described, told me of a practice somewhat akin to it, whereby\na bandit-chieftain would pledge his men to implicit and unqualified,\nlife-surrendering fidelity to himself; or, whereby a conspirator\nagainst the government would bind, in advance, to his plans, his fellow\nconspirators,--by a ceremony known as _Sharb el-\u2019ahd_ (\u0627\u0644\u0639\u0647\u062f \u0634\u0631\u0628)\n\u201cDrinking the covenant.\u201d The methods of such covenanting are various;\nbut they are all of the nature of tests of obedience and of endurance.\nThey sometimes include licking a heated iron with the tongue, or\ngashing the tongue, or swallowing pounded glass or other dangerous\npotions; but, in all cases, the idea seems to be, that the life of\nthe one covenanting is, by this covenant, devoted--surrendered as it\nwere--to the one with whom he covenants; and the rite is uniformly\naccompanied with a solemn and an imprecatory appeal to God, as\nwitnessing and guarding the compact.\n\nDr. J. G. Wetzstein, a German scholar, diplomat, and traveler, who has\ngiven much study to the peoples east of the Jordan, makes reference\nto the binding force and the profound obligation of the covenants\nof brotherhood, in that portion of the East; although he gives no\ndescription of the methods of the covenant-rite. Speaking of two\nBed\u00b4ween--Habb\u00e2s and Hosayn--who had been \u201cbrothered\u201d (_verbr\u00fcdert_),\nhe explains by saying: \u201cWe must by this [term] understand the Covenant\nof Brotherhood[7] (_Chuwwat el-Ah\u0115d_ [\u0627\u0644\u0639\u0647\u062f \u062e\u0648\u0629]), which is in use\nto-day not only among the Hadari [the Villagers], but also among the\nBed\u00b4ween; and is indeed of pre-Muhammadan origin. The brother [in such\na covenant] must guard the [other] brother from treachery, and [must]\nsuccor him in peril. So far as may be necessary, the one must provide\nfor the wants of the other; and the survivor has weighty obligations\nin behalf of the family of the one deceased.\u201d Then, as showing how\ncompletely the idea of a common life in the lives of two friends\nthus covenanted--if, indeed, they have become sharers of the same\nblood--sways the Oriental mind, Wetzstein adds: \u201cThe marriage of a man\nand woman between whom this covenant exists, is held to be _incest_.\u201d[8]\n\nThere are, indeed, various evidences that the tie of blood-covenanting\nis reckoned, in the East, even a closer tie than that of natural\ndescent; that a \u201cfriend\u201d by this tie is nearer and is dearer,\n\u201csticketh closer,\u201d than a \u201cbrother\u201d by birth. We, in the West, are\naccustomed to say, that \u201cblood is thicker than water\u201d; but the Arabs\nhave the idea that blood is thicker than milk, than a mother\u2019s milk.\nWith them, any two children nourished at the same breast are called\n\u201cmilk-brothers,\u201d[9] or \u201csucking brothers\u201d;[10] and the tie between\nsuch is very strong. A boy and a girl in this relation cannot marry,\neven though by birth they had no family relationship. Among even the\nmore bigoted of the Druzes, a Druze girl who is a \u201csucking sister\u201d of\na Nazarene boy is allowed a sister\u2019s privileges with him. He can see\nher uncovered face, even to the time of her marriage. But, the Arabs\nhold that brothers in the covenant of blood are closer than brothers\nat a common breast; that those who have tasted each other\u2019s blood are\nin a surer covenant than those who have tasted the same milk together;\nthat \u201cblood-lickers,\u201d[11] as the blood-brothers are sometimes called,\nare more truly one, than \u201cmilk-brothers,\u201d or \u201csucking brothers\u201d; that,\nindeed, blood is thicker than milk, as well as thicker than water.\n\nThis distinction it is which seems to be referred to in a citation from\nthe Arabic poet El-A\u2019asha, by the Arabic lexicographer Qamus, which has\nbeen a puzzle to Lane, and Freytag, and others.[12] Lane\u2019s translation\nof the passage is: \u201cTwo foster-brothers by the sucking of the breast of\none mother, swore together by dark blood, into which they dipped their\nhands, that they should not ever become separated.\u201d In other words, two\nmilk-brothers became blood-brothers, by interlocking their hands under\ntheir own blood, in the covenant of blood-friendship. They had been\nclosely inter-linked before; now they were as one; for blood is thicker\nthan milk. The oneness of nature which comes of sharing the same blood,\nby its inter-transfusion, is rightly deemed, by the Arabs, completer\nthan the oneness of nature which comes of sharing the same milk; or\neven than that which comes through having blood from a common source,\nby natural descent.\n\n\n3. THE PRIMITIVE RITE IN AFRICA.\n\nTravelers in the heart of Africa, also, report the covenant of\n\u201cblood-brotherhood,\u201d or of \u201cstrong-friendship,\u201d as in vogue among\nvarious African tribes; although, naturally retaining less of primitive\nsacredness there than among Semites. The rite is, in some cases,\nobserved after the manner of the Syrians, by the contracting parties\ntasting each other\u2019s blood; while, in other cases, it is performed by\nthe inter-transfusion of blood between the two.\n\nThe first mention which I find of it, in the writings of modern\ntravelers in Africa, is by the lamented hero-missionary, Dr.\nLivingstone. He calls the rite _Kasendi_. It was in the region of\nLake Dilolo, at the watershed between the Indian Ocean and the\nAtlantic, in July, 1854, that he made blood-friendship, vicariously,\nwith Queen Manenko, of the Balonda tribes.[13] She was represented,\nin this ceremony, by her husband, the ebony \u201cPrince Consort\u201d; while\nLivingstone\u2019s representative was one of his Makololo attendants.\nWoman\u2019s right to rule--when she has the right--seems to be as clearly\nrecognized in Central Africa, to-day, as it was in Ethiopia in the days\nof Candace, or in Sheba in the days of Balkees.\n\nDescribing the ceremony, Livingstone says:[14] \u201cIt is accomplished\nthus: The hands of the parties are joined (in this case Pitsane and\nSambanza were the parties engaged). Small incisions are made on the\nclasped hands, on the pits of the stomach of each, and on the right\ncheeks and foreheads. A small quantity of blood is taken off from\nthese points, in both parties, by means of a stalk of grass. The blood\nfrom one person is put into a pot of beer, and that of the second into\nanother; each then drinks the other\u2019s blood, and they are supposed to\nbecome perpetual friends, or relations. During the drinking of the\nbeer, some of the party continue beating the ground with short clubs,\nand utter sentences by way of ratifying the treaty. The men belonging\nto each [principal\u2019s party], then finish the beer. The principals in\nthe performance of \u2018Kasendi\u2019 are henceforth considered blood-relations,\nand are bound to disclose to each other any impending evil. If Sekeletu\n[chief of Pitsane\u2019s tribe--the Makololo--] should resolve to attack the\nBalonda [Sambanza\u2019s--or, more properly, Manenko\u2019s--people], Pitsane\nwould be under obligation to give Sambanza warning to escape; and\nso, on the other side. [The ceremony concluded in this case] they\nnow presented each other with the most valuable presents they had\nto bestow. Sambanza walked off with Pitsane\u2019s suit of green baize\nfaced with red, which had been made in Loanda; and Pitsane, besides\nabundant supplies of food, obtained two shells [of as great value, in\nregions far from the sea, \u2018as the Lord Mayor\u2019s badge is in London,\u2019]\nsimilar to that [one, which] I had received from Shinte [the uncle of\nManenko].\u201d[15]\n\nOf the binding force of this covenant, Livingstone says farther: \u201cOn\none occasion I became blood-relation to a young woman by accident. She\nhad a large cartilaginous tumor between the bones of the forearm, which\nas it gradually enlarged, so distended the muscles as to render her\nunable to work. She applied to me to excise it. I requested her to\nbring her husband, if he were willing to have the operation performed;\nand while removing the tumor, one of the small arteries squirted some\nblood into my eye. She remarked, when I was wiping the blood out of it,\n\u2018You were a friend before; now you are a blood-relation; and when you\npass this way always send me word, that I may cook food for you.\u2019\u201d[16]\n\nOf the influence of these inter-tribal blood-friendships, in Central\nAfrica, Dr. Livingstone speaks most favorably. Their primitive\ncharacter is made the more probable, in view of the fact that he first\nfound them existing in a region where, in his opinion, the dress and\nhousehold utensils of the people are identical with those which are\nrepresented on the monuments of ancient Egypt.[17] Although it is\nwithin our own generation that this mode of covenanting in the region\nreferred to, has been made familiar to us, the rite itself is of old,\nelsewhere if not, indeed, there; as other travelers following in the\ntrack of Livingstone have noted and reported.\n\nCommander Cameron, who, while in charge of the Livingstone Search\nExpedition, was the first European traveler to cross the whole breadth\nof the African continent in its central latitudes, gives several\nillustrations of the observance of this rite. In June, 1874, at the\nwestward of Lake Tanganyika, Syde, a guide of Cameron, entered into\nthis covenant of blood with Pakwanya, a local chief.\n\n\u201cAfter a certain amount of palaver,\u201d says Cameron, \u201cSyde and Pakwanya\nexchanged presents, much to the advantage of the former [for in\nthe East, the person of higher rank is supposed to give the more\ncostly gifts in any such exchange]; more especially [in this case]\nas he [Syde] borrowed the beads of me and afterward forgot to repay\nme. Pakwanya then performed a tune on his harmonium, or whatever\nthe instrument [which he had] might be called, and the business of\nfraternizing was proceeded with. Pakwanya\u2019s head man acted as his\nsponsor, and one of my askari assumed the like office for Syde.\n\n\u201cThe first operation consisted of making an incision on each of their\nright wrists, just sufficient to draw blood; a little of which was\nscraped off and smeared on the other\u2019s cut; after which gunpowder\nwas rubbed in [thereby securing a permanent token on the arm]. The\nconcluding part of the ceremony was performed by Pakwanya\u2019s sponsor\nholding a sword resting on his shoulder, while he who acted [as\nsponsor] for Syde went through the motions of sharpening a knife upon\nit. Both sponsors meanwhile made a speech, calling down imprecations\non Pakwanya and all his relations, past, present, and future, and\nprayed that their graves might be defiled by pigs if he broke the\nbrotherhood in word, thought, or deed. The same form having been gone\nthrough with, [with] respect to Syde, the sponsors changing duties, the\nbrother-making was complete.\u201d[18]\n\nConcerning the origin of this rite, in this region, Cameron says: \u201cThis\ncustom of \u2018making brothers,\u2019 I believe to be really of Semitic origin,\nand to have been introduced into Africa by the heathen Arabs before the\ndays of Mohammed; and this idea is strengthened by the fact that when\nthe first traders from Zanzibar crossed the Tanganyika, the ceremony\nwas unknown [so far as those traders knew] to the westward of that\nlake.\u201d[19] Cameron was, of course, unaware of the world-wide prevalence\nof this rite; but his suggestion that its particular form just here\nhad a Semitic origin, receives support in a peculiar difference noted\nbetween the Asiatic and the African ceremonies.\n\nIt will be remembered, that, among the Syrians, the blood of the\ncovenant is taken into the mouth, and the record of the covenant is\nbound upon the arm. The Africans, not fully appreciating the force of\na written record, are in the habit of reversing this order, according\nto Cameron\u2019s account. Describing the rite as observed between his\nmen and the natives, on the Luama River, he says: \u201cThe brotherhood\nbusiness having been completed [by putting the blood from one party on\nto the arm of the other], some pen and ink marks were made on a piece\nof paper, which, together with a charge of powder, was put into a\nkettleful of water. All hands then drank of the decoction, the natives\nbeing told that it was a very great medicine.\u201d[20] That was \u201cdrinking\nthe covenant\u201d[21] with a vengeance; nor is it difficult to see how this\nidea originated.\n\nThe gallant and adventurous Henry M. Stanley also reports this rite of\n\u201cblood-brotherhood,\u201d or of \u201cstrong friendship,\u201d in the story of his\nromantic experiences in the wilds of Africa. On numerous occasions\nthe observance of this rite was a means of protection and relief to\nStanley. One of its more notable illustrations was in his compact with\n\u201cMirambo, the warrior chief of Western Unyamwezi;\u201d[22] whose leadership\nin warfare Stanley compares to that of both Frederick the Great[23] and\nNapoleon.[24]\n\nIt was during his first journey in pursuit of Livingstone, in 1871,\nthat Stanley first encountered the forces of Mirambo, and was worsted\nin the conflict.[25] Writing of him, after his second expedition,\nStanley describes Mirambo, as \u201cthe \u2018Mars of Africa,\u2019 who since 1871 has\nmade his name feared by both native and foreigner from Usui to Urori,\nand from Uvinza to Ugogo, a country embracing 90,000 square miles;\nwho, from the village chieftainship over Uyoweh, has made for himself\na name as well known as that of Mtesa throughout the eastern half of\nEquatorial Africa; a household word from Nyangw\u00e9 to Zanzibar, and the\ntheme of many a song of the bards of Unyamwezi, Ukimbu, Ukonongo,\nUzinja, and Uvinza.\u201d[26] For a time, during his second exploring\nexpedition, Stanley was inclined to avoid Mirambo, but becoming\n\u201cimpressed with his ubiquitous powers,\u201d[27] he decided to meet him,\nand if possible make \u201cstrong friendship\u201d with him. They came together,\nfirst, at Serombo, April 22, 1876. Mirambo \u201cquite captivated\u201d Stanley.\n\u201cHe was a thorough African _gentleman_ in appearance.... A handsome,\nregular-featured, mild-voiced, soft-spoken man, with what one might\ncall a \u2018meek\u2019 demeanor; very generous and open-handed;\u201d his eyes having\n\u201cthe steady, calm gaze of a master.\u201d[28]\n\nThe African hero and the heroic American agreed to \u201cmake strong\nfriendship\u201d with each other. Stanley thus describes the ceremony:\n\u201cManwa Sera [Stanley\u2019s \u2018chief captain\u2019] was requested to seal our\nfriendship by performing the ceremony of blood-brotherhood between\nMirambo and myself. Having caused us to sit fronting each other on\na straw-carpet, he made an incision in each of our right legs, from\nwhich he extracted blood, and inter-changing it, he exclaimed aloud:\n\u2018If either of you break this brotherhood now established between you,\nmay the lion devour him, the serpent poison him, bitterness be in his\nfood, his friends desert him, his gun burst in his hands and wound\nhim, and everything that is bad do wrong to him until death.\u2019\u201d[29] The\nsame blood now flowed in the veins of both Stanley and Mirambo. They\nwere friends and brothers in a sacred covenant; life for life. At the\nconclusion of the covenant, they exchanged gifts; as the customary\nratification, or accompaniment, of the compact. They even vied with\neach other in proofs of their unselfish fidelity, in this new covenant\nof friendship.[30]\n\nAgain and again, before and after this incident, Stanley entered into\nthe covenant of blood-brotherhood with representative Africans; in some\ninstances by the opening of his own veins; at other times by allowing\none of his personal escort to bleed for him. In January, 1875, a \u201cgreat\nmagic doctor of Vinyata\u201d came to Stanley\u2019s tent to pay a friendly\nvisit, \u201cbringing with him a fine, fat ox as a peace offering.\u201d After\nan exchange of gifts, says Stanley, \u201che entreated me to go through\nthe process of blood-brotherhood, which I underwent with all the\nceremonious gravity of a pagan.\u201d[31]\n\nThree months later, in April, 1875, when Stanley found himself and his\nparty in the treacherous toils of Shekka, the King of Bumbireh, he made\nseveral vain attempts to \u201cinduce Shekka, with gifts, to go through the\nprocess of blood-brotherhood.\u201d Stanley\u2019s second captain, Safeni, was\nthe adroit, but unsuccessful, agent in the negotiations. \u201cGo frankly\nand smilingly, Safeni, up to Shekka, on the top of that hill,\u201d said\nStanley, \u201cand offer him these three fundo of beads, and ask him to\nexchange blood with you.\u201d But the wily king was not to be dissuaded\nfrom his warlike purposes in that way. \u201cSafeni returned. Shekka had\nrefused the pledge of peace.\u201d[32] His desire was to take blood, if at\nall, without any exchange.\n\nAfter still another three months, in July, 1875, Stanley, at Refuge\nIsland, reports better success in securing peace and friendship through\nblood-giving and blood-receiving. \u201cThrough the influence of young\nLukanjah--the cousin of the King of Ukerew\u00e9\u201d--he says, \u201cthe natives of\nthe mainland had been induced to exchange their churlish disposition\nfor one of cordial welcome; and the process of blood-brotherhood had\nbeen formally gone through [with], between Manwa Sera, on my part,\nand Kijaju, King of Komeh, and the King of Itawagumba, on the other\npart.\u201d[33]\n\nIt was at \u201cKampunzu, in the district of Uvinza, where dwell the true\naborigines of the forest country,\u201d--a people whom Stanley afterwards\nfound to be cannibals--that this rite was once more observed between\nthe explorers and the natives. \u201cBlood-brotherhood being considered as\na pledge of good-will and peace,\u201d says Stanley, \u201cFrank Pocock [a young\nEnglishman who was an attendant of Stanley] and the chief [of Kampunzu]\nwent through the ordeal; and we interchanged presents\u201d--as is the\ncustom in the observance of this rite.[34]\n\nAt the island of Mpika, on the Livingstone River, in December, 1876,\nthere was another bright episode in Stanley\u2019s course of travel, through\nthis mode of sealing friendship. Disease had been making sad havoc in\nStanley\u2019s party. He had been compelled to fight his way along through\na region of cannibals. While he was halting for a breakfast on the\nriver bank over against Mpika, an attack on him was preparing by the\nexcited inhabitants of the island. Just then his scouts captured a\nnative trading party of men and women who were returning to Mpika,\nfrom inland; and to them his interpreters made clear his pacific\nintentions. \u201cBy means of these people,\u201d he says, \u201cwe succeeded in\nchecking the warlike demonstrations of the islanders, and in finally\npersuading them to make blood-brotherhood; after which we invited\ncanoes to come and receive [these hostages] their friends. As they\nhesitated to do so, we embarked them in our own boat, and conveyed\nthem across to the island. The news then spread quickly along the\nwhole length of the island that we were friends, and as we resumed our\njourney, crowds from the shore cried out to us, \u2018_Mwend\u00e9 Ki-vuk\u00e9-vuk\u00e9_\u2019\n(\u2018Go in peace!\u2019)\u201d[35]\n\nOnce more it was at the conclusion of a bloody conflict, in the\ndistrict of Vinya-Njara, just below Mpika Island, that peace was sealed\nby blood. When practical victory was on Stanley\u2019s side, at the cost\nof four of his men killed, and thirteen more of them wounded, then\nhe sought this means of amity. \u201cWith the aid of our interpreters,\u201d\nhe says, \u201cwe communicated our terms, viz., that we would occupy\nVinya-Njara, and retain all the canoes unless they made peace. We also\ninformed them that we had one prisoner, who would be surrendered to\nthem if they availed themselves of our offer of peace: that we had\nsuffered heavily, and they had also suffered; that war was an evil\nwhich wise men avoided; that if they came with two canoes with their\nchiefs, two canoes with our chiefs should meet them in mid-stream,\nand make blood-brotherhood; and that on that condition some of their\ncanoes should be restored, and we would purchase the rest.\u201d The natives\ntook time for the considering of this proposition, and then accepted\nit. \u201cOn the 22nd of December, the ceremony of blood-brotherhood\nhaving been formally concluded, in mid-river, between Safeni and the\nchief of Vinya-Njara,\u201d continues Stanley, \u201cour captive, and fifteen\ncanoes, were returned, and twenty-three canoes were retained by\nus for a satisfactory equivalent; and thus our desperate struggle\nterminated.\u201d[36]\n\nOn the Livingstone, just below the Equator, in February, 1877,\nStanley\u2019s party was facing starvation, having been for some time\n\u201cunable to purchase food, or indeed [to] approach a settlement for any\namicable purpose.\u201d The explorers came to look at \u201ceach other as fated\nvictims of protracted famine, or [of] the rage of savages, like those\nof Mangala.\u201d \u201cWe continued our journey,\u201d goes on the record, \u201cthough\ngrievously hungry, past Bwena and Inguba, doing our utmost to induce\nthe staring fishermen to communicate with us; without any success. They\nbecame at once officiously busy with guns, and dangerously active. We\narrived at Ikengo, and as we were almost despairing, we proceeded to a\nsmall island opposite this settlement, and prepared to encamp. Soon a\ncanoe with seven men came dashing across, and we prepared our moneys\nfor exhibition. They unhesitatingly advanced, and ran their canoe\nalongside of us. We were rapturously joyful, and returned them a most\ncordial welcome, as the act was a most auspicious sign of confidence.\nWe were liberal, and the natives fearlessly accepted our presents;\nand from this giving of gifts we proceeded to seal this incipient\nfriendship with our blood, with all due ceremony.\u201d[37] And by this\ntransfusion of blood, the starving were re-vivified, and the despairing\nwere given hope.\n\nTwice, again, within a few weeks after this experience, there was\na call on Stanley of blood for blood, in friendship\u2019s compact. The\npeople of Chumbiri welcomed the travelers. \u201cThey readily subscribed\nto all the requirements of friendship, blood-brotherhood, and an\nexchange of a few small gifts.\u201d[38] Itsi, the king of Ntamo, with\nseveral of his elders and a showy escort, came out to meet Stanley;\nand there was a friendly greeting on both sides. \u201cThey then broached\nthe subject of blood-brotherhood. We were willing,\u201d says Stanley, \u201cbut\nthey wished to defer the ceremony until they had first shown their\nfriendly feelings to us.\u201d Thereupon gifts were exchanged, and the\nking indicated his preference for a \u201cbig goat\u201d of Stanley\u2019s, as his\nbenefaction--which, after some parleying, was transferred to him. Then\ncame the covenant-rite. \u201cThe treaty with Itsi,\u201d says Stanley, \u201cwas\nexceedingly ceremonious, and involved the exchange of charms. Itsi\ntransferred to me for my protection through life, a small gourdful of a\ncurious powder, which had rather a saline taste; and I delivered over\nto him, as the white man\u2019s charm against all evil, a half-ounce vial\nof magnesia; further, a small scratch in Frank\u2019s arm, and another in\nItsi\u2019s arm, supplied blood sufficient to unite us in one, and [by an]\nindivisible bond of fraternity.\u201d[39]\n\nFour years after this experience of blood-covenanting, by proxy, with\nyoung Itsi, Stanley found himself again at Ntamo, or across the river\nfrom it; this time in the interest of the International Association of\nthe Congo. Being short of food, he had sent out a party of foragers,\nand was waiting their return with interest. \u201cDuring the absence of\nthe food-hunters,\u201d he says, \u201cwe heard the drums of Ntamo, and [we]\nfollowed with interested eyes the departure of two large canoes from\nthe landing-place, their ascent to the place opposite, and their final\ncrossing over towards us. Then we knew that Ngalyema of Ntamo had\ncondescended to come and visit us. As soon as he arrived I recognized\nhim as the Itsi with whom, in 1877, I had made blood-brotherhood [by\nproxy]. During the four years that had elapsed, he had become a great\nman.... He was now about thirty-four years old, of well-built form,\nproud in his bearing, covetous and grasping in disposition, and,\nlike all other lawless barbarians, prone to be cruel and sanguinary\nwhenever he might safely vent his evil humor. Superstition had found\nin him an apt and docile pupil, and fetishism held him as one of its\nmost abject slaves. This was the man in whose hands the destinies of\nthe Association Internationale du Congo were held, and upon whose\ngraciousness depended our only hope of being able to effect a peaceful\nlodgment on the Upper Congo.\u201d A pagan African was an African pagan,\neven while the blood-brother of a European Christian. Yet, the tie of\nblood-covenanting was the strongest tie known in Central Africa. Frank\nPocock, whose covenant-blood flowed in Itsi\u2019s veins, was dead;[40] yet\nfor his sake his master, Stanley, was welcomed by Itsi as a brother;\nand in true Eastern fashion he was invited to prove anew his continuing\nfaith by a fresh series of love-showing gifts. \u201cMy brother being the\nsupreme lord of Ntamo, as well as the deepest-voiced and most arrogant\nrogue among the whole tribe,\u201d says Stanley, \u201cfirst demanded the two\nasses [which Stanley had with him], then a large mirror, which was\nsucceeded by a splendid gold-embroidered coat, jewelry, glass clasps,\nlong brass chains, a figured table-cloth, fifteen other pieces of fine\ncloth, and a japanned tin box with a \u2018Chubb\u2019 lock. Finally, gratified\nby such liberality, Ngalyema surrendered to me his sceptre, which\nconsisted of a long staff, banded profusely with brass, and decorated\nwith coils of brass wire, which was to be carried by me and shown to\nall men that I was the brother of Ngalyema [or, Itsi] of Ntamo!\u201d[41]\nSome time after this, when trouble arose between Stanley and Ngalyema,\nthe former suggested that perhaps it would be better to cancel their\nbrotherhood. \u201c\u2018No, no, no,\u2019 cried Ngalyema, anxiously; \u2018our brotherhood\ncannot be broken; our blood is now one.\u2019\u201d Yet at this time Stanley\u2019s\nbrotherhood with Ngalyema was only by the blood of his deceased\nretainer, Frank Pocock.\n\nMore commonly, the rite of blood-friendship among the African tribes\nseems to be by the inter-transfusion of blood; but the ancient Syrian\nmethod is by no means unknown on that continent. Stanley tells of\none crisis of hunger, among the cannibals of Rubunga, when the\nhostility of the natives on the river bank was averted by a shrewd\ndisplay of proffered trinkets from the boats of the expedition. \u201cWe\nraised our anchor,\u201d he says, \u201cand with two strokes of the oars had\nrun our boat ashore; and, snatching a string or two of cowries [or\nshell-money], I sprang on land, followed by the coxswain Uledi, and\nin a second I had seized the skinny hand of the old chief, and was\npressing it hard for joy. Warm-hearted Uledi, who the moment before\nwas breathing furious hate of all savages, and of the procrastinating\nold chief in particular, embraced him with a filial warmth. Young\nSaywa, and Murabo, and Shumari, prompt as tinder upon all occasions,\ngrasped the lesser chiefs\u2019 hands, and devoted themselves with smiles\nand jovial frank bearing to conquer the last remnants of savage\nsullenness, and succeeded so well that, in an incredible short time,\nthe blood-brotherhood ceremony between the suddenly formed friends was\nsolemnly entered into, and the irrevocable pact of peace and good will\nhad been accomplished.\u201d[42]\n\nApparently unaware of the method of the ancient Semitic rite, here\nfound in a degraded form, Stanley seems surprised at the mutual tasting\nof blood between the contracting friends, in this instance. He says:\n\u201cBlood-brotherhood was a beastly cannibalistic ceremony with these\npeople, yet much sought after,--whether for the satisfaction of their\nthirst for blood, or that it involved an interchange of gifts, of which\nthey must needs reap the most benefit. After an incision was made\nin each arm, both brothers bent their heads, and the aborigine was\nobserved to suck with the greatest fervor; whether for love of blood or\nexcess of friendship, it would be difficult to say.\u201d[43]\n\nDuring his latest visit to Africa, in the Congo region, Stanley\nhad many another occasion to enter into the covenant of blood with\nnative chiefs, or to rest on that covenant as before consummated. His\nevery description of the rite itself has its value, as illustrating\nthe varying forms and the essential unity of the ceremony of\nblood-covenanting, the world over.\n\nA reference has already been made[44] to Stanley\u2019s meeting, on this\nexpedition, with Ngalyema, who, under the name of Itsi, had entered\ninto blood-brotherhood with Frank Pocock, four years before. That\nbrotherhood by proxy had several severe strains, in the progress of\nnegotiations between Stanley and Ngalyema; and after some eight months\nof these varying experiences, it was urgently pressed on Stanley by the\nchiefs of Kintamo (which is another name for Ntamo), that he should\npersonally covenant by blood with Ngalyema, and so put an end to all\ndanger of conflict between them. To this Stanley assented, and the\nrecord of the transaction is given accordingly, under date of April\n9, 1882: \u201cBrotherhood with Ngalyema was performed. We crossed arms;\nan incision was made in each arm; some salt was placed on the wound,\nand then a mutual rubbing took place, while the great fetish man of\nKintamo pronounced an inconceivable number of curses on my head if ever\nI proved false. Susi [Livingstone\u2019s head man, now with Stanley], not\nto be outdone by him, solicited the gods to visit unheard-of atrocious\nvengeances on Ngalyema if he dared to make the slightest breach in\nthe sacred brotherhood which made him and Bula Matari[45] one and\nindivisible for ever.\u201d[46]\n\nIn June, 1883, Stanley visited, by invitation, Mangombo, the chief of\nIrebu, on the Upper Congo, and became his blood-brother. Describing\nhis landing at this \u201cVenice of the Congo,\u201d he says: \u201cMangombo, with\na curious long staff, a fathom and a half in length, having a small\nspade of brass at one end, much resembling a baker\u2019s cake-spade, stood\nin front. He was a man probably sixty years old, but active and by no\nmeans aged-looking, and he waited to greet me.... Generally the first\nday of acquaintance with the Congo river tribes is devoted to chatting,\nsounding one another\u2019s principles, and getting at one another\u2019s ideas.\nThe chief entertains his guest with gifts of food, goats, beer, fish,\n&c.; then, on the next day, commences business and reciprocal exchange\nof gifts. So it was at Irebu. Mangombo gave four hairy thin-tailed\nsheep, ten glorious bunches of bananas, two great pots of beer,\nand the usual accompaniments of small stores. The next day we made\nblood-brotherhood. The fetish-man pricked each of our right arms,\npressed the blood out; then, with a pinch of scrapings from my gun\nstock, a little salt, a few dusty scrapings from a long pod, dropped\nover the wounded arms, ... the black and white arms were mutually\nrubbed together [for the inter-transfusion of the flowing blood]. The\nfetish-man took the long pod in his hand, and slightly touched our\nnecks, our heads, our arms, and our legs, muttering rapidly his litany\nof incantations. What was left of the medicine Mangombo and I carefully\nfolded in a banana leaf [Was this the \u2018house of the amulet?\u2019[47]], and\nwe bore it reverently between us to a banana grove close by, and buried\nthe dust out of sight. Mangombo, now my brother, by solemn interchange\nof blood,--consecrated to my service, as I was devoted in the sacred\nfetish bond to his service,--revealed his trouble, and implored my\naid.\u201d[48]\n\nYet again, Stanley \u201cmade friendship\u201d with the Bakuti, at Wangata,\n\u201cafter the customary forms of blood-brotherhood\u201d;[49] similarly with\ntwo chiefs, Iuka and Mungawa, at Lukolela;[50] with Miyongo of\nUsindi;[51] and with the chiefs of Bolombo;[52] of Yambinga,[53] of\nMokulu,[54] of Irungu,[55] of Upoto,[56] of Uranga;[57] and so all\nalong his course of travel. One of the fullest and most picturesque of\nhis descriptions of this rite, is in connection with its observance\nwith a son of the great chief of the Bangala, at Iboko; and the main\ndetails of that description are worthy of reproduction here.\n\nThe Bangala, or \u201cthe Ashantees of the Livingstone River,\u201d as Stanley\ncharacterizes them, are a strong and a superior people, and they\nfought fiercely against Stanley, when he was passing their country\nin 1877.[58] \u201cThe senior chief, Mata Bwyki (lord of many guns), was\n[now, in October, 1883,] an old grey-haired man,\u201d says Stanley,\n\u201cof Herculean stature and breadth of shoulder, with a large square\nface, and an altogether massive head, out of which his solitary eye\nseemed to glare with penetrative power. I should judge him to be\nsix feet, two inches, in height. He had a strong, sonorous voice,\nwhich, when lifted to speak to his tribe, was heard clearly several\nhundred yards off. He was now probably between seventy-five and eighty\nyears old.... He was not the tallest man, nor the best looking, nor\nthe sweetest-dispositioned man, I had met in all Africa; but if the\ncompleteness and perfection of the human figure, combining size with\nstrength, and proportion of body, limbs, and head, with an expression\nof power in the face, be considered, he must have been at one time the\ngrandest type of physical manhood to be found in Equatorial Africa. As\nhe stood before us on this day, we thought of him as an ancient Milo,\nan aged Hercules, an old Samson--a really grand looking old man. At his\nside were seven tall sons, by different mothers, and although they were\nstalwart men and boys, the whitened crown of Mata Bwyki\u2019s head rose by\na couple of inches above the highest head.\u201d\n\nNearly two thousand persons assembled, at Iboko, to witness the\n\u201cpalaver\u201d that must precede a decision to enter into \u201cstrong\nfriendship.\u201d At the place of meeting, \u201cmats of split rattan were\nspread in a large semicircle around a row of curved and box stools,\nfor the principal chiefs. In the centre of the line, opposite this,\nwas left a space for myself and people,\u201d continues Stanley. \u201cWe had\nfirst to undergo the process of steady and silent examination from\nnearly two thousand pairs of eyes. Then, after Yumbila, the guide,\nhad detailed in his own manner, who we were, and what was our mission\nup the great river; how we had built towns at many places, and made\nblood-brotherhood with the chiefs of great districts, such as Irebu,\nUkuti, Usindi, Ngomb\u00e9, Lukolela, Bolobo, Mswata, and Kintamo, he urged\nupon them the pleasure it would be to me to make a like compact, sealed\nwith blood, with the great chiefs of populous Iboko. He pictured the\nbenefits likely to accrue to Iboko, and Mata Bwyki in particular, if\na bond of brotherhood was made between two chiefs like Mata Bwyki and\nTandelay, [Stanley,] or as he was known, Bula Matari.\u201d\n\nThere was no prompt response to Stanley\u2019s request for strong friendship\nwith the Bangala. There were prejudices to be removed, and old memories\nto be overborne; and Yumbila\u2019s eloquence and tact were put to their\nseverest test, in the endeavor to bring about a state of feeling that\nwould make the covenant of blood a possibility here. But the triumph\nwas won. \u201cA forked palm branch was brought,\u201d says Stanley. \u201cKokoro, the\nheir [of Mata Bwyki], came forward, seized it, and kneeled before me;\nas, drawing out his short falchion, he cried, \u2018Hold the other branch,\nBula Matari!\u2019 I obeyed him, and lifting his hand he cleaved the branch\nin two. \u2018Thus,\u2019 he said, \u2018I declare my wish to be your brother.\u2019\n\n\u201cThen a fetish-man came forward with his lancets, long pod, pinch\nof salt, and fresh green banana leaf. He held the staff of Kokoro\u2019s\nsword-bladed spear, while one of my rifles was brought from the\nsteamer. The shaft of the spear and the stock of the rifle were then\nscraped on the leaf, a pinch of salt was dropped on the wood, and\nfinally a little dust from the long pod was scraped on the curious\nmixture. Then, our arms were crossed,--the white arm over the brown\narm,--and an incision was made in each; and over the blood was dropped\na few grains of the dusty compound; and the white arm was rubbed over\nthe brown arm [in the intermingling of blood].\u201d\n\n\u201cNow Mata Bwyki lifted his mighty form, and with his long giant\u2019s staff\ndrove back the compressed crowd, clearing a wide circle, and then\nroaring out in his most magnificent style, leonine in its lung-force,\nkingly in its effect: \u2018People of Iboko! You by the river side, and you\nof inland. Men of the Bangala, listen to the words of Mata Bwyki. You\nsee Tandelay before you. His other name is Bula Matari. He is the man\nwith the many canoes, and has brought back strange smoke-boats. He has\ncome to see Mata Bwyki. He has asked Mata Bwyki to be his friend. Mata\nBwyki has taken him by the hand, and has become his blood-brother.\nTandelay belongs to Iboko now. He has become this day one of the\nBangala. O, Iboko! listen to the voice of Mata Bwyki.\u2019 (I thought they\nmust have been incurably deaf, not to have heard that voice). \u2018Bula\nMatari and Mata Bwyki are one to-day. We have joined hands. Hurt not\nBula Matari\u2019s people; steal not from them; offend them not. Bring food\nand sell to him at a fair price, gently, kindly, and in peace; for he\nis my brother. Hear you, ye people of Iboko--you by the river side, and\nyou of the interior?\u2019\n\n\u201c\u2018We hear, Mata Bwyki!\u2019 shouted the multitude.\u201d[59] And the ceremony\nwas ended.\n\nA little later than this, Stanley, or Tandelay, or Bula Matari, as the\nnatives called him, was at Bumba, and there again he exchanged blood\nin friendship. \u201cMyombi, the chief,\u201d he says, \u201cwas easily persuaded\nby Yumbila to make blood-brotherhood with me; and for the fiftieth\ntime my poor arm was scarified, and my blood shed for the cause of\ncivilization. Probably one thousand people of both sexes looked on the\nscene, wonderingly and strangely. A young branch of a palm was cut,\ntwisted, and a knot tied at each end; the knots were dipped in wood\nashes, and then seized and held by each of us, while the medicine-man\npractised his blood-letting art, and lanced us both, until Myombi\nwinced with pain; after which the knotted branch was severed; and,\nin some incomprehensible manner, I had become united forever to my\nfiftieth brother; to whom I was under the obligation of defending [him]\nagainst all foes until death.\u201d[60]\n\nThe blood of a fair proportion of all the first families of Equatorial\nAfrica now courses in Stanley\u2019s veins; and if ever there was an\nAmerican citizen who could appropriate to himself preeminently the\nnational motto, \u201cE pluribus unum,\u201d Stanley is the man.\n\nThe root-idea of this rite of blood-friendship seems to include the\nbelief, that the blood is the life of a living being; not merely that\nthe blood is _essential_ to life, but that, in a peculiar sense, it\n_is_ life; that it actually vivifies by its presence; and that by its\npassing from one organism to another it carries and imparts life.\nThe inter-commingling of the blood of two organisms is, therefore,\naccording to this view, equivalent to the inter-commingling of the\nlives, of the personalities, of the natures, thus brought together; so\nthat there is, thereby and thenceforward, one life in the two bodies,\na common life between the two friends: a thought which Aristotle\nrecognizes in his citation of the ancient \u201cproverb\u201d: \u201cOne soul [in two\nbodies],\u201d[61] a proverb which has not lost its currency in any of the\ncenturies.\n\nThat the blood can retain its vivifying power whether passing into\nanother by way of the lips or by way of the veins, is, on the face of\nit, no less plausible, than that the administering of stimulants,\ntonics, nutriments, nervines, or an\u00e6sthetics, hypodermically, may be\nequally potent, in certain cases, with the more common and normal\nmethod of seeking assimilation by the process of digestion. That\nthe blood of the living has a peculiar vivifying force, in its\ntransference from one organism to another, is one of the clearly proven\nre-disclosures of modern medical science; and this transference of\nblood has been made to advantage by way of the veins, of the stomach,\nof the intestines, of the tissue, and even of the lungs--through\ndry-spraying.[62]\n\n\n4. TRACES OF THE RITE IN EUROPE.[63]\n\nDifferent methods of observing this primitive rite of blood-covenanting\nare indicated in the legendary lore of the Norseland peoples; and these\nmethods, in all their variety, give added proof of the ever underlying\nidea of an inter-commingling of lives through an inter-commingling\nof blood. Odin was the beneficent god of light and knowledge, the\npromoter of heroism, and the protector of sacred covenants, in the\nmythology of the North. L\u00f4k\u00e9, or Lok, on the other hand, was the\ndiscordant and corrupting divinity; symbolizing, in his personality,\n\u201csin, shrewdness, deceitfulness, treachery, malice,\u201d and other phases\nof evil.[64] In the poetic myths of the Norseland, it is claimed that\nat the beginning Odin and L\u00f4k\u00e9 were in close union instead of being\nat variance;[65] just as the Egyptian cosmogony made Osiris and Set\nin original accord, although in subsequent hostility;[66] and as the\nZoroastrians claimed that Ormuzd and Ahriman were at one, before\nthey were in conflict.[67] Odin and L\u00f4k\u00e9 are, indeed, said to have\nbeen, at one time, in the close and sacred union of blood-friendship;\nhaving covenanted in that union by mingling their blood in a bowl, and\ndrinking therefrom together.\n\nThe Elder Edda,[68] or the earliest collection of Scandinavian songs,\nmakes reference to this confraternity of Odin and L\u00f4k\u00e9. At a banquet of\nthe gods, L\u00f4k\u00e9, who had not been invited, found an entrance, and there\nreproached his fellow divinities for their hostility to him. Recalling\nthe indissoluble tie of blood-friendship, he said:\n\n   \u201cFather of Slaughter,[69] Odin, say,\n    Rememberest not the former day,\n    When ruddy in the goblet stood,\n    For mutual drink, our blended blood?\n    Rememberest not, thou then didst swear,\n    The festive banquet ne\u2019er to share,\n    Unless thy brother Lok was there?\u201d\n\nIn citing this illustration of the ancient rite, a modern historian\nof chivalry has said: \u201cAmong barbarous people [the barbarians of\nEurope] the fraternity of arms [the sacred brotherhood of heroes] was\nestablished by the horrid custom of the new brothers drinking each\nother\u2019s blood; but if this practice was barbarous, nothing was farther\nfrom barbarism than the sentiment which inspired it.\u201d[70]\n\nAnother of the methods by which the rite of blood-friendship was\nobserved in the Norseland, was by causing the blood of the two\ncovenanting persons to inter-flow from their pierced hands, while they\nlay together underneath a lifted sod. The idea involved seems to have\nbeen, the burial of the two individuals, in their separate personal\nlives, and the intermingling of those lives--by the intermingling of\ntheir blood--while in their temporary grave; in order to their rising\nagain with a common life[71]--one life, one soul, in two bodies. Thus\nit is told, in one of the Icelandic Sagas, of Thorstein, the heroic son\nof Viking, proffering \u201cfoster-brotherhood,\u201d or blood-friendship, to the\nvaliant Angantyr, Jarl of the Orkneys. \u201cThen this was resolved upon,\nand secured by firm pledges on both sides. They opened a vein in the\nhollow of their hands, crept beneath the sod, and there [with clasped\nhands inter-blood-flowing] they solemnly swore that each of them should\navenge the other if any one of them should be slain by weapons.\u201d This\nwas, in fact, a three-fold covenant of blood; for King Bele, who had\njust been in combat with Angantyr, was already in blood-friendship with\nThorstein.[72]\n\nThe rite of blood-friendship, in one form and another finds frequent\nmention in the Norseland Sagas. Thus, in the Saga of Fridthjof the\nBold, the son of Thorstein:\n\n   \u201cChampions twelve, too, had he--gray-haired, and princes in\n      exploits,--\n    Comrades his father had loved, steel-breasted and scarred o\u2019er the\n      forehead.\n    Last on the champions\u2019 bench, equal-aged with Fridthjof, a stripling\n    Sat, like a rose among withered leaves; Bjorn called they the hero--\n    Glad as a child, but firm like a man, and yet wise as a graybeard;\n    Up with Fridthjof he\u2019d grown; they had mingled blood with each\n      other,\n    Foster-brothers in Northman wise; and they swore to continue\n    Steadfast in weal and woe, each other revenging in battle.\u201d[73]\n\nA vestige of this primitive rite, coming down to us through European\nchannels, is found, as are so many other traces of primitive rites,\nin the inherited folk-lore of English-speaking children on both sides\nof the Atlantic. An American clergyman\u2019s wife said recently, on this\npoint: \u201cI remember, that while I was a school-girl, it was the custom,\nwhen one of our companions pricked her finger, so that the blood came,\nfor one or another of us to say \u2018Oh, let me suck the blood; then we\nshall be friends.\u2019\u201d And that is but an illustration of the outreaching\nafter this indissoluble bond, on the part of thirty generations\nof children of Norseland and Anglo-Saxon stock, since the days of\nFridthjof and Bjorn; as that same yearning had been felt by those of a\nhundred generations before that time.\n\n\n5. WORLD-WIDE SWEEP OF THE RITE.\n\nConcerning traces of the rite of blood-covenanting in China, where\nthere are to be found fewest resemblances to the primitive customs of\nthe Asiatic Semites, Dr. Yung Wing, the eminent Chinese educationalist\nand diplomat, gives me the following illustration: \u201cIn the year 1674,\nwhen K\u0103nhi was Emperor, of the present dynasty, we find that the\nBuddhist priests of Shanlin Monastery in Fuhkin Province had rebelled\nagainst the authorities on account of persecution. In their encounters\nwith the troops, they fought against great odds, and were finally\ndefeated and scattered in different provinces, where they organized\ncentres of the Triad Society, which claims an antiquity dated as far\nback as the Freemasons of the West. Five of these priests fled to the\nprovince of Hakwong, and there, Chin Kinnan, a member of the Hanlin\nCollege, who was degraded from office by his enemies, joined them; and\nit is said that they drank blood, and took the oath of brotherhood, to\nstand by each other in life or death.\u201d\n\nAlong the southwestern border of the Chinese Empire, in Burmah, this\nrite of blood-friendship is still practiced; as may be seen from\nillustrations of it, which are given in the Appendix of this work.\n\nIn his History of Madagascar, the Rev. William Ellis, tells of this\nrite as he observed it in that island, and as he learned of it from\nBorneo. He says:\n\n\u201cAnother popular engagement in use among the Malagasy is that of\nforming brotherhoods, which though not peculiar to them, is one of\nthe most remarkable usages of the country.... Its object is to cement\ntwo individuals in the bonds of most sacred friendship.... More than\ntwo may thus associate, if they please; but the practice is usually\nlimited to that number, and rarely embraces more than three or four\nindividuals. It is called _fatrid\u00e1_, _i. e._, \u2018dead blood,\u2019 either\nbecause the oath is taken over the blood of a fowl killed for the\noccasion, or because a small portion of blood is drawn from each\nindividual, when thus pledging friendship, and drunk by those to\nwhom friendship is pledged, with execrations of vengeance on each\nother in case of violating the sacred oath. To obtain the blood, a\nslight incision is made in the skin covering the centre of the bosom,\nsignificantly called _ambavafo_, \u2018the mouth of the heart.\u2019 Allusion is\nmade to this, in the formula of this tragi-comical ceremony.\n\n\u201cWhen two or more persons have agreed on forming this bond of\nfraternity, a suitable place and hour are determined upon, and some\ngunpowder and a ball are brought, together with a small quantity of\nginger, a spear, and two particular kinds of grass. A fowl also is\nprocured; its head is nearly cut off; and it is left in this state to\ncontinue bleeding during the ceremony.[74]\n\n\u201cThe parties then pronounce a long form of imprecation, and [a]\nmutual vow, to this effect:--\u2018Should either of us prove disloyal to\nthe sovereign, or unfaithful to each other,[75] then perish the day,\nand perish the night.[76] Awful is that, solemn is that, which we\nare now both about to perform! O the mouth of the heart!--this is to\nbe cut, and we shall drink each other\u2019s blood. O this ball! O this\npowder! O this ginger! O this fowl weltering in its blood!--it shall be\nkilled, it shall be put to excruciating agonies,--it shall be killed\nby us, it shall be speared at this corner of the hearth (Alakaforo\nor Adimizam, S. W.) And whoever would seek to kill or injure us, to\ninjure our wives, or our children, to waste our money or our property;\nor if either of us should seek to do what would not be approved of\nby the king or by the people; should one of us deceive the other by\nmaking that which is unjust appear just; should one accuse the other\nfalsely; should either of us with our wives and children be lost and\nreduced to slavery, (forbid that such should be our lot!)--then, that\ngood may arise out of evil, we follow this custom of the people; and\nwe do it for the purpose of assisting one another with our families,\nif lost in slavery, by whatever property either of us may possess; for\nour wives are as one to us, and each other\u2019s children as his own,[77]\nand our riches as common property. O the mouth of the heart! O the\nball! O the powder! O the ginger! O this miserable fowl weltering in\nits blood!--thy liver do we eat, thy liver do we eat. And should\neither of us retract from the terms of this oath, let him instantly\nbecome a fool, let him instantly become blind, let this covenant\nprove a curse to him: let him not be a human being: let there be no\nheir to inherit after him, but let him be reduced, and float with the\nwater never to see its source; let him never obtain; what is out of\ndoors, may it never enter; and what is within may it never go out;\nthe little obtained, may he be deprived of it;[78] and let him never\nobtain justice from the sovereign nor from the people! But if we keep\nand observe this covenant, let these things bear witness.[79] O mouth\nof the heart! (repeating as before),--may this cause us to live long\nand happy with our wives and our children; may we be approved by the\nsovereign, and beloved by the people; may we get money, may we obtain\nproperty, cattle, &c.; may we marry wives, (_vady kely_); may we have\ngood robes, and wear a good piece of cloth on our bodies;[80] since,\namidst our toils and labor, these are the things we seek after.[81] And\nthis we do that we may with all fidelity assist each other to the last.\u2019\n\n\u201cThe incision is then made, as already mentioned; a small quantity of\nblood [is] extracted and drank by the covenanting parties respectively,\n[they] saying as they take it, \u2018These are our last words, We will\nbe like rice and water;[82] in town they do not separate, and in\nthe fields they do not forsake one another; we will be as the right\nand left hand of the body; if one be injured, the other necessarily\nsympathizes and suffers with it.\u2019\u201d[83]\n\nSpeaking of the terms and the influence of this covenant, in\nMadagascar, Mr. Ellis says, that while absolute community of all\nworldly possessions is not a literal fact on the part of these\nblood-friends, \u201cthe engagement involves a sort of moral obligation\nfor one to assist the other in every extremity.\u201d \u201cHowever devoid of\nmeaning,\u201d he adds, \u201csome part of the ceremony of forming [this]\nbrotherhood may appear, and whatever indications of barbarity of\nfeeling may appear in others, it is less exceptionable than many [of\nthe rites] that prevail among the people.... So far as those who have\nresided in the country have observed its effects, they appear almost\ninvariably to have been safe to the community, and beneficial to the\nindividuals by whom the compact was formed.\u201d\n\nYet again, this covenant of blood-friendship is found in different\nparts of Borneo. In the days of Mr. Ellis, the Rev. W. Medhurst,\na missionary of the London Missionary Society, in Java, described\nit, in reporting a visit made to the Dayaks of Borneo, by one of\nhis assistants together with a missionary of the Rhenish Missionary\nSociety.[84]\n\nTelling of the kindly greeting given to these visitors at a place\ncalled Golong, he says that the natives wished \u201cto establish a\nfraternal agreement with the missionaries, on condition that the latter\nshould teach them the ways of God. The travelers replied, that if the\nDayaks became the disciples of Christ, they would be constituted the\nbrethren of Christ without any formal compact. The Dayaks, however,\ninsisted that the travelers should enter into a compact [with them],\naccording to the custom of the country, by means of blood. The\nmissionaries were startled at this, thinking that the Dayaks meant to\nmurder them, and committed themselves to their Heavenly Father, praying\nthat, whether living or dying, they might lie at the feet of their\nSaviour. It appears, however, that it is the custom of the Dayaks, when\nthey enter into a covenant, to draw a little blood from the arms of the\ncovenanting parties, and, having mixed it with water, each to drink,\nin this way, the blood of the other.\n\n\u201cMr. Barenstein [one of the missionaries] having consented [for both]\nto the ceremony, they all took off their coats, and two officers came\nforward with small knives, to take a little blood out of the arm of\neach of them [the two missionaries and two Dayak chiefs]. This being\nmixed together in four glasses of water, they drank, severally, each\nfrom the glass of the other; after which they joined hands and kissed.\nThe people then came forward, and made obeisance to the missionaries,\nas the friends of the Dayak King, crying out with loud voices, \u2018Let us\nbe friends and brethren forever; and may God help the Dayaks to obtain\nthe knowledge of God from the missionaries!\u2019 The two chiefs then said,\n\u2018Brethren, be not afraid to dwell with us; for we will do you no harm;\nand if others wish to hurt you, we will defend you with our life\u2019s\nblood, and die ourselves ere you be slain. God be witness, and this\nwhole assembly be witness, that this is true.\u2019 Whereupon the whole\ncompany shouted, _Balaak!_ or \u2018Good,\u2019 \u2018Be it so.\u2019\u201d\n\nYet another method of observing this rite, is reported from among\nthe Kayans of Borneo; quite a different people from the Dayaks. Its\ndescription is from the narrative of Mr. Spenser St. John, as follows:\n\u201cSi\u00f1gauding [a Kayan chief] sent on board to request me to become his\nbrother, by going through the sacred custom of imbibing each other\u2019s\nblood. I say imbibing, because it is either mixed with water and drunk,\nor else is placed within a native cigar, and drawn in with the smoke. I\nagreed to do so, and the following day was fixed for the ceremony. It\nis called _Berbiang_ by the Kayans; _Bersabibah_, by the Borneans [the\nDayaks]. I landed with our party of Malays, and after a preliminary\ntalk, to allow the population to assemble, the affair commenced....\nStripping my left arm, Kum Lia took a small piece of wood, shaped like\na knife-blade, and, slightly piercing the skin, brought blood to the\nsurface; this he carefully scraped off. Then one of my Malays drew\nblood in the same way from Si\u00f1gauding; and, a small cigarette being\nproduced, the blood on the wooden blade was spread on the tobacco. A\nchief then arose, and, walking to an open place, looked forth upon the\nriver, and invoked their god and all the spirits of good and evil to\nbe witness of this tie of brotherhood. The cigarette [blood-stained]\nwas then lighted, and each of us took several puffs [receiving each\nother\u2019s blood by inhalation], and the ceremony was over.\u201d[85] This\nis a new method of smoking the \u201cpipe of peace\u201d--or, the cigarette of\ninter-union! Borneo, indeed, furnishes many illustrations of primitive\ncustoms, both social and religious.\n\nOne of the latest and most venturesome explorers of North Borneo was\nthe gallant and lamented Frank Hatton, a son of the widely known\ninternational journalist, Joseph Hatton. In a sketch of his son\u2019s\nlife-work, the father says[86]: \u201cHis was the first white foot in\nmany of the hitherto unknown villages of Borneo; in him many of the\nwild tribes saw the first white man.... Speaking the language of the\nnatives, and possessing that special faculty of kindly firmness so\nnecessary to the efficient control of uncivilized peoples, he journeyed\nthrough the strange land not only unmolested, but frequently carrying\naway tokens of native affection. Several powerful chiefs made him their\n\u2018blood-brother\u2019; and here and there the tribes prayed to him as if he\nwere a god.\u201d It would seem from the description of Mr. Hatton, that, in\nsome instances, in Borneo, the blood-covenanting is by the substitute\nblood of a fowl held by the two parties to the covenant, while its head\nis cut off by a third person; without any drinking of each other\u2019s\nblood by those who enter into the covenant. Yet however this may be,\nthe other method still prevails there.\n\nAnother recent traveler in the Malay Archipelago, who, also, is a\ntrained and careful observer, tells of this rite, as he found it in\nTimor, and other islands of that region, among a people who represent\nthe Malays, the Papuan, and the Polynesian races. His description is:\n\u201cThe ceremony of blood-brotherhood, ... or the swearing of eternal\nfriendship, is of an interesting nature, and is celebrated often by\nfearful orgies [excesses of the communion idea], especially when\nfriendship is being made between families, or tribes, or kingdoms. The\nceremony is the same in substance whether between two individuals, or\n[between] large companies. The contracting parties slash their arms,\nand collect the blood into a bamboo, into which _kanipa_ (coarse gin)\nor _laru_ (palm wine) is poured. Having provided themselves with a\nsmall fig-tree (_halik_) they adjourn to some retired spot, taking with\nthem the sword and spear from the _Luli_ chamber [the sacred room] of\ntheir own houses if between private individuals, or from the _Uma-Luli_\nof their _suku_ [the sacred building of their village] if between large\ncompanies. Planting there the fig-tree, flanked by the sacred sword and\nspear, they hang on it a bamboo-receptacle, into which--after pledging\neach other in a portion of the mixed blood and gin--the remainder [of\nthat mixture] is poured. Then each swears, \u2018If I be false, and be not a\ntrue friend, may my blood issue from my mouth, ears, nose, as it does\nfrom this bamboo!\u2019--the bottom of the receptacle being pricked at the\nsame moment, to allow the blood and gin to escape. The [blood-stained]\ntree remains and grows as a witness of their contract.\u201d\n\nOf the close and binding nature of this blood-compact, among the\nTimorese, the observer goes on to say: \u201cIt is one of their most sacred\noaths, and [is] almost never, I am told, violated; at least between\nindividuals.\u201d As to its limitless force and scope, he adds: \u201cOne\nbrother [one of these brother-friends in the covenant of blood] coming\nto another brother\u2019s house, is in every respect regarded as free [to\ndo as he pleases], and [is] as much at home as its owner. Nothing\nis withheld from him; even his friend\u2019s wife is not denied him, and\na child born of such a union would be recognized by the husband as\n_his_; [for are not--as _they_ reason--these brother-friends of _one\nblood_--of one and the same life?]\u201d[87]\n\nThe covenant of blood-friendship has been noted also among the native\nraces of both North and South America. A writer of three centuries\nago, told of it as among the aborigines of Yucatan. \u201cWhen the Indians\nof Pontonchan,\u201d he said, \u201creceive new friends [covenant in a new\nfriendship] ... as a proof of [their] friendship, they [mutually,\neach], in the sight of the friend, draw some blood ... from the tongue,\nhand, or arm, or from some other part [of the body].\u201d[88] And this\nceremony is said to have formed \u201ca compact for life.\u201d[89]\n\nIn Brazil, the Indians were said to have a rite of brotherhood so close\nand sacred that, as in the case of the Bed\u00b4ween beyond the Jordan,[90]\nits covenanting parties were counted as of one blood; so that marriage\nbetween those thus linked would be deemed incestuous. \u201cThere was a word\nin their language to express a friend who was loved like a brother; it\nis written _Atourrassap_ [\u2018erroneously, beyond a doubt,\u2019 adds Southey,\n\u2018because their speech is without the _r_\u2019]. They who called each other\nby this name, had all things in common; the tie was held to be as\nsacred as that of consanguinity, and one could not marry the daughter\nor sister of the other.\u201d[91]\n\nA similar tie of adopted brotherhood, or of close and sacred\nfriendship, is recognized among the North American Indians. Writing\nof the Dakotas, or the Sioux, Dr. Riggs, the veteran missionary and\nscholar, says: \u201cWhere one Dakota takes another as his _koda_, i. e.,\ngod, or friend, [Think of that, for sacredness of union--\u2018god, or\nfriend\u2019!] they become brothers in each other\u2019s families, and are, as\nsuch, of course unable to intermarry.\u201d[92] And Burton, the famous\ntraveler, who made this same tribe a study, says of the Dakotas: \u201cThey\nare fond of adoption, and of making brotherhoods like the Africans\n[Burton is familiar with the customs of African tribes]; and so strong\nis the tie that marriage with the sister of an adopted brother is\nwithin the prohibited degree.\u201d[93]\n\nAmong the people of the Society Islands, and perhaps also among those\nof other South Sea Islands, the term _tayo_ is applied to an attached\npersonal friend, in a peculiar relation of intimacy. The formal\nceremony of brotherhood, whereby one becomes the tayo of another,\nin these islands, I have not found described; but the closeness and\nsacredness of the relation, as it is held by many of the natives, would\nseem to indicate the inter-mingling of blood in the covenanting, now\nor in former times. The early missionaries to those islands, speaking\nof the prevalent unchastity there, make this exception: \u201cIf a person\nis a tayo of the husband, he must indulge in no liberties with the\nsisters or the daughters, because they are considered as _his own_\nsisters or daughters; and incest is held in abhorrence by them; nor\nwill any temptations engage them to violate this bond of purity. The\nwife, however, is excepted, and considered as common property for the\ntayo.[94] Lieutenant Corner [a still earlier voyager] also added,\nthat a tayoship formed between different sexes put the most solemn\nbarrier against all personal liberties.\u201d[95] Here is evidenced that\nsame view of the absolute oneness of nature through a oneness of blood,\nwhich shows itself among the Semites of Syria,[96] among the Malays of\nTimor,[97] and among the Indians of America.[98]\n\nAnd so this close and sacred covenant relation, this rite of\nblood-friendship, this inter-oneness of life by an inter-oneness\nof blood, shows itself in the primitive East, and in the wild and\npre-historic West; in the frozen North, as in the torrid South. Its\ntraces are everywhere. It is of old, and it is of to-day; as universal\nand as full of meaning as life itself.\n\nIt will be observed that we have already noted proofs of the\nindependent existence of this rite of blood-brotherhood, or\nblood-friendship, among the three great primitive divisions of the\nrace--the Semitic, the Hamitic, and the Japhetic; and this in Asia,\nAfrica, Europe, America, and the Islands of the Sea; again, among the\nfive modern and more popular divisions of the human family: Caucasian,\nMongolian, Ethiopian, Malay, and American. This fact in itself would\nseem to point to a common origin of its various manifestations, in the\nearly Oriental home of the now scattered peoples of the world. Many\nreferences to this rite, in the pages of classic literature, seem to\nhave the same indicative bearing, as to its nature and primitive source.\n\n\n6. LIGHT FROM THE CLASSICS.\n\nLucian, the bright Greek thinker, who was born and trained in the East,\nwriting in the middle of the second century of our era, is explicit\nas to the nature and method of this covenant as then practised in the\nEast. In his \u201cToxaris or Friendship,\u201d[99] Mnesippus the Greek, and\nToxaris the Scythian, are discussing friendship. Toxaris declares: \u201cIt\ncan easily be shown that Scythian friends are much more faithful than\nGreek friends; and that friendship is esteemed more highly among us\nthan among you.\u201d Then Toxaris goes on to say[100]: \u201cBut first I wish\nto tell you in what manner we [in Scythia] make friends; not in our\ndrinking bouts as you do, nor simply because a man is of the same age\n[as ourselves], or because he is our neighbor. But, on the contrary,\nwhen we see a good man, and one capable of great deeds, to him we all\nhasten, and (as you do in the case of marrying, so we think it right\nto do in the case of our friends) we court him, and we [who would be\nfriends] do all things together, so that we may not offend against\nfriendship, or seem worthy to be rejected. And whenever one decides to\nbe a friend, we [who would join in the covenant] make the greatest of\nall oaths, to live with one another, and to die, if need be, the one\nfor the other. And this is the manner of it: Thereupon, cutting our\nfingers, all simultaneously, we let the blood drop into a vessel, and\nhaving dipped the points of our swords into it, both [of us] holding\nthem together,[101] we drink it. There is nothing which can loose us\nfrom one another after that.\u201d\n\nYet a little earlier than Lucian, Tacitus, foremost among Latin\nhistorians, gives record of this rite of blood-brotherhood as practised\nin the East. He is telling, in his Annals, of Rhadamistus, leader of\nthe Iberians, who pretends to seek a covenant with Mithradates, King of\nthe Armenians (yet farther east than Scythia), which should make firm\nthe peace between the two nations, \u201c_diis testibus_,\u201d \u201cthe gods being\nwitnesses.\u201d Here Tacitus makes an explanation:[102] \u201cIt is the custom\nof [Oriental] kings, as often as they come together to make covenant,\nto join right hands, to tie the thumbs together, and to tighten them\nwith a knot. Then, when the blood is [thus] pressed to the finger tips,\nthey draw blood by a light stroke, and lick[103] it in turn. This they\nregard as a divine[104] covenant, made sacred as it were, by mutual\nblood [or blended lives].\u201d\n\nThere are several references, by classical writers, to this\nblood-friendship, or to this blood-covenanting, in connection with\nCatiline\u2019s conspiracy against the Roman Republic. Sallust, the\nhistorian of that conspiracy, says: \u201cThere were those at that time\nwho said that Catiline, at this conference [with his accomplices]\nwhen he inducted them into the oath of partnership in crime, carried\nround in goblets human blood, mixed with wine; and that after all\nhad tasted of it, with an imprecatory oath, as is men\u2019s wont in\nsolemn rites [in \u201c_Sharb el \u2019Ahd_,\u201d[105] as the Arabs would say] he\nopened to them his plans.\u201d[106] Florus, a later Latin historian,\ndescribing this conspiracy, says: \u201cThere was added the pledge of the\nleague,--human blood,--which they drank as it was borne round to them\nin goblets.\u201d[107] And yet later, Tertullian suggests that it was\ntheir own blood, mingled with wine, of which the fellow-conspirators\ndrank together. \u201cConcerning the eating of blood and other such tragic\ndishes,\u201d he says, \u201cyou read (I do not know where), that blood drawn\nfrom the arms, and tasted by one another, was the method of making\ncovenant among certain nations. I know not but that under Catiline such\nblood was tasted.\u201d[108]\n\nIn the Pitti Palace, in Florence, there is a famous painting of the\nconspiracy of Catiline, by Salvator Rosa; it is, indeed, Salvator\nRosa\u2019s masterpiece, in the line of historical painting. This painting\nrepresents the covenanting by blood. Two conspirators stand face\nto face, their right hands clasped above a votive altar. The bared\nright arm of each is incised, a little below the elbow. The blood is\nstreaming from the arm of one, into a cup which he holds, with his left\nhand, to receive it; while the dripping arm of the other conspirator\nshows that his blood has already flowed into the commingling cup.[109]\nThe uplifted hand of the daysman between the conspirators seems to\nindicate the imprecatory vows which the two are assuming, in the\npresence of the gods, and of the witnesses who stand about the altar.\nThis is a clear indication of the traditional form of covenanting\nbetween Catiline and his fellow conspirators.\n\nAs far back, even, as the fifth century before Christ, we find an\nexplicit description of this Oriental rite of blood-covenanting,\nin the writings of \u201cthe Father of History.\u201d \u201cNow the Scythians,\u201d\nsays Herodotus,[110] \u201cmake covenants in the following manner, with\nwhomsoever they make them. Having poured out wine into a great earthen\ndrinking-bowl, they mingle with it the blood of those cutting covenant,\nstriking the body [of each person having a part in it] with a small\nknife, or cutting it slightly with a sword. Thereafter, they dip into\nthe bowl, sword, arrows, axe, and javelin.[111] But while they are\ndoing this, they utter many invokings [of curse upon a breach of this\ncovenant];[112] and, afterwards, not only those who make the covenant,\nbut those of their followers who are of the highest rank, drink off\n[the wine mingled with blood].\u201d\n\nAgain Herodotus says of this custom, in his day[113]: \u201cNow the Arabians\nreverence in a very high degree pledges between man and man. They make\nthese pledges in the following way. When they wish to make pledges to\none another, a third man, standing in the midst of the two, cuts with a\nsharp stone the inside of the hands along the thumbs of the two making\nthe pledges. After that, plucking some woolen floss from the garments\nof each of the two, he anoints with the blood seven stones [as the\n\u201cheap of witness\u201d[114]] which are set in the midst. While he is doing\nthis he invokes Dionysus and Urania. When this rite is completed, he\nthat has made the pledges [to one from without] introduces the [former]\nstranger to his friends[115]--or the fellow citizen [to his fellows] if\nthe rite was performed with a fellow-citizen.\u201d\n\nThus it is clear, that the rite of blood-brotherhood, or of\nblood-friendship, which is to-day a revered form of sacred covenanting\nin the unchangeable East, was recognized as an established custom\namong Oriental peoples twenty-three centuries ago. Its beginning must\ncertainly have been prior to that time; if not indeed long prior.\n\nAn indication of the extreme antiquity of this rite would seem to be\nshown in a term employed in its designation by the Romans, early in our\nChristian era; when both the meaning and the origin of the term itself\nwere already lost in the dim past. Festus,[116] a writer, of fifteen\ncenturies or more ago, concerning Latin antiquities, is reported[117]\nas saying, of this drink of the covenant of blood: \u201cA certain kind\nof drink, of mingled wine and blood, was called _assiratum_ by the\nancients; for the ancient Latins called blood, _assir_.\u201d Our modern\nlexicons give this isolated claim, made by Festus, of the existence\nof any such word as \u201cassir\u201d signifying \u201cblood,\u201d in \u201cthe ancient Latin\nlanguage;\u201d[118] and some of them try to show the possibilities of its\norigin;[119] but no convincing proof of any such word and meaning in\nthe Latin can be found.\n\nTurning, however, to the languages of the East, where the binding vow\nof blood-friendship was pledged in the drink of wine and blood, or of\nblood alone, from time immemorial, we have no difficulty in finding the\nmeaning of \u201cassir.\u201d _Asar_ (\u05d0\u05b8\u05e1\u05b7\u05e8) is a common Hebrew word, signifying\n\u201cto bind together\u201d--as in a mutual covenant. _Issar_ (\u05d0\u05b4\u05e1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8), again,\nis a vow of self-renunciation. Thus we have _Asar issar \u2019al nephesh_\n(\u05e0\u05b6\u05e4\u05b6\u05e9\u05c1 \u05e2\u05b7\u05dc \u05d0\u05b4\u05e1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8 \u05d0\u05b8\u05e1\u05b7\u05e8) \u201cTo bind a self-devoting vow upon one\u2019s\nlife\u201d[120]--upon one\u2019s blood; \u201cfor the blood is the life.\u201d[121] In\nthe Arabic, also, _asara_ (\u0627\u0633\u0631) means \u201cto bind,\u201d or \u201cto tie\u201d; while\n_asar_ (\u0627\u0633\u0631) is \u201ca covenant,\u201d or \u201ca compact\u201d; and _asw\u00e2r_ (\u0627\u0633\u0648\u0627\u0631) is \u201ca\nbracelet\u201d; which in itself is \u201ca band,\u201d and may be \u201ca fetter.\u201d[122] So,\nagain, in the Assyrian, _esiru_ ([Illustration]) is in its root form \u201cto\nbind\u201d; and as a substantive it is \u201ca bracelet,\u201d or \u201ca fetter.\u201d[123] The\nSyriac gives _esar_ ([Illustration]), \u201ca bond,\u201d or \u201ca belt.\u201d[124] All\nthese, with the root idea, \u201cto bind\u201d--as a covenant binds. In the light\nof these disclosures, it is easy to see how the \u201cissar\u201d or the \u201cassar,\u201d\nwhen it was a covenant of blood, came to be counted by the Latins the\nblood which was a covenant.\n\n\n7. THE BOND OF THE COVENANT.\n\nJust here it may be well to emphasize the fact, that, from time\nimmemorial, and the world over, the armlet, the bracelet, and the\nring, have been counted the symbols of a boundless bond between\ngiver and receiver; the tokens of a mutual, unending covenant.\nPossibly,--probably, as I think,--this is in consequence of\nthe primitive custom of binding, as an amulet, the enclosed\nrecord--enclosed in the \u201chouse of the amulet\u201d[125]--of the covenant\nof blood on the arm of either participant in that rite; possibly,\nagain, it is an outgrowth of the common root idea of a covenant and a\nbracelet, as a binding agency.\n\nBlood-covenanting and bracelet-binding seem--as already shown--to be\nintertwined in the _languages_ of the Oriental progenitors of the race.\nThere are, likewise, indications of this intertwining in the _customs_\nof peoples, East and West. For example, in India, where blood-shedding\nis peculiarly objectionable, the gift and acceptance of a bracelet is\nan ancient covenant-tie, seemingly akin to blood-brotherhood. Of this\ncustom, an Indian authority says: \u201cAmongst the rajput races of India\nthe women adopt a brother by the gift of a bracelet. The intrinsic\nvalue of such pledges is never looked to, nor is it necessary that\nit should be costly, though it varies with the means and rank of the\ndonor, and may be of flock silk and spangles, or of gold chains and\ngems. The acceptance of the pledge is by the \u2018_katchli_\u2019, or corset,\nof simple silk or satin, or gold brocade and pearls. Colonel Tod was\nthe _Rakhi-bund Bhai_ [the Bracelet-bound Brother] of the three queens\nof Oodipur, Bundi, and Kotch; as also of Chund-Bai, the maiden sister\nof the Rana, and of many ladies of the chieftains of rank. Though the\nbracelet may be sent by maidens, it is only on occasions of urgent\nnecessity and danger. The adopted brother may hazard his life in his\nadopted sister\u2019s cause, and yet never receive a mite in reward; for he\ncannot even see the fair object; who, as brother of her adoption, has\nconstituted him her defender.\u201d[126]\n\n\u201cThe ... \u2018Bracelet-bound Brother,\u2019 feels himself called upon to\nespouse the cause of the lady from whom he has received the gift, and\nto defend her against all her enemies, whenever she shall demand his\nassistance.\u201d Thus, the Great Mogul, Hoom\u00e2yoon, father of the yet more\ncelebrated Akbar, was in his early life bound, and afterwards loyally\nrecognized his binding, as \u201cthe sworn knight of one of the princesses\nof Rajasthan, who, according to the custom of her country, secured\nthe sword of the prince in her service by the gift of a bracelet.\u201d\nWhen he had a throne of his own to care for, this princess, Kurnivati,\nbeing besieged at Cheetore, sent to Hoom\u00e2yoon, then prosecuting a\nvigorous campaign in Bengal; and he, as in duty bound, \u201cinstantly\nobeyed the summons\u201d; and although he was not in season to rescue her,\nhe \u201cevinced his fidelity by avenging the fall of the city.\u201d[127] It\nis noteworthy, just here, that the Oriental biographer of the Mogul\nAkbar calls attention to the fact, that while the Persians describe\nclose friendship as chiefly subsisting between men, \u201cin Hindostan it is\ncelebrated between man and woman\u201d;[128] as indeed, it is among the Arab\ntribes East of the Jordan.[129]\n\nIn the Norseland, an oath of fidelity was taken on a ring, or a\nbracelet, kept in the temple of the gods; and the gift and acceptance\nof a bracelet, or a ring, was a common symbol of a covenant of\nfidelity. Thus, in \u201cH\u00e1vam\u00e1l,\u201d the high song of Odin, we find:\n\n   \u201cOdin, I believe,\n    A ring-oath gave.\n    Who, in his faith will trust?\u201d\n\nAnd in \u201cViga Glum\u2019s Saga,\u201d it is related: \u201cIn the midst of a wedding\nparty, Glum calls upon Thorarin, his accuser, to hear his oath, and\ntaking in his hand a silver ring which had been dipped in sacrificial\nblood, he cites two witnesses to testify to his oath on the ring, and\nto his having appealed to the gods in his denial of the charge made\nagainst him.\u201d In the \u201cSaga of Fridthjof the Bold,\u201d when Fridthjof is\nbidding farewell to his beloved Ingeborg, he covenants fidelity to her\nby the gift of\n\n                \u201cAn _arm-ring_, all over famous;\n    Forged by the halting Volund, \u2019twas,--the old North-story\u2019s\n      Vulcan ...\n    Heaven was grav\u2019d thereupon, with the twelve immortals\u2019 strong\n      castles--\n    Signs of the changing months, but the skald had Sun-houses named\n      them.\u201d\n\nAs Fridthjof gave this pledge to Ingeborg, he said:\n\n           \u201cForget me never; and,\n    In sweet remembrance of our youthful love,\n    This arm-ring take; a fair Volunder-work,\n    With all heaven\u2019s wonders carved i\u2019 th\u2019 shining gold.\n    Ah! the best wonder is a faithful heart ...\n    How prettily becomes it thy white arm--\n    A glow-worm twining round a lily stem.\u201d\n\nAnd the subsequent story of that covenanting arm-ring, fills thrilling\npages in Norseland lore.[130]\n\nYet again, in the German cycle of the \u201cNibelungen Lied,\u201d Gotelind, the\nwife of Sir Rudeger, gives bracelets to the warrior-bard Folker, to\nbind him as her knightly champion in the court of King Etzel, to which\nhe goes. Her jewel casket is brought to her.\n\n   \u201cFrom this she took twelve bracelets, and drew them o\u2019er his hand;\n    \u2018These you must take, and with you bear hence to Etzel\u2019s land,\n    And for the sake of Gotelind the same at court must wear,\n    That I may learn, when hither again you all repair,\n    What service you have done me in yon assembly bright.\u2019\n    The lady\u2019s wish thereafter full well perform\u2019d the knight.\u201d\n\nAnd when the fight waxed sore at the court of Etzel, the daring\nand dying Folker called on Sir Rudeger, to bear witness to his\nbracelet-bound fidelity:\n\n   \u201cFor me, most noble margrave! you must a message bear;\n    These bracelets red were given me late by your lady fair,\n    To wear at this high festal before the royal Hun.\n    View them thyself, and tell her that I\u2019ve her bidding done.\u201d[131]\n\nIt would, indeed, seem, that from this root-idea of the binding force\nof an endless covenant, symbolized in the form, and in the primitive\nname, of the bracelet, the armlet, the ring,--there has come down to\nus the use of the wedding-ring, or the wedding-bracelet, and of the\nsignet-ring as the seal of the most sacred covenants. The signet-ring\nappears in earliest history. When Pharaoh would exalt Joseph over all\nthe land of Egypt, \u201cPharaoh took off his ring from his hand, and put\nit upon Joseph\u2019s hand.\u201d[132] Similarly with Ahasuerus and Haman: \u201cThe\nking took his ring from his hand, and gave it unto Haman;\u201d and the\nirrevocable decrees when written were \u201csealed with the king\u2019s ring.\u201d\nWhen again Haman was deposed and Mordecai was exalted, \u201cthe king\ntook off his ring, which he had taken from Haman, and gave it unto\nMordecai.\u201d[133] The re-instatement of the prodigal son, in the parable,\nwas by putting \u201ca ring on his hand.\u201d[134] And these illustrations out\nof ancient Egypt, Persia, and Syria, indicate a world-wide custom, so\nfar. One\u2019s signet-ring stood for his very self, and represented, thus,\nhis blood, as his life.\n\nThe use of rings, or bracelets, or armlets, in the covenant of\nbetrothal, or of marriage, is from of old, and it is of wide-spread\nacceptance.[135] References to it are cited from Pliny, Tertullian,\nJuvenal, Isidore; and traces of it are found, earlier or later, among\nthe peoples of Asia, Africa, Europe, and the Islands of the Sea. In\nIceland, the covenanting-ring was large enough for the palm of the hand\nto be passed through; so, in betrothal \u201cthe bridegroom passed four\nfingers and his palm through one of these rings, and in this manner he\nreceived the hand of the bride.\u201d In Ireland, long ago, \u201ca usual gift\nfrom a woman to her betrothed husband was a pair of bracelets made of\nher own hair\u201d; as if a portion of her very self--as in the case of\none\u2019s blood--entered into the covenant rite. Again in Ireland, as also\namong the old Romans, the wedding-ring was in the form of two hands\nclasped (called a \u201c_fede_\u201d) in token of union and fidelity.\n\nSometimes, in England, the wedding-ring was worn upon the thumb, as\nextant portraits illustrate; and as suggested in Butler\u2019s Hudibras:\n\n   \u201cOthers were for abolishing\n    That tool of matrimony, a ring,\n    With which the unsanctify\u2019d bridegroom\n    Is marry\u2019d only to a thumb.\u201d\n\nIn Southern\u2019s \u201cMaid\u2019s Last Prayer,\u201d the heroine says: \u201cMarry him\nI must, and wear my wedding-ring upon my thumb too, that I\u2019m\nresolved.\u201d[136] These thumb-weddings were said to be introduced from\nthe East[137]; and Chardin reports a form of marriage in Ceylon, by the\nbinding together of the thumbs of the contracting parties;[138] as,\naccording to the classics, the thumbs were bound together in the rite\nof blood-covenanting.[139] Indeed, the selection of the ring-finger\nfor the wedding-covenant has commonly been attributed to the relation\nof that finger to the heart as the blood-centre, and as the seat of\nlife. \u201cAulus Gellius tells us, that Appianus asserts, in his Egyptian\nbooks, that a very delicate nerve runs from the fourth finger of the\nleft hand to the heart, on which account this finger is used for the\nmarriage-ring.\u201d Macrobius says that in Roman espousals the woman put\nthe covenant ring \u201con the third finger of her left hand [not counting\nthe thumb], because it was believed that a nerve ran from that finger\nto the heart.\u201d And as to the significance of this point, it has been\nsaid: \u201cThe _fact_ [of the nerve connection with the heart] has nothing\nto do with the question: that the ancients _believed_ it, is all we\nrequire to know.\u201d[140]\n\nAmong the Copts of Egypt, both the blood and the ring have their part\nin the covenant of marriage. Two rings are employed, one for the bride\nand one for the bridegroom. At the door of the bridegroom\u2019s house, as\nthe bride approaches it, a lamb or a sheep is slaughtered; and the\nbride must have a care to step over the covenanting-blood as she enters\nthe door, to join the bridegroom. It is after this ceremony, that the\ntwo contracting parties exchange the rings, which are as the tokens\nof the covenant of blood.[141] In Borneo, among the Tring Dayaks,\nthe marriage ceremony includes the smearing with a bloody sword, the\nclasped hands of the bride and groom, in conjunction with an invoking\nof the protecting spirits.[142] In this case, the wedding-ring would\nseem to be a bond of blood.\n\nAgain, in Little Russia, the bride gives to the bridegroom a\ncovenanting draught in \u201ca cup of wine, in which a ring has been\nput\u201d;[143] as if in that case the wine and the blood-bond of the\ncovenant were commingled in a true _assiratum_.[144] That this latter\ncustom is an ancient one, would seem to be indicated by the indirect\nreference to it in Sir Walter Scott\u2019s ballad of \u201cThe Noble Moringer,\u201d a\nmedi\u00e6val lay; where the long absent knight returns from the Holy Land,\njust in time to be at the wedding-feast of his enticed wife. He appears\nunrecognized at the feast, as a poor palmer. A cup of wine is sent to\nhim by the bride.\n\n   \u201cIt was the noble Moringer that dropped amid the wine\n    A bridal ring of burning gold so costly and so fine:\n    Now listen, gentles, to my song, it tells you but the sooth,\n    \u2019Twas with that very ring of gold he pledged his bridal truth.\u201d\n\nClearly this was not the ring he gave at his bridal, but the one which\nhe accepted, in the covenanting-cup, from his bride. The cup was\ncarried back from the palmer to the bride, for her drinking.\n\n   \u201cThe ring hath caught the Lady\u2019s eye; she views it close and near;\n    Then might you hear her shriek aloud, \u2018The Moringer is here!\u2019\n    Then might you see her start from seat, while tears in torrents\n      fell;\n    But whether \u2019twas from joy or woe, the ladies best can tell.\u201d\n\nTo the present day, an important ceremony at the coronation of a\nsovereign of Great Britain, is the investiture of the sovereign _per\nannulum_, or \u201cby the ring.\u201d The ring is placed on the fourth finger of\nthe sovereign\u2019s right hand, by the Archbishop of Canterbury; and it is\ncalled \u201cThe Wedding Ring of England,\u201d as it symbolizes the covenant\nunion of the sovereign and his people. A similar practice prevails at\nthe coronation of European sovereigns generally. It also runs back to\nthe days of the early Roman emperors, and of Alexander the Great.[145]\n\nThat a ring, or a circlet, worn around a thumb, or a finger, or an\narm, in token of an endless covenant between its giver and receiver,\nhas been looked upon, in all ages, as the symbol of an inter-union\nof the lives thereby brought together, is unmistakable; whether the\ncovenanting life-blood be drawn for such inter-commingling, directly\nfrom the member so encircled, or not. The very covenant itself, or its\nbinding force, has been sometimes thought to depend on the circlet\nrepresenting it; as if the life which was pledged passed into the token\nof its pledging. Thus Lord Bacon says: \u201cIt is supposed [to be] a help\nto the continuance of love, to wear a ring or bracelet of the person\nbeloved;\u201d[146] and he suggests that \u201ca trial should be made by two\npersons, of the effect of compact and agreement; that a ring should\nbe put on for each other\u2019s sake, to try whether, if one should break\nhis promise the other would have any feeling of it in his absence.\u201d\nIn other words, that the test should be made, to see whether the\ninter-union of lives symbolized by the covenant-token be a reality.\nOn this idea it is, that many persons are unwilling to remove the\nwedding-ring from the finger, while the compact holds.[147]\n\nIt is not improbable, indeed, that the armlets, or bracelets, which\nwere found on the arms of Oriental kings, and of Oriental divinities\nas well, were intended to indicate, or to symbolize, the personal\ninter-union claimed to exist between those kings and divinities. Thus\nan armlet, worn by Thotmes III., is preserved in the museum at Leyden.\nIt bears the cartouche of the King, having on it his sacred name, with\nits reference to his inter-union with his god. It was much the same in\nNineveh.[148] Lane says, that upon the seal ring commonly worn by the\nmodern Egyptian \u201cis engraved the wearer\u2019s name,\u201d and that this name\n\u201cis usually accompanied by the words \u2018His servant\u2019 (signifying \u2018the\nservant, or worshiper of God\u2019), and often by other words expressive of\nthe person\u2019s trust in God.\u201d[149]\n\nAs the token of the blood-covenant is sometimes fastened about the\n_arm_, and sometimes about the _neck_; so the encircling necklace, as\nwell as the encircling armlet, is sometimes counted the symbol of a\ncovenant of very life. This is peculiarly the case in India; where the\nbracelet-brotherhood has been shown to be an apparent equivalent of\nthe blood-brotherhood. Among the folk-lore stories of India, it is a\ncommon thing to hear of a necklace which holds the soul of the wearer.\nThat necklace removed, the wearer dies. That necklace restored, the\nwearer lives again. \u201cSodewa Bai was born with a golden necklace about\nher neck, concerning which also her parents consulted astrologers, who\nsaid, \u2018This is no common child; the necklace of gold about her neck\ncontains your daughter\u2019s soul; let it therefore be guarded with the\nutmost care; for if it were taken off, and worn by another person, she\nwould die.\u2019\u201d On that necklace of life, the story hangs. The necklace\nwas stolen by a servant, and Sodewa Bai died. Being placed in a\ncanopied tomb, she revived, night by night, when the servant laid off\nthe stolen necklace which contained the soul of Sodewa Bai. The loss\nwas at last discovered by her husband; the necklace was restored to\nher, and she lived again.[150] And this is but one story of many.\n\nIn the Brahman marriage ceremony the bridegroom receives his bride by\nbinding a covenanting necklace about her neck. \u201cA small ornament of\ngold, called _tahly_, which is the sign of their being actually in the\nstate of marriage, ... is fastened by a short string dyed yellow with\n_saffron_.\u201d[151] And a Sanskrit word for \u201csaffron\u201d is also a word for\n\u201cblood.\u201d[152]\n\nThe importance of this symbolism of the token of the blood-covenant,\nin its bearing on the root-idea of an inter-union of natures by an\ninter-commingling of blood, will be more clearly shown, by and by.\n\n\n8. THE RITE AND ITS TOKEN IN EGYPT.\n\nGoing back, now, to the world\u2019s most ancient records, in the\nmonuments of Egypt, we find evidence of the existence of the covenant\nof blood, in those early days. Even then, it seems to have been a\ncustom to covenant by tasting the blood from another\u2019s arm; and this\ninter-transference of blood was supposed to carry an inter-commingling,\nor an inter-merging, of natures. So far was this symbolic thought\ncarried, that the ancient Egyptians spoke of the departed spirit, as\nhaving entered into the nature, and, indeed, into the very being, of\nthe gods, by the rite of tasting blood from the divine arm.\n\n\u201cThe Book of the Dead,\u201d as it is commonly called, or \u201cThe Book of\nthe Going Forth into Day,\u201d--(\u201cThe path of the just is as the shining\nlight, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day,\u201d[153])--is\na group, or series, of ancient Egyptian writings, representing the\nstate and the needs and the progress of the soul after death.[154]\nA copy of this Funereal Ritual, as it is sometimes called, \u201cmore or\nless complete, according to the fortune of the deceased, was deposited\nin the case of every mummy.\u201d[155] \u201cAs the Book of the Dead is the\nmost ancient, so it is undoubtedly the most important of the sacred\nbooks of the Egyptians;\u201d[156] it is, in fact, \u201caccording to Egyptian\nnotions, essentially an inspired work;\u201d[157] hence its contents have an\nexceptional dogmatic value. In this Book of the Dead, there are several\nobvious references to the rite of blood-covenanting. Some of these are\nin a chapter of the Ritual which was found transcribed in a coffin of\nthe Eleventh Dynasty; thus carrying it back to a period prior to the\ndays of Abraham.[158]\n\n\u201cGive me your arm; I am made as ye,\u201d says the departed soul, speaking\nto the gods.[159] Then, in explanation of this statement, the\npre-historic gloss of the Ritual goes on to say: \u201cThe blood is that\nwhich proceeds from the member of the Sun, after he goes along cutting\nhimself;\u201d[160] the covenant blood which unites the soul and the god is\ndrawn from the flesh of R\u0101, when he has cut himself in the rite of that\ncovenant. By this covenant-cutting, the deceased becomes one with the\ncovenanting gods. Again, the departed soul, speaking as Osiris,--or\nas the Osirian, which every mummy represents,[161]--says: \u201cI am the\nsoul in his two halves.\u201d Once more there follows the explanation:\n\u201cThe soul in his two halves is the soul of the Sun [of R\u0101], and the\nsoul of Osiris [of the deceased].\u201d Here is substantially the proverb\nof friendship cited by Aristotle, \u201cOne soul in two bodies,\u201d at least\ntwo thousand years before the days of the Greek philosopher. How much\nearlier it was recognized, does not yet appear.\n\nAgain, when the deceased comes to the gateway of light, he speaks\nof himself as linked with the great god Seb; as one \u201cwho loves his\narm,\u201d[162] and who is, therefore, sure of admittance to him, within\nthe gates. By the covenant of the blood-giving arm, \u201cthe Osiris opens\nthe turning door; he has opened the turning door.\u201d Through oneness of\nblood, he has come into oneness of life, with the gods; there is no\nlonger the barrier of a door between them. The separating veil is rent.\n\nAn added indication that the covenant of blood-friendship furnished\nthe ancient Egyptians with their highest conception of a union with\nthe divine nature through an interflowing of the divine blood--as the\ndivine life--is found in the amulet of this covenant; corresponding\nwith the token of the covenant of blood-friendship, which, as fastened\nto the arm, or about the neck, is deemed so sacred and so precious,\nin the primitive East to-day. The hieroglyphic word, _tat_, _tet_, or\n_tot_, ([Illustration]) translated \u201carm,\u201d is also translated \u201cbracelet,\u201d\nor \u201carmlet,\u201d ([Illustration])[163] as if in suggestion of the truth,\nalready referred to,[164] that the blood-furnishing arm was represented\nby the token of the arm-encircling, or of the neck-encircling, bond,\nin the covenant of blood. Moreover, a \u201cred talisman,\u201d or red amulet,\nstained with \u201cthe blood of Isis,\u201d and containing a record of the\ncovenant, was placed at the neck of the mummy as an assurance of safety\nto his soul.[165] \u201cWhen this book [this amulet-record] has been made,\u201d\nsays the Ritual, \u201cit causes Isis to protect him [the Osirian], and\nHorus he rejoices to see him.\u201d \u201cIf this book [this covenant-token] is\nknown,\u201d says Horus, \u201che [the deceased] is in the service of Osiris....\nHis name is like that of the gods.\u201d\n\nThere are various other references to this rite, or other indications\nof its existence, than those already cited, in the Book of the Dead.\n\u201cI have welcomed Thoth (or the king) with blood; taking the gore from\nthe blessed of Seb,\u201d[166] is one of these gleams. Again, there are\nincidental mentions of the tasting of blood, by gods and by men;[167]\nand of the proffering, or the uplifting, of the blood-filled arm, in\ncovenant with the gods.[168]\n\nOn a recently deciphered st\u00e9le of the days of Rameses IV., of the\nTwentieth Dynasty, about twelve centuries before Christ, there is\nan apparent reference to this blood-covenanting, and to its amulet\nrecord. The inscription is a specimen of a funereal ritual, not unlike\nsome portions of the Book of the Dead. The deceased is represented\nas saying, according to the translation of Piehl[169]: \u201cI am become\nfamiliar with Thoth, by his writings, on the day when he spat upon his\narm.\u201d The Egyptian word, _khenmes_, here translated \u201cfamiliar,\u201d means\n\u201cunited with,\u201d or \u201cjoined with.\u201d The word here rendered \u201cwritings,\u201d is\n_hetepoo_; which, in the singular, _hetep_, in the Book of Dead, stands\nfor the record of the covenant on the blood-stained amulet.[170] The\nword _peqas_ ([Illustration]) rendered \u201cspat,\u201d by Piehl, is an obscure\nterm, variously rendered \u201cmoistened,\u201d \u201cwashed,\u201d \u201cwiped,\u201d \u201chealed.\u201d[171]\nIt is clear therefore that this passage may fairly be read: \u201cI am\nbecome united with Thoth, by the covenant-record, on the day when he\nmoistened, or healed his arm\u201d; and if the arm were healed, it had\nbeen cut, and so moistened. Indeed it is quite probable that this word\n_peqas_ has a root connection with _peq_, _peqa_, _peqau_, \u201ca gap,\u201d\n\u201can opening,\u201d \u201cto divide\u201d; and even with _penqu_, ([Illustration]) \u201cto\nbleed.\u201d Apparently, the unfamiliarity of Egyptologists with this rite\nof blood-covenanting, by the cutting of the arm, has hindered the\nrecognition of the full force of many of the terms involved.\n\nEbers, in his \u201cUarda,\u201d has incidentally given an illustration of the\ncustom of blood-covenanting in ancient Egypt. It is when the surgeon\nNebsecht has saved the life of Uarda, and her soldier-father, Kaschta,\nwould show his gratitude, and would pledge his life-long fidelity in\nreturn.\n\n\u201c\u2018If at any time thou dost want help, call me, and I will protect thee\nagainst twenty enemies. Thou hast saved my child--good! Life for life.\nI sign myself thy blood-ally--there!\u2019\n\n\u201cWith these words he drew his poniard, out of his girdle. He scratched\nhis arm, and let a few drops of his blood run down on a stone at the\nfeet of Nebsecht.\n\n\u201c\u2018Look!\u2019 he said. \u2018There is my blood! Kaschta has signed himself thine;\nand thou canst dispose of my life as of thine own. What I have said, I\nhave said.\u2019\u201d[172]\n\n\n9. OTHER GLEAMS OF THE RITE.\n\nIn this last cited illustration, from Uarda, there would, at first\nglance, seem to be the covenant proffered, rather than the covenant\nentered into; the covenant all on one side, instead of the mutual\ncovenant. But this is, if it were possible, only a more unselfish\nand a more trustful mode than the other, of covenanting by blood; of\npledging the life, by pledging the blood, to one who is already trusted\nabsolutely. And this mode of proffering the covenant of blood, or of\npledging one\u2019s self in devotedness by the giving of one\u2019s blood, is\nstill a custom in the East; as it has been in both the East and the\nWest, from time immemorial.\n\nFor example, in a series of illustrations of Oriental manners,\nprepared under the direction of the French ambassador to Turkey, at\nthe beginning of the eighteenth century, there appears a Turkish lover\ngashing his arm in the presence of his lady-love, as a proof of his\nloving attachment to her; and the accompanying statement is made,\nthat the relative flow of blood thus devoted indicates the measure of\naffection--or of affectionate devotedness.[173]\n\nA custom akin to this was found in Otaheite, when the South Sea Islands\nwere first visited by English missionaries. The measure of love, in\ntime of joy or in time of grief, was indicated by the measure of blood\ndrawn from the person of the loving one. Particularly was this the case\nwith the women; perhaps because they, in Otaheite as elsewhere, are\nmore loving in their nature, and readier to give of their very life in\nlove.\n\n\u201cWhen a woman takes a husband,\u201d says a historian of the first\nmissionary work in Otaheite, \u201cshe immediately provides herself with\na shark\u2019s tooth, which is fixed, with the bread-fruit gum, on an\ninstrument that leaves about a quarter of an inch of the tooth bare,\nfor the purpose of wounding the head, like a lancet. Some of these have\ntwo or three teeth, and struck forcibly they bring blood in copious\nstreams; _according to the love they bear the party_, and the violence\nof their grief, _the strokes are repeated on the head_; and this has\nbeen known to bring on fever, and terminate in madness. If any accident\nhappen to the husband, [to] his relations, or friends, or their child,\nthe shark\u2019s tooth goes to work; and even if the child only fall down\nand hurt itself, the blood and tears mingle together.... They have a\nvery similar way of expressing their joy as well as sorrow; for whether\na relation dies, or a dear friend returns from a journey, the shark\u2019s\ntooth instrument ... is again employed, and the blood streams down....\nWhen a person of eminence dies ... the relatives and friends ...\nrepeat before it [the corpse] some of the tender scenes which happened\nduring their life time, and wiping the blood which the shark\u2019s teeth\nhas drawn, deposit the cloth on the tupapow as the proof of their\naffection.\u201d[174]\n\nIn illustration of this custom, the same writer says, in the course of\nhis narrative: \u201cWhen we had got within a short mile of the Isthmus,\nin passing a few houses, an aged woman, mother to the young man who\ncarried my linen, met us, and to express her joy at seeing her son,\nstruck herself several times on the head with a shark\u2019s tooth, till\nthe blood flowed plentifully down her breast and shoulders, whilst the\nson beheld it with entire insensibility [He saw in it only the common\nproof of his mother\u2019s devoted love].... The son seeing that I was not\npleased with what was done, observed coolly, that it was the custom of\nOtaheite.\u201d[175]\n\nThis custom is again referred to by Mr. Ellis, as observed by him in\nthe Georgian and the Society Islands, a generation later than the\nauthority above cited. He speaks of the shark\u2019s tooth blood-letter, as\nemployed by men, as well as by women; although more commonly by the\nlatter. He adds another illustration of the truth, that it is _the\nblood itself_, and not any suffering caused by its flowing, that is\ncounted the proof of affection; by its representing the outpoured\nlife, in pledge of covenant fidelity.\n\nDescribing the scenes of blood-giving grief, over the dead bodies\nof the mourned loved ones, he says: \u201cThe females on these occasions\nsometimes put on a kind of short apron, of a particular sort of cloth;\nwhich they held up with one hand, while they cut themselves with the\nother. In this apron they caught the blood that flowed from these\ngrief-inflicted wounds, until it [the apron] was almost saturated.\nIt was then dried in the sun, and given to the nearest surviving\nrelatives, as a proof of the affection of the donor, and was preserved\nby the bereaved family as a token of the estimation in which the\ndeparted had been held.\u201d[176] There is even more of vividness in this\nmemorial, than in that suggested by the Psalmist, when he says:\n\n    \u201cPut thou my tears into thy bottle.\u201d[177]\n\nThere would seem to be a suggestion of this same idea in one of Grimm\u2019s\nfolk-lore fairy tales of the North. A queen\u2019s daughter is going away\nfrom her home, attended by a single servant. Her loving mother would\nfain watch and guard her in her absence. Accordingly, \u201cas soon as the\nhour of departure had arrived, the mother took her daughter into a\nchamber, and there, with a knife, she cut her [own] finger with it, so\nthat it bled. Then, she held her napkin beneath, and let three drops\nof blood fall into it; which she gave to her daughter, saying: \u2018Dear\nchild, preserve this well, and it will help you out of trouble.\u2019\u201d[178]\nThat blood represented the mother\u2019s very life. It was accustomed to\nspeak out in words of counsel and warning to the daughter. But by and\nby the napkin which held it was lost, and then the power of the young\nprincess over her mother\u2019s servant was gone, and the poor princess was\nalone in the wide world, at the mercy of strangers.\n\nActing on the symbolism of this covenanting with another by the loving\nproffer of one\u2019s blood, men have reached out toward God, or toward the\ngods, in desire for a covenant of union, and in expression of fidelity\nof devotedness, by the giving of their blood God-ward. This, also, has\nbeen in the East and in the West, in ancient days and until to-day.\n\nThere was a gleam of this, in the Canaanitish worship of Baal, in the\ncontest between his priests and the prophet Elijah, before King Ahab,\nat Mount Carmel. First, those priests shed the blood of the substitute\nbullock, at the altar of their god, and \u201ccalled on the name of Baal\nfrom morning even until noon, saying, O Baal hear us! But there was no\nvoice, nor any that answered.\u201d Then they grew more earnest in their\nsupplications, and more demonstrative in their proofs of devotedness.\n\u201cThey leaped [or, limped] about the altar which was made.... And they\ncried aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with knives and\nlances, till the blood gushed out upon them.\u201d[179] Similar methods of\nshowing love for God are in vogue among the natives of Armenia, to-day.\nDescribing a scene of worship by religious devotees in that region,\nDr. Van Lennep says: \u201cOne of them cuts his forehead with a sword, so\nthat \u2018the blood gushes out.\u2019 He wears a sheet in front, to protect his\nclothes, and his face is covered with clots of blood.\u201d[180] Clearly,\nin this case, as in many others elsewhere, it is not as a means of\nself-torture, but as a proof of self-devotedness, that the blood is\npoured out--the life is proffered--by the devotee, toward God.\n\nAmong the primitive peoples of North and of South America, it was the\ncustom of priests and people, to draw blood from their own bodies, from\ntheir tongues, their ears, their noses, their limbs and members, when\nthey went into their temples to worship, and to anoint with that blood\nthe images of their gods.[181] The thorns of the maguey--a species of\naloe--were, in many regions, kept ready at places of sacrifice, for\nconvenient use in this covenant blood-letting.[182] A careful student\nof these early American customs has said of the obvious purpose of this\nyielding of one\u2019s blood in worship, that it \u201cmight be regarded as an\nact of individual devotion, a gift made to the gods by the worshiper\nhimself, out of his own very substance [of his very life, as in the\nblood-covenant].... The priests in particular owed it to their special\ncharacter [in their covenant relation to the divinities], to draw their\nblood for the benefit of the gods [in renewed pledge to the gods]; and\nnothing could be stranger than the refined methods they adopted to\naccomplish this end. For instance, they would pass strings or splinters\nthrough their lips or ears, and so draw a little blood. But then a\nfresh string, or a fresh splinter, must be added every day, and so it\nmight go on indefinitely; for the more there were, the more meritorious\nwas the act;\u201d[183] precisely as is the standard of love-showing by\nblood-letting among Turkish lovers and Otaheitan wives and mothers, in\nmodern times.\n\nA similar giving of blood, in proof of devotedness, and in outreaching\nfor inter-communion with the gods through blood, is reported in\nIndia, in recent times. Bishop Caldwell, of Madras, referred to it,\na generation ago, in his description of the \u201cDevil Dance\u201d among\nthe Tinnevelly Shawars.[184] The devotee, in this dance, \u201ccuts and\nlacerates himself till the blood flows, lashes himself with a huge\nwhip, presses a burning torch to his breast, drinks the blood which\nflows from his own wounds, or drains the blood of the sacrifice;\nputting the throat of a decapitated goat to his mouth.\u201d Hereby he has\ngiven of his own blood to the gods, or to the devils, and has drunk of\nthe substitute blood of the divinities--in the consecrated sacrifice;\nas if in consummation of the blood-covenant with the supernal powers.\n\u201cThen as if he had acquired new life [through inter-union with the\nobject of his worship], he begins to brandish his staff of bells,\nand to dance with a quick but wild unsteady step. Suddenly the\nafflatus descends; there is no mistaking that glare or those frantic\nleaps. He snorts, he swears, he gyrates. The demon has now taken\nbodily possession of him. [The twain are one. The two natures are\nintermingled].... The devil-dancer is now worshiped as a present deity,\nand every bystander consults him respecting his diseases, his wants,\nthe welfare of his absent relations, the offerings to be made for\nthe accomplishments of his wishes, and in short everything for which\nsuperhuman knowledge is supposed to be available.\u201d In this instance,\nthe _mutual_ covenant is represented; the devotee both giving and\nreceiving blood, as a means of union.\n\nOn this idea of giving one\u2019s self to another, by giving of one\u2019s blood,\nit is, that the popular tradition was based, that witches and sorcerers\ncovenanted with Satan by signing a compact in their own blood.\nAnd again it was in recognition of the idea that two natures were\ninter-united in such a covenant, that the compact was sometimes said to\nbe signed in Satan\u2019s blood.\n\nAmong the many women charged with witchcraft in England, by the famous\nMatthew Hopkins, the \u201cwitch-finder\u201d in the middle of the Seventeenth\ncentury, was one, at Yarmouth, of whom it is reported, that her first\ntemptation came to her when she went home from her place of employment,\ndiscouraged and exasperated by her trials. \u201cThat night when she was in\nbed, she heard a knock at the door, and going to her window, she saw\n(it being moonlight) a tall black man there: and asked what he would\nhave? He told her that she was discontented, because she could not get\nwork; and that he would put her into a way that she should never want\nanything. On this she let him in, and asked him what he had to say to\nher. He told her he must first see her hand; and taking out something\nlike a penknife, he gave it a little scratch, so that a little blood\nfollowed; a scar being still visible when she told the story. Then he\ntook some of the blood in a pen, and pulling a book out of his pocket,\nbid her write her name; and when she said she could not, he said he\nwould guide her hand. When this was done, he bid her now ask what she\nwould have.\u201d[185] In signing with her own blood, she had pledged her\nvery life to the \u201ctall black man.\u201d\n\nCotton Mather, in his \u201cWonders of the Invisible World,\u201d cites a Swedish\ntrial for witchcraft, where the possessed children, who were witnesses,\nsaid that the witches, at the trysting-place where they were observed,\nwere compelled \u201cto give themselves unto the devil, and vow that they\nwould serve him. Hereupon they cut their fingers, and with blood writ\ntheir names in his book.\u201d In some cases \u201cthe mark of the cut finger was\n[still] to be found.\u201d Moreover the devil gave meat and drink both to\nthe witches and to the children they brought with them. Again, Mather\ncites the testimony of a witness who had been invited to covenant with\nthe Devil, by signing the Devil\u2019s book. \u201cOnce, with the book, there\nwas a pen offered him, and an inkhorn with liquor in it that looked\nlike blood.\u201d[186] Another New England writer on witchcraft says that\n\u201cthe witch as a slave binds herself by vow, to believe in the Devil,\nand to give him either body or soul, or both, under his handwriting, or\nsome part of _his_ blood.\u201d[187]\n\nIt is, evidently, on this popular tradition, that Goethe\u2019s Faust\ncovenants in blood with Mephistopheles.\n\n      MEPHISTOPHELES.\n\n   \u201cBut one thing!--accidents may happen; hence\n    A line or two in writing grant, I pray.\u201d\n\n      FAUST.\n\n     .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .\n   \u201cSpirit of evil! what dost thou require?\n    Brass, marble, parchment, paper, dost desire?\n    Shall I with chisel, pen, or graver, write?\n    Thy choice is free; to me \u2019tis all the same.\u201d\n\n      MEPHISTOPHELES.\n\n     .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .\n   \u201cA scrap is for our compact good.\n    Thou under-signest merely with a drop of blood.\u201d\n     .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .\n   \u201cBlood is a juice of very special kind.\u201d[188]\n\nEven \u201cwithin modern memory in Europe,\u201d there have been traces of the\nprimitive rite of covenanting with God by the proffer of one\u2019s blood.\nIn the Russian province of Esthonia, he who would observe this rite,\n\u201chad to draw drops of blood from his fore finger,\u201d and at the same\ntime to pledge himself in solemn covenant with God. \u201cI name thee [I\ninvoke thee] with my blood, and [I] betroth thee [I entrust myself to\nthee] with my blood,\u201d--was the form of his covenanting. Then he who had\ngiven of his blood in self-surrendering devotedness, made his confident\nsupplications to God with whom he had thus covenanted; and his prayer\nin behalf of all his possessions was: \u201cLet them be blessed through my\nblood and thy might.\u201d[189]\n\nThus, in ancient Egypt, in ancient Canaan, in ancient Mexico, in modern\nTurkey, in modern Russia, in modern India, and in modern Otaheite; in\nAfrica, in Asia, in America, in Europe, and in Oceanica: Blood-giving\nwas life-giving. Life-giving was love-showing. Love-showing was a\nheart-yearning after union in love and in life and in blood and in very\nbeing. That was the primitive thought in the primitive religions of all\nthe world.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Of the possibility of a covenant between those of different\nreligions, Lane says (_Arab.-Eng. Lexicon_, s. v. _\u2019Ahd_): \u201cHence\n\u0639\u0647\u062f \u0630\u0648 (_dho \u2019ahd_) an appellation given to a Christian and a Jew (and a\nSabean, who is a subject of a Muslim government) meaning one between\nwhom and the Muslims a compact, or covenant exists, whereby the latter\nare responsible for his security and freedom and toleration as long\nas he lives agreeably to the compact.\u201d And the Blood Covenant is more\nsacred and more binding than any other compact.\n\n[2] Prov. 18 : 24.\n\n[3] John 15 : 13.\n\n[4] See Lane\u2019s _Lex._ s. v. \u201cHej\u00e2b.\u201d\n\n[5] Eccl. 4 : 9, 10.\n\n[6] See Freytag, and Catafago, s. v.\n\n[7] See \u201cBrothers of the Covenant,\u201d p. 6, _supra_.\n\n[8] _Sprachliches aus den Zeltlagern der syrischen W\u00fcste_, p. 37.\n\n[9] See Redhouse\u2019s Turkish and English Dictionary, s. vv. _sood_ and\n_soot_.\n\n[10] See Lane, and Freytag, s. vv. _rada\u2019a_, and _thady_.\n\n[11] See reference to Ibn Hish\u00e2m, 125, in Prof. W. Robertson Smith\u2019s\n_Old Test. in Jewish Church_, Notes to Lect. XII. See, also, p. 59,\n_infra_.\n\n[12] See Lane, and Freytag, s. v. _sahama_; also Smith\u2019s _Old Test. in\nJewish Church_, Notes to Lect. XII.\n\n[13] See Livingstone\u2019s _Travels and Res. in So. Africa_, pp. 290-296.\n\n[14] _Ibid._, p. 525.\n\n[15] See Livingstone\u2019s _Travels and Res. in So. Africa_, p. 324 f.\n\n[16] See Livingstone\u2019s _Travels and Res. in So. Africa_, p. 526.\n\n[17] _Ibid._, p. 213.\n\n[18] Cameron\u2019s _Across Africa_, I., 333.\n\n[19] _Ibid._, I., 333 f.\n\n[20] _Across Africa_, I., 369.\n\n[21] See page 9, _supra_.\n\n[22] _Through the Dark Continent_, I., 107, 130 f.\n\n[23] _Ibid._, I., 492.\n\n[24] _Ibid._, I., 52, 492.\n\n[25] _How I found Livingstone_, pp. 267-304.\n\n[26] _Thro. Dark Cont._, I., 489 f.\n\n[27] _Ibid._, I., 130.\n\n[28] _Ibid._, I., 487-492.\n\n[29] _Thro. Dark Cont._, I., 493.\n\n[30] _Ibid._, I., 493 f.\n\n[31] _Thro. Dark Cont._, I., 123.\n\n[32] _Ibid._, I., 227-237.\n\n[33] _Thro. Dark Cont._, I., 268.\n\n[34] _Ibid._, II., 144-146.\n\n[35] _Thro. Dark Cont._, II., 177 f.\n\n[36] _Thro. Dark Cont._, II., 188.\n\n[37] _Thro. Dark Cont._, II., 305 f.\n\n[38] _Ibid._, II., 315.\n\n[39] _Thro. Dark Cont._, II., 330-332.\n\n[40] _Thro. Dark Cont._, II., 402-408.\n\n[41] _The Congo_, I., 304-312.\n\n[42] _Thro. Dark Cont._, II., 281-283.\n\n[43] _Thro. Dark Cont._, II., 286.\n\n[44] See pages 26-28, _supra_.\n\n[45] \u201cBula Matari,\u201d or \u201cRock Breaker,\u201d or Road Maker, was a name given\nto Stanley by the natives.\n\n[46] _The Congo_, I., 383-385.\n\n[47] See page 7 f., _supra_.\n\n[48] _The Congo_, II., 21-24.\n\n[49] _Ibid._, II., 38.\n\n[50] _The Congo_, II., 48.\n\n[51] _Ibid._, II., 68.\n\n[52] _Ibid._, II., 79.\n\n[53] _Ibid._, II., 109.\n\n[54] _Ibid._, II., 118.\n\n[55] _Ibid._, II., 132.\n\n[56] _Ibid._, II., 171.\n\n[57] _Ibid._, II., 177.\n\n[58] _Thro. Dark Cont._, II., 297-302.\n\n[59] _The Congo_, II., 79-90.\n\n[60] _Ibid._, II., 104 f.\n\n[61] Aristotle\u2019s _Ethics_, IX., 8, 3. This is not made as an original\nstatement, by Aristotle, but as the citation of one of the well-known\n\u201cproverbs\u201d of friendship.\n\n[62] See _Nouveau Dictionnaire de M\u00e9decine et de Chirurgie Pratiques_,\n(ed. 1884) s. v. \u201cTransfusion.\u201d\n\n[63] See Appendix, _infra_.\n\n[64] See Carlyle\u2019s _Heroes and Hero-Worship_, Lect. I.; also Anderson\u2019s\n_Norse Mythology_, pp. 215-220, 371-374.\n\n[65] See Anderson\u2019s _Norse Mythol._, pp. 372, 408 f.\n\n[66] See Wilkinson\u2019s _Ancient Egyptians_, III., 142; Renouf\u2019s _The\nReligion of Ancient Egypt_, p. 118 f.; Ebers\u2019s _Picturesque Egypt_, I.,\n100 f.\n\n[67] See De Wette\u2019s _Biblische Dogmatik_, \u00a7 79.\n\n[68] See Carlyle\u2019s _Hero Worship_, Lect. I.\n\n[69] Odin \u201cis the author of war.\u201d He is called \u201cValfather (Father of\nthe slain), because he chooses for his sons all who fall in combat.\u201d\nAnderson\u2019s _Norse Mythol._, p. 215 f.\n\n[70] Mills\u2019s _History of Chivalry_, chap. IV.\n\n[71] Rom. 6 : 4-6; Col. 2 : 12.\n\n[72] Anderson\u2019s _Viking Tales of the North_, p. 59.\n\n[73] _Ibid._, p. 191 f.\n\n[74] Apparently these articles form a \u201cheap of witness,\u201d or are\nthe aggregated symbolic witnesses of the transaction; as something\nanswering to this usage is found in connection with the rite in various\nparts of the world.\n\n[75] He who would be true in friendship must be true in all things. The\ngood friend is a good citizen. See 1 Peter 2 : 17.\n\n[76] See Job 3 : 2-9.\n\n[77] Here is the idea of an absolute inter-merging of natures, by this\nrite.\n\n[78] See Matt. 13 : 12; 25 : 29.\n\n[79] Here is an indication of the witness-bearing nature of these\naccessories of the rite.\n\n[80] Compare these blessings and cursings with those under the Mosaic\nlaws: Deut. 27 : 9-26; 28 : 1-68.\n\n[81] See Matt. 6 : 31, 32.\n\n[82] \u201cThis is a natural, simple, and beautiful allusion in common use\namong the Malagasy, to denote an inseparable association. The rice is\nplanted in water, grows in water, is boiled in water, and water is the\nuniversal beverage taken with it when eaten.\u201d\n\n[83] Ellis\u2019s _Hist. of Madagascar_, I., 187-190.\n\n[84] Cited in Ellis\u2019s _Hist. of Mad._, I., 191, note.\n\n[85] St. John\u2019s _Life in the Forests of the Far East_, I., 116 f.\n\n[86] In \u201cThe Century Magazine\u201d for July, 1885, p. 437.\n\n[87] Forbes\u2019s _A Naturalist\u2019s Wanderings in the Eastern Archipelago_,\np. 452.\n\n[88] Peter Martyr\u2019s _De Rebus Oceanicis et Novo Orbe_, p. 338; cited in\nSpencer\u2019s _Des. Soc._, II., 34.\n\n[89] See Bancroft\u2019s _Native Races of the Pacific Coast_, I., 741.\n\n[90] See page 10, _supra_.\n\n[91] Southey\u2019s _Brazil_, I., 240.\n\n[92] Lynd\u2019s _History of the Dakotas_, p. 73, note.\n\n[93] Burton\u2019s _City of the Saints_, p. 117.\n\n[94] See page 54, _supra_.\n\n[95] _Miss. Voyage to So. Pacif. Ocean_, p. 360 f.\n\n[96] See page 10, _supra_.\n\n[97] See page 54, _supra_.\n\n[98] See page 55 f., _supra_.\n\n[99] _Opera_, p. 545.\n\n[100] _Toxaris_, chap. 37.\n\n[101] See references to arms as accessories to the rite, in Africa, and\nin Madagascar, and in Timor, at pages 16, 32, 35 f., 45 f., 53, _supra_.\n\n[102] _Annales_, XII., 47.\n\n[103] See page 11, _supra_.\n\n[104] _Arcanum_; literally \u201cmysterious,\u201d--not in the sense of secret,\nor occult, but with reference to its sacred and supernatural origin and\nsanction.\n\n[105] See p. 9, _supra_.\n\n[106] _Catilina_, cap. XXII.\n\n[107] _Histori\u00e6_, IV., 1, 4.\n\n[108] _Apologet._, cap. IX.\n\n[109] See stamp on outside cover.\n\n[110] _Hist._, IV., 70.\n\n[111] See note (footnote 101), at page 59, _supra_.\n\n[112] See the references to imprecatory invokings, in connection with\nthe observance of the rite in Syria, in Central Africa, in Madagascar,\nand in Timor, at pages 9, 20, 31, 46 f., 53, _supra_.\n\n[113] _Hist._, III., 8.\n\n[114] See page 45 _supra_, note (footnote 74).\n\n[115] See references to the welcoming of new friends by the natives of\nAfrica and of Borneo, at the celebration of this rite, at pages 36 f.,\n51, _supra_.\n\n[116] Sextus Pompeius Festus, whose chief work, in the third or fourth\nChristian century, was an epitome, with added notes and criticisms, of\nan unpreserved work of M. Verrius Flaccus, on the Latin language and\nantiquities.\n\n[117] See Rosenm\u00fcller\u2019s _Scholia in Vet. Test._, apud Psa. 16 : 4.\n\n[118] See Scheller\u2019s, and Harpers\u2019, _Latin Dictionary_, s. v.\n\u201cAssiratum.\u201d\n\n[119] See Curtius\u2019s _Griechische Etymologie_, s. v., \u1f14\u03b1\u03c1 (_ear_).\n\n[120] See Gesenius, and Fuerst, _s. vv._\n\n[121] Deut. 12 : 23.\n\n[122] See Lane, and Freytag, _s. vv._\n\n[123] See Delitzsch\u2019s _Assyrische Lesest\u00fccke_, The Syllabary, p. 20;\nand Sayce\u2019s _Assyrian Grammar_, The Syllabary.\n\n[124] See Castellus\u2019s _Lexicon Syriacum_, s. v.\n\n[125] See page 7, _supra_.\n\n[126] Cited from \u201cTod\u2019s Travels, Journal Indian Archipelago, Vol. V.,\nNo. 12,\u201d in Balfour\u2019s _Cycl. of India_, s. v., \u201cBrother.\u201d\n\n[127] See Elliott and Roberts\u2019s _Views in India_, II., 64.\n\n[128] _Ayeen Akbery_, II., 453.\n\n[129] See citation from Wetzstein, at page 9 f., _supra_.\n\n[130] See Anderson\u2019s _Norse Mythol._, p. 149; his _Viking Tales_,\npp. 184, 237, 272 f.; Wood\u2019s _Wedding Day in all Ages and Countries_,\np. 139.\n\n[131] Lettsom\u2019s _Nibelungen Lied_, pp. 299, 388.\n\n[132] Gen. 41 : 41, 42.\n\n[133] Esther 3 : 10-12; 8 : 2.\n\n[134] Luke 15 : 22.\n\n[135] See Wood\u2019s _Wedding Day_; also Jones\u2019s _Finger Ring Lore_.\n\n[136] Cited in Jones\u2019s _Finger Ring Lore_, p. 289.\n\n[137] See _Ibid._, pp. 87-90.\n\n[138] _Persian- und Ost-Indische Reise_, II., 196.\n\n[139] See pp. 59 f., 62, _supra_.\n\n[140] See Godwyn\u2019s _Roman\u00e6 Histori\u00e6_, p. 69; Brewer\u2019s _Dict. of Phrase\nand Fable_, s. vv. \u201cRing,\u201d \u201cRing Finger\u201d; Jones\u2019s _Finger Ring Lore_,\np. 275. See also Appendix, _infra_.\n\n[141] Lane\u2019s _Mod. Egypt._, II., 293.\n\n[142] See Bock\u2019s _Head Hunters of Borneo_, p. 221 f.\n\n[143] _Finger Ring Lore_, p. 174.\n\n[144] See page 63 f., _supra_.\n\n[145] See _Finger Ring Lore_, pp. 177-197.\n\n[146] Cited in Jones\u2019s _Credulities Past and Present_, p. 204 f.\n\n[147] See _Appendix_.\n\n[148] See Wilkinson\u2019s _Anc. Egypt._, II., 340-343; Layard\u2019s _Nineveh\nand its Remains_, II., 250, 358; also 2 Sam. 1 : 10.\n\n[149] _Modern Egyptians_, I., 39.\n\n[150] Frere\u2019s _Old Deccan Days_, pp. 225-245.\n\n[151] Dubois\u2019s _Des. of Man. and Cust. of India_, Part II., chap. 7.\n\n[152] See p. 194, _supra_.\n\n[153] Prov. 4 : 18.\n\n[154] See Lepsius\u2019s _Todtenbuch_; Bunsen\u2019s _Egypt\u2019s Place in Universal\nHistory_, V., 125-133; Renouf\u2019s _The Religion of Ancient Egypt_, pp.\n179-208.\n\n[155] See Lenormant and Chevallier\u2019s _Ancient History of the East_,\nI., 308.\n\n[156] Renouf\u2019s _The Religion of Ancient Egypt_, p. 208.\n\n[157] Bunsen\u2019s _Egypt\u2019s Place_, V., 133.\n\n[158] See _Egypt\u2019s Place_, V., 127.\n\n[159] _Ibid._, V., 174 f.\n\n[160] This is the rendering of Birch. Ebers has looked for an\nexplanation of this gloss, in the rite of circumcision (_\u00c6gypten u.\nd. B\u00fccher Mose\u2019s_, p. 284 f.); but the primary reference to the \u201carm\u201d\nof the god, and to the union secured through the interflowing blood,\npoint to the blood-covenant as the employed figure of speech; although\ncircumcision, as will be seen presently, was likewise a symbol of the\nblood-covenant--for one\u2019s self and for one\u2019s seed. Brugsch also sees a\nsimilar meaning, to that suggested by Ebers, in this reference to the\nblood. His rendering of the original text is: \u201cReach me your hands. I\nhave become that which ye are\u201d (_Religion u. Mythol. d. alt. \u00c6gypt._,\nI., 219). Le Page Renouf, looking for the symbolisms of _material_\nnature in all these statements, would find here \u201cthe crimson of a\nsunset\u201d in the \u201cblood which flows from the Sun-god R\u0101, as he hastens\nto his suicide\u201d (_Trans. of Soc. of Bib. Arch._, Vol. VIII., Part\n2, p. 211). This, however, does not conflict with the _spiritual_\nsymbolism of oneness of nature through oneness of blood. And no one of\nthese last three suggested meanings accounts for the oneness with the\ngods through blood, which the deceased claims, unless the symbolism\nof blood-covenanting be recognized in the terminology. That symbolism\nbeing recognized, the precise source of the flowing blood becomes a\nminor matter.\n\n[161] See Wilkinson\u2019s _Anc. Egypt._, III., 473; Renouf\u2019s _Relig. of\nAnc. Egypt_, pp. 191-193; Lenormant\u2019s _Chaldean Magic_, p. 88.\n\n[162] See _Todtenbuch_, chap. LXVIII.; _Egypt\u2019s Place_, V., 211.\n\n[163] See Pierret\u2019s _Vocabulaire Hi\u00e9roglyphique_, p. 721 f.; also,\nBirch\u2019s \u201cDict. of Hierog.\u201d in _Egypt\u2019s Place_, V., 519.\n\n[164] See page 65 f., _supra_.\n\n[165] See _Todtenbuch_, chap. CLVI.; _Egypt\u2019s Place_, V., 315; _Trans.\nof Soc. of Bib. Arch._, VIII., 2, 211.\n\nThis amulet is also called _tet_; a word of the same phonetic force as\n_tet_, the \u201carm,\u201d or the \u201cbracelet,\u201d but of different letters. This\nword ([Illustration]) seems to have the root-idea of \u201cword;\u201d as if it\nwere applied to the text of the blood-covenant.\n\nThe amulet as constructed for the mummy, was stained with the water or\nliquid of the tree called _ankh am_ ([Illustration]). The amulet itself,\naccording to Brugsch, was also called _ankh merer_ ([Illustration]).\nBut _ankh_ ([Illustration]) means either to _live_ (the ordinary\nmeaning), or to _swear_, to _make oath_ (more rarely), and _merer_\n([Illustration]) is a reduplicated form of _mer_ ([Illustration]) _to\nlove_, _love_, _friendship_. The meaning of _ankh merer_, as applied\nto the blood-amulet may be, oath, or covenant, or pledge of love or\nfriendship. The word _merer_, in the compound _ankh merer_, is followed\nwith the determinative of the flying scarab\u00e6us ([Illustration]) which\nwas commonly placed (_Anc. Egypt._, III., 346) upon the breast, in lieu\nof the heart of the dead (_Ibid._, III., 486). See page 100, _infra_.\n\nAnd here the inquiry is suggested, Was the _ankh am_ the same as the\nmodern _henneh_? Note the connection of _henneh_ with the marriage\nfestivities in the East to-day.\n\n   \u201cPaint one hand with henna, mother;\n    Paint one hand and leave the other.\n    Bracelets on the right with henna;\n    On the left give drink to henna.\u201d\n\n          (Jessup\u2019s _Syrian Home Life_, p. 34.)\n\n[166] See _Egypt\u2019s Place_, V., 232.\n\n[167] See _Egypt\u2019s Place_, V., 174, 254, 282.\n\n[168] _Ibid._, V., 323.\n\n[169] See _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr \u00c6gyptische Sprache_, erstes Heft, 1885,\np. 16.\n\n[170] See page 81 f., _supra_.\n\n[171] See Pierret, Brugsch, Birch, _s. v._\n\n[172] _Uarda_, I., 192.\n\n[173] Ferriol\u2019s _Recueil de cent Estampes representant differentes\nNations du Levant_, Carte 43, and Explication, p. 16.\n\n[174] _First Miss. Voyage to the So. Sea Islands_, pp. 352-363.\n\n[175] _Ibid._, p. 196.\n\n[176] Ellis\u2019s _Polynesian Researches_, I., 529.\n\n[177] Psa. 56 : 8.\n\n[178] \u201cThe Goose Girl,\u201d in Grimm\u2019s _Household Tales_.\n\n[179] 1 Kings 18 : 26-28.\n\n[180] Van Lennep\u2019s _Bible Lands_, pp. 767-769.\n\n[181] See Herrera\u2019s _Gen. Hist. of Cont. and Isl. of America_, III.,\n209, 211, 216, 300 f.; Clavigero\u2019s _Hist. of Mex._, Bk. VI., chaps. 22,\n38; Motolinia\u2019s _Hist. Ind. de Nueva Espa\u00f1a_, p. 22; Landa\u2019s _Relat.\nYucatan_, XXXV.; Ximenez\u2019s _Hist. Ind. Gautem._, pp. 171-181; Palacio\u2019s\n_San Salv. and Hond._ (in Squier\u2019s _Coll._, I.) 65 ff., 106, 116;\nSimon\u2019s _Ter. Not. Conq. Tier. Firm. en Nue Gran._ (in Kingsborough\u2019s\n_Antiq. of Mex._, VIII.) 208, 248; all cited in Spencer\u2019s _Des. Soc._,\nII., 20-26, 28, 33. See, also, Bancroft\u2019s _Native Races of Pacif.\nCoast_, I., 665, 723; II., 259, 306, 708, 710.\n\n[182] Serving the purpose of the Otaheitan shark\u2019s-teeth. See page\n86 f., _supra_.\n\n[183] R\u00e9ville\u2019s _Native Religions of Mexico and Peru_, p. 84 f.\n\n[184] Cited in Adam\u2019s _Curiosities of Superstition_.\n\n[185] Cited in Benson\u2019s _Remarkable Trials and Notorious Characters_,\np. 11.\n\n[186] Cited in Drake\u2019s _The Witchcraft Delusion in New England_, I.,\n187; II., 214.\n\n[187] _Ibid._, I, xviii. See also, Appendix, _infra_.\n\n[188] _Faust_, Swanwick\u2019s translation, Part I., lines 1360-1386.\n\n[189] See Tylor\u2019s _Primitive Culture_, II., 402; citing Boecler\u2019s\n_Ehsten Abergla\u00fcbische Gebra\u00fcche_, 4.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE II.\n\nSUGGESTIONS AND PERVERSIONS OF THE RITE.\n\n\n\n\nII.\n\nSUGGESTIONS AND PERVERSIONS OF THE RITE.\n\n\n1. SACREDNESS OF BLOOD AND OF THE HEART.\n\nApart from, and yet linked with, the explicit proofs of the rite of\nblood-covenanting throughout the primitive world, there are many\nindications of the root-idea of this form of covenanting; in the\npopular estimate of blood, and of all the marvelous possibilities\nthrough blood-transference. These indications, also, are of old, and\nfrom everywhere.\n\nTo go back again to the earlier written history of the world; it\nis evident that the ancient Egyptians recognized blood as in a\npeculiar sense life itself; and that they counted the heart,--as the\nblood-source and the blood-centre,--the symbol and the substance of\nlife. In the Book of the Dead, the deceased speaks of his heart,--or\nhis blood-fountain,--as his life; and as giving him the right to appear\nin the presence of the gods: \u201cMy heart was my mother; my heart was my\nmother; my heart was my being on earth; placed within me; returned to\nme by the chief gods, placing me before the gods\u201d[190] [in the presence\nof the gods]. In the process of embalming, the heart was always\npreserved with jealous care;[191] and sometimes it was embalmed by\nitself in a sepulchral vase.[192] It was the heart--as the life, which\nis the blood--that seems to have been put into the scales of the divine\nJudge for the settling of the soul\u2019s destiny;[193] according to all the\nEgyptian pictures of the judgment. Throughout the Book of the Dead, and\nin all the sacred teachings and practices of the ancient Egyptians,\nwith reference to human life and human destiny, the heart is obviously\nrecognized as the analogon of blood, and blood as the analogon of life.\nMoreover, the life, which is represented by the blood and by the heart,\nappears to be counted peculiarly the gift and the guarded treasure of\nDeity, and as being in itself a resemblance to, if not actually a part\nof, the divine nature.[194]\n\nEven of the lower animals, the heart and the heart\u2019s blood were\ncounted sacred to the gods, and were not to be eaten by the Egyptians;\nas if life belonged only to the Giver of life, and, when passing\nout from a lower organism, must return, or be returned, only to its\noriginal Source.\n\nWhen the soul stands before the forty-two judges, in the Hall of the\nTwo Truths, to give answer concerning its sins, one of its protesting\navowals, as recorded in the Book of the Dead, is: \u201cOh Glowing Feet,\ncoming out of the darkness! I have not eaten the heart;\u201d[195] In\nmy earthly life-course, I have not committed the sacrilege of\nheart-eating. Yet, of the sacrificial offering of \u201ca red cow,\u201d as\nprescribed in the Book of the Dead, \u201cof the blood squeezed from the\nheart, one hundred drops,\u201d[196] make a portion for the gods. In one\nof the tombs of Memphis, there is represented a scene of slaughtering\nanimals. As the heart of an animal is taken out, the butcher who holds\nit says,--as shown by the accompanying hieroglyphics,--\u201cTake care of\nthis heart;\u201d[197] as if that were a portion to be guarded sacredly.\n\u201cKeep thy heart with all diligence [or, as the margin has it, \u201cabove\nall thou guardest\u201d]; for out of it are the issues of life.\u201d[198] It\nmay, indeed, have been from the lore of Egypt that Solomon obtained\nthis proverb of the ages, to pass it onward to posterity with his stamp\nof inspiration.\n\nIt would even seem that the blood of animals was not allowed to be\neaten by the Egyptians; although there has been a question at that\npoint, among Egyptologists. Wilkinson thinks that they _did_ employ\nit in cooking;[199] but this is only his inference from a pictured\nrepresentation of the blood being caught in a vessel, when an animal\nis slaughtered for the table. On the other hand, that same picture\nshows the vessel of blood being borne away, afterwards, on uplifted\nhands;[200] as it would have been if it were designed for a sacred\nlibation. Again, the other picture, reported by Birch, as showing the\nbutcher\u2019s care of the heart, represents the blood as \u201ccollected in a\njar with a long spout\u201d; such as was used for sacred libations.[201] It\nis evident that blood was offered to the gods of Egypt in libation,\nas was also wine.[202] Indeed the common Egyptian word for blood\n([Illustration], _senf_) is regularly followed by the determinative of\noutpouring ([Illustration]). The word _tesher_, \u201cred,\u201d is sometimes\nused as a synonym for _senf_; in this case (and in this only) the\ndeterminative of outpouring is added to the hieroglyphics for _tesher_.\nMoreover, among the forty-two judges, before whom the dead appears,\nhe who is \u201cEater of Blood\u201d comes next in order before the \u201cEater of\nHearts\u201d;[203] as if blood-eating, like heart-eating, were a prerogative\nof the gods.\n\nIf proof were still wanting that, in ancient Egypt, it was the heart\nwhich was deemed the epitome of life, and that the _heart_ had this\npre-eminence because of its being the fountain of _blood_--which is\nlife--that proof would be found in \u201cThe Tale of the Two Brothers\u201d; a\nstory that was prepared in its present form by a tutor of the Pharaoh\nof the exodus, while the latter was yet heir presumptive to the throne.\nThis story has been the subject of special study by De Roug\u00e9, Chabas,\nMaspero, Brugsch, Birch, Goodwin, and Le Page Renouf. It is from the\nlatter\u2019s translation, that I draw my facts for this reference.[204]\n\nAnpu and Bata were brothers. Bata\u2019s experience with the wife of Anpu\nwas like that of Joseph in the house of Potiphar. He was true, like\nJoseph. Like Joseph, he was falsely accused, his life was sought, and\nhis innocence was vindicated. Then, for his better protection, Bata\ntook his _heart_ out from his body, and put that in a safe place, while\nhe made his home near it. To his brother he had said:\n\n\u201cI shall take my heart, and place it in the top of the flower of the\ncedar, and when the cedar is cut down it will fall to the ground. Thou\nshalt come to seek it. If thou art seven years in search of it, let not\nthy heart be depressed, and when thou hast found it thou shalt place it\nin a cup of cold water. Oh, then I shall live (once more).\u201d\n\nAfter a time the cedar, through the treachery of Bata\u2019s false wife,\nwas cut down. As it fell, with the heart of Bata, the latter dropped\ndead. For more than three years Anpu sought his brother\u2019s heart; then\nhe found it. \u201cHe brought a vessel of cold water, dropped the heart\ninto it, and sat down according to his daily wont. But when the night\nwas come, the heart absorbed the water. Bata [whose body seems to have\nbeen preserved--like a mummy--all this time] trembled in all his limbs,\nand continued looking at his elder brother, but his heart was faint.\nThen Anpu took the vessel of cold water which his brother\u2019s heart was\nin. And when the latter [Bata] had drunk it up, his heart rose in its\nplace; and he became as he had been before. Each embraced the other,\nand each one of them held conversation with his companion.\u201d\n\nThe revivified Bata was transformed into a sacred bull, an Apis. That\nbull, by the treachery, again, of Bata\u2019s wife, was killed. \u201cAnd as\nthey were killing him, and he was in the hands of his attendants, he\nshook his neck, and two drops of blood fell upon the two door-posts of\nHis Majesty [in whose keeping was the sacred bull]; one was on the one\nside of the great staircase of His Majesty, the other upon the other\nside; and they grew up into two mighty persea trees, each of which\nstood alone.\u201d Thus the blood was both life and life-giving, and the\nheart was as the very soul of its possessor, in the estimation of the\nancient Egyptians.\n\nIn primitive America also, as in ancient Egypt, the blood and the\nheart, were held pre-eminently sacred. Among the Dakotas, in North\nAmerica, the heart of the deer and of other animals killed in\nhunting, was offered to the spirits.[205] In Central America and in\nSouth America, it was the blood and the heart of the human victims\noffered in sacrifice, which were counted the peculiar portion of the\ngods.[206] In description of a human sacrifice among the Nahuas of\nCentral America,[207] a Mexican historian says: \u201cThe high priest then\napproached, and with a heavy knife of obsidian cut open the miserable\nman\u2019s breast. Then, with a dexterity acquired by long practice, the\nsacrificer tore forth the yet palpitating heart, which he first offered\nto the sun, and then threw at the feet of the idol. Taking it up, he\nagain offered it to the god, and afterwards burned it; preserving the\nashes with great care and veneration. Sometimes the heart was placed\nin the mouth [of the idol] with a golden spoon. It was customary also\nto anoint the lips of the image, and the cornices of the door with the\nvictim\u2019s blood.\u201d[208]\n\nOf the method among the Maya nations,[209] south of the Gulf of Mexico,\na Spanish historian[210] says: \u201cThe bleeding and quivering heart was\nheld up to the sun, and then thrown into a bowl prepared for its\nreception. An assistant priest sucked the blood from the gash in the\nchest, through a hollow cane; the end of which he elevated towards\nthe sun, and then discharged its contents into a plume-bordered cup\nheld by the captor of the prisoner just slain. This cup was carried\naround to all the idols in the temples and chapels, before whom another\nblood-filled tube was held up, as if to give them a taste of the\ncontents. This ceremony performed, the cup was left at the palace.\u201d\n\nYet another record stands: \u201cThe guardian of the temple ... opened\nthe left breast of the victim, tore out the heart, and handed it to\nthe high priest, who placed it in a small embroidered purse which he\ncarried. The four [assisting] priests received the blood of the victim\nin four jicaras or bowls, made from the shell of a certain fruit; and\ndescending, one after the other, to the court yard, [they] sprinkled\nthe blood with their right hand in the direction of the cardinal points\n[of the compass]. If any blood remained over, they returned it to the\nhigh priest, who placed it, with the purse containing the heart, in the\nbody of the victim, through the wound that had been made; and the body\nwas interred in the temple.\u201d[211]\n\nCommenting on these customs in Central America, R\u00e9ville--the\nrepresentative comparative-religionist of France--says: \u201cHere you will\nrecognize that idea, so widely spread in the two Americas, and indeed\nalmost everywhere amongst uncivilized peoples [nor is it limited to\nthe uncivilized], that the heart is the epitome, so to speak, of the\nindividual--his soul in some sense--so that to appropriate his heart is\nto appropriate his whole being.\u201d[212] What else than this gave rise to\nthe thought of preserving the _heart_ of a hero, or of a loved one, as\na symbol of the living presence of the dead? It was by his heart, that\nKing Robert Bruce was to lead his army to the Holy Land; and how many\ntimes, in history, have men bequeathed their hearts to those dear to\nthem, as the poet Shelley\u2019s heart was preserved by his friends, and by\nthem given to Mrs. Shelley.\n\nIn the Greek and Roman sacrifices, it was the blood of the victim,\nwhich, as the life of the victim, was poured out unto the gods, as\nunto the Author of life.[213] Moreover, there is reason for supposing\nthat the _heart_ was always given the chief place, as representing\nthe very life itself, in the examination and in the _tasting_ of the\n\u201centrails\u201d (\u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03c7\u03bd\u03b1, _splangkhna_) in connection with the sacrifices\nof those classic peoples.[214] An indication of this truth is found\nin a statement by Cicero, concerning the sacrifices at the time of\nthe inauguration of C\u00e6sar: \u201cWhen he [C\u00e6sar] was sacrificing on that\nday in which he first sat in the golden chair, and made procession in\nthe purple garment, there was no _heart_ among the entrails of the\nsacrificial ox. (Do you think, therefore, that any animal which has\nblood can exist without a heart?) Yet he [C\u00e6sar] was not terrified by\nthe phenomenal nature of the event, although Spurinna declared, that\nit was to be feared that both mind [literally \u2018counsel\u2019] and life were\nabout to fail him [C\u00e6sar]; for both of these [mind and life] do issue\nfrom the heart.\u201d[215]\n\nSimilarly it has been, and to the present day it is, with primitive\npeoples everywhere. Blood libations were made a prominent feature in\nthe offerings in ancient Phoenicia,[216] as in Egypt. In India, the\nBrahmans have a saying, in illustration of the claim that Vishnu and\nSiva are of one and the same nature: \u201cThe heart of Vishnu is Siv\u00e2,\nand the heart of Siv\u00e2 is Vishnu; and those who think they differ,\nerr.\u201d[217] The Hindoo legends represent the victim\u2019s heart as being\ntorn out and given to the one whom in life he has wronged.[218] In\nChina, at the great Temple of Heaven, in Peking, where the emperors of\nChina are supposed to have conducted worship without material change in\nits main features for now nearly three thousand years,[219] the blood\nof the animal sacrifice is buried in the earth[220] while the body of\nthe sacrificial victim is offered as a whole burnt offering.[221]\n\nThe blood is the life; the heart as the fountain of blood is the\nfountain of life; both blood and heart are sacred to the Author of\nlife. The possession, or the gift, of the heart or of the blood, is the\npossession, or the gift, of the very nature of its primal owner. That\nhas been the world\u2019s thought in all the ages.\n\n\n2. VIVIFYING POWER OF BLOOD.\n\nThe belief seems to have been universal, not only that the blood is\nthe life of the organism in which it originally flows, but that in its\ntransfer from one organism to another the blood retains its life, and\nso carries with it a vivifying power. There are traces of this belief\nin the earliest legends of the Old World, and of the New; in classic\nstory; and in medical practices as well, all the world over, from time\nimmemorial until the present day.\n\nFor example, in an inscription from the Egyptian monuments, the\noriginal of which dates back to the early days of Moses, there is a\nreference to a then ancient legend of the rebellion of mankind against\nthe gods; of an edict of destruction against the human race; and of a\ndivine interposition for the rescue of the doomed peoples.[222] In that\nlegend, a prominent part is given to human blood, mingled with the\njuice of mandrakes[223]--instead of wine--prepared as a drink of the\ngods, and afterwards poured out again to overflow and to revivify all\nthe earth. And the ancient text which records this legend, affirms that\nit was in conjunction with these events, that there was the beginning\nof sacrifices in the world.\n\nAn early American legend has points of remarkable correspondence\nwith this one from ancient Egypt. It relates, as does that, to a\npre-historic destruction of the race, and to its re-creation, or its\nre-vivifying, by means of transferred blood. Every Mexican province\ntold this story in its own way, says a historian; but the main\nfeatures of it are alike in all its versions.\n\nWhen there were no more men remaining on the earth, some of the gods\ndesired the re-creation of mankind; and they asked help from the\nsupreme deities accordingly. They were then told, that if they were to\nobtain the bones, or the ashes of the former race, they could revivify\nthose remains by their own blood. Thereupon Xolotl, one of the gods,\ndescended to the place of the dead, and obtained a bone (whether a\n_rib_, or not, does not appear). Upon that vestige of humanity, the\ngods dropped blood drawn from their own bodies; and the result was a\nnew vivifying of mankind.[224]\n\nAn ancient Chaldean legend, as recorded by Berosus, ascribes a new\ncreation of mankind to the mixture by the gods of the dust of the earth\nwith the blood that flowed from the severed head of the god Belus.\n\u201cOn this account it is that men are rational, and partake of divine\nknowledge,\u201d says Berosus.[225] The blood of the god gives them the\nlife and the nature of a god. Yet, again, the early Ph\u0153nician, and\nthe early Greek, theogonies, as recorded by Sanchoniathon[226] and by\nHesiod,[227] ascribe the vivifying of mankind to the outpoured blood\nof the gods. It was from the blood of Ouranos, or of Saturn, dripping\ninto the sea and mingling with its foam, that Venus was formed, to\nbecome the mother of her heroic posterity. \u201cThe Orphics, which have\nborrowed so largely from the East,\u201d says Lenormant,[228] \u201csaid that the\nimmaterial part of man, his soul [his life], sprang from the blood of\nDionysus Zagreus, whom ... Titans had torn to pieces, partly devouring\nhis members.\u201d\n\nHomer explicitly recognizes this universal belief in the power of blood\nto convey life, and to be a means of revivifying the dead. When Circ\u00e9\nsent Odysseus,\n\n            \u201cTo consult\n    The Theban seer, Tiresias, in the abode\n    Of Pluto and the dreaded Proserpine.\u201d\n\nshe directed him, in preparation, to\n\n           \u201cPour to all the dead\n    Libations,--milk and honey first, and next\n    Rich wine, and lastly water;\u201d\n\nand after that to slay the sacrificial sheep. But Circ\u00e9\u2019s caution was:\n\n   \u201cDraw then the sword upon thy thigh, and sit,\n    And suffer none of all those airy forms\n    To touch the blood, until thou first bespeak\n    Tiresias. He will come, and speedily,--\n    The leader of the people,--and will tell\n    What voyage thou must make.\u201d\n\nOdysseus did as he was directed. The bloodless shades flocked about\nhim, as he sat there guarding the life-renewing blood; but even those\ndearest to him, he forbade to touch that consecrated draught.\n\n   \u201cAnd then the soul of Anticleia came,--\n    My own dead mother, daughter of the king\n    Autolycus, large minded. Her I left\n    Alive, what time I sailed for Troy, and now\n    I wept to see her there, and pitied her,\n    And yet forbade her, though with grief, to come\n    Near to the blood till I should first accost\n    Tiresias. He too came, the Theban seer,\n    Tiresias, bearing in his hand a wand\n    Of gold; he knew me and bespake me thus:--\n    \u2018Why, O unhappy mortal, hast thou left\n    The light of day to come among the dead,\n    And to this joyless land? Go from the trench\n    And turn thy sword away, that I may drink\n    The blood, and speak the word of prophecy.\u2019\n    He spake; withdrawing from the trench, I thrust\n    Into its sheath my silver-studded sword,\n    And, after drinking of the dark red blood,\n    The blameless prophet turned to me and said--\u201d[229]\n\nThen, came the prophecy, from the blood-revivified seer.\n\nThe wide-spread popular superstition of the vampire and of the ghoul,\nseems to be an outgrowth of this universal belief, that transfused\nblood is re-vivification. The bloodless shades, leaving their graves at\nnight, seek renewed life, by drawing out the blood of those who sleep;\ntaking of the life of the living, to supply temporary life to the dead.\nThis idea was prevalent in ancient Babylon and Assyria.[230] It has\nshown itself in the Old World and in the New,[231] in all the ages; and\neven within a little more than a century, it has caused an epidemic of\nfear in Hungary, \u201cresulting in a general disinterment, and the burning\nor staking of the suspected bodies.\u201d[232]\n\nAn added force is given to all these illustrations of the universal\nbelief that transferred blood has a vivifying power, by the conclusions\nof modern medical science, concerning the possible benefits of\nblood-transfusion.[233] On this point, one of the foremost living\nauthorities in this department of practice, Dr. Roussel, of Geneva,\nsays: \u201cThe great vitality of the blood of a vigorous and healthy man\nhas the power of improving the quality of the patient\u2019s blood, and can\nrestore activity to the centres of nervous force, and the organs of\ndigestion. _It would seem that health itself can be transfused with the\nblood of a healthy man_\u201d;[234] death itself being purged out of the\nveins by inflowing life. And in view of the possibilities of new life\nto a dying one, through new blood from one full of life, this writer\ninsists, that \u201cevery adult and healthy man and woman should be ready to\noffer an _arm_, as the natural and mysteriously inexhaustible source of\nthe wonder-working elixir.\u201d[235] Blood-giving can be life-giving. The\nmeasure of one\u2019s love may, indeed, in _such_ a case, be tested by the\nmeasure of his yielded blood.[236]\n\nRoussel says, that blood transfusion was practised by the Egyptians,\nthe Hebrews, and the Syrians, in ancient times;[237] and he cites\nthe legend, that before Naaman came to Elisha to be healed of his\nleprosy,[238] his physicians, in their effort at his cure, took the\nblood from his veins, and replaced it with other blood. Whatever basis\nof truth there may be in this legend, it clearly gained its currency\nthrough the prevailing conviction that new blood is new life. There\ncertainly is ample evidence that baths of human blood were anciently\nprescribed as a cure for the death-representing leprosy; as if in\nrecognition of this root idea of the re-vivifying power of transferred\nblood.\n\nPliny, writing eighteen centuries ago, concerning leprosy, or\nelephantiasis, says[239]: \u201cThis was the peculiar disease of Egypt;\nand when it fell upon princes, woe to the people; for, in the bathing\nchambers, tubs were prepared, with human blood, for the cure of it.\u201d\nNor was this mode of life-seeking confined to the Egyptians. It is\nsaid that the Emperor Constantine was restrained from it, only in\nconsequence of a vision from heaven.[240]\n\nIn the early English romance of Amys and Amylion, one of these knightly\nbrothers-in-arms consents, with his wife\u2019s full approbation, to yield\nthe lives of his two infant children, in order to supply their blood\nfor a bath, for the curing of his brother friend\u2019s leprosy.[241] In\nthis instance, the leprosy is cured, and the children\u2019s lives are\nmiraculously restored to them; as if in proof of the divine approbation\nof the loving sacrifice.\n\nIt is shown, indeed, that this belief in the life-bringing power of\nbaths of blood, to the death-smitten lepers, was continued into the\nMiddle Ages; and that it finally \u201creceived a check from an opinion\ngradually gaining ground, that only the blood of those would be\nefficacious, who offered themselves freely and voluntarily for a\nbeloved sufferer.\u201d[242] There is something very suggestive in this\nthought of the truest potency of transferred life through transferred\nblood! It is this thought which finds expression and illustration in\nLongfellow\u2019s Golden Legend. In the castle of Vautsberg on the Rhine,\nPrince Henry is sick with a strange and hopeless malady. Lucifer\nappears to him in the garb of a traveling physician, and tells him of\nthe only possible cure for his disease, as prescribed in a venerable\ntome:\n\n   \u201c\u2018The only remedy that remains\n    Is the blood that flows from a maiden\u2019s veins,\n    Who of her own free will shall die,\n    And give her life as the price of yours!\u2019\n    That is the strangest of all cures,\n    And one, I think, you will never try;\n    The prescription you may well put by,\n    As something impossible to find\n    Before the world itself shall end!\u201d\n\nElsie, the lovely daughter of a peasant in the Odenwald learns of the\nPrince\u2019s need, and declares she will give her blood for his cure. In\nher chamber by night, her self-surrendering prayer goes up:\n\n   \u201c\u2018If my feeble prayer can reach thee,\n    O my Saviour, I beseech thee,\n    Even as thou hast died for me,\n    More sincerely\n    Let me follow where thou leadest,\n    Let me, bleeding as thou bleedest,\n    Die, if dying I may give\n    Life to one who asks to live,\n    And more nearly,\n    Dying thus, resemble thee!\u2019\u201d\n\nHer father, Gottlieb, consents to her life-surrender, saying to the\nPrince:\n\n   \u201c\u2018As Abraham offered, long ago,\n    His son unto the Lord, and even\n    The Everlasting Father in heaven\n    Gave his, as a lamb unto the slaughter,\n    So do I offer up my daughter.\u2019\u201d\n\nAnd Elsie adds:\n\n   \u201c\u2018My life is little,\n    Only a cup of water,\n    But pure and limpid.\n    Take it, O Prince!\n    Let it refresh you,\n    Let it restore you.\n    It is given willingly\n    It is given freely;\n    May God bless the gift!\u2019\u201d\n\nThe proffered sacrifice is interfered with before its consummation; but\nits purposed method shows the estimate which was put, from of old, on\nvoluntarily yielded life for life.\n\nThere is said to be an Eastern legend somewhat like the story of Amys\nand Amylion; with a touch of the ancient Egyptian and Mexican legends\nalready cited. \u201cThe Arabian chronicler speaks of a king, who, having\nlost a faithful servant by his transformation into stone, is told that\nhe can call his friend back to life, if he is willing to behead his\ntwo children, and to sprinkle the ossified figure with their blood. He\nmakes up his mind to the sacrifice; but as he approaches the children\nwith his drawn sword, the will is accepted by heaven for the deed, and\nhe suddenly sees the stone restored to animation.\u201d[243] This story,\nin substance, (only with the slaying and the resuscitating of the\nchildren, as in the English romance,) appears in Grimm\u2019s folk-lore\ntales, under the title of \u201cFaithful John\u201d;[244] but whether its origin\nwas in the East or in the North, or in both quarters, is not apparent.\nIts reappearance East, North, and West, is all the more noteworthy.\n\nIn the romances of King Arthur and his knights, there is a story of\na maiden daughter of King Pellinore, a sister of Sir Percivale, who\nbefriends the noble Sir Galahad, and then accompanies him and his\ncompanions on their way to the castle of Carteloise, and beyond, in\ntheir search for the Holy Grail.\n\n\u201cAnd again they went on to another castle, from which came a band of\nknights, who told them of the custom of the place, that every maiden\nwho passed by must yield a dish full of her blood. \u2018That shall she not\ndo,\u2019 said Galahad, \u2018while I live\u2019; and fierce was the struggle that\nfollowed; and the sword of Galahad, which was the sword of King David,\nsmote them down on every side, until those who remained alive craved\npeace, and bade Galahad and his fellows come into the castle for the\nnight; \u2018and on the morn,\u2019 they said, \u2018we dare say ye will be of one\naccord with us, when ye know the reason for our custom?\u2019 So awhile they\nrested, and the knights told them that in the castle there lay a lady\nsick to death, who might never gain back her life, until she should be\nanointed with the blood of a pure maiden who was a king\u2019s daughter.\nThen said Percivale\u2019s sister, \u2018I will yield it, and so shall I get\nhealth to my soul, and there shall be no battle on the morn.\u2019 And even\nso was it done; but the blood which she gave was so much that she might\nnot live; and as her strength passed away, she said to Percivale, \u2018I\ndie, brother, for the healing of this lady.\u2019 ... Thus was the lady of\nthe castle healed; and the gentle maiden, [Percivale\u2019s sister,] ...\ndied.\u201d[245]\n\nIn the old Scandinavian legends, there are indications of the\ntraditional belief in the power of transferred life through a bath\nof blood. Siegfried, or Sigurd, a descendant of Odin, slew Fafner, a\ndragon-shaped guardian of ill-gotten treasure. In the hot blood of\nthat dragon, he bathed himself, and so took on, as it were, an outer\ncovering of new life, rendering himself sword-proof, save at a single\npoint where a leaf of the linden-tree fell between his shoulders,\nand shielded the flesh from the life-imparting blood.[246] On this\nincident it is, that the main tragedy in the Nibelungen Lied pivots;\nwhere Siegfried\u2019s wife, Kriemhild, tells the treacherous Hagan of her\nhusband\u2019s one vulnerable point:\n\n   \u201cSaid she, My husband\u2019s daring, and thereto stout of limb;\n    Of old, when on the mountain he slew the dragon grim,\n    In its blood he bathed him, and thence no more can feel,\n    In his charmed person, the deadly dint of steel.\n    .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .\n   \u201cAs from the dragon\u2019s death-wounds gushed out the crimson gore,\n    With the smoking torrent, the warrior washed him o\u2019er.\n    A leaf then \u2019twixt his shoulders fell from the linden bough;\n    There, only, steel can harm him; for that I tremble now.\u201d[247]\n\nEven among the blood-reverencing Brahmans of India, there are traces of\nthis idea, that life is to be guarded by the outpoured blood of others.\nIn the famous old work, \u201cKalila wa-Dimna,\u201d there is the story of a\nking, named Beladh, who had a vision in the night, which so troubled\nhim that he sought counsel of the Brahmans. Their advice was, that he\nshould sacrifice his favorite wife, his best loved son, his nephew,\nand his dearest friend, in conjunction with other valued offerings to\nthe gods. \u201cIt will be necessary for you, O King,\u201d they said, \u201cwhen\nyou have put to death the persons we have named to you, to fill a\ncauldron with their blood, and sit upon it; and when you get up from\nthe cauldron, we, the Brahmans, assembled from the four quarters of the\nkingdom, will walk around you, and pronounce our incantations over you,\nand we will spit upon you, and wipe off from you the blood, and will\nwash you in water and sweet-oil, and then you may return to the palace,\ntrusting in the protection of heaven against the danger which threatens\nyou.\u201d[248]\n\nHere, the king\u2019s offering to the gods, was to be of that which was\ndearest to him; and the bath of blood was to prove to him a cover of\nlife. King Beladh wisely said, that if that were the price of his\nsafety he was ready to die. He would not prolong his life at such a\ncost. But the story shows the primitive estimate of the life-giving\npower of blood, among the Hindoos.\n\nIn China, also, blood has its place as a life-giving agency. A\nChinese woman, on the Kit-ie River, tells a missionary, of her\noccasional seasons of frenzy, under the control of spirits, and of\nher ministry of blood, at such seasons, for the cure of disease.\n\u201cEvery year when there is to be a pestilence, or when cholera is to\nprevail, she goes into this frenzy, and cuts her tongue with a knife,\nletting some drops of her blood fall into a hogshead of water. This\n[hom\u0153opathically-treated] water, the people drink as a specific against\ncontagion.\u201d Its sacred blood is counted a shield of life. \u201cWith the\nrest of the blood, she writes charms, which the people paste [as\nwords of life] upon their door-posts, or wear upon their persons, as\npreventives of evil.\u201d[249]\n\nReceiving new blood as a means of receiving new life, seems to have\nbeen sought interchangeably, in olden time, in various diseases, by\nblood lavations, by blood drinking, and by blood transfusion. It is\nrecorded that, in 1483, King Louis XI., of France, struggled for life\nby drinking the blood of young children, as a means of his revivifying.\n\u201cEvery day he grew worse,\u201d it is said; \u201cand the medicines profited him\nnothing, though of a strange character; for he vehemently hoped to\nrecover by the human blood which he took and swallowed from certain\nchildren.\u201d[250] Again there is a disputed claim, that, in 1492, a\nJewish physician endeavored to save the life of Pope Innocent VIII., by\ngiving him in transfusion the blood of three young men successively.\nThe Pope was not recovered, but the three young men lost their lives in\nthe experiment.[251] Yet blood transfusion as a means of new life to\nthe dying was not always a failure, even in former centuries; for the\nrecord stands, that \u201cat Frankfort, on the Oder, the surgeons Balthazar,\nKaufman, and Purmann, healed a leper, in 1683, by passing the blood of\na lamb into his veins.\u201d[252]\n\nEven to-day, in South Africa, \u201cwhen the Zulu King is sick, his\nimmediate personal attendants, or _valets_, are obliged to allow\nthemselves to be wounded; that a portion of their blood may be\nintroduced into the king\u2019s circulation, and a portion of his into\ntheirs.\u201d[253] In this plan, the idea seems to be, that health may have\npower over disease, and that death may be swallowed up in life, by\nequalizing the blood of the one who is in danger, and of the many who\nare in strength and safety. Moreover among the Kafirs those who are\nstill in health are sometimes \u201cwashed in blood to protect them against\nwounds\u201d;[254] as if an outer covering of life could be put on, for the\nprotection of their life within. Transfused human blood is also said\nto be a common prescription of the medicine-men of Tasmania, for the\ncure of disease.[255]\n\nAnd so it would appear, that, whatever may be its basis in\nphysiological science, the opinion has prevailed, widely and always,\nthat there is a vivifying power in transferred blood; and that blood\nnot only represents but carries life.\n\n\n3. A NEW NATURE THROUGH NEW BLOOD.\n\nIt was a primeval idea, of universal sway, that the taking in of\nanother\u2019s blood was the acquiring of another\u2019s life, with all that was\nbest in that other\u2019s nature. It was not merely that the taking away of\nblood was the taking away of life; but that the taking in of blood was\nthe taking in of life, and of all that that life represented. Here,\nagain, the heart, as the fountain of blood, and so, as the centre\nand source of life, was preeminently the agency of transfer, in the\nacquiring of a new nature.\n\nHerodotus tells us of this idea in the far East, twenty-four centuries\nago. When a Scythian, he said, killed his first man in open warfare, he\ndrank in his blood, as a means of absorbing his fairly acquired life;\nand the heads of as many as he slew, the Scythian carried in triumph\nto the king;[256] as the American Indian bears away the scalps of his\nslain, to-day. Modern historians, indeed, show us other resemblances\nthan this, between the aboriginal American and the ancient Scythian.\n\nThe Jesuit founder of the Huron Mission to the American Indians, \u201cits\ntruest hero, and its greatest martyr,\u201d was Jean de Br\u00e9beuf. After\na heroic life among a savage people, he was subjected to frightful\ntorture, and to the crudest death. His character had won the admiration\nof those who felt that duty to their gods demanded his martyrdom; and\nhis bearing under torture exalted him in their esteem, as heroic beyond\ncompare. \u201cHe came of a noble race,\u201d says Parkman,[257]--\u201cthe same\n[race], it is said, from which sprang the English Earls of Arundel; but\nnever had the mailed barons of his line confronted a fate so appalling,\nwith so prodigious a constancy. To the last he refused to flinch, and\n\u2018his death was an astonishment to his murderers.\u2019\u201d \u201cWe saw no part of\nhis body,\u201d wrote an eye witness,[258] \u201cfrom head to foot, which was\nnot burned [while he was yet living], even to his eyes, in the sockets\nof which these wretches had placed live coals.\u201d Such manhood as he\ndisplayed under these tortures, the Indians could appreciate. Such\ncourage and constancy as his, they longed to possess for themselves.\nWhen, therefore, they perceived that the brave and faithful man of\nGod was finally sinking into death, they sprang toward him, scalped\nhim, \u201claid open his breast, and came in a crowd to drink the blood of\nso valiant an enemy; thinking to imbibe with it some portion of his\ncourage. A chief then tore out his heart, and devoured it.\u201d\n\nNot unlike this has been a common practice among the American Indians,\nin the treatment of prisoners of war. \u201cIf the victim had shown\ncourage,\u201d again says Parkman, concerning the Hurons, \u201cthe heart was\nfirst roasted, cut into small pieces, and given to the young men\nand boys, who devoured it, to increase their own courage.\u201d[259] So,\nsimilarly, with the Iroquois.[260] And Burton says of the Dakotas:[261]\n\u201cThey are not cannibals, except when a warrior, after slaying a foe,\neats, porcupine-like, the heart or liver, with the idea of increasing\nhis own courage.\u201d Schomburgk, writing concerning the natives of British\nGuiana, says: \u201cIn order to increase their courage, and [so their]\ncontempt of death, the Caribs were wont to cut out the heart of a slain\nenemy, dry it on the fire, powder it, and mix the powder in their\ndrink.\u201d[262]\n\nThe native Australians find, it is said, an inducement to bloodshed,\nin their belief--like that of the ancient Scythians--that the life,\nor the spirit, of the first man whom one slays, enters into the life\nof the slayer, and remains as his helpful possession thereafter.[263]\nThe Ashantee fetishmen, of West Africa, apparently acting on a kindred\nthought, make a mixture of the hearts of enemies, mingled with blood\nand consecrated herbs, for the vivifying of the conquerors. \u201cAll who\nhave never before killed an enemy eat of the preparation; it being\nbelieved that if they did not, their energy would be secretly wasted\nby the haunting spirits of their deceased foes.\u201d[264] The underlying\nmotive of the bloody \u201chead-hunting\u201d in Borneo, is the Dayak belief,\nthat the spirits of those whose heads are taken are to be subject to\nhim, who does the decapitating. The heads are primarily simply the\nproof--like the Indian\u2019s scalps--that their owner has so many lives\nabsorbed in his own.[265]\n\nA keen observer of Fell\u00e2heen life in Palestine has reported:[266]\n\u201cThere is an ugly expression used among the fell\u00e2heen of South\nPalestine, in speaking of an enemy slain in war--\u2018_Dhabbahhtho\nbisn\u00e2ny_\u2019 (\u2018I slew him with my teeth\u2019)[267]; and it is said that there\nhave been instances of killing in battle in this fashion by biting at\nthe throat. In the Nablous district (Samaria), where the people are\nmuch more ferocious, the expression is, \u2018I have drunk his blood\u2019; but\nthat is understood figuratively.\u201d\n\nAn ancient Greek version of the story of Jason, telling of that hero\u2019s\ntreatment of the body of Apsyrtos--whom he had slain--says: \u201cThrice\nhe tasted the blood, thrice [he] spat it out between his teeth;\u201d and\na modern collator informs us, that the scholiast here finds \u201cthe\ndescription of an archaic custom, popular among murderers.\u201d[268] This\ncertainly corresponds with the Semitic phrases lingering among the\nFell\u00e2heen of Palestine.\n\nIn the old German epic, the Nibelungen Lied, it is told of the brave\nBurgundians, when they were fighting desperately in the burning hall of\nthe Huns, that they were given new courage for the hopeless conflict,\nby drinking the blood of their fallen comrades; which \u201cquenched their\nthirst, and made them fierce.\u201d[269] With their added life, from the\nadded blood of heroes, they battled as never before.\n\n   \u201cIt strung again their sinews, and failing strength renewed.\n    This, in her lover\u2019s person, many a fair lady rued.\u201d[270]\n\nIs there not, indeed, a trace of the primitive custom--thus recognized\nin all quarters of the globe--of absorbing the life of a slain one by\ndrinking in his blood, in our common phrase, \u201cblood-thirstiness,\u201d as\ndescriptive of a life-seeker? That phrase certainly gains added force\nand appropriateness, in the light of this universal idea.\n\nIt is evident that the wide-spread popular belief in nature-absorption\nthrough blood-appropriation, has included the idea of a _tribal_\nabsorption of new life in _vicarious_ blood. Alcedo, a Spanish-American\nwriter, has illustrated this in his description of the native\nAraucanians of South America. When they have triumphed in war, they\nselect a representative prisoner for official and vicarious execution.\nAfter due preparation, they \u201cgive him a handful of small sticks and a\nsharp stake, with which they oblige him to dig a hole in the ground;\nand in this they order him to cast the sticks one by one, repeating the\nnames of the principal warriors of his country, while at the same time\nthe surrounding soldiers load these abhorred names with the bitterest\nexecrations. He is then ordered to cover the hole, as if to bury\ntherein the reputation and valor of their enemies, whom he has named.\nAfter this ceremony, the toqui, or one of his bravest companions to\nwhom he relinquishes the honor of the execution, dashes out the brains\nof the prisoner with a club. The _heart_ is immediately taken out,\nand presented palpitating to the general, who sucks a little of the\n_blood_, and passes it to his officers, who repeat in succession the\nsame ceremony.\u201d[271] And in this way the life of the conquered tribe\npasses, symbolically, into the tribal life of the conquerors.\n\nBurckhardt was so surprised at a trace of this idea in Nubia, that he\ncould hardly credit the information concerning it; \u201calthough several\npersons asserted it to be a fact,\u201d he says; \u201cand he heard no one\ncontradict it.\u201d[272] As he learned it: \u201cAmong the Hallenga, who draw\ntheir origin from Abyssinia, a horrible custom is said to attend the\nrevenge of blood. When the slayer has been seized by the relatives of\nthe deceased, a family feast is proclaimed, at which the murderer is\nbrought into the midst of them, bound upon an angareyg; and while his\nthroat is slowly cut with a razor, the blood is caught in a bowl, and\nhanded round amongst the guests; every one of whom is bound to drink of\nit, at the moment the victim breathes his last.\u201d The forfeited life of\nthe murderer here seems to be surrendered to, and formally appropriated\nby, the family, or clan, which he had, to the same extent, depleted of\ncharacter and life.\n\nA practice not unlike this is reported of the Australians, in their\navenging the blood of a murdered person. They devour their victims;\nwho are selected from the tribe of the murderer, although they may be\npersonally, innocent of the murder. The tribe depleted by the murder,\nreplaces its loss by blood--which is life--from the tribe of the\nmurderer. Indeed, \u201cwhen any one of a tribe [in New South Wales] dies\na natural death, it is usual to avenge [or to cancel] the loss of the\ndeceased by taking blood from one or other of his friends.\u201d[273] In\nthis way, the very life and being of those whose blood is taken, go to\nrestore to the bereaved ones the loss that death has brought to them.\n\nStrange as this idea may seem to us, its root-thought, as a fact, is\nstill an open question in the realm of physiological science. The\nclaim is positive, in medical works, that insanity has been cured by\nthe transfusion of a sane man\u2019s blood;[274] that a normal mind has\nbeen restored, through a normal life gained in new blood. Moreover,\nthe question, how far the nature, or the characteristics, of an\norganism, are affected, in blood transfusion, by the nature, or the\ncharacteristics, of the donor of the transfused blood, is by no means\na settled one among scientists. Referring to a series of questions in\nthis line, propounded by Robert Boyle, more than two centuries ago,\nRoussel has said, within the past decade: \u201cNo one has been able to give\nany positive answers to them, based upon well-conducted operations\u201d;\nand, \u201cthey still await solution in 1877, as in 1667.\u201d[275]\n\n\n4. LIFE FROM ANY BLOOD, AND BY A TOUCH.\n\nBecause blood is life, all blood, and any blood, has been looked upon\nas a vehicle of transferred life. And because blood is life, and the\nheart is a fountain of blood, and so is a fountain of life,--a touch\nof blood, or, again, the minutest portion of a vital and vivifying\nheart, has been counted capable of transferring life, with all that\nlife includes and carries; just as the merest cutting of a vine, or the\ntiniest seed of the mightiest tree, will suffice as the germ of that\nvine or that tree, in a new planting. The blood, or the heart, of the\nlower animals, has been deemed the vehicle of life and strength, in\nits transference; and a touch from either has been counted potent in\nre-vivifying and in improving the receiving organism.\n\nThus, for example, Stanley, in the interior of Africa, having received\n\u201ca fine, fat ox as a peace-offering,\u201d from \u201cthe great magic doctor of\nVinyata,\u201d when making a covenant of blood with him,[276] was requested\nto return the heart of the ox to the donor; and he acceded to this\nrequest. After this, Stanley\u2019s party was several times assailed by the\nWanyaturu, from the neighborhood of Vinyata. Thereupon his ally Mgongo\nTembo explained, says Stanley: \u201cThat we ought not to have bestowed the\n_heart_ of the presented ox upon the magic doctor of Vinyata; as by the\nloss of that diffuser of blood, the Wanyaturu believed we had left our\nown bodies weakened, and would be an easy prey to them.\u201d[277]\n\nAnother modern traveler in Equatorial Africa finds fresh bullock\u2019s\nblood counted a means of manhood. While the young Mas\u00e2i man is passing\nhis novitiate into warrior life, he seeks new strength by taking in\nnew blood. Having employed medical means to rid his system of the\nremains of all other diet, says Thompson, the novice went to a lonely\nplace with a single attendant; they taking with them a living bullock.\nThere \u201cthey killed the bullock, either with a blow from a rungu, or by\nstabbing it in the back of the neck. They then opened a vein and drank\nthe blood fresh from the animal.\u201d After this, the young man gorged\nhimself with the bullock\u2019s flesh.[278] And whenever the Mas\u00e2i warriors\n\u201cgo off on war-raids they also contrive to eat a bullock [after this\nfashion], by way of getting up their courage.\u201d[279]\n\nAgain, it is said, that Arab women in North Africa give their\nmale children a piece of the lion\u2019s heart to eat, to make them\ncourageous.[280] And an English traveler in South Africa[281]\ndescribing the death of a lion shot by his party, says: \u201cScarcely was\nthe breath out of his body than the Caffres rushed up, and each took a\nmouthful of the blood that was trickling from the numerous wounds; as\nthey believe that it is a specific which imparts strength and courage\nto those who partake of it.\u201d\n\nThat the transference of life, with all that life carries, can be made\nby the simplest blood-anointing, as surely as by blood absorption, is\nstrikingly illustrated by a custom still observed among the Hill Tribes\nof India. The Bheels, are a brave and warlike race of mountaineers, of\nHindostan. They claim to have been, formerly, the rulers of all their\nregion; but, whether by defeat in war, or by voluntary concession, to\nhave yielded their power to other peoples--whom they now authorize to\nrule in their old domain. \u201cThe extraordinary custom, common to almost\nall the countries [of India] that have been mentioned,\u201d says Sir J.\nMalcolm,[282] \u201cof the _tika_, or mark that is put upon the forehead of\nthe Rajput prince, or chief, when he succeeds to power, being moistened\nwith blood taken from the toe or thumb of a Bhill, may be received as\none among many proofs of their having been formerly in possession of\nthe principalities, where this usage prevails.\n\n... The right of giving the blood for this ceremony, is claimed by\nparticular families; and the belief, that the individual, from whose\nveins it is supplied, never lives beyond a twelvemonth, in no degree\noperates to repress the zeal of the Bhills to perpetuate an usage,\nwhich the Rajput princes are, without exception, desirous should\ncease.\u201d The Bheels claim that the right to rule is vested in their\nrace; but they transfer that right to the Rajpoot by a transfer of\nblood--which is a transfer of life and of nature. Thus the Bheels\ncontinue to rule--in the person of those who have been vivified by\ntheir blood.\n\nSo, again, among the ancient Caribs, of South America, \u201c\u2018as soon as a\nmale child was brought into the world, he was sprinkled with some drops\nof his father\u2019s blood\u2019; the father \u2018fondly believing, that the same\ndegree of courage which he had himself displayed, was by these means\ntransmitted to his son.\u2019\u201d[283] Here it is evident, that the voluntary\ntransfusion of blood is deemed more potent to the strengthening of\npersonal character, than is the transmission of blood by natural\ndescent.\n\nIn South Africa, among the Amampondo, one of the Kaffir tribes, it is\ncustomary for the chief, on his accession to authority, \u201cto be washed\nin the blood of a near relative, generally a brother, who is put to\ndeath on the occasion, and his skull used as a receptacle for his\nblood.\u201d[284] In order to give more life and more character than the\nordinary possession to the newly elevated chieftain, the family blood\nis withdrawn from the veins of one having less need of it, that it may\nbe absorbed by him who can use it more imposingly.\n\nIn the Yoruba country, in Central Africa, \u201cwhen a beast is sacrificed\nfor a sick man, the blood is sprinkled on the wall, and smeared on the\npatient\u2019s forehead, with the idea, it is said, of thus transferring to\nhim the [divinely] accepted victim\u2019s life.\u201d Life is life, and whether\nthat life be in the blood of one organism or of another, of man or\nof an inferior animal, its transference carries with it all that life\nincludes. That seems to be the thought in Yoruba; and, as all life is\nof supernatural origin and preservation, its transference can be by a\ntouch as easily as by any other method.[285]\n\n\n5. INSPIRATION THROUGH BLOOD.\n\nBecause blood, as life, belongs to, and, in a peculiar sense,\nrepresents, the Author of life, blood has been counted a means of\ninspiration. The blood of the gods, in myth and legend, and again the\nblood of divinely accepted sacrifices, human and animal, in ancient and\nmodern religious rituals, has been relied on as the agency whereby the\nAuthor of life speaks in and through the possessor of that blood.\n\nThe inspiring power of blood, is a thought that runs all through the\nearly Norseland legends. Thus, Kvaser, according to the Scandinavian\nmythology, was a being created by the gods with preternatural\nintelligence. Kvaser traversed the world, teaching men wisdom; but\nhe was treacherously murdered by the dwarfs Fjalar and Gala. The\ndwarfs let Kvaser\u2019s blood run into two cups and a kettle. \u201cThe name\nof the kettle is Odr\u0153rer, and the names of the cups are Son and Bodn.\nBy mixing up his blood with honey, they composed a drink of such\nsurpassing excellence, that whoever partakes of it acquires the gift of\nsong.\u201d[286] And that was the origin of poetry in the world; although\nthere have been a good many imitations of the real article since that\nday.\n\nSo, again, in the Elder Edda, the hero Sigurd killed Fafner, at the\ninstigation of Fafner\u2019s brother Regin. Regin cut out the heart of his\nbrother, and gave it to Sigurd to roast, while he drank the blood of\nthe murdered one. Touching the bleeding heart with his fingers, and\nthen putting his fingers into his mouth, Sigurd found that he was now\nable to understand the voice of birds; and thenceforward he was a hero\ninspired.[287] Afterwards he gave his bride, Gudrun, \u201cto eat of the\nremnant of Fafnir\u2019s heart; so _she_ grew wise and great-hearted.\u201d[288]\n\nDown to the present time, there are those in the far East, and in the\nfar West, who seek inspiration by blood-drinking. All along the North\nPacific coast, the shamanism of the native tribes shows itself in a\ncraving for blood as a means and as an accompaniment of preternatural\nfrenzy. The chief sorcerer, or medicine-man, has his seasons of\ndemoniacal possession, when he can communicate with the powers of the\nair. At such times he is accustomed to spring upon the members of his\ntribe, and bite out from their necks or bodies the bleeding flesh, as\na help to inspiration and debauch. None would venture to resist these\nblood-thirsty assaults; but the scars which result are always borne\nwith pride.[289]\n\nAnother phase of this universal idea is reported by a recent traveler\nin the Himalayan districts of India; where, as he thinks, the forms\nof religion ante-date in their origin those of Hindooism, or of\nBrahmanism, and \u201chave descended from very early ages.\u201d When a favor is\nsought from a local divinity, \u201cit is the _chela_ [or primitive seer]\nwho gasps out the commands of the _deoty_ [the \u2018deity\u2019], as he [the\nchela] shivers under the divine afflatus, and [under] the vigorous\napplication of the _soongul_, or iron scourge.\u201d But before the chela\ncan have \u201cthe divine afflatus\u201d he must drink-in living blood. Thus,\nthis traveler witnessed an appeal to the snake-god, Kailung Nag, for\nfine weather for the sowing of the crops. The sacrificial sheep was\nprocured by the people; the ceremonies of wild worship, including\nmusic, dancing, incense-burning, and bodily flagellations, proceeded.\n\u201cAt length, all being ready, the head of the victim was struck off with\nan axe. The body was then lifted up by several men, and the chela,\nseizing upon it like a tiger, drank the blood as it spurted from the\nneck. When all the blood had been sucked from the carcass, it was\nthrown down upon the ground, amid yells and shouts of \u2018_Kailung Maharaj\nki jai!_\u2019 [\u2018Victory to the great king Kailung\u2019]. The dancing was\nthen renewed, and became more violent, until after many contortions,\nthe chela [now blood-filled] gasped out that the deota accepted the\nsacrifice, and that the season would be favorable. This was received\nwith renewed shouts, and the chela sank down upon the ground in a state\nof exhaustion.\u201d[290]\n\nIn the folk-lore of Scotland, as representing the primitive traditions\nof Western Europe, there are illustrations of the idea that the\nblood of the gods was communicated to earthly organisms. Thus, a\nscientific antiquarian of Scotland records in this line: \u201cThere was\na popular saying that the robin\u201d--the robin red-breast--\u201chad a drop\nof God\u2019s blood in its veins, and that therefore to kill or hurt\nit was a sin, and that some evil would befall any one who did so;\nand, conversely, any kindness done to poor robin would be repaid\nin some fashion. Boys did not dare to harry a robin\u2019s nest.\u201d On\nthe other hand, the yellow-hammer and the swallow were said, each\n\u201cto have a drop of the Devil\u2019s blood in its veins\u201d; so the one of\nthese birds--the yellow-hammer--was \u201cremorselessly harried\u201d; and the\nother--the swallow--\u201cwas feared, and therefore let alone.\u201d[291] A\nsimilar legendary fear of the swallow, and the guarding of his nest,\naccordingly, exists in Germany and in China.[292]\n\nAnother indication of the belief, that human blood has a vital\nconnection with its divine source, and is under the peculiar oversight\nof its divine Author, is found in the wide-spread opinion that the\nblood of a murdered man will bear witness against the murderer, by\nflowing afresh at his touch; the living blood crying out from the dead\nbody, by divine consent, in testimony of crime against the Author of\nlife. Ancient European literature teems with incidents in the line of\nthis \u201cordeal of touch.\u201d\n\nThus it was, according to the Nibelungen Lied, that Kriemhild fastened\nupon Hagan the guilt of murdering her husband Siegfried; when Hagan and\nhis associates were gathered for the burial of the hero.\n\n   \u201cFirmly they made denial; Kriemhild at once replied,\n    \u2018Whoe\u2019er in this is guiltless, let him this proof abide.\n    In sight of all the people let him approach the bier,\n    And so to each beholder shall the plain truth appear.\u2019\n    It is a mighty marvel, which oft e\u2019en now we spy,\n    That, when the blood-stain\u2019d murderer comes to the murder\u2019d nigh,\n    The wounds break out a-bleeding; then too the same befell,\n    And thus could each beholder the guilt of Hagan tell.\n    The wounds at once burst streaming, fast as they did before;\n    Those who then sorrowed deeply, now yet lamented more.\u201d[293]\n\nUnder Christian II., of Denmark, the \u201cNero of the North,\u201d early in the\nsixteenth century, there was a notable illustration of this confidence\nin the power of blood to speak for itself. A number of gentlemen being\ntogether in a tavern, one evening, they fell to quarreling, and \u201cone\nof them was stabbed with a poniard. Now the murderer was unknown, by\nreason of the number [present]; although the person stabbed accused a\npursuivant of the king\u2019s who was one of the company. The king, to find\nout the homicide, caused them all to come together in the stove [the\ntavern], and, standing round the corpse, he commanded that they should,\none after another, lay their right hand on the slain gentleman\u2019s naked\nbreast, swearing that they had not killed him. The gentlemen did so,\nand no sign appeared against them. The pursuivant only remained, who,\ncondemned before in his own conscience, went first of all and kissed\nthe dead man\u2019s feet. But, as soon as he had laid his hand upon his\nbreast, the blood gushed forth in abundance, both out of his wound\nand his nostrils; so that, urged by this evident accusation, he\nconfessed the murder, and was by the king\u2019s own sentence, immediately\nbeheaded.\u201d[294]\n\nA striking example of the high repute in which this ordeal of touch was\nformerly held, and of the underlying idea on which its estimate was\nbased, is reported from the State Trials of Scotland. It was during the\ntrial of Philip Standsfield, in 1688, for the murder of his father,\nSir James. The testimony was explicit, that when this son touched the\nbody, the blood flowed afresh, and the son started back in terror,\ncrying out, \u201cLord, have mercy upon me!\u201d wiping off the blood, from his\nhand, on his clothes. Sir George M\u2019Kenzie, acting for the State, at the\ninquest, said concerning this testimony and its teachings: \u201cBut they,\nfully persuaded that Sir James was murdered by his own son, sent out\n[with him] some surgeons and friends, who having raised the body, did\nsee it bleed miraculously upon his touching it. In which, God Almighty\nhimself was pleased to bear a share in the testimonies which we\nproduce: that Divine Power which makes the blood circulate during life,\nhas oft times, in all nations, opened a passage to it after death upon\nsuch occasions, but most in this case.\u201d[295]\n\nMr. Henry C. Lea, in his erudite work on Superstition and Force, has\nmultiplied illustrations of the ordeal of touch, or of \u201cbier-right,\u201d\nall along the later centuries.[296] He recalls that \u201cShakspeare\nintroduces it, in King Richard III., where Gloster interrupts the\nfuneral of Henry VI., and Lady Anne exclaims:\n\n   \u2018O gentlemen see, see! dead Henry\u2019s wounds\n    Open their congealed mouths, and bleed afresh.\u2019\u201d\n\nHe refers to the fact that it was an old-time Jewish custom to ask\npardon of a corpse for any offences committed against the living man,\nlaying hold of the great toe of the corpse while thus asking; and if\nthe asker had really inflicted any grievous injury on the deceased,\nthe body was supposed to signify that fact by a copious hemorrhage\nfrom the nose.[297] \u201cThis, it will be observed,\u201d he adds, \u201cis almost\nidentical with the well-known story which relates that, when Richard\nC\u0153ur-de-Lion hastened to the funeral of his father, Henry II., and\nmet the procession at Fontevraud, the blood poured from the nostrils\nof the dead king, whose end he had hastened by his disobedience and\nrebellion.\u201d Mr. Lea shows that in some instances the bones of a\nmurdered man are said to have given out fresh blood when handled by a\nmurderer as long as twenty years, or even fifty, after the murder; and\nhe gives ample evidence that a belief in this power of blood to speak\nfor itself against the violator of God\u2019s law, still exists among the\nEnglish-speaking people, and that it has manifested itself as a means\nof justice-seeking, in the United States, within a few years past.\n\n\n6. INTER-COMMUNION THROUGH BLOOD.\n\nBeyond the idea of inspiration through an interflow of God-representing\nblood, there has been in primitive man\u2019s mind (however it came\nthere) the thought of a possible inter-communion with God through an\ninter-union with God by blood. God is life. All life is from God, and\nbelongs to God. Blood is life. Blood, therefore, as life, may be a\nmeans of man\u2019s inter-union with God. As the closest and most sacred of\ncovenants between man and man; as, indeed, an absolute merging of two\nhuman natures into one,--is a possibility through an inter-flowing of a\ncommon blood; so the closest and most sacred of covenants between man\nand God; so the inter-union of the human nature with the divine,--has\nbeen looked upon as a possibility, through the proffer and acceptance\nof a common life in a common blood-flow.\n\nWhatever has been man\u2019s view of sin and its punishment, and of his\nseparation from God because of unforgiven sin (I speak now of man\nas he is found, without the specific teachings of the Bible on this\nsubject), he has counted blood--his own blood, in actuality or by\nsubstitute--a means of inter-union with God, or with the gods. Blood is\nnot death, but life. The shedding of blood, Godward, is not the taking\nof life, but the giving of life. The outflowing of blood toward God is\nan act of gratitude or of affection, a proof of loving confidence, a\nmeans of inter-union. This seems to have been the universal primitive\nconception of the race. And an evidence of man\u2019s trust in the\naccomplished fact of his inter-union with God, or with the gods, by\nblood, has been the also universal practice of man\u2019s inter-communion\nwith God, or with the gods, by his sharing, in food-partaking, of the\nbody of the sacrificial offering, whose blood is the means of the\ndivine-human inter-union.\n\nPerhaps the most ancient existing form of religious worship, as also\nthe simplest and most primitive form, is to be found in China, in the\nstate religion, represented by the Emperor\u2019s worship at the Temple of\nHeaven, in Peking. And in that worship, the idea of the worshiper\u2019s\ninter-communion with God, through the body and blood of the sacrificial\noffering, is disclosed, even if not always recognized, by all the\nrepresentative Western authorities on the religions of China.\n\n\u201cThe Chinese idea of a sacrifice to the supreme spirit of Heaven and of\nEarth is that of a banquet. There is no trace of any other idea,\u201d says\nDr. Edkins.[298] Dr. Legge,[299] citing this statement, expands its\nsignificance by saying: \u201cThe notion of the whole service [at the Temple\nof Heaven] might be that of a banquet; but a sacrifice and a banquet\nare incompatible ideas.\u201d[300] He then shows that the Chinese character\n_ts\u00ee_, signifying \u201csacrifice,\u201d \u201ccovers a much wider space of meaning\nthan our term sacrifice [as he seems to view our use of that term].\u201d\nMorrison gives as one of the meanings of _ts\u00ee_, \u201cThat which is the\nmedium between, or brings together, men and Gods\u201d; and Hs\u00fc Shan \u201csays,\nthat _ts\u00ee_ is made up of two ideograms;--one the primitive for spiritual\nbeings, and the other representing a right hand and a piece of flesh.\u201d\nLegge adds: \u201cThe most general idea symbolized by it is--an offering\nwhereby communication and communion with spiritual beings [God, or the\ngods] is effected.\u201d[301]\n\nDr. S. Wells Williams says, that \u201cno religious system has been\nfound among the Chinese which taught the doctrine of the atonement\nby the shedding of blood\u201d; and this he counts \u201can argument in favor\nof their [the Chinese] antiquity\u201d; adding that \u201cthe state religion\n... has maintained its main features during the past three thousand\nyears.\u201d[302] Williams here, evidently, refers to an expiatory atonement\nfor sin; and Legge has a similar view of the facts.[303] The idea of an\napproach to God through blood--blood as a means of favor, even if not\nblood as a canceling of guilt--is obvious, in the outpouring of blood\nby the Emperor when he approaches God for his worship in the Temple\nof Heaven. The symbolic sacrifice in that worship, which precedes the\ncommunion, is of a whole \u201cburnt offering, of a bullock, entire and\nwithout blemish\u201d;[304] and the blood of that offering is reverently\npoured out into the earth,[305] to be buried there, according to the\nthought of man and the teachings of God in all the ages. It is even\nclaimed that as early as 2697 B. C., it was the blood of the first-born\nwhich must be poured out toward God--as a means of favor--in the\nEmperor\u2019s approach for communion with God; \u201ca first-born male,\u201d being\noffered up \u201cas a whole burnt sacrifice,\u201d in this worship.[306] Surely,\nin this surrender of the first-born, there must have been some idea of\nan affectionate offering, in the gift of that which was dearest, even\nif there was no idea of substitution by way of expiation; something\nin addition to the simple idea of \u201ca banquet\u201d; something which was an\nessential preliminary to the banquet.\n\nAccess to God being attained by the Emperor, the Emperor enjoys\ncommunion with God in the Temple of Heaven. It is after the outpouring\nof blood, and the offering of the holocaust, that--in a lull of the\norchestral music, in the great annual sacrifice--\u201ca single voice is\nheard, on the upper terrace of the altar, chanting the words, \u2018Give the\ncup of blessing, and the meat of blessing.\u2019 In response, the officer in\ncharge of the cushion advances and kneels, spreading the cushion. Other\nofficers present the cup of blessing and the meat of blessing [which\nhave already been presented Godward] to the Emperor, who partakes of\nthe wine and returns them. The Emperor then again prostrates himself,\nand knocks his forehead three times against the ground, and then nine\ntimes more, to represent his thankful reception of the wine and meat\n[in communion].\u201d[307]\n\nThe evidence is abundant, that the main idea of this primitive and\nsupreme service in the religions of China, is the inter-communion of\nthe Emperor with God. And there is no lack of proof that in China,\nas elsewhere all the world over, blood--as life--is the means of\ncovenanting in an indissoluble inter-union; of which inter-union,\ninter-communion is a result and a proof.\n\nIn China, as also in India,[308] when the sacrifice of human beings\nwas abolished, it was followed by the sacrifice of the horse. And\nthe horse-sacrifice is still practised in some parts of the Chinese\nEmpire, on important occasions. A white horse is brought to the brink\nof a stream, or a lake, and there sacrificed, by decapitating it,\n\u201cburying its head below low-water mark, but _reserving its carcase for\nfood_.\u201d[309] In a description of this sacrifice, in honor of a certain\ngoddess, as witnessed by Archdeacon Gray,[310] it is said: \u201cIts\n_blood_ was received in a large earthenware jar, and a portion carried\nto the temple of the aforesaid goddess; when all the villagers rushed\ntumultuously to secure a sprinkling of blood on the charms which they\nhad already purchased. The rest of the blood was mingled with sand,\u201d\nand taken with various accessories, in a boat. \u201cThis boat headed a long\nprocession of richly carved and gilded boats, in which were priests,\nboth Buddhist and Taouists, and village warriors discharging matchlocks\nto terrify the water-devils; while the men in the first boat sprinkle\nthe waters, as they advance, with blood-stained sand.\u201d\n\nSo, again, it is the blood of a cock,--not the body but the\nblood,--which is made the propitiatory offering to the goddess known\nas \u201cLoong-moo, or the Dragon\u2019s Mother,\u201d on the river junks of China.\nThe blood is sprinkled on the deck, near a temporary altar, where\nlibations of wine have already been poured out by master of this junk,\nwho is the sacrificer. Afterwards, bits of silver paper are \u201csprinkled\nwith the blood, and then fastened to the door-posts and lintels of the\ncabin\u201d;[311] as if in token of the blood-covenant between those who\nare within those doors and the goddess whose substitute blood is there\naffixed. And this precedes the feast of inter-communion.[312]\n\nNor are indications wanting, that the idea of inter-union with the gods\nby blood was originally linked with, if it were not primarily based\nupon, the rite of blood-covenanting between two human friends. Thus,\nArchdeacon Gray unconsciously discloses traces of this rite, in his\ndescription of the exorcising of demons from the body of a child, by\na Taouist priest, in Canton.[313] Certain preliminary ceremonies were\nconcluded; which were supposed to drive out the demons. \u201cThe priest\nthen proceeded to uncover his [own] arm, and made an incision with a\nlancet in the fleshy part. The blood which flowed from the wound, was\nallowed to mingle with a small quantity of water in a cup. The seal\nof the temple, the impression of which was the name of the idol, was\nthen dipped into the blood, and stamped upon the wrists, neck, back and\nforehead[314] of the poor heathen child.\u201d By this means, that child was\nsymbolically sealed in covenant relations with the god of that temple,\nby the substitute blood of that god\u2019s representative priest.\n\nThus, also, Dr. Legge, referring to old-time covenantings in China,\nsays:[315] \u201cMany covenants were made among the feudal princes,--made\nover the blood of a victim, with which each covenanting party smeared\nthe corners of his mouth [which is one form of tasting];[316] while\nan appeal was addressed to the invisible powers to inflict vengeance\non all who should violate the conditions agreed upon [the ordinary\nimprecatory prayers in the rite of blood-covenanting].\u201d A symbolic\ninter-union of blood is a basis of inter-communion between two human\nbeings, as also between the human and the divine beings even in\nChina--where, perhaps, that idea would be least likely to be looked for.\n\nIt is a common opinion, that in no part of the world is there a more\ngeneral prejudice against blood-shedding, or the taking of animal life,\nthan in India. And it certainly is a fact, that the great religious\nsystems, of Brahmanism and of Booddhism, which have controlled the\nmoral sense of the peoples of India for a score or two of centuries,\nhave exerted themselves, in the main, to the inculcation of these views\nas to the sacredness of blood and of life--or of blood which is life.\nHence, we would naturally look, in India, only for traces, or vestiges,\nof the primitive, world-wide idea of inter-communion with God, or with\nthe gods, through a divine-human inter-union by blood. Nor are such\ntraces and vestiges lacking in the religious customs of India.\n\nIn India, as in China, human sacrifices, especially the sacrifice of\nthe first-born son, were formerly made freely, as a means of bringing\nthe offerer into closer relations with the gods, through the outpoured\nblood.[317] It was the blood, as the life, which was believed to be\nthe common possession of gods, men, and beasts; hence the final\nsubstitution, in India, of beasts for men, in the blood-covenanting\nwith the gods. On this point, the evidence seems clear.\n\nThe Vedas, or sacred books of the Brahmans, teach, indeed, that the\ngods themselves were mere mortals, until by repeated offerings of\nblood in sacrifice, to the Supreme Being, they won immortality from\nhim; which is only another way of making the claim, put forward by the\nimmortalized-mortal, in the Book of the Dead, of ancient Egypt, that\nthe mortal became one with the gods through an interflow of a common\nlife in the common blood of the two. Mortals gave the blood of their\nfirst-born sons in sacrifice to the Supreme Being. Then the Supreme\nBeing gave the blood of his first-born male in sacrifice. Thus, the\nnature of the favored mortals and the nature of the Supreme Being\nbecame one and the same. Dr. Monier Williams cites freely from the\nVedas in the direction of this great truth; although he does not note\nits bearing on the blood-covenant rite. Thus, in \u201cthe following free\ntranslation of a passage of the Satapatha-br\u0101hmana:\n\n   \u2018The gods lived constantly in dread of Death--\n    The mighty Ender--so, with toilsome rites\n    They worshiped, and repeated sacrifices,\n    Till they became immortal.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd again in the Taittir\u012bya-br\u0101hmana: \u2018By means of the sacrifice\nthe gods obtained heaven.\u2019\u201d In the T\u0101ndya-br\u0101hmanas: \u201cThe lord of\ncreatures offered himself a sacrifice for the gods.\u201d \u201cAnd again,\nin the Satapatha-br\u0101hmana: \u2018He who, knowing this, sacrifices with\nthe _Purusha-medha_, or sacrifice of the primeval male, becomes\neverything.\u2019\u201d[318]\n\nThat it was the _blood_, which was the chief element in the\ncovenanting-sacrifice, is evident from all the facts in the case. Thus,\nin the Aitareya-br\u0101hmana, it is said: \u201cThe gods killed a man for their\nvictim [of sacrifice]. But from him thus killed, the part which was\nfit for a sacrifice went out and entered a horse. Thence, the horse\nbecame an animal fit for being sacrificed. The gods then killed the\nhorse, but the part of it fit for being sacrificed went out of it and\nentered an ox. The gods then killed the ox, but the part of it fit\nfor being sacrificed went out of it and entered a sheep. Thence it\nentered a goat. The sacrificial part remained for the longest time\nin the goat; thence it [the goat] became preeminently fit for being\nsacrificed!\u201d Indian history shows that this has been the progress of\nreform, from the days of human sacrifice downward. \u201cIt is remarkable\nthat in Vedic times, even a cow ... was sometimes killed; and goats, as\nis well known, are still sacrificed to the goddess K\u0101l\u012b.\u201d[319] Kal\u012b,\nalso called Doorg\u0101, is the blood-craving goddess. The blood of one\nhuman victim, it is said, \u201cgives her a gleam of pleasure that endures a\nthousand years; and the sacrifice of three men together, would prolong\nher ecstacy for a thousand centuries.\u201d[320]\n\nBishop Heber indicates the \u201csacrificial part\u201d of the goat as he saw it\noffered at a temple of K\u0101l\u012b in Umeer. He was being shown by his guide\nthrough that city, on his first visit there, and the guide proposed a\nlook at the temple. \u201cHe turned short, and led us some little distance\nup the citadel, then through a dark, low arch into a small court,\nwhere, to my surprise, the first object which met my eyes was a pool\nof blood on the pavement, by which a naked man stood with a bloody\nsword in his hand.... The guide ... cautioned me against treading in\nthe blood, and told me that a goat was sacrificed here every morning.\nIn fact a second glance showed me the headless body of the poor animal\nlying before the steps of a small shrine, apparently of Kali. The\nBrahman was officiating and tinkling his bell.... The guide told us,\non our way back, that the tradition was, that, in ancient times a man\nwas sacrificed here every day; that the custom had been laid aside till\nJye Singh [the builder of Umeer] had a frightful dream, in which the\ndestroying power appeared to him, and asked why her image was suffered\nto be dry [It is _blood_, not _flesh_, that moistens]. The Rajah,\nafraid to disobey, and reluctant to fulfil the requisition to its\nancient extent of horror, took counsel and substituted a goat [in which\nas well as in man there is blood--which is life--which is the chief\nthing in a sacrifice Godward] for the human victim; with which the\n\n    \u2018Dark goddess of the azure flood,\n      Whose robes are wet with infant tears,\n    Skull-chaplet wearer, whom the blood\n      Of man delights three thousand years,\u2019\n\nwas graciously pleased to be contented.\u201d[321]\n\n\u201cI had always heard, and fully believed till I came to India,\u201d says\nBishop Heber, \u201cthat it was a grievous crime, in the opinion of the\nBrahmans, to eat the flesh or shed the blood of any living creature\nwhatever. I have now myself seen Brahmans of the highest caste cut\noff the heads of goats, as a sacrifice to Doorga; and I know from\nthe testimony of Brahmans, as well as from other sources, that not\nonly hecatombs of animals are often offered in this manner, as a most\nmeritorious act (a Rajah, about twenty-five years back [say about A. D.\n1800], offered sixty thousand in one fortnight); but that any persons,\nBrahmans not excepted, eat readily [in inter-communion] of the flesh\nwhich has been offered up to one of their divinities.\u201d[322]\n\nClearly, the idea of inter-communion with the gods, on the basis of\nthe inter-flow of blood, exists in many Brahmanic practices of to-day.\nIt still finds its expression in the occasional \u201cSacrifice of the\nYajna, at which a ram is immolated.\u201d It is claimed by the Brahmans\nthat \u201cthis sacrifice is the most exalted and the most meritorious\nof all that human beings can devise. It is the most grateful to the\ngods. It calls down all sorts of temporal blessings, and blots out all\nthe sins that can have been accumulated for four generations.\u201d The\nram chosen for this sacrifice must be \u201centirely white, and without\nblemish: of about three years old.\u201d Only Brahmans who are free from\nphysical infirmities and from ceremonial defects can have a part in\nits offering, \u201cat which no man of any other caste can be present.\u201d\nBecause of the Brahmanic horror of the shedding of blood, the victim is\nsmothered, or \u201cstrangled\u201d; after which it is cut in pieces, and burned\nas an oblation. \u201cA part, however, is preserved for him who presides\nat the sacrifice, and part for him who is at the expense of it. These\nshare their portions with the Brahmans who are present; amongst whom\na scuffle ensues, each striving for a small bit of the flesh. Such\nmorsels as they can catch they tear with their hands, and devour as\na sacred viand [the meat of inter-communion with the gods]. This\npractice is the more remarkable, as being the only occasion in their\n[the Brahmans\u2019] lives when they can venture to touch animal food.\u201d\n\u201cThis most renowned sacrifice ... is one of the six privileges of the\nBrahmans\u201d; and it would seem that its offering may now be directed to\nany one of the divinities, at the preference of the offerer. Formerly\nthere was also the \u201c_Great_ Sacrifice of the Yajna,\u201d which is no longer\nin use. \u201cAt this sacrifice,\u201d in its day, \u201cevery species of victim was\nimmolated; and it is beyond doubt that human beings even were offered\nup; but the horse and the elephant were the most common.\u201d[323] So,\nthere has never been an entire absence from the Brahmanic practices of\nan inter-communion with the gods through an inter-union by blood.\n\nEven more remarkable than this canonical sacrifice of the Yajna, with\nits accompanying inter-communion, are some of the occult sacrifices to\nthe gods of the Hindoo Pantheon, in which all the ordinary barriers\nof caste are disregarded, in the un-canonical but greatly prized\nservices of inter-communion with the gods on the basis of an inter-flow\nof blood. The offerings of blood-flowing sacrifices, including even\nthe cow, are made before the image of Vishnoo; or, more probably of\nKrishna as one of the forms of Vishnoo. The spirituous liquors of\nthe country are also presented as drink-offerings. Then follows the\ninter-communion. \u201cHe who administers [at the offering to the god]\ntastes each species of meat and of liquor; after which he gives\npermission to the worshipers to consume the rest. Then may be seen\nmen and women rushing forward, tearing and devouring. One seizes a\nmorsel, and while he gnaws it, another snatches it out of his hands,\nand thus it passes on from mouth to mouth till it disappears, while\nfresh morsels, in succession, are making the same disgusting round.\nThe meat being greedily eaten up, the strong liquors and the opium\n[which have all been offered to the gods] are sent round. All drink out\nof the same cup, one draining what another leaves, in spite of their\nnatural abhorrence of such a practice.... All castes are confounded,\nand the Brahman is not above the Pariah.... Brahmans, Sudras, Pariahs,\nmen and women, swill the arrack which was the offering to the Saktis,\nregardless of the same glass being used by them all, which in ordinary\ncases would excite abhorrence. Here it is a virtuous act to participate\nin the same morsel, and to receive from each other\u2019s mouths the\nhalf-gnawn flesh.\u201d[324]\n\nThe fact that this service is of so disgusting a character, does\nnot lessen its importance as an illustration of a primitive custom\ndegraded by successive generations of defiling influences. It still\nstands as one of the proofs of the universal custom of an attempted\ninter-communion with the gods through an inter-union by blood.\nIndeed, there are many traces, in India, of the survival of this\nprimitive idea. Referring to the worship of Krishna, under the form of\nJagan-natha (or Juggernaut, as the name is popularly rendered) a recent\nwriter on India says: \u201cBefore this monstrous shrine, all distinctions\nof caste are forgotten, and even a Christian may sit down and eat with\na Brahman. In his work on Orissa, Dr. W. W. Hunter, says, that at the\n\u2018Sacrament of the Holy Food\u2019 he has seen a Puri priest receive his food\nfrom a Christian\u2019s hand.... This rite is evidently also a survival of\nBuddhism [It goes a long way back of that]. It is remarkable that at\nthe shrine of Vyankoba, an obscure form of Siva, at Pandharpur, in the\nSouthern Maratha country, caste is also in abeyance, all men being\ndeemed equal in its presence. Food is daily sent as a gift from the god\nto persons in all parts of the surrounding country, and the proudest\nBrahman gladly will accept and partake of it from the hands of the\nSudra, or Mahar, who is usually its bearer. There are two great annual\nfestivals in honor of Jagan-natha.... They are held everywhere; but at\nPuri they are attended by pilgrims from every part of India, as many as\n200,000 often being present. All the ground is holy within twenty miles\nof the pagoda, and the establishment of priests amounts to 3000. The\n\u2018Sacrament of the Holy Food\u2019 is celebrated three times a day.\u201d[325]\n\nThus it is evident that the idea of inter-communion with the gods\nhas not been lost sight of in India, even through the influence of\nBrahmanism and Booddhism against the idea of divine-human inter-union\nby blood--which is life. Indeed, this idea so pervades the religious\nthought of the Hindoos, that the commands are specific in their sacred\nbooks, that a portion of all food must be offered to the spirits,\nbefore any of it is partaken of by the eater. \u201cIt is emphatically\ndeclared that he who partakes of food before it has been offered in\nsacrifice as above described, eats but to his own damnation;\u201d[326]\nunless he discerns there the principle of divine-human inter-communion,\nhe eats to his own spiritual destruction.[327]\n\nAnd just here it is well to notice an incidental item of evidence that\nin India, as in the other lands of the East, the sacrifices to the gods\nwere in some way linked with the primitive rite of human covenanting\nby blood. An Oriental scholar has called attention to the origin of\nthe nose-ring, so commonly worn in India, as described in the Hindoo\nP\u0101ga-Vatham.[328] The story runs, that at the incarnation of Vishnoo as\nKrishna, the holy child\u2019s life was sought, and his mother exchanged\nher infant for the child of another woman, in order to his protection.\nIn doing so, she \u201cbored a hole in the nose of her infant, and put a\nring into it as an impediment and a sign. The blood which came from\nthe wound was as a sacrifice to prevent him from falling into the\nhand of his enemies.\u201d And, to this day, the nose-ring has two names,\nindicative of its two-fold purpose. \u201cThe first [name] is _nate-kaddan_,\nwhich signifies \u2018the obligation or debt a person is under by a vow\u2019;\nthe second [name] is _mooka-taddi_, literally \u2018nose-impediment or\nhindrance,\u2019 that is, to sickness or death.\u201d The child\u2019s blood is\ngiven in covenant obligation to the gods, and the nose-ring is the\ntoken of the covenant-obligation, and a pledge of protected life.\nWhen a Hindoo youth who has worn a nose-ring would remove it, on\nthe occasion of his marriage, he must do so with formal ceremonies\nat the temple, and by the use of a liquid \u201cwhich represents blood,\u201d\ncomposed of saffron,[329] of lime, and of water. A young tree must also\nbe planted in connection with this ceremony, as in the ceremony of\nblood-covenanting in some portions of the East.[330] These symbolisms\ncan hardly fail to be recognized as based on the universal primitive\nrite of blood-covenanting.[331]\n\nThe very earliest records of Babylon and Assyria, indicate the\noutreaching of man for an inter-union with God, or with the gods, by\nsubstitute blood, and the confident inter-communion of man with God, or\nwith the gods, on the strength of this inter-union by blood. There is\nan Akkadian poem which clearly \u201cgoes back to pre-Semitic times,\u201d with\nits later Assyrian translation, concerning the sacrifice to the gods,\nof a first-born son.[332] It says distinctly: \u201cHis offspring for his\nlife he gave.\u201d Here is obviously the idea of vicarious substitution,\nof life for life, of the blood of the son for the blood of the father,\nbut this substitution does not necessarily involve the idea of an\n_expiatory_ offering for sin; even though it does include the idea of\n_propitiation_. Abraham\u2019s surrender of his first-born son to God was\nin proof of his loving trust, not of his sense of a penalty due for\nsin. Jephthah\u2019s surrender of his daughter was on a vow of devotedness,\nnot as an exhibit of remorse, or of penitence, for unexpiated guilt.\nIn each instance, the outpouring of substitute blood was in evidence\nof a desire to be in new covenant oneness with God. Thus Queen Manenko\nand Dr. Livingstone made a covenant of blood vicariously, by the\nsubstitution of her husband on the one part, and of an attendant of\nLivingstone, on the other part.[333] So, also the Akkadian king may\nhave sought a covenant union with his god--from whom sin had separated\nhim--by the substitute blood of his first-born and best loved son.\n\nCertain it is, that the early kings of Babylon and Assyria were\naccustomed to make their grateful offerings to the gods, and to\nshare those offerings with the gods, by way of inter-communion with\nthe gods, apart from any sense of sin and of its merited punishment\nwhich they may have felt.[334] Indeed, it is claimed, with a show of\nreason, that the very word (_surqinu_) which was used for \u201caltar\u201d in\nthe Assyrian, was primarily the word for \u201ctable\u201d; that, in fact, what\nwas later known as the \u201caltar\u201d to the gods, was originally the table\nof communion between the gods and their worshipers.[335] There seems\nto be a reference to this idea in the interchanged use of the words\n\u201caltar\u201d and \u201ctable\u201d by the Prophet Malachi: \u201cAnd ye say, Wherein have\nye despised thy name? Ye offer polluted bread upon mine _altar_? And ye\nsay, Wherein have ye polluted thee? In that ye say, The _table_ of the\nLord is contemptible.\u201d[336] So again, in Isaiah 65 : 11: \u201cBut ye that\nforsake the Lord, that forget my holy mountain, that prepare a _table_\nfor Fortune, and that fill up mingled wine unto Destiny; I will destine\nyou to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter.\u201d\n\nSee, in this connection, the Assyrian inscription of Esarhaddon, the\nson of Sennacherib,[337] in description of his great palace at Nineveh:\n\u201cI filled with beauties the great palace of my empire, and I called it\n\u2018The Palace which Rivals the World.\u2019 Ashur, Ishtar of Nineveh, and the\ngods of Assyria, all of them, I feasted within it. Victims precious\nand beautiful I sacrificed before them, and I caused them to receive\nmy gifts. I did for those gods whatever they wished.\u201d[338] It is\neven claimed by Assyrian scholars, that in this inter-communion with\nthe gods, worshipers might partake of the flesh of animals which was\nforbidden to them at all other times[339]--as among the Brahmans of\nIndia, to-day.\n\nIn farther illustration of the truth, that inter-communion with the\ngods was shown in partaking of sacred food with the gods, H. Fox\nTalbot, the Assyriologist, says of the ancient Assyrian inscription:\n\u201cThere is a fine inscription, not yet fully translated, describing\nthe soul in heaven, clothed in a white radiant garment, seated in the\ncompany of the blessed, and fed by the gods themselves, with celestial\nfood.\u201d[340]\n\nAmong the Parsees, or the Zoroastrians, who intervene, as it were,\nbetween the primitive peoples of Assyria and India, and the later\ninhabitants of the Persian empire, there prevailed the same idea\nof divine-human inter-union through blood, and of divine-human\ninter-communion through sharing the flesh of the proffered and accepted\nsacrifice, at the altar, or at the table, of the gods, Ormuzd and\nAhriman. The horse was a favorite substitute victim of sacrifice, among\nthe Parsees; as also among the Hindoos and the Chinese. Its blood was\nthe means of divine-human inter-union. \u201cThe flesh of the victim was\neaten by the priest and the worshipers; the \u2018soul\u2019 [the life, the\nblood], of it only was enjoyed by Ormazd.\u201d[341] The communion-drink,\nin the Parsee sacrament, as still observed, is the juice of the\n_haoma_, or _hom_. \u201cSmall bread [or wafers] called Darun, of the size\nof a dollar, and covered with a piece of meat, incense, and Haoma, or\nHom,\u201d the juice of the plant known in India as Soma, are used in this\nsacrament. \u201cThe Darun and the Hom [having been presented to the gods]\nare afterwards eaten by the priests,\u201d as in communion.[342] This is\nsometimes called the \u201cSacrament of the Haoma.\u201d[343]\n\nIn ancient Egypt, it seems to have been much as in China, and India,\nand Assyria. Substitute blood was a basis of inter-union between man\nand the gods; and a divine-human inter-communion was secured as a proof\nand as a result of that inter-union. That it was human blood which was,\nof old in Egypt, poured out as a means of this inter-union (in some\ncases at least) seems clear. It is declared by Manetho, and Diodorus,\nand Athen\u00e6us, and Plutarch, and Porphyry.[344] It is recognized as\nproven, by Kenrick[345] and Ebers[346] and other Egyptian scholars.\nWilkinson, it is true, was unwilling to accept its reality, because, in\nhis opinion, \u201cit is quite incompatible with the character of a nation\nwhose artists thought acts of clemency towards a foe worthy of record,\nand whose laws were distinguished by that humanity which punished with\ndeath the murder even of a slave\u201d;[347] and he prefers to rest on \u201cthe\nimprobability of such a custom among a civilized people.\u201d Yet, a single\nitem of proof from the monuments would seem sufficient to settle this\nquestion, if it were still deemed a question. The ideogram which was\nemployed on the seal of the priests, authorizing the slaying of an\nanimal in sacrifice, \u201cbore the figure of a man on his knees, with his\nhands tied behind him, and a sword pointed at his throat.\u201d[348]\n\nHerodotus,[349] describing the magnificent festival of Isis, at\nBusiris, says that a bull was sacrificed on that occasion; and we know\nthat in every such sacrifice the blood of the victim was poured out\nas an oblation, at the altar.[350] When the duly prepared offering\nwas consumed upon the altar, those portions of the victim which had\nbeen reserved were eaten by the priest and others.[351] Herodotus\nsays, moreover, that some of the Greeks who were present at this\nfestival, were in the habit of causing their own blood to flow during\nthe consuming of the sacrifice, as if in proof of their desire for\ninter-union with the goddess, as precedent to their inter-communion\nwith her. He says: \u201cBut as many of the Karians as are dwelling in\nEgypt, do yet more than these [native Egyptians], inasmuch as they\ncut their foreheads with swords;[352] and so they are shown to be\nforeigners and not Egyptians.\u201d[353]\n\nIt would even seem that in Egypt, as in other parts of the primitive\nworld, the prohibition of the eating of many sacred animals applied to\nthe eating of them when not offered in sacrifice. Because those animals\nbecame, as it were, on the altar, or on the table, of the gods, a\nportion of the gods themselves, they must not be eaten except by those\nwho discerned in them the body of the gods, and who were entitled to\nshare them in inter-communion with the gods.[354]\n\nThe monumental representations of the other world show the gods sharing\nfood and drink with the souls of the deceased.[355] And the idea of\na divine-human inter-communion through the partaking by gods and\nmen of the food provided for, or accepted by, the former, runs all\nthrough the Egyptian record. A remarkable illustration of this idea\nis found in an extended inscription from the tomb of Setee I., whose\ndaughter is supposed to have been the finder of the infant Moses. In\nthis inscription, which is sometimes called the Book of Hades, or more\nproperly the Book of Amenti, the Sun-god R\u0101 is represented as passing\nthrough Amenti--or the under world--on his nocturnal circuit, and\nspeaking words of approval to his disembodied worshipers there.[356]\n\u201cThese are they who worshiped R\u0101 on the earth, ... who offered their\noblations.... They are [now] masters of their refreshments; they take\ntheir meat; they seize their offerings in the porch of him, whose being\nis mysterious.... R\u0101 says to them, Your offerings are yours; take your\nrefreshment.\u201d Again and again the declaration is made of \u201cthe elect,\u201d\nof those who are greeted by R\u0101 in Amenti: \u201cTheir food is (composed)\nof R\u0101\u2019s bread; their drink [is] of his liquor _tesher_ [a common word\nfor \u201cred,\u201d often standing for \u201cblood\u201d[357]]\u201d. And yet again: \u201cTheir\nfood is to hear the word of this god.\u201d[358] \u201cTheir food is that of the\nveridical [the truth-speaking] ones. Offerings are [now] made to them\non earth; because the true word is in them.\u201d[359]\n\nThus there was inter-communion between man and the gods in ancient\nEgypt, on the basis of a blood-made inter-union between man and the\ngods; as there was also in primitive Assyria and Babylon, in primitive\nIndia, and in primitive China.\n\nTurning now from the far East to the far West, we find that Central\nAmerican and South American history and legends tend to illustrate\nthe same primitive belief, that inter-communion with the gods was\nto be secured by the hearty surrender of self--as evidenced by the\ntender of personal, or of substitute _blood_. A Guatemalan legend\nhas its suggestion of that outreaching of man for fire from heaven,\nwhich is illustrated in the primitive and the classic myths of the\nages.[360] The men of Guatemala were without the heaven-born fire, and\nthey turned, in their longing, to the Quich\u00e9 god, Tohil, seeking it\nfrom him, on such terms as he might prescribe. \u201cThe condition finally\nnamed by the god was, that they consent to \u2018unite themselves to me,\nunder their armpit, and under their girdle, and that they embrace me,\nTohil\u2019; a condition not very clearly expressed [says a historian], but\nwhich, as is shown by what follows, was an agreement to worship the\nQuich\u00e9 god, and sacrifice to him their _blood_, and, if required, their\n_children_. They accepted the condition, and received the fire.\u201d[361]\n\nIn the light of the prevailing customs of the world, concerning this\nrite of blood-covenanting, the requirements of the Quich\u00e9 god were\nclearly based on the symbolism of that rite; as the historian did\nnot perceive, from his unfamiliarity with the rite. If men would be\nin favor with that god, and would receive his choicest gifts, they\nmust unite themselves to him; must enter into oneness of nature with\nhim, by giving of their blood, from \u201cunder their armpit, and under\ntheir girdle\u201d; from the source of life, and at the issue of life; for\nthemselves and for their seed; and they must lovingly embrace their\ncovenant-god, accordingly. And in the counsel given to those new\nworshipers, it was said: \u201cMake first your thanksgiving; prepare the\nholes in your ears; [blood was drawn from the ears, as well as from\nother parts of the body, in Central American worship; indeed one of\ntheir festivals was \u2018the feast of piercing the ears,\u2019 suggesting a\nsimilar religious custom in India;[362]] pierce your elbows; and offer\nsacrifice. This will be your act of gratitude before God.\u201d[363]\n\nAmong all these aboriginal races of Central America, not only was the\nflesh of the sacrificial offerings eaten as in communion with the gods;\nbut the blood of the offerings, and also the blood of the offerers\nthemselves, was sometimes sprinkled upon, or commingled with, those\narticles of food, which were made a means of spiritual inter-communion\nwith their deities. Cakes of maize sprinkled with their own blood,\ndrawn from \u201cunder the girdle,\u201d during their religious worship, were\n\u201cdistributed and eaten as blessed bread.\u201d[364] Moreover, an image of\ntheir god, made with certain seeds from the first fruits of their\ntemple gardens, with a certain gum, and with the blood of human\nsacrifices, was partaken of by them reverently, under the name, \u201cFood\nof our soul.\u201d[365] At the conclusion of one of the great feasts of the\nyear at Cuzco, in Peru, the worshipers \u201creceived the loaves of maize\nand the sacrificial blood, which they ate as a symbol of brotherhood\nwith the Ynca\u201d[366]--who claimed to be of divine blood and of divine\npower.\n\nHerrera describes one of these ceremonies of inter-communion with the\ngods, by means of a blood-moistened representation of a god. \u201cAn idol\nmade of all the varieties of the seeds and grain of the country, was\nmade, and moistened with the blood of children and virgins. This idol\nwas broken into small bits, and given by way of communion to men and\nwomen to eat; who, to prepare for that festival, bathed, and dressed\ntheir heads, and scarce slept all the night. They prayed, and as soon\nas it was day [they] were all in the temple to receive that communion,\nwith such singular silence and devotion, that though there was an\ninfinite multitude, there seemed to be nobody. If any of the idol was\nleft, the priests ate it.\u201d[367]\n\nSo marked, indeed, was the sacramental character of these Peruvian\ncommunion feasts, that a Spanish Jesuit missionary to that country,\nthree centuries ago, was disposed to see in them an invention of Satan,\nrather than a survival of a world-wide primitive custom. He said: \u201cThat\nwhich is most admirable in the hatred and presumption of Sathan is,\nthat he not only counterfeited in idolatry and sacrifices, but also\nin certain ceremonies, our sacraments, which Jesus Christ our Lord\ninstituted, and the Holy Church uses; having, especially, pretended to\nimitate, in some sort, the sacrament of the communion, which is the\nmost high and divine of all others.\u201d[368]\n\nYet again, a prisoner of war would be selected to represent one\nof the gods, and so to be partaken of, in inter-communion through\nhis blood. He would receive the name of the god; and for a longer\nor a shorter time,--\u201csometimes a year, sometimes six months, and\nsometimes less,\u201d--he would be ministered to, and would receive honors\nand reverence as a god. Then he would be offered in sacrifice. His\nheart would be presented to the god. His blood would be employed\nreverently--as was the case with all sacrifices--in token of\ncovenanting. His flesh would be eaten by the worshipers of the god\nwhom he represented.[369] This \u201crite of dressing and worshiping the\nsacrifices like the deities themselves, is related as being performed\nat the festivals of many gods and goddesses.\u201d[370]\n\nA remarkable illustration of the unity of the race, and of the\nuniversal sweep of these customs in conjunction with the symbolism\nof the blood-covenant, is found in the similarity of this last named\nCentral American practice, with a practice charged upon the Jews by\nApion, as replied to by Josephus. The charge is, that \u201cAntiochus found,\nupon entering the temple [at Jerusalem], a man lying upon a bed, with\na table before him, set out with all the delicacies that either sea\nor land could afford.\u201d This captive\u2019s story was: \u201cI am a Greek, and\nwandering up and down in quest of the means of subsistence, was taken\nup by some foreigners, brought to this place, and shut up.... They\ngave me to understand, that the Jews had a custom among them, once a\nyear, upon a certain day prefixed, to seize upon a Grecian stranger,\nand when they had kept him fattening one whole year, to take him into\na wood, and offer him up for a sacrifice according to their own form,\n_taking a taste of his blood_, with a horrid oath to live and die sworn\nenemies to the Greeks.\u201d[371] Baseless as was this charge against the\nJews, its very framing indicates the existence in the East,--possibly\namong the Ph\u0153nicians,--in days prior to the Christian era, as well\nas in pre-historic times in the West, of the custom of seeking\ninter-communion with God, or with the gods, by the tasting of the blood\nof a substitute human victim, offered in sacrifice to God, or to the\ngods.\n\nAt the two extremes of the world, to-day, among the primitive Bed\u00b4ween\nof the Desert of Arabia, and among the primitive Indians of the\nprairies of North America, there lingers a trace of this world-wide\nidea, that the body of an offering covenanted to God by its blood, can\nbe a means of inter-communion with God in its eating. Both the Bed\u00b4ween\nand the Indians connect in their minds the fact of sacrificing and of\nfeasting; and they speak of the two things interchangeably.\n\nAn Arab, when he makes a feast, speaks of sacrificing the animal\nwhich is the main feature of that feast. I saw an Arab wedding at\nCastle Nakhl, on the Arabian Desert. The bridegroom sacrificed a young\ndromedary in honor of the occasion, and to furnish, as it were, the\nsacramental feast. The blood of the victim was poured out unto the\nLord, by being buried in the earth--as the Chinese bury the blood of\ntheir sacrifices in the Temple of Heaven. Portions of the dromedary\nwere eaten by all the guests, and a portion was sent to the stranger\nencamping near them. And that is the common method of Arab sacrificing\nand feasting.\n\nThere is much of similarity in the ways of the Arabs and of the\nIndians. The Indian feasts are largely feasts of inter-communion with\nthe gods. Whether it were the human victim, of former times, whose\nblood was drunk and whose heart was eaten, as preliminary to the\nfeasting on his entire remains;[372] or, whether it be the preserved\nhearts and tongues of the buffaloes, which now form the basis of some\nof the sacred feasts of the Indians;[373]--the idea of divine-human\ninter-communion was and is inseparable from the idea of the feast. The\nfirst portion of the feast is always proffered to the spirits, in order\nto make it, in a peculiar sense, a sacred feast. Then, each person\nhaving a part in the feast is expected to eat the full share assigned\nto him;[374] unless indeed he be permitted to carry a remainder of it\naway \u201cas sacred food\u201d for the benefit of the others.[375]\n\nAnd so the common root-idea shows itself, in lesser or in larger\ndegree, all the world over, and in all the ages. It is practically\nuniversal.\n\nOne of the many proofs that the idea of a blood-covenanting sacrifice\nis that of a loving inter-communion between man and God, or the\ngods, is the fact that the animals offered in sacrifice are always\nthose animals which are suitable for eating, whether their eating\nis allowed at other times than when sacrificed, or not. \u201cAnimals\noffered in sacrifice [at the Temple of Heaven, in China],\u201d says Dr.\nEdkins, \u201cmust be those in use for human food. There is no trace\nin China of any distinction between clean and unclean animals, as\nfurnishing a principle in selecting them for sacrifice. That which\nis good for food is good for sacrifice, is the principle guiding in\ntheir selection.\u201d[376] The same _principle_ has been already noted as\nprevailing in the sacrifices of India, Assyria, and Egypt; although in\nthese last named countries many animals which are \u201cgood for food\u201d are\nnot \u201cin use for human food\u201d except as they are served up at the table\nof the gods.[377] In the primitive New World it was the same as in\nthe primitive Old World. Referring to the sacrifices in ancient Peru,\nR\u00e9ville says, \u201cIt should be noted that they only sacrificed edible\nanimals, which [as he would understand it] is a clear proof that the\nintention was to feed the gods\u201d;[378] and it certainly seems a clear\nproof that the intention was to feed the worshipers who shared the\nsacred food.\n\nThat this sharing of the proffered and accepted sacrifice, in\ndivine-human inter-communion, was counted a sharing of the divine\nnature, by the communicant, seems evident, as widely as the world-wide\ncustom extended. The inter-union was wrought by intermingled blood;\nthe inter-communion gave a common progress to the common nature. The\nblood gave common life; the flesh gave common nourishment. \u201cAlmost\neverywhere,\u201d says R\u00e9ville,[379] \u201cbut especially among the Aztecs, we\nfind the notion, that the victim devoted to a deity, and therefore\ndestined to pass into his substance, and to become by assimilation an\nintegral part of him, is already co-substantial with him, has already\nbecome part of him; so that the worshiper in his turn, by himself\nassimilating a part of the victim\u2019s flesh, unites himself in substance\nwith the divine being. And now observe [continues this student in the\nscience of comparative religion] that in all religions the longing,\nwhether grossly or spiritually apprehended, to enter into the closest\npossible union with the adored being, is fundamental. This longing is\ninseparable from the religious sentiment itself, and becomes imperious\nwherever that sentiment is warm; and this consideration is enough to\nconvince us that it is in harmony with the most exalted tendencies of\nour nature, but may likewise, in times of ignorance, give rise to the\nmost deplorable aberrations.\u201d This observation is the more noteworthy,\nin that it is made by so pronounced a rationalist as R\u00e9ville.\n\nIt would even seem to be indicated, by all the trend of historic facts,\nthat cannibalism--gross, repulsive, inhuman cannibalism--had its basis\nin man\u2019s perversion of this outreaching of his nature (whether that\noutreaching were first directed by revelation, or by divinely given\ninnate promptings) after inter-union and inter-communion with God;\nafter life in God\u2019s life, and after growth through the partaking of\nGod\u2019s food, or of that food which represents God. The studies of many\nobservers in widely different fields have led both the rationalistic\nand the faith-filled student to conclude, that in _their_ sphere\nof observation it was a religious sentiment, and not a mere animal\ncraving,--either through a scarcity of food, or from a spirit of\nmalignity,--that was at the bottom of cannibalistic practices there;\neven if that field were an exception to the world\u2019s fields generally.\nAnd now we have a glimpse of the nature and workings of that religious\nsentiment which prompted cannibalism wherever it has been practised.\n\nMan longed for oneness of life with God. Oneness of life could come\nonly through oneness of blood. To secure such oneness of life, man\nwould give of his own blood, or of that substitute blood which could\nbest represent himself. Counting himself in oneness of life with God,\nthrough the covenant of blood, man has sought for nourishment and\ngrowth through partaking of that food which in a sense was life, and\nwhich in a larger sense gave life, because it was the food of God, and\nbecause it was the food which stood for God. In misdirected pursuance\nof this thought, men have given the blood of a consecrated human victim\nto bring themselves into union with God; and then they have eaten of\nthe flesh of that victim which had supplied the blood which made them\none with God. This seems to be the basis of _fact_ in the premises;\nwhatever may be the understood _philosophy_ of the facts. _Why_ men\nreasoned thus, may indeed be in question. _That_ they reasoned thus,\nseems evident.\n\nCertain it is, that where cannibalism has been studied in modern times,\nit has commonly been found to have had originally, a religious basis;\nand the inference is a fair one, that it must have been the same\nwherever cannibalism existed in earlier times. Even in some regions\nwhere cannibalism has long since been prohibited, there are traditions\nand traces of its former existence as a purely religious rite. Thus,\nin India, little images of flour paste or clay, are now made for\ndecapitation, or other mutilation, in the temples,[380] in avowed\nimitation of human beings, who were once offered and eaten there.\nReferring to the frequency of human sacrifices in India, in earlier\nand in later times, and to these emblematic substitutes for them, now\nemployed, the Abb\u00e9 Dubois says:[381] \u201cIn the kingdom of Tanjore there\nis a village called Tirushankatam Kudi, where a solemn festival is\ncelebrated every year, at which great multitudes of people assemble,\neach votary bringing with him one of those little images of dough,\ninto the temple, dedicated to Vishnu, and there cutting off the head\nin honor of that god. This ceremony, which is annually performed with\ngreat solemnity, was instituted in commemoration of a famous event\nwhich happened in that village.\n\n\u201cTwo virtuous persons lived there, Sirutenden and his wife\nVanagata-ananga, whose faith and piety Vishnu was desirous to prove.\nHe appeared to them, and demanded no other service of them but that\nof sacrificing, with their own hands, their only and much beloved son\nSiralen, and _serving up his flesh for a repast_. The parents with\nheroic courage, surmounting the sentiments and chidings of nature,\nobeyed without hesitation, and submitted to the pleasure of the god.\nSo illustrious an act of devotion is held worthy of this annual\ncommemoration, at which the sacrifice is emblematically renewed. The\nsame barbarous custom is preserved in many parts of India; and the\nardor with which the people engage in it leaves room to suspect that\nthey still regret the times when they would have been at liberty to\noffer up to their sanguinary gods, the reality, instead of the symbol.\u201d\n\nSuch a legend as this, taken in conjunction with the custom which\nperpetuates it, and with all the known history of human sacrifices, in\nIndia and elsewhere, furnishes evidence that cannibalism as a religious\nrite was known to the ancestors of the present dwellers in India. And\nas it is in the far East, so it is in the far West; and so, also, in\nmid-ocean.\n\nThus, for example, in the latter field, among the degraded Feejee\nIslanders, where one would be least likely to look for the sway of a\nreligious sentiment in the more barbarous customs of that barbarous\npeople, this truth has been recognized by Christian missionaries, who\nwould view the relics of heathenism with no undue favor. The Rev.\nMessrs. Williams and Calvert,--the one after thirteen years, and the\nother after seventeen years of missionary service there,--said on this\nsubject: \u201cCannibalism is a part of the Fijian religion, and the gods\nare described as delighting in human flesh.\u201d And again: \u201cHuman flesh\nis still the most valued offering [to the gods], and their \u2018drink\nofferings of blood\u2019 are still the most acceptable [offerings to the\ngods] in some parts of Fiji.\u201d[382]\n\nIt was the same among the several tribes of the North American Indians,\naccording to the most trustworthy testimony. A Dutch clergyman, Dominie\nMegapolensis, writing two centuries ago from near the present site of\nAlbany, \u201cbears the strongest testimony to the ferocity with which his\nfriends, the Mohawks treated their prisoners, ... and is very explicit\nas to cannibalism. \u2018The common people,\u2019 he says \u2018eat the arms,\nbuttocks, and trunk; but the chiefs eat the head and the heart.\u2019 This\nfeast was of a religious character.\u201d[383] Parkman says, of the \u201chideous\nscene of feasting [which] followed the torture of a prisoner,\u201d \u201cit was,\namong the Hurons, partly an act of vengeance, and partly a religious\nrite.\u201d[384] He cites evidence, also, that there was cannibalism among\nthe Miamis, where \u201cthe act had somewhat of a religious character [and],\nwas attended with ceremonial observances.\u201d[385]\n\nOf the religious basis of cannibalism among the primitive peoples\nof Central and South America, students seem agreed. Dorman who has\ncarefully collated important facts on this subject from varied sources,\nand has considered them in their scientific bearings, is explicit in\nhis conclusions at this point. Reviewing all the American field, he\nsays: \u201cI have dwelt longer upon the painful subject of cannibalism than\nmight seem desirable, in order to show its religious character and\nprevalence everywhere. Instead of being confined to savage peoples,\nas is generally supposed, it prevailed to a greater extent and with\nmore horrible rites among the most civilized. Its religious inception\nwas the cause of this.\u201d[386] Again, he says, of the peoples of Mexico\nand of the countries south of it: \u201cAll the Nahua nations practised\nthis religious cannibalism. That cannibalism as a source of food,\nunconnected with religious rites, was ever practised, there is little\nevidence. Sahagun and Las Casas regard the cannibalism of the Nahuas\nas an abhorrent feature of their religion, and not as an unnatural\nappetite.\u201d[387]\n\nR\u00e9ville, treating of the native religions of Mexico and Peru comes to a\nsimilar conclusion with Dorman; and he argues that the state of things\nwhich was there was the same the world over, so far as it related to\ncannibalism. \u201cCannibalism,\u201d he says,[388] \u201cwhich is now restricted to a\nfew of the savage tribes who have remained closest to the animal life,\nwas once universal to our race. For no one would ever have conceived\nthe idea of offering to the gods a kind of food which excited nothing\nbut disgust and horror.\u201d In this suggestion, R\u00e9ville indicates his\nconviction that the primal idea of an altar was a table of blood-bought\ncommunion. \u201cHuman sacrifices\u201d however, he goes on to say, \u201cprevailed\nin many places when cannibalism had completely disappeared from the\nhabits and tastes of the population. Thus the Semites of Western Asia,\nand the \u00c7iva\u00efte Hindus, the Celts, and some of the populations of\nGreece and Italy, long after they had renounced cannibalism, still\ncontinued to sacrifice human beings to their deities.\u201d And he might\nhave added, that some savage peoples continued cannibalism when the\nreligious idea of its beginning had been almost swept away entirely\nby the brutalism of its inhuman nature and tendencies. Referring to\nthe date of the conquest of Mexico, he says: \u201cCannibalism, in ordinary\nlife, was no longer practised. The city of Mexico underwent all the\nhorrors of famine during the siege conducted by Fernando Cortes. When\nthe Spaniards finally entered the city, they found the streets strewn\nwith corpses, which is a sufficient proof that human flesh was not\neaten even in dire extremities. And, nevertheless, the Aztecs not only\npushed human sacrifices to a frantic extreme, but they were _ritual\ncannibals_, that is to say, there were certain occasions on which they\nate the flesh of the human victims they had immolated.\u201d[389]\n\nAnd as it was in India and in America and in the Islands of the Sea; so\nit seems to have been wherever the primitive idea of cannibalism as a\nprevalent custom has been intelligently sought out.[390]\n\n\n7. SYMBOLIC SUBSTITUTES FOR BLOOD.\n\nAs the primitive and more natural method of commingling bloods,\nin the blood-covenant, by sucking each other\u2019s veins, or by an\ninter-transference of blood from the mutually opened veins, was in\nmany regions superseded by the symbolic laving, or sprinkling, or\nanointing, with blood; and as the blood of the lower animals was often\nsubstituted, vicariously, for human blood;--so the blood and wine which\nwere commingled for mutual drinking in the covenant-rite, or which\nwere together poured out in libation, when the covenant was between\nman and the Deity, came, it would appear, to be represented, in many\ncases, by the wine alone. First, we find men pledging each other in a\nsacred covenant, in the inter-drinking of each other\u2019s blood mingled\nwith wine. They called their covenant-draught, \u201cassiratum,\u201d or \u201cvinum\nassiratum\u201d; \u201cwine, covenant-filled.\u201d By and by, apparently, they came\nto count simple wine--\u201cthe blood of grapes\u201d[391]--as the representative\nof blood and wine, in many forms of covenanting.\n\nThis mutual drinking, as a covenant-pledge, has been continued as an\nelement in the marriage ceremony, the world over, down to the present\ntime. It would even seem that the gradual changes in the methods of\nthis symbolic rite could be tracked, through its various forms in this\nceremony, in different portions of the world. Among the wide-spreading\n\u2019Anazeh Bed\u00b4ween, the pouring out of a blood libation is still the mode\nof completing the marriage-covenant. \u201cWhen the marriage day is fixed,\u201d\nsays Burckhardt,[392] \u201cthe bridegroom comes with a lamb in his arms\nto the tent of the father of his bride, and then, before witnesses,\nhe cuts its throat. As soon as the blood falls upon the earth, the\nmarriage ceremony is regarded as complete.\u201d Among the Bed\u00b4ween of\nSinai, as Palmer tells us,[393] the bride is sprinkled with the blood\nof the lamb, before she is surrendered to the bridegroom. Lane\u2019s\nmention of the prominence of outpoured blood at the weddings of the\nCopts in Cairo, has already been cited.[394] Among the Arabs, since\nthe days of Muhammad, wine has been generally abjured, and coffee now\ncommonly takes its place as a drink, in all ordinary conferences for\ncovenanting.\n\nIn Borneo, among the Dayaks, the bride and the bridegroom sit side\nby side, facing the rising sun. Their parents then besprinkle them\nwith the blood of some animal, and also with water. \u201cEach being next\npresented with a cup of arrack, they mutually pour half into each\nother's cup, take a draught, and exchange vessels.\u201d[395] In Burmah,\namong the Karens, water is poured upon the bride as she enters the\nbridegroom\u2019s house. When she is received by the bridegroom, \u201ceach one\nthen gives the other to drink, and each says to the other, \u2018Be faithful\nto thy covenant.\u2019 This is the proper marriage ceremony, and the parties\nare now married.\u201d[396]\n\nThe blood of an ox, or a cow, is caused to flow at the door of\nthe bride\u2019s house, as a part of the marriage ceremony, in Namaqua\nLand.[397] A similar custom prevails among the Kafirs of Natal; and an\nobserver has said of this blood-flowing, in the covenanting rite: \u201cThis\nappears to be the fixing point of the ceremony\u201d; this is \u201cthe real\nmatrimonial tie.\u201d[398]\n\nAgain it is the sharing from the same dish in drinking, as well as in\neating, that the bride and the bridegroom covenant in marriage, in the\nFeejee Islands.[399] The liquor that is made the common draught, as a\nsubstitute for the primitive blood-potion, is commonly the spirituous\ndrink of the region; whether that drink be wine, or arrack, or whiskey,\nor beer. The symbolism is the same in every case.\n\nIn the Sanskrit, the word _asrij_ signifies both \u201cblood,\u201d and\n\u201csaffron.\u201d[400] In the Hindoo wedding ceremony, in Malabar, \u201ca dish\nof a liquid like blood, made of saffron and lime,\u201d is held over the\nheads of the bride and groom. When the ceremony is concluded, the\nnewly married couple sprinkle the spectators with this blood-like\nmixture;[401] which seems, indeed, not only here but in many other\ncases, in India, to have become a substitute for the covenanting blood.\nReference has already been made to its use in connection with the\ncovenant of the nose-ring; and the saffron colored cord of the wedding\nnecklace, among the Brahmans, has also been mentioned.[402]\n\nA still more remarkable illustration of this saffron mixture in lieu of\nblood, in formal covenanting, in India, is found in its use in the rite\nof \u201cadoption.\u201d In India, as elsewhere throughout the East, the desire\nof every parent to have a son is very strong. A son is longed for, to\ninherit the parental name and possessions, to perform the funeral rites\nand the annual ceremonies in honor of his parents; and, indeed, \u201cit is\nsaid in the Dattaka-Mimansa, \u2018Heaven awaits not one who is destitute\nof a son.\u2019\u201d When, therefore, parents have not a son of their own, they\noften formally adopt one; and, in this ceremony, saffron-water seems to\ntake the place of blood, in the sacred and indissoluble covenant of\ntransfer.[403] So prominent indeed is this element of the saffron-water\ndrinking--as the substitute for blood-drinking--in the covenant of\nadoption, that the adopted children of parents are commonly spoken of\nas their \u201cwater-of-saffron children.\u201d \u201cIs it good to adopt the child,\nand give it saffron-water?\u201d is a question that \u201coccurs eight times\nin the book of fate called Sag\u0101-thevan-s\u0101steram.\u201d Formal sacrifices\nprecede the ceremony of adoption, and mutual feasting follows it. The\nnatural mother of the child, in his transfer to his new parents by\nadoption, hands with him a dish of consecrated saffron-water; and both\nthe child and the blood-symbol are received by the adopting father,\nwith his declaration that the son is now to enter into all that belongs\nto that father. \u201cThen he and his wife, pouring a little saffron water\ninto the hollow of their hands, and dropping a little into that of the\nadoptive child, pronounce aloud before the assembly: \u2018We have acquired\nthis child to our stem, and we incorporate him into it.\u2019 Upon which\nthey drink the saffron-water, and rising up, make a profound obeisance\nto the assembly; to which the officiating Brahmans reply by the word,\n\u2018Asirvadam.\u2019\u201d[404]\n\nIt seems to me in every way probable, that in primitive times the blood\nof the child adopted, and of the parents adopting him, was partaken\nof by the three parties (as now throughout the East, in the case of\nthe blood-covenanting of friends), in order that the child and his new\nparents might be literally of one blood. But, with the prejudice which\ngrew up against blood-drinking, in India, the saffron-water came to be\nused as a substitute for blood; even as the blood of the grape came to\nbe used instead of human blood, in many other portions of the world.\n\nIn China, an important rite in the marriage ceremony is the drinking\nof \u201cthe wedding wine,\u201d from \u201ctwo singularly shaped goblets, sometimes\nconnected together by a red silk, or red cotton, cord, several feet\nlong.\u201d After their worship of their ancestral tablets, the bride and\nthe bridegroom stand face to face. \u201cOne of the female assistants takes\nthe two goblets ... from the table, and having partially filled them\nwith a mixture of wine and honey, she pours some of their contents from\none [goblet] into the other, back and forth several times. She then\nholds one to the mouth of the groom, and the other to the mouth of the\nbride; who continue to face each other, and who then sip a little of\nthe wine. She then changes the goblets, and the bride sips out of the\none just used by the groom, and the groom sips out of the one just used\nby the bride, the goblets oftentimes remaining tied together [by the\nred cord]. Sometimes she uses one goblet [interchanging its use between\nthe two parties] in giving the wine.\u201d[405] The Rev. Chester Holcombe,\nwho has been a missionary in China for a dozen years or more, writes me\nexplicitly: \u201cI have been told that in ancient times blood was actually\nused instead of the wine now used as a substitute,\u201d in this wedding-cup\nof covenanting.\n\nAgain, Professor Douglas says,[406] that for a thousand years or so,\nit has been claimed that, at the birth of each two persons who are to\nbe married, the red cord invisibly binds their feet together; which is\nonly another way of saying that their lives are divinely inter-linked,\nas by the covenant of blood.\n\nIn Central America, among the Chibchas, it was a primitive custom\nfor the bridegroom to present himself by night, after preliminary\nbargainings, at the door of his intended father-in-law\u2019s home, and\nthere let his presence be known. Then the bride would come out to\nhim, bringing a large gourd of _chica_, a fermented drink made from\nthe juice of Indian corn; \u201cand coming close to him, she first tasted\nit herself, and then gave it to him. He drank as much as he could;\nand thus the marriage was concluded.\u201d[407] Among the Bheels of India,\nthe drinking of the covenant is between the representatives of the\nbridegroom, and the parents of the bride, at the time of the betrothal;\nbut this is quite consistent with the fact that the bride herself is\nnot supposed to have a primary part in the covenant.[408] It is much\nthe same also among the Laplanders.[409]\n\nAmong the Georgians and Circassians,[410] and also among the\nRussians,[411] the officiating priest, at a marriage ceremony,\ndrinks from a glass of wine, and then the bride and the groom drink\nthree times, each, from the same glass. The Galatians wedded, with\na _poculum conjugii_, \u201ca wedding cup.\u201d[412] In Greece, the marriage\nceremony concludes by the bride and the groom \u201cdrinking wine out of one\ncup.\u201d[413] In Switzerland, formerly, the clergymen \u201ctook two glasses of\nwine, mixed their contents, and gave one glass to the bride, and the\nother to the bridegroom.\u201d[414] Among European Jews in olden time, the\nofficiating rabbi, having blessed a glass of wine, tasted it himself,\nand then gave it first to the one and then to the other of the parties\ncovenanting in marriage.[415]\n\nThis custom of covenanting in the wine-cup, at a wedding, is said to\nhave come into England from the ancient Goths.[416] Its symbolical\nsignificance and its exceptional importance, seems to have been\ngenerally recognized. Ben Jonson calls the wedding-wine a \u201cknitting\ncup\u201d[417]--an inter-binding cup. And a later poet asks, forcefully:\n\n   \u201cWhat priest can join two lovers\u2019 hands,\n    But wine must seal the marriage bands?\u201d[418]\n\nIn Ireland, as in Lapland and in India, it was at the betrothal,\ninstead of at the wedding, that the covenanting-cup--or the \u201cagreement\nbottle\u201d as it was called--was shared; and not unnaturally strong\n_usquebaugh_, or \u201cwater of life,\u201d was there substituted for wine--as\nthe representative of life-blood.[419]\n\nIn Scotland, as in Arabia and in Borneo, the use of blood in\nconjunction with the use of a wedding-cup has continued down to recent\ntimes. The \u201cagreement bottle,\u201d or \u201cthe bottling,\u201d as it was sometimes\ncalled, preceded the wedding ceremony proper. At the wedding, the\nblood of a cock was shed at the covenanting feast. A reference to this\nis found in \u201cThe Wowing [the Wooing or the Vowing?] of Jok and Jynny,\u201d\namong the most ancient remains of Scottish minstrelsy:\n\n   \u201cJok tuk Jynny be the hand,\n      And cryd ane feist, and slew ane cok,\n    And maid a brydell up alland;\n      Now haif I gottin your Jynny, quoth Jok.\u201d[420]\n\nAmong the ancient Romans, as also among the Greeks, the outpouring\nof sacrificial blood, and the mutual drinking of wine, were closely\nlinked, in the marriage ceremony. When the substitute victim was ready\nfor slaying, \u201cthe soothsayer drank wine out of an earthen, or wooden,\nchalice, called in Latin, _simpulum_, or _simpuvium_. It was in fashion\nmuch like our ewers, when we pour water into the basin. This chalice\nwas afterward carried about to all the people, that they also might\n_libare_, that is, lightly taste thereof; which rite hath been called\n_libation_.\u201d The remainder of the wine from the chalice was poured\non to the victim, which was then slain; its blood being carefully\npreserved. And these ceremonies preceded the marriage feast.[421] The\nwedding wine-drinking is now, however, all that remains of them.\n\nIndeed, it would seem that the common custom of \u201cdrinking healths,\u201d\nor of persons \u201cpledging\u201d each other in a glass of wine, is but a\ndegenerate modification, or a latest vestige, of the primitive rite\nof covenanting in a sacred friendship, by means of commingled bloods\nshared in a wine-cup. Certainly this custom prevailed among the old\nNorsemen, and among the ancient Romans and Greeks. That it originally\nincluded an idea of a possible covenant with Deity, and of a spiritual\nfellowship, is indicated in the fact that \u201cthe old Northmen drank the\n\u2018minni\u2019 [the loving friendship] of Thor, Odin, and Freya; and of kings,\nlikewise, at their funerals.\u201d So again there were \u201csuch formulas as\n\u2018God\u2019s minnie!\u2019 [and] \u2018A bowl to God in heaven!\u2019\u201d[422]\n\nThe earlier method of this ceremony of pledging each other in wine,\nwas by all the participants drinking, in turn, out of a common bowl;\nas Catiline and his fellow-conspirators drank their blood and wine\nin mutual covenant; and as the Romans drank at a wedding service.\nIn the Norseland, to-day, this custom is continued by the use of a\ndrinking-bowl, marked by pegs for the individual potation; each man as\nhe receives it, on its round, being expected to \u201cdrink his peg.\u201d And\neven among the English and the Americans, as well as among the Germans,\nthe touching of two glasses together, in this health-pledging, is a\ncommon custom; as if in symbolism of a community in the contents of the\ntwo cups. As often, then, as we drink each other\u2019s healths, or as we\nrespond to any call for a common toast-drinking, we do show a vestige\nof the primeval and the ever sacred mutual covenanting in blood.\n\n\n8. BLOOD-COVENANT INVOLVINGS.\n\nAnd now that we have before us this extended array of related facts,\nconcerning the sacred uses and the popular estimates of blood, in all\nthe ages, it will be well for us to consider what we have learned, in\nthe line of blood-rights and of blood-customs, and in the direction\nof their religious involvings. Especially is it important for us to\nsee, where and how all this bears on the primitive and the still\nextant ceremony of covenanting by blood, with which we started in this\ninvestigation.\n\nFrom the beginning, and everywhere, blood seems to have been looked\nupon as preeminently the representative of life; as, indeed, in a\npeculiar sense, life itself. The transference of blood from one\norganism to another, has been counted the transference of life,\nwith all that life includes. The inter-commingling of blood by\nits inter-transference, has been understood as equivalent to an\ninter-commingling of natures. Two natures thus inter-commingled,\nby the inter-commingling of blood, have been considered as forming,\nthenceforward, one blood, one life, one nature, one soul--in two\norganisms. The inter-commingling of natures, by the inter-commingling\nof blood, has been deemed possible between man and a lower organism;\nand between man and a higher organism,--even between man and Deity,\nactually or by symbol;--as well as between man and his immediate fellow.\n\nThe mode of inter-transference of blood, with all that this carries,\nhas been deemed practicable, alike by way of the lips, and by way of\nthe opened and inter-flowing veins. It has been also represented, by\nblood-bathing, by blood-anointing, and by blood-sprinkling; or, again,\nby the inter-drinking of wine--which was formerly commingled with blood\nitself in the drinking. And the yielding of one\u2019s life by the yielding\nof one\u2019s blood has often been represented by the yielding of the blood\nof a chosen and a suitable substitute. Similarly the blood, or the\nnature, of divinities, has been represented, vicariously, in divine\ncovenanting, by the blood of a devoted and an accepted substitute.\nInter-communion between the parties in a blood-covenant, has been a\nrecognized privilege, in conjunction with any and every observance of\nthe rite of blood-covenanting. And the body of the divinely accepted\noffering, the blood of which is a means of divine-human inter-union,\nhas been counted a very part of the divinity; and to partake of that\nbody as food has been deemed equivalent to being nourished by the very\ndivinity himself.\n\nBlood, as life, has been looked upon as belonging, in the highest\nsense, to the Author of all life. The taking of life has been seen to\nbe the prerogative of its Author; and only he who is duly empowered,\nfor a season and for a reason, by that Author, for blood-taking in any\ncase, has been supposed to have the right to the temporary exercise of\nthat prerogative. Even then, the blood, as the life, must be employed\nunder the immediate direction and oversight of its Author. The heart\nof any living organism, as the blood-source and the blood-fountain,\nhas been recognized as the representative of its owner\u2019s highest\npersonality; and as the diffuser of the issues of his life and nature.\n\nA covenant of blood, a covenant made by the inter-commingling of\nblood, has been recognized as the closest, the holiest, and the most\nindissoluble, compact conceivable. Such a covenant clearly involves\nan absolute surrender of one\u2019s separate self, and an irrevocable\nmerging of one\u2019s individual nature into the dual, or the multiplied,\npersonality included in the compact. Man\u2019s highest and noblest\noutreachings of soul have, therefore, been for such a union with the\ndivine nature, as is typified in this human covenant of blood.\n\nHow it came to pass, that men everywhere were so generally agreed on\nthe main symbols of their religious yearnings and their religious\nhopes, in this realm of their aspirations, is a question which\nobviously admits of two possible answers. A common revelation from God,\nmay have been given to primitive man; and all these varying yet related\nindications of religious strivings and aim, may be but the perverted\nremains of the lessons of that misused, or slighted, revelation. On\nthe other hand, God may originally have implanted the germs of a\ncommon religious thought in the mind of man, and then have adapted\nhis successive revelations to the outworking of those germs. Which\never view of the probable origin of these common symbolisms, all the\nworld over, be adopted by any Christian student, the importance of the\nsymbolisms themselves, in their relation to the truths of revelation,\nis manifestly the same.\n\nOn this point, Kurtz has said, forcefully: \u201cA comparison of the\nreligious symbols of the Old Testament with those of ancient\nheathendom, shows that the ground and the starting point of those forms\nof religion which found their appropriate expressions in symbols, was\nthe same in all cases; while the history of civilization proves that\non this point, priority cannot be claimed by the Israelites. But when\ninstituting such an inquiry, we shall also find that the symbols\nwhich were transferred from the religions of nature to that of the\nspirit, first passed through the fire of divine purification, from\nwhich they issued as the distinctive theology of the Jews; the dross\nof a pantheistic deification of nature having been consumed.\u201d[423]\nAnd as to even the grosser errors, and the more pitiable perversions\nof the right, in the use of these world-wide religious symbolisms,\nKurtz says, again: \u201cEvery error, however dangerous, is based on some\ntruth misunderstood, and ... every aberration, however grievous, has\nstarted from a desire after real good, which had not attained its goal,\nbecause the latter was sought neither in the right way, nor by right\nmeans.\u201d[424] To recognize these truths concerning the outside religions\nof the world, gives us an added fitness for the comparison of the\nsymbolisms we have just been considering, with the teachings of the\nsacred pages of revelation, on the specific truths involved.\n\nProofs of the existence of this rite of blood-covenanting, have been\nfound among primitive peoples of all quarters of the globe; and its\nantiquity is carried back to a date long prior to the days of Abraham.\nAll this, outside of any indications of the rite in the text of Bible\nitself. And now we are in a position to turn intelligently to that text\nfor fuller light on the subject.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[190] _Egypt\u2019s Place_, V. 188.\n\n[191] This is illustrated by Ebers, in his romance of \u201cUarda;\u201d where\nthe surgeon, Nebsecht, finds such difficulty in obtaining a human\nheart, in order to its anatomical study. See, also, Birch\u2019s statement,\nin _Egypt\u2019s Place_, V., 135, and Pierret\u2019s _Dict. d\u2019Arch. \u00c9gypt._,\ns. v. \u201cC\u0153ur.\u201d\n\n[192] _Anc. Egypt._, III., 472, note 6.\n\n[193] _Ibid._, III., 466, note 3.\n\n[194] In the Book of the Dead, Chapter xxxvi. tells \u201cHow a Person has\nhis Heart made (or given) to him in the Hades.\u201d And in preparing the\nmummy, a scarab\u00e6us,--a symbol of the creative or life-giving god--was\nput in the place of the heart. (See Rubric, chapter xxx., Book of the\nDead; _Anc. Egypt._, III., 346, 486; also, note in _Uarda_, I., 305 f.).\n\n[195] _Egypt\u2019s Place_, V., 14.\n\n[196] _Ibid._, V., 283.\n\n[197] _Anc. Egypt._, II., 27, note.\n\n[198] Prov. 4 : 23.\n\n[199] _Anc. Egypt._, II., 27, 31; III., 409.\n\n[200] _Ibid._, II., 32, Plate No. 300.\n\n[201] _Ibid._, II., 27 note 1.\n\n[202] Comp. _Ibid._, III., 409, 416 f.\n\n[203] See _Egypt\u2019s Place_, V., 254.\n\n[204] _Rec. of Past_, II., 137-152.\n\n[205] See Lynd\u2019s _Hist. of Dakotas_, p. 73.\n\n[206] See citations from various original sources, in Bancroft\u2019s\n_Native Races of Pacific Coast_, II., 306-310, 707-709.\n\n[207] The Nahuas were \u201cskilled ones,\u201d or \u201cexperts,\u201d who had emigrated\nNorthward from the Maya land (R\u00e9ville\u2019s _Native Religions_, p. 20).\n\n[208] Clavigero\u2019s _Anc. Hist. of Mex._, II., 45-49, cited in Bancroft\u2019s\n_Native Races_, II., 307.\n\n[209] The proper centre of the Maya nations lay in Yucatan (R\u00e9ville\u2019s\n_Native Religions of Mexico and Peru_, p. 18).\n\n[210] Gomara, cited in Bancroft\u2019s _Native Races_, II., 310 f.\n\n[211] Herrera, cited in Bancroft\u2019s _Native Races_, II., 706 f.\n\n[212] _Native Religions of Mexico and Peru_ (Hibbert Lectures, 1884),\np. 43 f. See, also, pp. 45, 46, 82, 99.\n\n[213] See Pindar\u2019s _Olympian Odes_, Ode 1, line 146; Sophocles\u2019\n_Trachini\u00e6_, line 766; Virgil\u2019s _\u00c6neid_, Bk. XI., line 81 f.\n\n[214] Homer\u2019s _Odyssey_, Bk. III., lines 11, 12, 461-463; _Iliad_, Bk.\nII., lines 427, 428.\n\n[215] Cicero\u2019s _De Divinatione_, Bk. I., chap. 52, \u00a7 119.\n\n[216] See Sanchoniathon\u2019s references to blood libations, in Cory\u2019s\n_Ancient Fragments_, pp. 7, 11, 16.\n\n[217] See \u201cThe Hindu Pantheon,\u201d in Birdwood\u2019s _Indian Arts_, p. 96.\n\n[218] Frere\u2019s _Old Deccan Days_, p. 266.\n\n[219] Williams\u2019s _Middle Kingdom_, I., 194.\n\n[220] Edkins\u2019s _Religion in China_, p. 22.\n\n[221] Williams\u2019s _Mid. King._, I., 76-78.\n\n[222] The inscription was first found, in 1875, in the tomb of Setee\nI., the father of Rameses II., the Pharaoh of the oppression. A\ntranslation of it appeared in the _Transactions of the Society of\nBiblical Arch\u00e6ology_, Vol. 4, Part I. Again it has been found, in the\ntomb of Rameses III. Its earliest and its latest translations were\nmade by M. \u00c9douard Naville, the eminent Swiss Egyptologist. Meantime,\nBrugsch, De Bergmann, Lauth, Lef\u00e9bure, and others, have aided in its\nelucidation (See _Proceed. of Soc. of Bib. Arch._, for March 3, 1885).\n\nIs there not a reference to this legend in the Book of the Dead,\nchapter xviii., sixth section?\n\n[223] Mandrakes, or \u201clove-apples,\u201d among the ancient Egyptians, as\nalso among the Orientals generally, from the days of Jacob (Gen.\n30 : 14-17) until to-day, carried the idea of promoting a loving union;\nand the Egyptian name for mandrakes--_tetmut_--combined the root-word\n_tet_ already referred to as meaning \u201carm,\u201d or \u201cbracelet,\u201d and\n_mut_--with the signification of \u201cattesting,\u201d or \u201cconfirming.\u201d Thus the\nblood and the mandrake juice would be a true _assiratum_. (See Pierret\u2019s\n_Vocabulaire Hi\u00e9roglyphique_, p. 723.) \u201cBelief in this plant [the\nmandrake] is as old as history.\u201d (Napier\u2019s _Folk-Lore_, p. 90.) See,\nalso, Lang\u2019s _Custom and Myth_, pp. 143-155.\n\n[224] Mendieta\u2019s _Hist. Eccl. Ind._, 77 ff.; cited in Spencer\u2019s _Des.\nSoc._, II., 38; also Brinton\u2019s _Myths of the New World_, p. 258.\n\n[225] See Cory\u2019s _Anc. Frag._, p. 59 f.\n\n[226] _Ibid._, p. 15.\n\n[227] Comp. Fabri\u2019s _Evagatorium_, III., 218.\n\n[228] _Beginnings of History_, p. 52, note.\n\n[229] Bryant\u2019s _Odyssey_, Bks. x. and xi.\n\n[230] See Sayce\u2019s _Anc. Emp. of East_, p. 146.\n\n[231] Among the ancient Peruvians, there was said to be a class of\ndevil-worshipers, known as _canchus_, or _rumapmicuc_, the members of\nwhich sucked the blood from sleeping youth, to their own nourishing and\nto the speedy dying away of the persons thus depleted. (See Arriaga\u2019s\n_Extirpacion de la Idolatria del Piru_, p. 21 f.; cited in Spencer\u2019s\n_Des. Soc._, II., 48.). See, also, Ralston\u2019s _Russian Folk Tales_, pp.\n311-328.\n\n[232] Farrer\u2019s _Primitive Manners and Customs_, p. 23 f.\n\n[233] The primitive belief seems to have had a sound basis in\nscientific fact.\n\n[234] _Transfusion of Human Blood_, pp. 2-4.\n\n[235] _Ibid._, p. 5.\n\n[236] See pages 85-88, _supra_.\n\n[237] _Transf. of Blood_, p. 5.\n\n[238] 2 Kings 5 : 1-14.\n\n[239] _Hist. Nat._ xxvi., 5.\n\n[240] See _Notes and Queries_, for Feb. 28, 1857; with citation from\nSoane\u2019s _New Curiosities of Literature_, I., 72.\n\n[241] _Ibid._; also Mills\u2019s _History of Chivalry_, chap. IV., note.\n\n[242] See citation from Soane, in _Notes and Queries_, supra.\n\n[243] Citation from \u201cSaturday Review,\u201d for Feb. 14, 1857, in _Notes and\nQueries_, supra.\n\n[244] See Grimm\u2019s _Household Tales_, I., 23-30.\n\n[245] Cox and Jones\u2019s _Popular Romances of the Middle Ages_, pp. 85-87.\n\n[246] Cox and Jones\u2019s _Romances of the Middle Ages_, p. 292.\n\n[247] Lettsom\u2019s _Nibel. Lied_, p. 158.\n\n[248] _Kalila wa-Dimna_, p. 315-319.\n\n[249] Fielde\u2019s _Pagoda Shadows_, p. 88.\n\n[250] _Croniques de France_, 1516, feuillet c c i j, cited from Soane,\nin _Notes and Queries_, supra.\n\n[251] Roussel\u2019s _Trans. of Blood_, p. 6. A different version of this\nstory is given in Bruys\u2019s _Histoire des Papes_, IV., 278; but the\nother version is supported by two independent sources, in _Infessur\u00e6\nDiarium_, and _Burchardi Diarium_. See _Notes and Queries_, 5th Series,\nIII., 496, and IV., 38; also Hare\u2019s _Walks in Rome_, p. 590.\n\n[252] _Dict. M\u00e9d. et Chirurg. Prat._, Art. \u201cTransfusion.\u201d\n\n[253] Shooter\u2019s _Kafirs of Natal_, p. 117.\n\n[254] _Ibid._, p. 216.\n\n[255] Bonwick\u2019s _Daily Life and Origin of Tasmanians_, p. 89; cited in\nSpencer\u2019s _Des. Soc._, III., 43.\n\n[256] _Hist._, IV., 64.\n\n[257] _Jesuits in No. Am. in 17th Cent._, p. 389 f.\n\n[258] Ragueneau; cited by Parkman.\n\n[259] _Jesuits in No. Am._, Introduction, p. xxxix.\n\n[260] _Ibid._, p. 250.\n\n[261] _City of the Saints_, p. 117. See also Appendix.\n\n[262] _Reisen in Brit. Guian._, II., 430; cited in Spencer\u2019s _Des.\nSoc._, VI., 36.\n\n[263] _Trans. of Ethn. Soc._ new series, III., 240, cited in Spencer\u2019s\n_Des. Soc._, III., 36.\n\n[264] Beecham\u2019s _Ashantee and the Gold Coast_, p. 211; cited in\nSpencer\u2019s _Des. Soc._, IV., 33.\n\n[265] See Tylor\u2019s _Primitive Culture_, I., 459; also Bock\u2019s _Head\nHunters of Borneo_, passim.\n\n[266] Mrs. Finn\u2019s \u201cFellaheen of Palestine\u201d in _Surv. of West. Pal._\n\u201cSpecial Papers,\u201d p. 360.\n\n[267] This is Mrs. Finn\u2019s rendering of it; but it should be \u201cI\n_sacrificed_ him with my teeth.\u201d The Arabic word is obviously _dhabaha_\n(\u0630\u0628\u062d), identical with the Hebrew _zabhakh_ (\u05d6\u05b8\u05d1\u05b7\u05d7) \u201cto sacrifice.\u201d\n\n[268] Lang\u2019s _Custom and Myth_, p. 95 f.; also Grimm\u2019s _Household\nTales_, p. lxviii.\n\n[269] Cox and Jones\u2019s _Pop. Rom. of Mid. Ages_, p. 310.\n\n[270] Lettsom\u2019s _Nibel. Lied_, p. 373.\n\n[271] Thompson\u2019s _Alcedo\u2019s Geog. and Hist. Dict. of America_, I., 408;\ncited in Spencer\u2019s _Des. Soc._, VI., 19.\n\n[272] _Travels in Nubia_, p. 356.\n\n[273] _Trans. of Ethn. Soc._ II., 246, and Angas\u2019s _Austr. and New\nZeal._ I., 73, 227, 462, cited in Spencer\u2019s _Des. Soc._, III., 26.\n\n[274] See _Dict. M\u00e9d. et Chir. Prat._ Art. \u201cTransfusion\u201d; also\nRoussel\u2019s _Transf. of Blood_, pp. 78-88.\n\n[275] _Transf. of Blood_, p. 19.\n\n[276] See page 20, _supra_.\n\n[277] _Thro. Dark Cont._, I., 123-131.\n\n[278] Thompson\u2019s _Thro. Mas\u00e2i Land_, p. 430.\n\n[279] _Ibid._, p. 452.\n\n[280] Shooter\u2019s _Kafirs of Natal_, notes, p. 399.\n\n[281] H. A. L., in _Sport in Many Lands_.\n\n[282] See _Trans. Royal Asiat. Soc._, I., 69; cited in Spencer\u2019s _Des.\nSoc._, V., 26 f.\n\n[283] Edwards\u2019s _Hist. of Brit. West Ind._, I., 47; cited in Spencer\u2019s\n_Des. Soc._, VI., 36.\n\n[284] Shooter\u2019s _Kafirs of Natal_, p. 216.\n\n[285] See Tylor\u2019s _Prim. Cult._, II., 382, referring to Bastian\u2019s\n_Psychologie_.\n\n[286] See Anderson\u2019s _Norse Mythol._, p. 247.\n\n[287] _Ibid._, p. 380; Lettsom\u2019s _Nibel. Lied_, Preface, p. ix.; Cox\nand Jones\u2019s _Pop. Rom. of Mid. Ages_, p. 254 f.\n\n[288] _Pop. Rom. of Mid. Ages_, p. 260; also _Nib. Lied_, p. x.\n\n[289] See Bancroft\u2019s _Native Races_, III., 150; Brinton\u2019s _Myths of New\nWorld_, p. 274 f.; Jackson\u2019s _Alaska_, p. 103 f.\n\n[290] Charles F. Oldham\u2019s \u201cNative Faiths in the Himalayah,\u201d in _The\nContemporary Review_ for April, 1885.\n\n[291] Napier\u2019s _Folk-Lore of the West of Scotland_, p. 111 f.\n\n[292] Farrer\u2019s _Prim. Man. and Cust._, p. 276 f.\n\n[293] Lettsom\u2019s _Nibel. Lied_, p. 183; also Cox and Jones\u2019s _Pop. Rom.\nof Mid. Ages_, p. 47 f.\n\n[294] Benson\u2019s _Remarkable Trials_, p. 94, note.\n\n[295] Cobbett\u2019s _State Trials_, XI., 1371; cited in _Anecdotes of Omens\nand Superstitions_, p. 47 f.\n\n[296] _Superstition and Force_, pp. 315-323.\n\n[297] Cited from Gamal. ben Pedahzur\u2019s _Book of Jewish Ceremonies_,\np. 11.\n\n[298] _Religion in China_, pp. 23, 32.\n\n[299] _The Religions of China_, p. 55.\n\n[300] Dr. Legge here seems to use the word \u201csacrifice\u201d in the\nlight of a single meaning which attaches to it. There is surely\nno incompatibility in the terms \u201cbanquet\u201d and \u201csacrifice,\u201d as we\nfind their two-fold idea in the banquet-sacrifice of the Mosaic\npeace-offering (see Lev. 7 : 11-15).\n\n[301] _The Relig. of China_, Notes to Lect. I., p. 66.\n\n[302] _The Mid. King._, II., 194. See also Martin\u2019s _The Chinese_,\np. 258.\n\n[303] _The Relig. of China_, p. 53 f. Gray thinks differently (_China_,\nI., 87.)\n\n[304] _The Mid. King._, I., 76-78; _The Chinese_, p. 99; _Relig.\nin China_, p. 21; _The Relig. of China_, p. 25; _Confucianism and\nTaouism_, p. 87.\n\n[305] _Relig. in China_, p. 22. The same is true in sacrifices to\nConfucius (Gray\u2019s _China_, I., 87).\n\n[306] _Chow le_, cited by Douglas in _Confuc. and Taou._, p. 82 f.\n\n[307] Edkins\u2019s _Relig. in China_, p. 27.\n\n[308] See page 156 f., _infra_.\n\n[309] \u201cThe flesh of the horse is eaten both by the Chinese and the\nMongolians.\u201d (Gray\u2019s _China_, II., 174.)\n\n[310] See C. F. Gordon Cumming\u2019s article \u201cA Visit to the Temple of\nHeaven at Peking,\u201d in _Lond. Quart. Rev._, for July, 1885.\n\n[311] See Exod. 12 : 7-10.\n\n[312] Gray\u2019s _China_, II., 271 f.\n\n[313] Gray\u2019s _China_, I., 102.\n\n[314] See Rev. 7 : 3; 9 : 4; 13 : 16; 14 : 1; 20 : 4; 22 : 4.\n\n[315] _The Relig. of China_, p. 289.\n\n[316] See The Rite in Burmah, in Appendix.\n\n[317] See Dubois\u2019s _Des. Man. and Cust. of People of India_, Part III.,\nchap. 7; also Monier Williams\u2019s _Hinduism_, p. 36 f.\n\n[318] Monier Williams\u2019s _Hinduism_, p. 35 f.\n\n[319] _Ibid._, p. 37 f.\n\n[320] Dubois\u2019s _Des. of Man. and Cust. in India_, Part III., chap. vii.\n\n[321] Heber\u2019s _Travels in India_, II., 13 f.\n\n[322] _Ibid._, II., 285.\n\n[323] Dubois\u2019s _Des. of Man. and Cust. of India_, Part II., chap. xxxi.\n\n[324] Dubois\u2019s _Des. of Man. and Cust. of India_, Part II., chap. xi.\n\n[325] \u201cThe Hindu Pantheon,\u201d in Birdwood\u2019s _Indian Arts_, p. 76 f.\n\n[326] _Ibid._, p. 42.\n\n[327] 1 Cor. 11 : 29.\n\n[328] See Roberts\u2019s _Oriental Illus. of Scriptures_, pp. 484-489.\n\n[329] See page 77, _supra_.\n\n[330] See page 53, _supra_.\n\n[331] See also page 194 ff., _infra_.\n\n[332] See Sayce\u2019s paper, in _Trans. Soc. Bib. Arch._, Vol. I., Part 1,\npp. 25-31.\n\n[333] See page 13 f., _supra_.\n\n[334] \u201cWhether he has overcome his enemies or the wild beasts, he pours\nout a libation from the sacred cup,\u201d says Layard (_Nineveh and its\nRemains_, Vol. II., chap. 7) concerning the old-time King of Nineveh.\n\n[335] See H. Fox Talbot\u2019s paper, in _Trans. Soc. Bib. Arch._, Vol. IV.,\nPart 1, p. 58 f.\n\n[336] Mal. 1 : 6, 7. See also Isa. 65 : 11.\n\n[337] 2 Kings 19 : 37; Ezra 4 : 2; Isa. 37 : 38. See also\n1 Cor. 10 : 21.\n\n[338] _Rec. of Past_, III., 122 f.\n\n[339] Sayce\u2019s _Anc. Emp. of East_, p. 201; also, W. Robertson Smith\u2019s\n_Old Test. in Jew. Ch._, notes on Lect. xii.\n\n[340] _Rec. of Past_, III., 135.\n\n[341] Sayce\u2019s _Anc. Emp. of East_, p. 266.\n\n[342] Schaff-Herzog\u2019s _Encyc. of Relig. Knowl._, art. \u201cParseeism.\u201d\n\n[343] _Anc. Emp. of East_, p. 266.\n\n[344] See Wilkinson\u2019s _Anc. Egypt._, III., 30, 400.\n\n[345] Kenrick\u2019s _Anc. Egypt._, I., 369 ff.\n\n[346] Ebers\u2019s _\u00c6gypt. u. d. B\u00fcch. Mose\u2019s_, p. 245 f.\n\n[347] Wilkinson\u2019s _Anc. Egypt._, III., 402.\n\n[348] Cited from Castor, in Plutarch, in Wilkinson\u2019s _Anc. Egypt._,\nIII., 407. See also Ebers\u2019s _\u00c6gypt. u. d. B\u00fcch. Mose\u2019s_, p. 246.\n\n[349] _Hist._, II., 59.\n\n[350] Wilkinson\u2019s _Anc. Egypt._, III., 409. See also page 102, _supra_.\n\n[351] Wilkinson\u2019s _Anc. Egypt._, III., 109; 410; Kenrick\u2019s _Anc.\nEgypt._, I., 373. See Herodotus, _Hist._, II., 47.\n\n[352] _Hist._, II., 61.\n\n[353] See references to this custom at page 85 ff., _supra_.\n\n[354] See Wilkinson\u2019s _Anc. Egypt._, III., 404-406.\n\n[355] Renouf\u2019s _The Relig. of Anc. Egypt_, pp. 138-147.\n\n[356] See _Rec. of Past_, X., 79-134.\n\n[357] See page 102 f., _supra_.\n\n[358] \u201cMan doth not live by bread only, but by every word that\nproceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live.\u201d (Deut. 8 : 3.\nSee, also, Matt. 4 : 4; Job 23 : 12; John 4 : 34.)\n\n[359] See John 8 : 31, 32; 16 : 13; 17 : 19.\n\n[360] See R\u00e9ville\u2019s _Native Relig. of Mex. and Peru_, pp. 63, 163;\nCory\u2019s _Anc. Frag._, p. 5; Dubois\u2019s _Des. Man. and Cust. of India_,\nPart II., chap. 31; Tylor\u2019s _Prim. Cult._, II., 278 ff.; Dorman\u2019s\n_Orig. of Prim. Supers._, p. 150; Andersson\u2019s _Lake Ngami_, p. 220.\n\n[361] Bancroft\u2019s _Native Races_, V., 547 f.\n\n[362] Monier Williams\u2019s _Hinduism_, p. 60.\n\n[363] Bancroft\u2019s _Native Races_, V., 548.\n\n[364] Bancroft\u2019s _Native Races_, II., 710.\n\n[365] Mendieta\u2019s _Hist. Eccles. Ind._, p. 108 f.; cited in Spencer\u2019s\n_Des. Soc._, II., 20.\n\n[366] Acosta\u2019s _Hist. Nat. Mor. Ind._, Bk. V., chap. 27, cited in\nSpencer\u2019s _Des. Soc._, II., 26.\n\n[367] Herrera\u2019s _Gen. Hist. of America_, II., 379; cited in Dorman\u2019s\n_Orig. of Prim. Supers._, p. 152 f.\n\n[368] Acosta\u2019s _Hist. Nat. Mor. Ind._, Bk. V., chap. 23; cited in\nPrescott\u2019s _Conquest of Peru_, I., 108, note.\n\n[369] Herrera\u2019s _Gen. Hist._, III., 207 f.; cited in Spencer\u2019s _Des.\nSoc._, II., 20.\n\n[370] Spencer\u2019s _Des. Soc._, II., 20. See also Southey\u2019s _Hist. of\nBrazil_, II., 370.\n\n[371] _Contra Apionem_, II., 7.\n\n[372] See pages 105 f., 132, _supra_.\n\n[373] See Clark\u2019s _Indian Sign Language_, s. v., \u201cFeast.\u201d\n\n[374] \u201cShould he fail [to eat his portion], the host would be outraged,\nthe community shocked, and the spirits roused to vengeance. Disaster\nwould befall the nation--death, perhaps, the individual.\u201d \u201cA feaster\nunable to do his full part, might, if he could, hire another to aid\nhim; otherwise he must remain in his place till the work was done.\u201d\n(Parkman\u2019s _Jesuits in No. Am._, p. xxxviii.)\n\n[375] \u201cAt some feasts guests are permitted to take home some small\nportions for their children as sacred food, especially good for them\nbecause it came from a feast.\u201d (Clark\u2019s _Ind. Sign Lang._, p. 168.)\n\n[376] Edkins\u2019s _Relig. in China_, p. 22, note.\n\n[377] See pages 159, 168, 172, _supra_.\n\n[378] R\u00e9ville\u2019s _Native Relig. of Mex. and Peru_, p. 183.\n\n[379] _Ibid._, p. 76.\n\n[380] See page 176 f., _supra_.\n\n[381] _Des. of Man. and Cust. of India_, Part III., chap. 7.\n\n[382] See William and Calvert\u2019s _Fiji and the Fijians_, pp. 35 f.,\n161-166, 181 f.\n\n[383] Cited in Parkman\u2019s _Jesuits in No. Am._, p. 228, note.\n\n[384] _Ibid._, p. xxxix.\n\n[385] _Ibid._, p. xl., note.\n\n[386] _Origin of Prim. Supers._, p. 151 f.\n\n[387] _Origin of Prim. Supers._, p. 150.\n\n[388] _Native Relig. of Mex. and Peru_, p. 75 f.\n\n[389] _Native Relig. of Mex. and Peru_, p. 76.\n\n[390] See references to cannibalism as a religious rite among the\nKhonds of Orissa, the people of Sumatra, etc., in Adams\u2019s _Curiosities\nof Superstition_.\n\n[391] Gen. 49 : 11; Deut. 32 : 14; Ecclesiasticus 39 : 26; 50 : 15;\n1 Macc. 6 : 34.\n\n[392] In _Beduinen und Wahaby_, p. 86 f.\n\n[393] _Desert of the Exodus_, I., 90.\n\n[394] See page 72, _supra_.\n\n[395] Wood\u2019s _Wedding Day_, p. 144.\n\n[396] Mason, in _Journ. of Asiat. Soc. of Bengal_, Vol. XXXV., Part\nII., p. 17; cited in Spencer\u2019s _Des. Soc._, V., 9.\n\n[397] Andersson\u2019s _Lake Ngami_, p. 220 f.\n\n[398] Shooter\u2019s _Kafirs of Natal_, p. 77.\n\n[399] Williams and Calvert\u2019s _Fiji and the Fijians_, p. 134.\n\n[400] See Monier Williams\u2019s _Sanskrit Dictionary_, s. v.\n\n[401] See Pike\u2019s _Sub-Tropical Rambles_, p. 198.\n\n[402] See pages 77, 165, _supra_.\n\n[403] This Oriental custom gives an added meaning to the suggestion,\nthat Christ was sent to bring us to his Father, \u201cthat we might receive\nthe adoption of sons\u201d (Gal. 4 : 5).\n\n[404] The citations above made are from Roberts\u2019s _Oriental\nIllustrations of the Scriptures_, p. 574, and from Dubois\u2019s _Des. of\nMan. and Cust. of India_, Part II., chap. 22; the latter being from the\nDirectory or Ritual of the Purohitas.\n\n[405] Doolittle\u2019s _Social Life of the Chinese_, I., 85-87.\n\n[406] _China_, p. 72 f.\n\n[407] Piedrahita\u2019s _Hist. New Granada_, Bk. I., chap. 6; cited in\nSpencer\u2019s _Des. Soc._, II., 34.\n\n[408] Malcolm, in _Trans. Royal Asiat. Soc._, I., 83; cited in\nSpencer\u2019s _Des. Soc._, V., 8.\n\n[409] Wood\u2019s _Wedding Day_, p. 142.\n\n[410] _Ibid._, p. 66 f.\n\n[411] _Ibid._, p. 124 f.\n\n[412] Rous and Bogan\u2019s _Arch\u00e6ologi\u00e6 Attic\u00e6_, p. 167.\n\n[413] Wood\u2019s _Wedding Day_, pp. 36, 39.\n\n[414] Wood\u2019s _Wedding Day_, p. 151.\n\n[415] _Ibid._, pp. 22, 23.\n\n[416] _Ibid._, p. 247.\n\n[417] _Ibid._, p. 247.\n\n[418] _Ibid._, p. 248.\n\n[419] _Ibid._, p. 173.\n\n[420] Ross\u2019s _The Book of Scottish Poems_, I., 218.\n\n[421] Godwyn\u2019s _Rom. Histori\u00e6_, p. 66 f.\n\n[422] Tylor\u2019s _Prim. Cult._, I., 85-97.\n\n[423] Kurtz\u2019s _History of the Old Covenant_, I., 235.\n\n[424] _Ibid._, I., 268.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE III.\n\nINDICATIONS OF THE RITE IN THE BIBLE.\n\n\n\n\nIII.\n\nINDICATIONS OF THE RITE IN THE BIBLE.\n\n\n1. LIMITATIONS OF INQUIRY.\n\nAnd now, before entering upon an examination of the Bible text, in\nthe light of these disclosures of primitive and universal customs, it\nmay be well for me to say, that I purpose no attempt to include or to\nexplain all the philosophy of sacrifice, and of the involved atonement.\nAll my thought is, to ascertain what new meaning, if any, is found in\nthe Bible teachings concerning the uses and the symbolism of blood,\nthrough our better understanding of the prevailing idea, among the\npeoples of the ancient world, that blood represents life; that the\ngiving of blood represents the giving of life; that the receiving of\nblood represents the receiving of life; that the inter-commingling\nof blood represents the inter-commingling of natures; and that a\ndivine-human inter-union through blood is the basis of a divine-human\ninter-communion, in the sharing of the flesh of the sacrificial\noffering as sacred food. Whatever other Bible teachings there are,\nbeyond these, as to the meanings of sacrifice, or as to the nature of\nthe atonement, it is not my purpose, in this investigation, to consider.\n\nIn the days of Moses, when the Pentateuch is supposed to have been\nprepared, there were--as we have already found--certain well-defined\nviews, the world over, concerning the sacredness of blood, and\nconcerning the methods, the involvings, and the symbolisms, of the\ncovenant of blood. This being so, we are not to look to the Bible\nrecord, as it stands, for the original institution of every rite\nand ceremony connected with blood-shedding, blood-guarding, and\nblood-using; but we may fairly look at every Bible reference to blood,\nin the light of the primitive customs known to have prevailed in the\ndays of the Bible writing.\n\n\n2. PRIMITIVE TEACHINGS OF BLOOD.\n\nThe earliest implied reference to blood in the Bible text, is the\nrecord of Abel\u2019s sacrifice. \u201cAnd Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain\nwas a tiller of the ground. And in process of time it came to pass that\nCain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. And\nAbel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat\nthereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering: but\nunto Cain and to his offering he had not respect.\u201d[425] An inspired\ncomment on this incident is: \u201cBy faith Abel offered unto God a more\nexcellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he had witness borne to\nhim that he was righteous, God bearing witness in respect of [or, over]\nhis gifts: and through it he [Abel] being dead yet speaketh.\u201d[426]\n\nNow, on the face of it, in the light of all that we know of primitive\ncustoms in this matter of the blood-covenant, and apart from any added\nteachings in the Bible concerning the nature and meanings of different\nsacrifices, this narrative shows Abel, lovingly and trustfully reaching\nout toward God with substitute blood, in order to be in covenant\noneness with God; while Cain merely proffers a gift from his earthly\npossessions. Abel so trusts God, that he gives _himself_ to him. Cain\ndefers to God sufficiently to make a _present_ to him. The one shows\nunbounded faith; the other shows a measure of affectionate reverence.\nIt is the same practical difference as that which distinguished\nRuth from Orpah, when the testing time of their love for their\nmother-in-law, Naomi, had come to them alike. \u201cAnd Orpah kissed her\nmother-in-law; but Ruth clave unto her.\u201d[427] No wonder that God\ncounted Abel\u2019s unstinted proffer of himself, in faith, an acceptable\nsacrifice, and received it, as in inter-communion on the basis of\ninter-union; while Cain\u2019s paltry gift, without any proffer of himself,\nwon no approval from the Lord.\n\nThen there followed the unhallowed shedding of Abel\u2019s blood by Cain,\nand the crying out, as it were, of the spilled life of Abel unto its\nDivine Author.[428] \u201cThe voice of thy brother\u2019s blood crieth unto me\nfrom the ground,\u201d said the Lord, to the guilty spiller of blood. \u201cAnd\nnow cursed art thou from the ground, which hath opened her mouth to\nreceive thy brother\u2019s blood from thy hand.\u201d Here, as elsewhere, the\nblood is preeminently the life; and even when poured out on the earth,\nthe blood does not lose its vitality. It still has its intelligent\nrelations to its Author and Guardian;[429] as the world has been\naccustomed to count a possibility, down to modern times.[430]\n\nAfter the destruction of mankind by the deluge, when God would begin\nanew, as it were, by the revivifying of the world, through the vestige\nof blood--of life--preserved in the ark,[431] he laid new emphasis on\nthe sacredness of blood, as the representative of that life which\nis the essence of God himself. Noah\u2019s first act, on coming out from\nthe ark, was to proffer himself and all living flesh, in a fresh\nblood-covenant with the Lord. \u201cAnd Noah builded an altar unto the Lord;\nand took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered\nburnt offerings on the altar.\u201d[432] From all that we know of the method\nof the burnt-offering, either from the Bible-text or from outside\nsources, it has, from the beginning, included the preliminary offering\nof the blood--as the life--to Deity, by its outpouring, around, or\nupon, the altar, with or without the accompaniment of libations of\nwine; or, again, by its sprinkling upon the altar.[433]\n\nIt was then, when the spirit of Noah, in this covenant-seeking by\nblood, was recognized approvingly by the Lord, that the Lord smelled\nthe sweet savor of the proffered offering,--\u201cthe savor of satisfaction,\nor delectation,\u201d[434] to him, was in it,--and he established a\nnew covenant with Noah, giving commandment anew concerning the\nnever-failing sacredness of blood: \u201cEvery moving thing that liveth\nshall be food for you; as [freely as] the green herb, have I given you\nall [flesh]. But flesh with the _life_ thereof, which is the _blood_\nthereof [flesh with the blood in it], shall ye not eat. And surely\nyour blood, the blood of your lives, will I require; at the hand of\nevery beast will I require it: and at the hand of man, even at the\nhand of every man\u2019s brother, will I require the life of man. Whoso\nsheddeth man\u2019s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image\nof God made he man.\u201d[435] Here, the blood of even those animals whose\nflesh might be eaten by man, is forbidden for food: because it is\nlife itself, and therefore sacred to the Author of life.[436] And the\nblood of man must not be shed by man,--except where man is made God\u2019s\nminister of justice,--because man is formed in the image of God, and\nonly God has a right to take away--directly or by his minister--the\nlife, from one bearing God\u2019s likeness.\n\nAnd this injunction, together with this covenant, preceded the\nceremonial law of Moses; and it survived that law, as well. When the\nquestion came up in the apostolic conference at Jerusalem, on the\noccasion of the visit of Paul and Barnabas, concerning the duty of\nGentile Christians to the Mosaic ceremonial law, the decision was\nexplicit, that while nothing which was of that ritual alone should be\nimposed as obligatory on the new believers, those essential elements\nof religious observance which were prior to Moses, and which were not\ndone away with in Christ, should be emphasized in all the extending\ndomain of Christianity. Spirituality in worship, personal purity, and\nthe holding sacred to God, all blood--or life--as the gift of God,\nand as the means of communion with God, must never be ignored in the\nrealm of Christian duty. \u201cWrite unto them, that they abstain from the\npollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from what is strangled,\nand from blood,\u201d[437] said the Apostle James, in announcing the\ndecision of this conference; and the circular letter to the Gentile\nchurches was framed accordingly. Nor does this commandment seem ever to\nhave been abrogated, in letter or in spirit. However poorly observed\nby Christians, it stands to-day as it stood in the days of Paul, and\nin the days of Noah, a perpetual obligation, with all its manifold\nteachings of the blessed benefits of the covenant of blood.[438]\n\n\n3. THE BLOOD COVENANT IN CIRCUMCISION.\n\nAgain the Lord made a new beginning for the race, in his start with\nAbraham, as the father of a chosen and peculiar people in the world.\nAnd again the covenant of blood, or the covenant of strong-friendship\nas it is still called in the East, was the prominent feature in this\nbeginning. The Apostle James says, that \u201cAbraham ... was called\nthe friend of God.\u201d[439] God himself, speaking through Isaiah,\nrefers to Abraham, as \u201cAbraham my friend\u201d;[440] and Jehoshaphat, in\nhis extremity, calling upon God for help, speaks of \u201cAbraham, thy\nfriend.\u201d[441] And this application of the term \u201cfriend\u201d to any human\nbeing, in his relations to God, is absolutely unique in the case of\nAbraham, in all the Old Testament record. Abraham, and only Abraham,\nwas called \u201cthe friend of God.\u201d[442] Yet the immediate narrative of\nAbraham\u2019s relations to God, makes no specific mention of this unique\nterm \u201cfriend,\u201d as being then applied to Abraham. It is only as we\nrecognize the primitive rite of blood-friendship in the incidents of\nthat narrative, that we perceive clearly why and how God\u2019s covenant\nwith Abraham was preeminently a covenant of friendship.\n\n\u201cI will make[443] my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply\nthee exceedingly,\u201d said the Lord to Abraham.[444] And again, \u201cI will\nestablish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee\nthroughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a\nGod unto thee; and to thy seed after thee.... And as for thee, thou\nshalt keep my covenant, thou, and thy seed after thee throughout their\ngenerations.\u201d[445] And then there came the explanation, how Abraham\nwas to enter into the covenant of blood-friendship with the Lord; so\nthat he might be called \u201cthe friend of God.\u201d \u201cThis is my covenant,\nwhich ye shall keep, between me and you, and thy seed after thee;\nevery male among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall be circumcised\nin the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of a covenant\nbetwixt me and you.\u201d[446] The blood-covenant of friendship shall\nbe consummated by your giving to me of your personal blood at the\nvery source of paternity--\u201cunder your girdle\u201d;[447] thereby pledging\nyourself to me, and pledging, also, to me, those who shall come after\nyou in the line of natural descent. \u201cAnd my covenant [this covenant\nof blood-friendship] shall be in your flesh for an everlasting\ncovenant.\u201d[448]\n\nSo, \u201cin the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised,\u201d and thenceforward\nhe bore in his flesh the evidence that he had entered into the\nblood-covenant of friendship with the Lord.[449] To this day,\nindeed, Abraham is designated in all the East, as distinctively,\n\u201cKhaleel-Allah,\u201d \u201cthe Friend of God,\u201d or \u201cIbr\u00e2heem el-Khaleel,\u201d\n\u201cAbraham the Friend\u201d[450]--the one Friend, of God.\n\nWhen a Jewish child is circumcised, it is commonly said of him,\nthat he is caused \u201cto enter into the covenant of Abraham\u201d; and, his\ngod-father, or sponsor, is called _Baal-bereeth_,[451] \u201cMaster of\nthe covenant.\u201d[452] Moreover, even down to modern times, the rite of\ncircumcision has included a recognition, however unconscious, of the\nprimitive blood-friendship rite, by the custom of the ecclesiastical\noperator, as God\u2019s representative, receiving into his mouth, and\nthereby being made a partaker of, the blood mingled with wine,\naccording to the method described among the Orientals, in the rite of\nblood-friendship, from the earliest days of history.[453]\n\nIt is a peculiarity of the primitive compact of blood-friendship,\nthat he who would enter into it must be ready to make a complete\nsurrender of himself, in loving trust, to him with whom he covenants.\nHe must, in fact, so love and trust, as to be willing to merge his\nseparate individuality, in the dual personality of which he becomes\nan integral part. Only he who believes in another unreservedly and\nfearlessly, can take such a step intelligently. The record concerning\nAbraham stands: \u201cHe believed in the Lord; and He counted it to him\nfor righteousness.\u201d[454] The Hebrew word, _he\u00ebmeen_ (\u05d4\u05b6\u05d0\u05b1\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05df)\nhere translated \u201cbelieved in,\u201d carries the idea of an unqualified\ncommittal of self to another. It is from the root _aman_ (\u05d0\u05b8\u05de\u05b7\u05df)\nwith the two-fold idea of \u201cto be faithful\u201d and \u201cto trust.\u201d[455] Its\ncorrespondent in the Arabic, (_amana_, \u0627\u0645\u0646) carries the same double\nidea, of a confident and an entire committal of self to another, in\ntrust and in trustworthiness.[456] Lane\u2019s definition[457] of the\nsubstantive from this root is: \u201cThe becoming true to the trust,\nwith respect to which God has confided in one, by a firm believing\nof the heart.\u201d[458] Abraham so trusted the Lord, that he was ready\nto commit himself to the Lord, as in the rite of blood-friendship.\nTherefore the Lord counted Abraham\u2019s spirit of loving and longing\ntrust, as the equivalent of a spiritual likeness with himself; and\nthe Lord received Abraham, by his circumcision, into the covenant of\nblood-friendship.[459] Or, as the Apostle James states it: \u201cAbraham\nbelieved [in] God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness;\nand he was called the friend of God.\u201d[460] Here is the doctrine of\n\u201cimputation,\u201d with real life in it; in lieu of a hard commercial\ntransaction, as some have viewed it.\n\nThe recognition of the covenant of blood in the rite of circumcision,\nthrows light on an obscure passage in the life of Moses, as recorded in\nExodus 4 : 20-26. Moses, himself a child of the covenant, had neglected\nthe circumcision of his own first-born; and so he had been unfaithful\nto the covenant of Abraham. While on his way from the Wilderness of\nSinai to Egypt, with a message from God to Pharaoh, concerning the\nun-covenanted first-born of the Egyptians,[461] Moses was met by a\nstartling providence, and came face to face with death--possibly with\na bloody death of some sort. \u201cThe Lord met him, and sought to kill\nhim,\u201d it is said. It seems to have been perceived, both by Moses and\nhis wife, that they were being cut off from a farther share in God\u2019s\ncovenant-plans for the descendants of Abraham, because of their failure\nto conform to their obligations in the covenant of Abraham.\n\n\u201cThen Zipporah took a flint, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and\ncast it at [made it touch] his [Moses\u2019] feet; and she said, Surely a\nbridegroom of blood [one newly bound through blood], art thou to me. So\nHe [the Lord] let him [Moses] alone [He spared him, as one newly true\nto the covenant of Abraham, and newly safe within its bounds]. Then she\n[Zipporah] said [again], A bridegroom of blood art thou, because of the\ncircumcision;\u201d or, as the margin renders it: \u201cA bridegroom of blood\n[art thou] in regard of the circumcision.\u201d[462]\n\nThe Hebrew word, _khathan_ (\u05d7\u05b8\u05ea\u05b8\u05df), here translated \u201cbridegroom,\u201d has,\nas its root idea, the binding through severing, the covenanting by\nblood;[463] an idea that is in the marriage-rite, as the Orientals\nview it,[464] and that is in the rite of circumcision, also. Indeed,\nin the Arabic, the corresponding term (_khatan_, \u062e\u062a\u0646), is applied\ninterchangeably to one who is a relation by the way of one\u2019s\nwife, and to one who is circumcised.[465] Hence, the words of Zipporah\nwould imply that, by this rite of circumcision, she and her child were\nbrought into blood-covenant relations with the descendants of Abraham,\nand her husband also was now saved to that covenant; whereas before\nthey were in danger of being covenanted with a bloody death. It is\nthis idea which seems to be in the Targum of Onkelos, where it renders\nZipporah\u2019s first word: \u201cBy the blood of this circumcision, a _khathna_\n[a blood-won relation] is given to us;\u201d and her second speech: \u201cIf\nthe blood of this circumcision had not been given [to us; then we had\nhad] a _khathna_ [a blood-won relation] of slaughter [of death].\u201d It\nis as though Zipporah had said: \u201cWe are now newly covenanted to each\nother, and to God, by blood; whereas, but for this, we should have been\ncovenanted to slaughter [or death] by blood.\u201d\n\n\n4. THE BLOOD COVENANT TESTED.\n\nAfter the formal covenant of blood had been made between Abraham and\nJehovah, there was a specific testing of Abraham\u2019s fidelity to that\ncovenant, as if in evidence of the fact that it was no empty ceremony\non his part, whereby he pledged his blood,--his very life, in its\nsuccessive generations,--to Jehovah, in the rite of circumcision. The\ndeclaration of his \u201cfaith,\u201d and the promise of his faithfulness, were\nto be justified, in their manifest sincerity, by his explicit \u201cworks\u201d\nin their direction.\n\nAll the world over, men who were in the covenant of blood-friendship\nwere ready,--or were supposed to be ready,--to give not only their\nlives for each other, but even to give, for each other, that which\nwas dearer to them than life itself. And, all the world over, men who\npledged their devotedness to their gods were ready to surrender to\ntheir gods that which they held as dearest and most precious--even\nto the extent of their life, and of that which was dearer than life.\nWould Abraham do as much for his Divine Friend, as men would do for\ntheir human friends? Would Abraham surrender to his God all that the\nworshipers of other gods were willing to surrender in proof of their\ndevotedness? These were questions yet to be answered before the world.\n\n\u201cAnd it came to pass after these things, that God did prove Abraham\n[did put him to the test, or the proof, of his friendship], and said\nunto him, Abraham; and he said, Here am I. And he said, Take now thy\nson, thine only son, whom thou lovest, even Isaac, and get thee unto\nthe land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt-offering upon one\nof the mountains which I will tell thee of.\u201d[466] And Abraham rose up\ninstantly to respond to the call of his Divine Friend.\n\nJust here it is important to consider two or three points at which the\nWestern mind has commonly failed to recognize the Oriental thought, in\nconnection with such a transaction as this.\n\nAn Oriental father prizes an only son\u2019s life far more than he prizes\nhis own. He recognizes it, to be sure, as at his own disposal; but\nhe would rather surrender any other possession than that. For an\nOriental to die without a son, is a terrible thought.[467] His life\nis a failure. His future is blank. But with a son to take his place,\nan Oriental is, in a sense, ready to die. When therefore an Oriental\nhas one son, if the choice must be between the cutting short of\nthe father\u2019s life, or of the son\u2019s, the former would be the lesser\nsurrender; the latter would be far greater. Preeminently did this\ntruth have force in the case of Abraham, whose pilgrim-life had\nbeen wholly with reference to the future; and whose earthly-joy and\nearthly-hopes centered in Isaac, the son of his old age. For Abraham\nto have surrendered his own toil-worn life, now that a son of promise\nwas born to him, would have been a minor matter, at the call of God.\nBut for Abraham to surrender that son, and so to become again a\nchildless, hopeless old man, was a very different matter. Only a faith\nthat would neither question nor reason, only a love that would neither\nfail nor waver, could meet an issue like that. The surrender of an\nonly son by an Oriental, was not, therefore, as it is often deemed in\nthe Western mind, a father\u2019s selfish yielding of a lesser substitute\nfor himself;[468] but it was the giving of the one thing which he had\npower to surrender, which was more precious to him than himself. The\ndifference here is as great as that between the enforced sending, by\nan able-bodied citizen, of a \u201csubstitute\u201d defender of the sender\u2019s\ncountry in a war-time draft, and the willing sending to the front, by\nan aged father, of his loved and only son, at the first signal of his\ncountry\u2019s danger. The one case has in it more than a suggestion of\ncowardly shirking; the other shows only a loyal and self-forgetful love\nof country.\n\nAgain, we are liable to think of the surrender of a life, as the\ndooming to death; and of a sacrificial outpouring of blood, as\nnecessarily an expiatory offering. In the case of the only son sent\ninto battle by his patriotic father, death may be an incident to the\ntransaction; but the gift of the son is the gift of his _life_, whether\nhe shall live or die. And although the war itself be caused by sin,\nand be a result, and so a punishment, of sin, the son is sent into\nit, not in order that he may bear punishment, but that he may avert\nits disastrous consequences, even at the cost of his life--with the\nnecessity of his death.\n\nThis idea of the surrender of an only son, not in expiation of\nguilt, but in proof of unselfish and limitless affection, runs down\nthrough the ages, apart from any apparent trace of connection with\nthe tradition of Abraham and Isaac. It is seen:--in India, in the\nstory of the sacrifice of Siralen, the only son of Sirutunden and\nVanagata-ananga, as a simple proof of their loving devotedness to\nVishnoo;[469] in Arabia, in the story of the proffered slaying of the\ntwo only children of a king, in order to restore to life by their\nblood, his dearly loved friend and servant, who had been turned to\nstone;[470] in the Norseland, in the similar story of the king and\nhis friend and servant \u201cFaithful John;\u201d[471] in Great Britain, in\nthe story of Amys and Amylion, the one of these friends sacrificing\nhis two only children for the purpose of curing the other friend of\nthe leprosy;[472] and so in many another guise.[473] Whatever other\nvalue attaches to these legends, they show most clearly, that the\nconception of such a surrender as that to which Abraham was called in\nthe sacrifice of Isaac, was not a mere outgrowth of the customs of\nhuman sacrifices to malignant divinities, in Phoenicia and Moab and the\nadjoining countries, in the days of Abraham and earlier.[474] There was\na sentiment involved, which is everywhere recognized as the noblest and\npurest of which humanity is capable.\n\nIf, indeed, there were any reluctance to accept this simple explanation\nof an obvious view of the test of friendship to which God subjected\nAbraham, because of its possible bearing on the recognized symbolism\nof the transaction, then it would be sufficient to remember, that one\nview of such a transaction is not necessarily its only view. Whatever\nother view be taken of the fact and the symbolism of God\u2019s call on\nAbraham, to surrender to him his only son, it is obvious that, as a\nfact, God did test, or prove, Abraham his friend, by asking of him the\nvery evidence of his loving and unselfish devotedness to him, which has\nbeen, everywhere and always, reckoned the highest and surest evidence\npossible of the truest and holiest friendship. And this may well be\nlooked at, also, as a symbol of God\u2019s purpose of surrendering _his_\nonly Son, in proof of his fidelity to his blood-covenant of friendship\nwith Abraham and Abraham\u2019s true seed forever.\n\n\u201cGreater love [in friendship] hath no man than this, that a man lay\ndown his life for his friends;\u201d[475] and no man, as the Oriental mind\nviews it, can so utterly lay down his life, as when he lays down the\nlarger life of his only son. Abraham showed himself capable of even\nsuch friendship as this, in his blood-covenant with Jehovah; and when\nhe had manifested his spirit of devotedness, he was told to stay his\nhand and spare his son: the will was accepted for the deed. \u201cYea,\nhe that had gladly received the promises, was offering up his only\nbegotten son; even he of whom it was said, In Isaac shall thy seed be\ncalled: accounting that God is able to raise up even from the dead;\nfrom whence he did also in a parable receive him back.\u201d[476] Then it\nwas, that \u201cthe Angel of the Lord called unto Abraham a second time out\nof heaven and said, By myself have I sworn [by my life], saith the\nLord, because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son,\nthine only son: that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying\nI will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand\nwhich is upon the seashore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of\nhis enemies; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be\nblessed: because thou hast [even to this extent] obeyed my voice.\u201d[477]\nThe blood-covenant of friendship between Jehovah and Abraham had more\nmeaning in it than ever, through its testing and its triumph, in this\ntransaction.\n\nAnd it is on this record, and apparently in this view of the record,\nthat the Apostle James says: \u201cWas not Abraham our father justified by\nworks, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar? Thou seest\nthat faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect\n[consummated]; and the Scripture was fulfilled which saith, And Abraham\nbelieved God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness; and he\nwas called the friend of God.\u201d[478]\n\n\n5. THE BLOOD COVENANT AND ITS TOKENS IN THE PASSOVER.\n\nThere came, again, a time when the Lord would give fresh evidence\nof _his_ fidelity to his covenant of blood-friendship with Abraham.\nAgain, a new start was to be made in the history of redemption. The\nseed of Abraham was in Egypt, and the Lord would bring thence that\nseed, for its promised inheritance in Canaan. The Egyptians refused\nto let Israel go, at the call of the Lord. The Lord sent a series of\nstrokes, or \u201cplagues\u201d upon the Egyptians, to enforce their obedience to\nhis summons. And first, he turned the waters of Egypt into blood; so\nthat there was nothing for the Egyptians to drink save that which, as\nthe representative of life, was sacred to their gods, and must not be\ntasted.[479] So on, from \u201cplague\u201d to \u201cplague\u201d--from stroke to stroke;\nuntil the Lord\u2019s sentence went forth against all the uncovenanted\nfirst-born of Egypt. Then it was, that the Lord gave another\nillustration of the binding force of the unfailing covenant of blood.\n\nIn the original covenant of blood-friendship, between Abraham and\nthe Lord, it was Abraham who gave of his blood in token of the\ncovenant. Now, the Lord was to give of his blood, by substitution, in\nre-affirmation of that covenant, with the seed of Abraham his friend.\nSo the Lord commanded the choice of a lamb, \u201cwithout blemish, a male of\nthe first year\u201d;[480] typical in its qualities, and representative in\nits selection. The blood of that lamb was to be put \u201con the two side\nposts and on the lintel\u201d of every house of a descendant of Abraham;\nabove and along side of every passer through the doorway.[481] \u201cAnd the\nblood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are,\u201d said\nthe Lord to this people: \u201cand when I see the blood [the token of my\nblood-covenant with Abraham], I will pass over you, and there shall no\nplague be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.\u201d[482]\n\nThe flesh of the chosen lamb was to be eaten by the Israelites,\nreverently, as an indication of that inter-communion which the\nblood-friendship rite secures; and in accordance with a common custom\nof the primitive blood-covenant rite, everywhere.\n\nTo this day, as I can testify from personal observation, the Samaritans\non Mount Gerizim (where alone in all the world the passover-blood is\nnow shed, year by year), bring to mind the blood-covenant aspects of\nthis rite, by their uses of that sacred blood. The spurting life-blood\nof the consecrated lambs is caught in basins, as it flows from their\ncut throats; and not only are all the tents promptly marked with the\nblood as a covenant-token, but every child of the covenant receives\nalso a blood-mark, on his forehead, between his eyes,[483] in evidence\nof his relation to God in the covenant of blood-friendship.\n\nIt will be remembered that in the primitive rite of blood-friendship a\nblood-stained record of the covenant is preserved in a small leathern\ncase, to be worn as an amulet upon the arm, or about the neck, by him\nwho has won a friend forever in this sacred rite.[484] It would even\nseem that this was the custom in ancient Egypt, where the red amulet,\nwhich represented the blood of Isis, was worn by those who claimed a\nblood-friendship with the gods.[485] It is a noteworthy fact, that\nit was in conjunction with the institution of this passover rite of\nthe Lord\u2019s blood-friendship with Israel, as a permanent ceremonial,\nthat the Lord declared of this rite and its token: \u201cIt shall be for\na sign upon thine hand, and for frontlets between thine eyes.\u201d[486]\nAnd it is on the strength of this injunction, that the Jews have, to\nthis day, been accustomed to wear upon their foreheads, and again\nupon their arm--as a crown and as an armlet--a small leathern case,\nas a sacred amulet, or as a \u201cphylactery\u201d; containing a record of\nthe passover-covenant between the Lord and the seed of Abraham his\nfriend. Not the law itself, but the substance of the covenant between\nthe Lawgiver and his people, was the text of this amulet record.\nIt included Exodus 13 : 3-10, 11-16, with its reference to God\u2019s\ndeliverance of his people from bondage, to the institution of the\npassover feast, and to the consecration of the redeemed first-born;\nalso Deuteronomy 6 : 4-9, 13-22, with its injunction to entire and\nunswerving fidelity, in the covenant thus memorialized.\n\nThe incalculable importance of the symbolism of the phylacteries, in\nthe estimation of the Lord\u2019s people, has been recognized, as a fact, by\nboth Jewish and Christian scholars, even after their primary meaning\nhas been lost sight of--through a strange dropping out of sight of the\nprimitive rite of blood-covenanting, so familiar in the land of Egypt\nand in the earlier and later homes of the Hebrews. The Rabbis even held\nthat God himself, as the other party in this blood-covenant, wore the\nphylacteries, as its token and memorial.[487] Among other passages in\nsupport of this, they cited Isaiah 49 : 16: \u201cBehold I have graven thee\nupon the palms of my hands\u201d; and Isaiah 62 : 8: \u201cThe Lord hath sworn\nby his right hand, and by the arm of his strength.\u201d Farrar, referring\nto this claim of the Rabbis, says, \u201cit may have had some mystic\nmeaning\u201d;[488] and certainly the claim corresponds singularly with\nthe thought and with the customs of the rite of blood-covenanting. To\nthis day many of the Syrian Arabs swear, as a final and a most sacred\noath, by their own blood--as their own life;[489] and in making the\ncovenant of blood-friendship they draw the blood from the upper arm,\nbecause, as they explain it, the arm is their strength.[490] The cry of\nthe Egyptian soul to his god, in his resting on the covenant of blood,\nwas, \u201cGive me your arm; I am made as ye.\u201d[491] It is not strange,\ntherefore, that those who had the combined traditions of Egypt and of\nSyria, should see a suggestion of the covenant of blood-friendship in\nthe inspired assurance: \u201cThe Lord hath sworn by his right hand, and\nby the arm of his strength.\u201d It is by no means improbable, indeed,\nthat the universal custom of lifting up the arm to God in a solemn\noath[492] was a suggestion of swearing by one\u2019s blood, by proffering\nit in its strength, as in the inviolable covenant of sacred friendship\nwith God. So, again, in the \u201cstriking hands\u201d as a form of sacred\ncovenanting[493]; the clasping of hands, in blood.\n\nThe Egyptian amulet of blood-friendship was red, as representing\nthe blood of the gods. The Egyptian word for \u201cred,\u201d sometimes stood\nfor \u201cblood.\u201d[494] The sacred directions in the Book of the Dead were\nwritten in red;[495] hence, follows our word \u201crubrics.\u201d The Rabbis\nsay, that when persecution forbade the wearing of the phylacteries\nwith safety, a red thread might be substituted for this token of the\ncovenant with the Lord.[496] It was a red thread which Joshua gave\nto Rahab as a token of her covenant relations with the people of the\nLord.[497] The red thread, in China, to-day, as has been already shown,\nbinds the double cup, from which the bride and bridegroom drink their\ncovenant draught of \u201cwedding wine\u201d; as if in symbolism of the covenant\nof blood.[498] And it is a red thread which in India, to-day, is used\nto bind a sacred amulet around the arm or the neck.[499] Among the\nAmerican Indians, \u201cscarlet, or red,\u201d is the color which stands for\nsacrifices, or for sacrificial blood, in all their picture painting;\nand the shrine, or _tunkan_, which continues to have its devotees, \u201cis\npainted red, as a sign of active [or living] worship.\u201d[500] The same is\ntrue of the shrines in India;[501] the color red shows that worship is\nstill living there; red continues to stand for blood.\n\nThe two covenant tokens of blood-friendship with God--circumcision and\nthe phylacteries--are, by the Rabbis, closely linked in their relative\nimportance. \u201cNot every Israelite is a Jew,\u201d they say, \u201cexcept he has\ntwo witnesses--the sign of circumcision and phylacteries\u201d;[502] the\nsign given to Abraham, and the sign given to Moses.\n\nIn the narration of King Saul\u2019s death, as given in 2 Samuel 1 : 1-16,\nthe young Amalekite, who reports Saul\u2019s death to David, says: \u201cI took\nthe crown that was upon his head, and the bracelet that was on his arm\n[the emblems of his royalty], and have brought them hither unto my\nlord.\u201d The Rabbis, in their paraphrasing of this passage,[503] claim\nthat it was the phylactery, \u201cthe frontlet\u201d (_totephta_) rather than a\n\u201cbracelet,\u201d which was on the arm of King Saul; as if the king of the\ncovenant-people of Jehovah would not fail to be without the token of\nJehovah\u2019s covenant with that people.\n\nSo firmly fixed was the idea of the appropriateness and the binding\nforce of these tokens of the covenant, that their use, in one form or\nanother, was continued by Christians, until the custom was denounced by\nrepresentative theologians and by a Church Council. In the Catacombs\nof Rome, there have been found \u201csmall caskets of gold, or other metal,\nfor containing a portion of the Gospels, generally part of the first\nchapter of John [with its covenant promises to all who believe on the\ntrue Paschal Lamb], which were worn on the neck,\u201d as in imitation\nof the Jewish phylacteries. These covenant tokens were condemned by\nIren\u00e6us, Augustine, Chrysostom, and by the Council of Laodicea, as a\nrelic of heathenism.[504]\n\n\n6. THE BLOOD COVENANT AT SINAI.\n\nWhen rescued Israel had reached Mount Sinai, and a new era for\nthe descendants of Abraham was entered upon, by the issue of the\ndivinely given charter of a separate nationality, the covenant of\nblood-friendship between the Lord and the seed of the Lord\u2019s friend,\nwas once more recognized and celebrated. \u201cAnd Moses came and told the\npeople all the words of the Lord, and all the judgments: and all the\npeople answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the Lord\nhath spoken will we do. And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and\nrose up early in the morning [or, \u2018prepared for a new start\u2019 as that\nphrase means],[505] and builded an altar under the mount, and twelve\npillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. And he sent young\nmen of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and\nsacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the Lord;\u201d not sin-offerings\nare named, but burnt-offerings, of consecration, and peace-offerings,\nof communion. And now observe the celebration of the symbolic rite\nof the blood-covenant between the Lord and the Lord\u2019s people, with\nthe substitute blood accepted on both sides, and with the covenant\nrecord agreed upon. \u201cAnd Moses took half of the blood, and put it in\nbasins; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. And he took\nthe book [the record] of the covenant, and read in the audience of\nthe people: and they said, All that the Lord hath spoken will we do,\nand be obedient. And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the\npeople [half of it he sprinkled on the Lord\u2019s altar, and half of it\nhe sprinkled on the Lord\u2019s people. The writer of Hebrews[506] says\nthat Moses sprinkled blood on the book, also; thus blood-staining the\nrecord of the covenant, according to the custom in the East, to-day],\nand [Moses] said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath\nmade with you concerning all these words [or, as the margin renders\nit, \u2018upon all these conditions,\u2019 in the written compact]. Then went\nup Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of\nIsrael.... And they beheld God, and did eat and drink\u201d;[507] as in\nthe social inter-communion, which commonly accompanies the rite of\nblood-friendship.\n\nWhen Abraham was brought into the covenant of blood-friendship with\nJehovah, it was his own blood which Abraham devoted to Jehovah. When\nJehovah recognized anew this covenant of blood-friendship in behalf\nof the seed of his friend, Jehovah provided the substitute blood, for\nits symbolizing in the passover. When united Israel was to be inducted\ninto the privileges of this covenant of blood-friendship at Mount\nSinai, half of the blood came from the one party, and half of the blood\ncame from the other party, to the sacred compact; both portions being\nsupplied from a common and a mutually accepted symbolic substitute.\n\n\n7. THE BLOOD COVENANT IN THE MOSAIC RITUAL.\n\nWith the establishment of the Mosaic law, there was an added emphasis\nlaid on the sacredness of blood, which had been insisted on in the\nNoachic covenant; and many new illustrations were divinely given of\nthe possibilities of an ultimate union with God through inter-flowing\nblood, and of present communion with God through the sharing of the\nsubstitute flesh of a sacrificial victim.\n\n\u201cYe shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or beast, in\nany of your dwellings. Whosoever it be that eateth any blood, that\nsoul shall be cut off from his people.\u201d[508] \u201cWhatsoever man there be\nof the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them,\nthat eateth any manner of blood; I will set my face against that soul\nthat eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For\nthe life [the soul] of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it\nto you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the\nblood that maketh atonement by reason of the life [by reason of its\nbeing the life]. Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul\nof you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that is among you\neat blood.\u201d[509] \u201cFor as to the life of all flesh, the blood thereof\nis all one with the life thereof; therefore I said unto the children\nof Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life\nof all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut\noff.\u201d[510]\n\nBecause of sin, death has passed upon man. Man can have new life\nonly from the Author of life. A transfusion of life is, as it were, a\ntransfusion of blood; for, \u201cof all flesh, the blood thereof is all one\nwith the life thereof.\u201d If, indeed, the death-possessed man could enter\ninto a blood-covenant with the Author of life,--could share the life of\nhim who is Life,--then the dead might have new life in a new nature;\nand the far separated sinner might be brought into oneness with God;\nfinding atonement in the cleansing flow of the new blood thus applied.\nSo it pleased God to appoint substitute blood upon the altar of\nwitness between the sinner and Himself, as a symbol of that atonement\nwhereby the sinner might, through faith, become a partaker of the\ndivine nature. \u201cThe wages of sin is death; but the free gift of God is\neternal life\u201d[511]--in that foreshadowed divine blood, which the blood\nof beasts, offered on the altar, can, for a time, typify. Blood--even\nthe blood of beasts--thus made sacred, as a holy symbol, must never be\ncounted as a common thing; but it must be held, ever reverently, as\na token of that life which is the sinner\u2019s need; and which is God\u2019s\ngrandest gift and God\u2019s highest prerogative.\n\nIn the line of this teaching, the command went forth: \u201cWhat man soever\nthere be of the house of Israel, that killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat\nin the camp, or that killeth it without the camp, and hath not brought\nit unto the door of the tent of meeting, to offer it [with its blood]\nas an oblation unto the Lord before the tabernacle of the Lord: blood\nshall be imputed unto that man; he hath shed blood [improperly]; and\nthat man shall be cut off from among his people: to the end that the\nchildren of Israel may bring their sacrifices, which they sacrifice\nin the open field, even that they may bring them unto the Lord, unto\nthe door of the tent of meeting, unto the priest, and sacrifice them\nfor sacrifices of peace-offering unto the Lord. And the priest shall\nsprinkle the blood upon the altar of the Lord at the door of the tent\nof meeting; and burn the fat for a sweet savour unto the Lord.\u201d[512]\nThe children of Israel were, at all times and everywhere, to reach out\nafter communion and union with God, through the surrender of their\npersonal selves in the surrender of their substitute blood--with its\ndivinely appointed symbolism of communion and union with God \u201cin the\nblood of the eternal covenant\u201d of divine friendship.[513]\n\nAnd again: \u201cWhatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of\nthe strangers that sojourn among them, which taketh in hunting any\nbeast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall pour out the blood thereof,\nand cover it with the dust.\u201d[514] If he be at a distance from the\ntabernacle, so that he cannot bring the blood for an oblation at the\naltar, he must, at all events, reverently pour out the blood as unto\nGod, and cover it as he would a human body in a grave. And to this day\nthis custom prevails widely throughout the East; not among Jews alone,\nbut among Christians and Muhammadans, as also among those of other\nreligions.[515]\n\nUnder the Mosaic ritual, the forms and the symbolisms of sacrifice were\nvarious. But through them all, where blood was an element,--in the\nsin-offering, in the trespass-offering, in the burnt-offering, in the\npeace-offering,--blood always represented life, never death. Death was\nessential to its securing; but, when secured, blood was life. Death,\nas the inevitable wages of sin, had already passed unto all men; and\n\u201cdeath reigned from Adam to Moses\u201d; but, with the full disclosure\nof the law, in Moses, which made sin apparent, there came, also, a\ndisclosure of an atonement for sin, and of a cure for its consequences.\nDeath was already here; now came the assurance of an attainable life.\nThe sinner, in the very article of death, was shown that he might turn,\nin self-surrender and in loving trust, with a proffer of his own life,\nby substitute blood, to God; and that he might reach out hopefully\nafter inter-union with God, by the sharing of the divine-nature in\nthe unfailing covenant of divine-human blood-friendship. Thus \u201cnot as\nthe trespass [with its mere justice of punishment; but] so also [and\n\u2018much more,\u2019 of grace alone,] is the free gift [of life to the justly\ndead].\u201d[516]\n\nAll the detailed requirements of the Mosaic ritual, and all the\nspecific teachings of the Rabbis, as well, go to show the preeminence\nof the _blood_ in the sacrificial offerings; go to show, that it is\nthe _life_ (which the blood is), and not the _death_ (which is merely\nnecessary to the securing of the blood), of the victim, that is the\nmeans of atonement; that gives the hope of a sinner\u2019s new inter-union\nwith God.\n\nIn a commentary on a Talmudic tract, on The Day of Atonement, Rabbi\nObadiah of Barttenora, notes the fact,[517] that in the choice by\nlot, of the priests who were to have a part in the daily sacrifice,\nthe priest _first_ selected \u201cobtained the right [of priority], and\nsprinkled the blood upon the altar, after he had received it in the\nvessel for the purpose; for he who sprinkled the blood [is the one who\nhad] received the blood. The _next_ priest to him killed the sacrifice,\nand this notwithstanding [the fact] that the slaying preceded the\nreceiving of the blood; because _the office of sprinkling was higher\nthan that of slaying_; for the slaying was lawful if done by a\nstranger; which was not the case with the sprinkling.\u201d The death of the\nvictim was a minor matter: it was the victim\u2019s life,--its blood which\nwas its life,--that had chief value and sacredness.\n\nOn this same point Dr. Edersheim says:[518] \u201cThe Talmud declares the\noffering of birds, so as to secure the blood [so as to secure that\nwhich was preeminently precious] to have been the most difficult part\nof a priest\u2019s work. For the _death_ of the [victim of the] sacrifice\nwas only a means towards an end; that end being the shedding and\nsprinkling of the _blood_, by which the atonement was really made. The\nRabbis mention a variety of rules observed by the priest who caught\nup the blood--all designed to make the best provision for its proper\nsprinkling. Thus, the priest was to catch up the blood in a silver\nvessel pointed at the bottom, so that it could not be put down; and to\nkeep it constantly stirred, to preserve the fluidity of the blood. In\nthe sacrifice of the red heifer, however, the priest caught the blood\ndirectly in his left hand, and sprinkled it with his right towards the\nHoly Place: while in that of the leper, one of the two priests received\nthe blood in the vessel; the other [received it] in his hand, from\nwhich he anointed the purified leper.\u201d\n\nRecognizing the truth that in the sacrifices of the Mosaic ritual,\n\u201cconsecration by blood is consecration in a living union with Jehovah,\u201d\nProfessor W. Robertson Smith observes,[519] that, \u201cin the ordinary\natoning sacrifices, the blood is not applied to the people [it is\nmerely poured out Godward, as if in sign of life surrender]; but in the\nhigher forms, as in the sacrifice for the whole congregation (Lev.\n4 : 13 _seq._), the priest at least dips his hand in it, and so puts the\nbond of blood between himself, as the people\u2019s representative, and the\naltar, as the point of contact with God.\u201d[520] And so, on the basis\nof the root-idea of the primitive rite of the covenant of blood, an\ninter-union is symbolized between the returning sinner and his God.\n\nThe aim of all the Mosaic sacrifices was, a restored communion with\nGod; and the hope which runs through them all is of a divine-human\ninter-union through blood. \u201cThe one purpose which is given after\nevery sacrifice in the first chapters of Leviticus,\u201d[521] says\nStanley,[522] \u201cis, that it \u2018shall make a sweet savour unto the Lord\u2019.\u201d\nAnd Edersheim says,[523] of all the various sacrifices of the ritual:\n\u201cThese, were, then, either sacrifices of communion with God, or else\n[were] intended to restore that communion when it had been disturbed\nor dimmed through sin and trespass: sacrifices _in_ communion, or\n[sacrifices] _for_ communion, with God. To the former class belong the\nburnt and the peace-offerings; to the latter, the sin and the trespass\nofferings.\u201d[524]\n\nThe sin-offering, of that ritual, was, in a sense, the basis of\nthe whole system of sacrifices. The chief feature of that offering,\nwas the out-flowing of its blood Godward. The offering itself was a\nsubstitute-offering, for an individual or for the entire people. Its\nblood was sprinkled upon the horns of the altar of burnt-offering,\nor poured out at the base of that altar,[525]--the altar of personal\nconsecration; or, it was sprinkled within the Holy Place toward the\nMost Holy Place,[526]--the symbolic dwelling-place of Jehovah: and\nagain it was made to touch the horns of the altar of incense, which\nsent up its sweet savor to God: in every case, it was the outreaching\nof the sinner toward inter-union with God, in a covenant of blood.\n\nThe whole burnt-offering, of the Mosaic ritual, symbolised the entire\nsurrender to God, of the individual or of the congregation, in covenant\nfaithfulness; the giving of one\u2019s self in unreserved trust to Him\nwith whom the offerer desired to be in loving oneness. It was an\nindication of a readiness to enter fully into that inter-union, which\nthe blood-covenant brought about between two who had been separated,\nbut who were henceforth to be as one. This offering also must be\nmade with blood; for it is blood--which is the life--that gives the\npossibility of inter-union. All the outpoured blood of this offering,\nhowever, went directly to the altar upon which the offering itself\nwas laid;[527] not toward the Most Holy Place, of the Lord\u2019s symbolic\npresence. This offering was not, indeed, understood as in itself\ncompassing inter-union; it indicated rather a desire and a readiness\nfor inter-union--anew or renewed: so, both the substitute-body and the\nsubstitute-blood were offered at the altar of typical surrender and\nconsecration. When other sacrifices were brought, the burnt-offering\nfollowed the sin-offering, but preceded the peace-offering;[528]\nagain, it might be offered by itself. He who was of the blood-covenant\nstock of Abraham, thereby sought restoration to the full privileges of\nthat covenant, to which he had not been wholly true; and even he who\nwas not of that stock might in this way show his desire to share in\nits privileges; \u201cfor the burnt offering was the only sacrifice which\nnon-Israelites were permitted to bring\u201d[529] to the altar of Jehovah.\n\nFollowing the communion-seeking, or the union-seeking, sin-offering\n(with its connected, or related, trespass-offering, or guilt-offering),\nand the self-surrendering burnt-offering, there came the joyous\ncommunion-symbolizing peace-offering, with its type of completed\nunion,[530] in the sharing, by the sinner and his God, of the\nflesh of the sacrificial victim at a common feast. And this\nbanquet-sacrifice[531] corresponds with the feast of inter-communion\nwhich commonly follows the primitive rite of blood-covenanting, and\nwhich marks the completion of the inter-union thereby sought after.\n\nAll the other sacrifices of the Mosaic ritual follow in the line of\nthese three classes. Even those which are in themselves offered without\nblood, presuppose the individual\u2019s share in the blood-covenant, by the\nrite of circumcision, and through the high priest\u2019s sin-offering for\nthe entire congregation. \u201cThe Rabbis attach ten comparative degrees\nof sanctity to sacrifices; and it is interesting to mark, that of\nthese the first belonged to the blood of the sin-offering; the second\nto the burnt-offering; the third to the sin-offering itself; and the\nfourth to the trespass-offering.\u201d[532] The blood which is to secure\nthe covenant-union--anew or renewed--is of preeminent importance.\nThen comes the symbol of self-surrendering devotedness. First, the\npossibility of inter-union; next, the expression of readiness and\ndesire for it. After this, the other sacrifices range themselves\naccording to their signification, until the culmination of the series\nis reached in the joyous inter-communion feast of the peace-offering.\n\nBut, with all the suggestions of the rite of blood-covenanting, in\nthe sacrifices of the Mosaic ritual, there were limitations in the\ncorrespondences of that rite in those sacrifices, which mark the\nincompleteness of their symbolism, and which point to better things\nto come. In the primitive blood-covenant rite itself, both parties\nreceive, and partake of, the blood which becomes common to the two.\nIn all the outside religions of the world, where men reach out after\na divine-human inter-union through substitute-blood, the offerer\ndrinks of the sacrificial blood, or of something which stands for it;\nand so he is supposed to share the nature of the God with whom he\nthus covenants and inter-unites. In the Mosaic ritual, however, all\ndrink-offerings of blood were forbidden to him who would enter into\ncovenant with God; he might not taste of the blood. He might, it is\ntrue, look forward, by faith, to an ultimate sharing of the divine\nnature; and in anticipation of that inter-union, he could enjoy a\nsymbolic inter-communion with God, by partaking of the peace-offerings\nat the table of his Lord; but as yet the sacrificial offering which\ncould supply to his death-smitten nature the vivifying blood of an\neverlasting covenant, was not disclosed to him.[533]\n\nEven the substitute blood which he presented at the altar, as he came\nwith his outreaching after a blood-covenant union with the Lord, did\nnot secure to him direct personal access to the symbolic earthly\ndwelling-place of the Lord. That blood could be poured out at the base\nof the altar of consecration, or it could be sprinkled upon its horns.\nThat blood could, on occasions be sprinkled before the veil of the Most\nHoly Place; or could touch the horns of the altar of sweet incense. But\nthat blood could never pass that veil which guarded the place of the\nLord\u2019s symbolic presence, save once in a year when the high-priest, all\nby himself, and that not without a show of his own unfitness for the\nmission, went in thither, to sprinkle the substitute blood before the\nmercy-seat; \u201cthe Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the Holy\nPlace hath not yet been manifest[534]\u201d; that the substitute \u201cblood of\nbulls and of goats\u201d[535] cannot be a means of man\u2019s inter-union with\nGod.\n\nLest, indeed, the Israelite should believe that a blood-covenant\nunion was really secured with God, rather than typified, through these\nprescribed symbolic sacrifices and their sharing, he was repeatedly\nwarned against that fatal error, and was taught that his true\ncovenanting must be by a faith-filled recognition of the symbolism of\nthese substitute agencies; and by the implicit surrender of himself,\nin loving trust, to Him who had ordained them as symbols. Thus in the\nPsalms:\n\n   \u201cHear, O my people, and I will speak;\n    O Israel, and I will testify unto thee:\n    I am God, even thy God.\n    I will not reprove thee for thy sacrifices;\n    And thy burnt-offerings are continually before me....\n    Will I eat the flesh of bulls,\n    Or drink the blood of goats?\n    Offer unto God the sacrifice of thanksgiving;\n    And pay thy vows unto the Most High:\n    And call upon me in the day of trouble;\n    I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me.\n\n   \u201cBut unto the wicked, God saith:\n    What hast thou to do to declare my statutes,\n    And that thou hast taken my covenant in thy mouth?\n    Seeing thou hatest instruction,\n    And castest my words behind thee.\u201d[536]\n\nAgain, in the prophecy of Isaiah:\n\n   \u201cTo what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me?\n    Saith the Lord:\n    I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts;\n    And I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of\n      he-goats.\n    When ye come to appear before me,\n    Who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts?\n    Bring no more vain oblations;\n    Incense is an abomination unto me....\n    Wash you, make you clean;\n    Put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes;\n    Cease to do evil:\n    Learn to do well;\n    Seek judgment, relieve the oppressed;\n    Judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.\u201d[537]\n\nAnd with this very warning against a false reliance on the symbols\nthemselves, the same prophet gives assurance of better things in store\nfor all those who are in true blood-covenant with God; even though they\nbe not of the peculiar people of Abraham\u2019s natural descent. Foretelling\nthe future, when the types of the sacrifice shall be realized, he says:\n\n   \u201cAnd in this mountain shall the Lord of Hosts make unto all peoples\n    A feast of fat things,\n    A feast of wine on the lees;\n    Of fat things full of marrow,\n    Of wines on the lees well refined.\u201d[538]\n\nThe feast of inter-communion shall be sure, when the blood-covenant of\ninter-union is complete.\n\nAgain, by Jeremiah:\n\n   \u201cThus saith the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel:\n    Add your burnt-offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat ye flesh.\n\n[But remember that that is not the completion of a covenant with me].\n\n    For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them,\n    In the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt,\n    Concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices.\n\n[As if burnt offerings and sacrifices were the all important thing];\n\n    But this thing I commanded them, saying,\n    Hearken unto my voice,\n    And I will be your God,\n    And ye shall be my people;\n    And walk ye in all the way that I command you,\n    That it may be well with you.\u201d[539]\n\nOnce more, by Hosea:\n\n   \u201cO Ephraim, what shall I do unto thee?\n    O Judah, what shall I do unto thee?\n    For your goodness is as a morning cloud,\n    And as the dew that goeth early away....\n    For I desire mercy and not sacrifice;\n    And the knowledge of God more than burnt-offerings.\n    But they like Adam have transgressed the covenant:\n\n[or, as the Revisers\u2019 \u201cmargin\u201d would render it,\n\n   \u201cBut they are as men that have transgressed a covenant\u201d:]\n    There have they dealt treacherously against me\u201d[540]\n\n[Therein have they proved unfaithful to the requirements of the\nblood-covenant on which they assumed to be resting, in their\nsacrifices].\n\nAnd so, all the way along through the prophets, in repeated emphasis\nof the incompleteness of the blood-covenanting symbols in the ritual\nsacrifices.\n\nConcerning the very rite of circumcision, which was the token of\nAbraham\u2019s covenant of blood-friendship with the Lord, the Israelites\nwere taught that its spiritual value was not in the formal surrender of\na bit of flesh, and a few drops of blood, in ceremonial devotedness to\nGod, but in its symbolism of the implicit surrender of the whole life\nand being, in hearty covenant with God. \u201cBehold, unto the Lord thy God\nbelongeth the heaven, and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all\nthat therein is. Only the Lord had a delight in thy fathers to love\nthem, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all peoples as\nat this day. Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be\nno more stiff-necked.\u201d[541] \u201cAnd it shall come to pass, when all these\nthings are come upon thee, the blessings and the curse which I have set\nbefore thee, and thou shalt call them to mind among all the nations,\nwhither the Lord thy God hath driven thee, and shalt return unto the\nLord thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command\nthee this day, thou and thy children, with all thine heart, and with\nall thy soul; that then the Lord thy God will turn thy captivity, and\nhave compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all\nthe peoples, whither the Lord thy God hath scattered thee.... And the\nLord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to\nlove the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that\nthou mayest live.\u201d[542] And when this has come to pass, the true seed\nof Abraham,[543] circumcised in heart,[544] shall be in the covenant of\nblood-friendship with God.\n\nSo, also, with the phylacteries, as the record of the blood-covenant\nof the passover, they had a value only as they represented a\nheart-remembrance of that covenant, by their wearers. Says Solomon, in\nthe guise of Wisdom.\n\n   \u201cMy son, forget not my law;\n    But let thine heart keep my commandments....\n    Let not mercy and truth forsake thee:\n    Bind them about thy neck;\n    Write them upon the table of thy heart;\n    So shalt thou find favor and good understanding\n    In the sight of God and man.\u201d[545]\n\n   \u201cKeep my commandments and live;\n    And my law as the apple of thine eye.\n    Bind them upon thy fingers;\n    Write them upon the table of thine heart.\u201d[546]\n\nAnd the prophet Jeremiah foretells the recognition of this truth in the\ncoming day of better things:\n\n   \u201cBehold the days come, saith the Lord,\n    That I will make a new covenant\n    With the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:\n    Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers\n    In the day that I took them by the hand,\n    To bring them out of the land of Egypt;\n\n[That covenant was the blood-covenant of the passover; of which the\nphylacteries were a token.]\n\n    Which my covenant they brake,\n    Although I was an husband unto them [a lord over them] saith\n      the Lord;\n    But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house\n      of Israel,\n    After those days, saith the Lord;\n    I will put my law in their inward parts,\n    And in their heart will I write it:\n\n[Instead of its being written as now, outside of them, on their hand\nand on their forehead.]\n\n    And I will be their God,\n    And they shall be my people....\n    For I will forgive their iniquity,\n    And their sin will I remember no more.\u201d[547]\n\nThe blood-covenant symbols of the Mosaic law, all pointed to the\npossibility of a union of man\u2019s spiritual nature with God; but they\ndid not in themselves either assure or indicate that union as already\naccomplished; nor did they point the way to it, as yet made clear. They\nwere only \u201ca shadow of the things to come.\u201d[548]\n\nAnother gleam of the primitive truth, that blood is life and not\ndeath, and that the transference of blood is the transference of life,\nis found in the various Mosaic references to the _goel_ (\u05d2\u05b9\u05bc\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc),\nthe person who is authorized to obtain blood for blood as an act of\njustice, in the East. And another proof of the prevailing error in\nthe Western mind, through confounding blood with death, and justice\nwith punishment, is the common rendering of the term _goel_, as\n\u201cavenger,\u201d[549] or \u201crevenger,\u201d[550] in our English Bible, wherever\nthat term applies to the balancing of a blood account; although\nthe same Hebrew word is in other connections commonly translated\n\u201credeemer,\u201d[551] or \u201cransomer.\u201d[552]\n\nLexicographers are confused over the original import of the word\n_goel_;[553] all the more, because of this confusion in their minds\nover the import of blood, in its relation to death and to justice. But\nit is agreed on all hands, that, as a term, the word was, in the East,\napplied to that kinsman whose duty it was to secure justice to the\ninjured, and to restore, as it were, a normal balance to the disturbed\nfamily relations. Oehler well defines the goel, as \u201cthat particular\nrelative whose special duty it was to restore the violated family\nintegrity, who had to redeem not only landed property that had been\nalienated from the family (Lev. 25 : 25 ff.), or a member of the family\nthat [who] had fallen into slavery (Lev. 25 : 47 ff.), but also the\nblood that had been taken away from the family by murder.\u201d[554] Hence,\nin the event of a depletion of the family by the loss of blood--the\nloss of a life--the goel had a responsibility of securing to the family\nan equivalent of that loss, by other blood, or by an agreed payment for\nits value. His mission was not vengeance, but equity. He was not an\navenger, but a redeemer, a restorer, a balancer. And in that light, and\nin that light alone, are all the Oriental customs in connection with\nblood-cancelling seen to be consistent.\n\nAll through the East, there are regularly fixed tariffs for\nblood-cancelling; as if in recognition of the relative loss to a\nfamily, of one or another of its supporting members.[555] This idea, of\nthe differences in ransoming-value between different members of the\nfamily, is recognized, in the Mosaic standards of ritual-ransom;[556]\nalthough the accepting of a ransom for the blood of a blood-spiller\nwas specifically forbidden in the Mosaic law.[557] This prohibition,\nin itself, however, seems to be a limitation of the privileges of the\ngoel, as before understood in the East. The Qur\u00e2n, on the other hand,\nformally authorizes the settlement of manslaughter damages by proper\npayments.[558]\n\nThroughout Arabia, and Syria, and in various parts of Africa,[559] the\nfirst question to be considered in any case of unlawful blood-shedding\nis, whether the loss life shall be restored--or balanced--by blood,\nor by some equivalent of blood. Von Wrede, says of the custom of the\nArabs, in concluding a peace, after tribal hostilities: \u201cIf one party\nhas more slain than the other, the shaykh on whose side the advantage\nlies, says [to the other shaykh]: \u2018Choose between blood and milk\u2019\n[between life, and the means of sustaining life]; which is as much as\nto say, that he may [either] avenge the fallen [take life for life]; or\naccept blood-money.\u201d[560] Mrs. Finn says, similarly, of the close of\na combat in Palestine: \u201cA computation is generally made of the losses\non either side by death, wounds, etc., and the balance is paid to the\nvictors.\u201d[561] Burton describes similarly the custom in Arabia.[562]\n\nIt is the same in individual cases, as in tribal conflicts. An\naccepted payment for blood fully restores the balance between the\naggrieved parties and the slayer. As Pierotti says: \u201cThis charm will\nteach the Arab to grasp readily the hands of the slayer of his father\nor his son, saying, \u2018Such an one has killed my father, but he has paid\nme the price of his blood.\u2019\u201d[563] This in itself shows, that it is not\nrevenge, but restitution, that is sought after by the goel; that he is\nnot the blood-avenger, but the blood-balancer.\n\nIt is true that, still, in some instances, all money payment for blood\nis refused; but the avowed motive in such a case is the holding of life\nas above price--the very idea which the Mosaic law emphasized. Thus\nBurton tells of the excited Bed\u00b4ween mother who dashes the proffered\nblood-money to the ground, swearing \u201cby Allah, that she will not eat\nher son\u2019s blood.\u201d[564] And even where the blood of the slayer is\ninsisted on, there are often found indications that the purpose of this\nchoice rests on the primitive belief that the lost life is made good\nto the depleted family by the newly received blood.[565] Thus, in the\nregion of Abyssinia, the blood of the slayer is drunk by the relatives\nof the one first slain;[566] and, in Palestine, when the goel has shed\nthe blood of an unlawful slayer, those who were the losers of blood by\nthat slayer dip their handkerchiefs in his blood, and so obtain their\nportion of his life.[567]\n\nIn short, apart from the specific guards thrown around the mission\nof the goel, in the interests of justice, by the requirements of the\nMosaic law, it is evident, that the primal idea of the goel\u2019s mission\nwas to restore life for life, or to secure the adjusted equivalent of\na lost life; not to wreak vengeance, nor yet to mete out punishment.\nThe calling of the goel, in our English Bible, a \u201crevenger\u201d of blood,\nis a result of the wide-spread and deep-rooted error concerning\nthe primitive and Oriental idea of blood and its value; and that\nunfortunate translation tends to the perpetuation of this error.\n\n\n8. THE PRIMITIVE RITE ILLUSTRATED.\n\nBecause the primitive rite of blood-covenanting was well known in the\nLands of the Bible, at the time of the writing of the Bible, for that\nvery reason, we are not to look to the Bible for a specific explanation\nof the rite itself, even where there are incidental references in the\nBible to the rite and its observances; but, on the other hand, we are\nto find an explanation of the biblical illustrations of the primitive\nrite, in the understanding of that rite which we gain from outside\nsources. In this way, we are enabled to see in the Bible much that\notherwise would be lost sight of.\n\nThe word for \u201ccovenant,\u201d in the Hebrew, _bereeth_ (\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea), is\ncommonly so employed, in the sacred text, as to have the apparent\nmeaning of a thing \u201ccut,\u201d as apart from, or as in addition to, its\nprimary meaning of a thing \u201ceaten.\u201d[568] This fact has been a source\nof confusion to lexicographers.[569] But, when we consider that the\nprimitive rite of blood-covenanting was by cutting into the flesh\nin order to the tasting of the blood, and that a feast was always\nan accompaniment of the rite, if, indeed, it were not an integral\nportion of it, the two-fold meaning of \u201ccutting\u201d and \u201ceating\u201d attaches\nobviously to the term \u201ccovenant\u201d; as the terms \u201ccarving,\u201d and \u201cgiving\nto eat,\u201d are often used interchangeably, with reference to dining; or\nas we speak of a \u201ccut of beef\u201d as the portion for a table.\n\nThe earliest Bible reference to a specific covenant between\nindividuals, is in the mention, at Genesis 14 : 13, of Mamre, Eshcol,\nand Aner, the Amorites, who were in covenant with--literally, were\n\u201cmasters of the covenant of\u201d--\u201cAbram the Hebrew.\u201d After this, comes\nthe record of a covenant between Abraham and Abimelech, at the wells\nof Beer-sheba. Abimelech sought that covenant; he sought it because of\nhis faith in Abraham\u2019s God. \u201cGod is with thee in all that thou doest,\u201d\nhe said: \u201cNow, therefore, swear unto me here by God, that thou wilt\nnot deal falsely with me, nor with my son, nor with my son\u2019s son:\nbut according to the kindness that I have done unto thee, thou shalt\ndo unto me, and to the land wherein thou hast sojourned. And Abraham\nsaid, I will swear.\u201d[570] Then came the giving of gifts by Abraham,\naccording to the practice which seems universal in connection with\nthis rite, in our own day.[571] \u201cAnd Abraham took sheep and oxen, and\ngave them unto Abimelech.\u201d And they two \u201cmade a covenant,\u201d--or, as the\nHebrew is, \u201cthey two cut a covenant.\u201d This covenant, thus cut between\nAbraham and Abimelech--patriarchs and sovereigns as they were--was for\nthemselves and for their posterity. As to the manner of its making,\nwe have a right to infer, from all that we know of the manner of such\ncovenant-making among the people of their part of the world, in the\nearliest days of recorded history.\n\nHerodotus, who goes back more than two-thirds of the way to Abraham,\nsays, that when the Arabians would covenant together, a third man,\nstanding between the two, cuts, with a sharp stone, the inside of the\nhands of both, and lets the blood therefrom drop on seven stones which\nare between the two parties.[572] Phicol, the captain of Abimelech\u2019s\nhost, was present, as a third man, when the covenant was cut between\nAbimelech and Abraham; at Beer-sheba--the Well of the Seven, or\nthe Well of the Oath.[573] Instead of seven stones as a \u201cheap of\nwitness\u201d[574] between the two in this covenanting, \u201cseven ewe lambs\u201d\nwere set apart by Abraham, that they might \u201cbe a witness\u201d[575]--a\nsymbolic witness to this transaction.\n\nIn the primitive rite of blood-covenanting, as it is practised in some\nparts of the East, to the present time, in addition to other symbolic\nwitnesses of the rite, a _tree_ is planted by the covenanting parties,\n\u201cwhich remains and grows as a witness of their contract.\u201d[576] So it\nwas, in the days of Abraham. \u201cAnd Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in\nBeer-sheba, and called there on the name of the Everlasting God. And\nAbraham sojourned [was a sojourner] in the land of the Philistines\nmany days\u201d[577]--while that tree, doubtless, remained and grew as a\nwitness of his blood-covenant compact with Abimelech the ruler of the\nPhilistines.[578] Abimelech was, as it were, the first-fruits of the\n\u201cnations\u201d[579] who were to have a blessing through the covenanted\nfriend of God.\n\nIt is a noteworthy fact, that when Herodotus describes the Scythians\u2019\nmode of drinking each other\u2019s mingled blood, in their covenanting,\nhe tells of their \u201ccutting covenant\u201d by \u201cstriking the body\u201d of the\ncovenanting party. In this case, he employs the words _tamnomenon_\n(\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd) \u201ccutting,\u201d and _tupsantes_ (\u03c4\u03cd\u03c8\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2) \u201cstriking,\u201d which\nare the correspondents, on the one hand of the Hebrew _karath_ (\u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b7\u05ea)\n\u201cto cut,\u201d and on the other hand of the Latin _ferire_, \u201cto strike;\u201d\nas applied to covenant making.[580] And this would seem to make a\ntri-lingual \u201cRosetta Stone\u201d of this statement by Herodotus, as showing\nthat the Hebrew \u201ccutting\u201d of the covenant, and the Latin \u201cstriking\u201d\nof the covenant, is the Greek, the Arabian, the Scythian, and the\nuniversal primitive, method of covenanting, by cutting into, or by\nstriking, the flesh of a person covenanting; in order that another may\nbecome a possessor of his blood, and a partaker of his life.\n\nYet later, at the same Well of the Seven, another Abimelech came down\nfrom Gerar, with \u201cAhuzzath his friend, and Phicol the captain of his\nhost,\u201d and, prompted by faith, sought a renewal of the covenant\nwith the house of Abraham.[581] It is not specifically declared that\nAbimelech and Isaac _cut_ a covenant together; but it is said that\n\u201cthey did eat and drink\u201d in token of their covenant relations, and that\nthey \u201csware one to another.\u201d[582] Apparently they either cut a new\ncovenant, or they confirmed one which their fathers had cut.\n\nWhen Jacob and Laban covenanted together, in \u201cthe mountain [the\nhill-country] of Gilead,\u201d before their final separation, they had\ntheir stone-heap of witness between them; such as Herodotus says\nthe Arabs were accustomed to anoint with their own blood, in their\ncovenanting by blood, in his day;[583] for Jacob, perhaps, had more\ntolerance than Abraham, for perverted religious symbols.[584] \u201cAnd\nnow let us cut a covenant, I and thou,\u201d said Laban; \u201cand let it be\nfor a witness between me and thee. And Jacob took a stone, and set it\nup for a pillar [a pillar instead of a tree]. And Jacob said unto his\nbrethren, Gather stones; and they took stones, and made an heap: and\nthey did eat there on the heap [the Revisers have translated this,\n_by_ the heap].[585] And Laban called it Jegar-sahadutha: but Jacob\ncalled it Gilead. And Laban said, This heap is witness between me and\nthee this day.... God is witness betwixt me and thee.... The God of\nAbraham and the God of Nahor, the God of their father, judge betwixt\nus. And Jacob sware by the Fear of his father Isaac. And Jacob offered\na sacrifice in the mountain, and called his brethren to eat bread: and\nthey did eat bread.\u201d[586] Here again, the cutting of the covenant, and\nthe sharing of a feast in connection with the rite,--the \u201ccutting\u201d and\nthe \u201ceating\u201d--are in accordance with all that we know of the primitive\nrite, of blood-covenanting in the East, in earlier and in later times.\n\nYet more explicit is the description of the blood-covenanting which\nbrought into loving unity, David and Jonathan. It was when the\nfaith-filled heroism of the stripling shepherd-boy was thrilling all\nIsrael with grateful admiration, that David was brought into the royal\npresence of Saul, and of Saul\u2019s more than royal hero-son, Jonathan,\nto receive the thanks of the king for the rescue of the tarnished\nhonor of the Israelitish host. Modestly, David gave answer to the\nquestion of the king. \u201cAnd it came to pass, when he had made an end\nof speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the\nsoul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.\u201d \u201cThen Jonathan\nand David cut a covenant, because he [Jonathan] loved him [David] as\nhis own soul [as his own life, his own blood].\u201d[587] Then followed\nthat gift of raiment and of arms which was a frequent accompaniment\nof blood-covenanting.[588] \u201cAnd Jonathan stripped himself of the robe\nthat was upon him, and gave it to David, and his apparel, even to his\nsword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.\u201d[589] From that hour the\nhearts of David and Jonathan were as one. Jonathan could turn away from\nfather and mother, and could repress all personal ambition, and all\npurely selfish longings, in proof of his loving fidelity to him who was\ndear to him as his own blood.[590] His love for David was \u201cwonderful,\npassing the love of women.\u201d[591]\n\nNor was this loving compact between Jonathan and David for themselves\nalone. It was for their posterity as well.[592] \u201cThe Lord be with thee,\nas he hath been with my father,\u201d said Jonathan. \u201cAnd thou shalt not\nonly while yet I live shew me the kindness of the Lord, that I die not:\nbut also thou shalt not cut off thy kindness from my house for ever:\nno, not [even] when the Lord hath cut off the enemies of David every\none from the face of the earth. So Jonathan cut a covenant with the\nhouse of David, saying [as in the imprecations of a blood-covenant],\nAnd the Lord shall require it [fidelity to this covenant] at the hand\nof David\u2019s enemies. And Jonathan caused David to swear again, for the\nlove he had to him: for he loved him as he loved his own soul [his own\nlife, his own blood].\u201d[593] And years afterward, when the Lord had\ngiven David rest from all his enemies around about him, the memory of\nthat blood-covenant pledge came back to him; \u201cand David said, Is there\nyet any that is left of the house of Saul, that I may shew him kindness\nfor Jonathan\u2019s sake?\u201d[594] The seating of lame Mephibosheth at David\u2019s\nroyal table,[595] was an illustration of the unfailing obligation of\nthe primitive covenant of blood; which had bound together David and\nJonathan, for themselves and for theirs forever.\n\n\n9. THE BLOOD COVENANT IN THE GOSPELS.\n\nAnd now from David, to David\u2019s greater Son; from type to anti-type;\nfrom symbol and prophecy, to reality and fruition.\n\nDeath had passed upon all men. Yet in the hearts of the death-smitten\nthere was still a longing for life. Sin-leprous souls yearned for that\nin-flow of new being, which could come only through inter-union with\nthe divine nature, in oneness of life with the Author and Source of\nall life. Revelation and prophecy had assured the possibility and the\nhope of such inter-union. Rite and ceremony and symbol, the wide-world\nover, signified man\u2019s desire, and man\u2019s expectation, of covenanted\naccess to God, through personal surrender, and through life-giving,\nlife-representing blood.\n\nBut, where men yielded up unauthorized offerings, even of their own\nblood, or of the very lives of their first-born, they confessed\nthemselves unsatisfied with their attitude God-ward; and, where men\nfollowed a divinely prescribed ritual, they were taught by that very\nritual itself, that the outpoured blood and the partaken flesh of\nthe sacrifices were, at the best, but mere shadows of good things to\ncome.[596] The whole creation was groaning and travailing in pain\ntogether, until the birth of the world\u2019s promised redemption.[597]\n\nThe symbolic covenant of blood-friendship was between God and Abraham\u2019s\nseed; and in that seed were all the nations of the earth to have a\nblessing. God had called on Abraham to surrender to him his only son,\nin proof of his unfailing love; and, when Abraham had stood that test\nof his faith, God had spared to him the proffered offering. It now\nremained for God to transcend Abraham\u2019s proof of friendship, and to\nspare not his own and only Son,[598] but to make him a sacrificial\noffering, by means of which the covenant of blood-friendship, between\nGod and the true seed of Abraham, might become a reality instead of\na symbol. Abraham had given to God of his own blood, by the rite of\ncircumcision, in token of his desire for inter-union with God. God was\nnow to give of his blood, in the blood of his Son, for the re-vivifying\nof the sons of Abraham in \u201cthe blood of the eternal covenant.\u201d[599]\n\nThen, in the fullness of time, there came down into this world He who\nfrom the beginning was one with God, and who now became one with man.\nBecoming a sharer of the nature of those who were subject to death, and\nwho longed for life, Jesus Christ was here among men as the fulfillment\nof type and prophecy; to meet and to satisfy the holiest and the\nuttermost yearnings of the human soul after eternal life, in communion\nand union with God. \u201cAnd the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us,\n... full of grace and truth.\u201d \u201cIn him was life [life that death could\nnot destroy; life that could destroy death], and the life [which was\nin him] was the light [the guide and the hope] of men.\u201d \u201cHe came unto\nhis own, and they that were [called] his own received him not. But\nas many as received him [whether, before, they had been called his\nown, or not] to them gave he the right to become children of God [by\nbecoming partakers of his life], even to them that believe on his name:\nwhich were [through faith] begotten, not of bloods [not by ordinary\ngeneration], nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but\nof God.\u201d[600] Having in his own blood, the life of God and the life\nof man, Jesus Christ could make men sharers of the divine nature, by\nmaking them sharers of his own nature; and this was the truth of truths\nwhich he declared to those whom he instructed.\n\nIn the primitive rite of blood-covenanting, men drank of each other\u2019s\nblood, in order that they might have a common life; and they ate\ntogether of a mutually prepared feast, in order that they might\nevidence and nourish that common life. In the outreaching of men\nGodward, for the privileges of a divine-human inter-union, they poured\nout the substitute blood of a chosen victim in sacrifice, and they\npartook of the flesh of that sacrificial victim, in symbolism of\nsharing the life and the nourishment of Deity. This symbolism was made\na reality in Jesus Christ. He was the Seed of Abraham; the fulfillment\nof the promise, \u201cIn Isaac shall thy Seed be called.\u201d[601] He was the\ntrue Paschal Lamb; the \u201cLamb without blemish and without spot\u201d;[602]\n\u201cthe Lamb that hath been slain from the foundation of the world.\u201d[603]\nThe blood which he yielded, was Life itself. The body which he laid on\nthe altar was the Peace Offering of Completion.[604]\n\n\u201cWherefore, when he cometh into the world, he saith:\n\n    Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not,\n    But a body didst thou prepare for me;\n    In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hadst no\n      pleasure:\n    Then said I, Lo, I am come\n    (In the roll of the book it is written of me)\n    To do thy will, O God.\n\nSaying above, [He here says,] Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt\nofferings and sacrifices for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst\npleasure therein [as if in themselves sufficient] (the which are\noffered according to the Law); then [also] hath he said, Lo I am come\nto do thy will. He taketh away the first [the symbolic], that he may\nestablish the second [the real].\u201d[605]\n\nHe was here, in the body of his blood and flesh, for the yielding of\nhis blood and the sharing of his flesh, in order to make partakers\nof his nature, whosoever would seek a divine-human inter-union and a\ndivine-human inter-communion, through the sacrifice made by him, \u201conce\nfor all.\u201d\n\n\u201cJesus therefore said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except\nye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not\nlife in yourselves. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath\neternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is\nmeat indeed [is true meat], and my blood [my life] is drink indeed [is\ntrue drink]. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in\nme, and I in him [Herein is communion through union]. As the living\nFather sent me, and I live because of the Father; so he that eateth me,\nhe also shall live because of me. This is the bread which came down out\nof heaven: not as the fathers did eat, and died: he that eateth this\nbread shall live forever.\u201d[606]\n\n\u201cThese things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in\nCapernaum\u201d--toward the close of the second year of his public ministry.\nThe fact that he did speak thus, so long before he had instituted\nthe Memorial Supper, has been a puzzle to many commentators who were\nunfamiliar with the primitive rite of blood-covenanting, and with the\nworld-wide series of substitute sacrifices and substitute forms of\ncommunion, which had grown out of the suggestions, and out of the\nperversions, of the root symbolisms of that rite. But, in the light\nof all these customs, the words of Jesus have a clearer meaning.\nIt was as though he had said: \u201cMen everywhere long for life. They\nseek a share in the life of God. They give of their own blood, or of\nsubstitute blood, and they taste of substitute blood, or they receive\nits touch, in evidence of their desire for oneness of nature with\nGod. They crave communion with God, and they eat of the flesh of\ntheir sacrifices accordingly. All that they thus reach out after, I\nsupply. In me is life. If they will become partakers of my life, of my\nnature, they shall be sharers of the life of God.\u201d Then, he added, in\nassurance of the fact, that it was a profound spiritual truth which\nhe was enunciating: \u201cIt is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh\nprofiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit,\nand are life.\u201d[607] The divine-human inter-union and the divine-human\ninter-communion are spiritual, and they are spiritually wrought; or\nthey are nothing.\n\nThe words of Jesus on this subject, were not understood by those who\nheard him. \u201cThe Jews therefore strove one with another, saying, How can\nthis man give us his flesh to eat?\u201d[608] But this was not because the\nJews had never heard of eating the flesh of a sacrificial victim, and\nof drinking blood in a sacred covenant: it was, rather, because they\ndid not realize that Jesus was to be the crowning sacrifice for the\nhuman race; nor did they comprehend his right and power to make those\nwho were one with him through faith, thereby one with God in spiritual\nnature. \u201cMany,\u201d even \u201cof his disciples, when they heard\u201d these words\nof his, \u201csaid, This is a hard saying; who can hear it?\u201d[609] Nor are\nquestioners at this point, lacking among his disciples to-day.\n\nBefore Jesus Christ was formally made an offering in sacrifice, as a\nmeans of man\u2019s inter-union and inter-communion with God, there were\ntwo illustrations of his mission, in the giving of his blood for\nthe bringing of man into right relations with God. These were, his\ncircumcision, and his agony in Gethsemane.\n\nBy his circumcision, Jesus brought his humanity into the blood-covenant\nwhich was between God and the seed of God\u2019s friend, Abraham, of whose\nnature, according to the flesh, Jesus had become a partaker;[610] Jesus\nthereby pledged his own blood in fidelity to that covenant; so that all\nwho should thereafter become his by their faith, might, through him,\nbe heirs of faithful Abraham.[611] The sweet singer of the Christian\nYear,[612] seems to find this thought, in this incident in the life of\nthe Holy Child:\n\n    \u201cLike sacrificial wine\n      Poured on a victim\u2019s head,\n    Are those few precious drops of thine,\n      Now first to offering led.\n\n    \u201cThey are the pledge and seal\n      Of Christ\u2019s unswerving faith,\n    Given to his Sire, our souls to heal,\n      Although it cost his death.\n\n    \u201cThey, to his Church of old,\n      To each true Jewish heart,\n    In gospel graces manifold,\n      Communion blest impart.\u201d\n\nIn Gethsemane, the sins and the needs of humanity so pressed upon the\nburdened soul of Jesus, that his very life was forced out, as it were,\nfrom his aching, breaking heart, in his boundless sympathy with his\nloved ones, and in his infinite longings for their union with God,\nthrough their union with himself, in the covenant of blood he was\nconsummating in their behalf.[613] \u201cAnd being in an agony, he prayed\nmore earnestly: and his sweat became as it were great drops of blood\nfalling down to the ground.\u201d[614]\n\nBecause of his God-ward purpose of bringing men into a loving covenant\nwith God, Jesus gave of his blood in the covenant-rite of circumcision.\nBecause of his man-ward sympathy with the needs and the trials of\nthose whom he had come to save, and because of the crushing burden\nof their death-bringing sins, Jesus gave of his blood in an agony of\nintercessory suffering. Therefore it is, that the Litany cry of the\nages goes up to him in fulness of meaning: \u201cBy the mystery of thy holy\nincarnation; by thy holy nativity and circumcision; ... by thine agony\nand bloody sweat, ... Good Lord, deliver us.\u201d\n\nIn process of time, the hour drew nigh that the true covenant of blood\nbetween God and man should be consummated finally, in its perfectness.\nThe period chosen was the passover-feast--the feast observed by the\nJews in commemoration of that blood-covenanting occasion in Egypt, when\nGod evidenced anew his fidelity to his promises to the seed of Abraham,\nhis blood-covenanted friend. \u201cNow before the feast of the passover,\nJesus knowing that his hour was come that he should depart out of this\nworld to the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he\nloved them unto the end.\u201d[615] \u201cAnd when the hour was come, he sat\ndown, and the apostles with him. And he said unto them, With desire\nI have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer.\u201d[616]\nWhether he actually partook of the passover meal at that time, or not\nis a point still in dispute;[617] but as to that which follows, there\nis no question.\n\n\u201cAs they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake\nit; and he gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my\nbody.\u201d[618] \u201cThis do in remembrance of me. And the cup in like manner\nafter supper;\u201d[619] \u201cand when he had given thanks, he gave [it] to\nthem,\u201d[620] \u201csaying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the\ncovenant,\u201d[621] or, as another Evangelist records, \u201cthis cup is the\nnew covenant in my blood,\u201d[622] \u201cwhich is shed for many unto remission\nof sins\u201d[623] [unto the putting away of sins]. \u201cThis do, as oft as ye\ndrink it, in remembrance of me.\u201d[624] \u201cAnd they all drank of it.\u201d[625]\n\nHere was the covenant of blood; here was the communion feast, in\npartaking of the flesh of the fitting and accepted sacrifice;--toward\nwhich all rite and symbol, and all heart yearning and inspired\nprophecy, had pointed, in all the ages. Here was the realization of\npromise and hope and longing, in man\u2019s possibility of inter-union\nwith God through a common life--which is oneness of blood; and in\nman\u2019s inter-communion with God, through participation in the blessings\nof a common table. He who could speak for God, here proffered of\nhis own blood, to make those whom he loved, of the same nature with\nhimself, and so of the same nature with his God; to bring them into\nblood-friendship with their God; and he proffered of his own body, to\nsupply them with soul nourishment, in that Bread which came down from\nGod.\n\nThen it was, while they were there together in that upper room, for\nthe consummating of that blood-covenant of friendship, that Jesus said\nto his disciples: \u201cGreater love hath no man than this, that a man lay\ndown his life for his friends. Ye are my friends, if ye do the things\nwhich I command you. No longer do I call you servants; for the servant\nknoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends [friends\nin the covenant of blood-friendship now]; for all things that I heard\nfrom my Father, I have made known unto you.\u201d[626] A common life,\nthrough oneness of blood, secures an absolute unreserve of intimacy; so\nthat neither friend has aught to conceal from his other self. \u201cAbide\nin me, and I in you; ... for apart from me ye can do nothing,\u201d was the\ninjunction of Jesus to his blood-covenant friends, at this hour of his\ncovenant pledging. \u201cIf ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask\nwhatsoever ye will, and it shall be done unto you.\u201d[627]\n\nThen it was, also, that the prayer of Jesus for his new blood-covenant\nfriends went up: \u201cFather, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that the\nSon may glorify thee: even as thou gavest him authority over all flesh,\nthat whatsoever [whomsoever] thou hast given him, to them he should\ngive eternal life [in an eternal covenant of blood]. And this is life\neternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom\nthou didst send [as the means of life], even Jesus Christ.... Holy\nFather, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me, that they may\nbe one, even as we are.... Neither for these [here present] only do I\npray, but for them also that believe on me through their word; that\nthey may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee,\nthat they also may be in us: that the world may believe that thou didst\nsend me. And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them;\nthat they may be one, even as we are one; I in them, and thou in me,\nthat they may be perfected into one; that the world may know that thou\ndidst send me, and lovedst them, even as thou lovedst me.\u201d[628] Here\nwas declared the scope of this blood-covenant, and here was unfolded\nits doctrine.\n\nIt was not an utterly new symbolism that Jesus was introducing into\nthe religious thought of the world: it was rather a new meaning that\nhe was introducing into, or that he was disclosing in, an already\nwidely recognized symbolism. The world was familiar with the shadow of\ntruth; Jesus now made clear to the world, the truth\u2019s substance. Man\u2019s\nlonging to be a partaker of the divine nature, had manifested itself,\nthrough all the ages and everywhere. Jesus now showed how that longing\nof death-smitten man could be realized. \u201cThe appearing of our Saviour\nJesus Christ ... abolished death, and brought life and immortality to\nlight through the gospel\u201d[629] of his blood-covenant.\n\nBut a covenant of blood, a covenant to give one\u2019s blood, one\u2019s life,\nfor the saving of another, cannot be consummated without the death\nof the covenanter. \u201cFor where [such] a covenant is, there must of\nnecessity be [be brought] the death of him that made it. For [such] a\ncovenant is of force [becomes a reality] where there hath been death\n[or, over the dead]: for doth it [such a covenant] ever avail [can\nit be efficient] while he that made it liveth?\u201d[630] Jesus had said,\n\u201cGreater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for\nhis friends.\u201d[631] Of his readiness to show this measure of love for\nthose who were as the sheep of his fold, he had declared: \u201cI came that\nthey may have life, and may have it abundantly.... I lay down my life\nfor the sheep.... Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down\nmy life, that I may take it again. No one taketh it away from me, but\nI lay it down of myself.\u201d[632] And again: \u201cI am the living bread which\ncame down out of heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live\nfor ever: yea, and the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the\nlife of the world.\u201d[633] \u201cFor my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is\ndrink indeed.\u201d[634] Such a covenant as this, could be of force only\nthrough the death of him who pledges it.\n\nThe promise of the covenanting-cup, at the covenanting-feast, was made\ngood on Calvary.[635] The pierced hands and feet of the Divine Friend\nyielded their life-giving streams. Then, with the final cry, \u201cIt is\nfinished,\u201d the very heart of the self-surrendered sacrificial victim\nwas broken,[636] and the life of the Son of God and of the Seed of\nAbraham, was poured out unto death,[637] in order that all who would,\nmight become sharers in its re-vivifying and saving power. He who\nwas without sin, had received the wages of sin; because, that, only\nthrough dying was it possible for him to supply that life which would\nredeem from the penalty of sin those who had earned death, as sin\u2019s\nwages.[638] He who, in himself, had life, had laid down his life, so\nthat those who were without life might become its partakers, through\nfaith, in the bonds and blessings of an everlasting covenant. So, the\nlong symbolized covenant of blood was made a reality. \u201cAnd the witness\nis this, that God gave unto us eternal life, and this life is in his\nSon. He that hath the Son hath the life; he that hath not the Son of\nGod hath not the life.\u201d[639]\n\n\n10. THE BLOOD COVENANT APPLIED.\n\nUnder the symbolic sacrifices of the Old Covenant, it was the _blood_\nwhich made atonement for the soul. It was not the death of the victim,\nnor yet its broken body, but it was the blood, the life, the soul,\nthat was made the means of a soul\u2019s ransom, of its rescue, of its\nredemption. \u201cThe life [the soul] of the flesh is in the blood,\u201d said\nthe Lord: \u201cand I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement\n[to be a cover, to be a propitiation] for your souls [for your lives]:\nfor it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason [of its being] the\nlife [the soul].\u201d[640] \u201cFor as to the life [the soul] of all flesh, the\nblood thereof is all one with the life [the soul] thereof.\u201d[641] And\nso, all through the record of the Old Covenant.\n\nIt is the same in the New Covenant, as it was in the Old. Atonement,\nsalvation, rescue, redemption, is by the blood, the life, of Christ;\nnot by his death as such; not by his broken body in itself; but by that\nblood which was given at the inevitable cost of his broken body and\nof his death. The figure of leprosy and its attempted cure by blood,\nmay tend to make this truth the clearer. In the leper, the very blood\nitself--the life--was death smitten. The only hope of a cure was by\npurging out the old blood, by means of an inflowing current of new\nblood, which was new life.[642] To give this blood, the giver himself\nmust die; but it was his blood, his life, not his death, which was to\nbe the means of cure. So, also, with the sin-leprous nature. His old\nlife must be purged out, by the incoming of a new life; of such a life\nas only the Son of God can supply. In order to supply that blood, its\nGiver must himself die, and so be a sharer of the punishment of sin,\nalthough he was himself without sin. Thus was the new life made a\npossibility to all, by faith.\n\nSo it is, that \u201cwe have redemption [rescue from death] through\n[by means of] his blood\u201d;[643] and that \u201cthe blood of Jesus ...\ncleanseth us [by its purging inflow] from all sin.\u201d[644] So it is,\nthat he \u201cloosed us [freed us] from our sins by his [cleansing, his\nre-vivifying] blood.\u201d[645] So it is, that \u201cif any man is in Christ [is\none in nature with Christ, through sharing, by faith, the blood of\nChrist], he is a new creature [Of course he is]: the old things are\npassed away; behold they are become new.\u201d[646] So it is, also, that it\ncan be said of those whose old lives were purged away by the inflowing\nredeeming life of Christ: \u201cYe died, and your life is hid with Christ in\nGod.\u201d[647] And \u201cthis is the true God and eternal life.\u201d[648]\n\n\u201cThese things have I written unto you,\u201d says the best loved of the\ndisciples of Jesus, \u201cthat ye may know that ye have eternal life; even\nunto you that believe on the name of the Son of God\u201d;[649] \u201cthat ye may\nbelieve that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that, believing,\nye may have life in his name.\u201d[650] For \u201cGod commendeth his own love\ntoward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us\n[while we were separated from God by sin, God yielded his only Son, to\ngive his blood, at the cost of his death, as a means of our inter-union\nwith God]. Much more then, being now justified by [or, in] his blood\n[being brought into inter-union with God by that blood], shall we be\nsaved from the wrath of God [against sin] through him [in whom we\nhave life]. For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God\n[restored to union with God] through the [blood-giving] death of his\nSon, much more, being [thus] reconciled, shall we be saved by [or, in]\nhis life.\u201d[651]\n\nAll who will, may, now, \u201cbe partakers of the divine nature,\u201d[652]\nthrough becoming one with Christ, by sharing his blood, and by being\nnourished with his body. Entering into the divine-human covenant of\nblood-friendship, which Christ\u2019s death has made possible, the believer\ncan be so incorporated with Christ, by faith, as to identify himself\nwith the experience and the hopes of the world\u2019s Redeemer; and even\nto say, in all confidence: \u201cI have been crucified with Christ; yet\nI live; and yet no longer I, but Christ liveth in me; and that life\nwhich I now live in the flesh, I live in faith, the faith which is\nin [which centres in] the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself\nup for me.\u201d[653] \u201cFor as the Father hath life in himself, even so\ngave he to the Son also to have life in himself.\u201d[654] And \u201cit was\nthe good pleasure of the Father that in him [the Son] should all the\nfulness dwell; and through him to reconcile all things unto himself,\nhaving made peace [having completed union] through the blood of his\ncross\u201d[655]--in the bonds of an everlasting covenant--between those who\nbefore were separated by sin.\n\n\u201cRemember, that aforetime ye, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are\ncalled Uncircumcision by that [people] which is called Circumcision,\nin the flesh, made by hands,--that ye were at that time separate from\nChrist, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers\nfrom the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God\nin the world. But now in Christ Jesus ye that once were far off are\nmade nigh in the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who made both\n[Jew and Gentile] one, and broke down the middle wall of partition,\nhaving abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments\ncontained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the twain\none new man, so making peace; and might reconcile them both in one\nbody unto God through the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: and\nhe came and preached peace to you that were far off, and peace to them\nthat were nigh: for through them we both have our access in one Spirit\nunto the Father.\u201d[656] \u201cFor in him [Christ] dwelleth all the fulness\nof the Godhead bodily, and in him ye are made full, who is the head of\nall principality and power: in whom ye were also circumcised with a\ncircumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the\nflesh, in the circumcision of Christ.\u201d[657] \u201cFor ye all are one man in\nChrist Jesus. And if ye are Christ\u2019s, then are ye Abraham\u2019s seed, heirs\naccording to promise\u201d[658]--inheritors of the blood-covenant promises\nof God to Abraham his friend.\n\nNo longer is there a barrier between the yearning, loving, trusting\nheart, and the mercy-seat of reconciliation in the very presence of\nGod. We who share the body and the blood of Christ, by faith, are one\nwith him in all the privileges of his Sonship. \u201cFor by one offering\nhe hath perfected [hath completed in their right to be sharers with\nhim] for ever, them that are sanctified [that are devoted, that are\nconsecrated, to him]. And the Holy Ghost also beareth witness to us:\nfor after he hath said,\n\n    This is the covenant that I will make with them\n    After those days, saith the Lord;\n    I will put my laws on their heart,\n    And upon their mind also will I write them;\n\nthen saith he,\n\n    And their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.\n\nNow where remission of these [of sins and iniquities] is, there is no\nmore offering [no more need of offering] for sin. Having, therefore,\nbrethren, boldness [the right of boldness] to enter into the Holy\nPlace [the Holy of Holies] by the blood of Jesus, by the way which he\ndedicated for us, a new and living way, through the veil, that is to\nsay his flesh; and having a Great Priest over the house of God; let\nus draw near with a true heart in fulness of faith, having our hearts\nsprinkled from an evil conscience, and our body washed, with pure water\n[there being no longer need of blood-sprinkling or blood-laving, to\nthose who are sharers of the divine nature--the divine blood].\u201d[659]\n\nNo more an altar of sacrifice, but a table of communion,[660] is where\nwe share the presence of Him in whom we have life, by the blood of\nthe everlasting covenant. To question the sufficiency of the \u201cone\nsacrifice\u201d which Christ made, \u201conce for all,\u201d[661] of his body and\nhis blood, as a means of the believer\u2019s inter-union with God, is to\ncount the blood of the covenant an unholy, or a common, thing, and is\nto do despite unto the Spirit of grace.[662] \u201cWherefore, my beloved,\nflee from idolatry. I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. The\ncup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood\nof Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the\nbody of Christ?[663] Seeing that we [believers together in Christ],\nwho are many, are one bread, one body: for we all partake of the one\nbread.\u201d[664]\n\n\u201cNow the God of peace, who brought again from the dead the great\nShepherd of the sheep with [or, by; or, by means of] the blood of the\neternal covenant, even our Lord Jesus, make you perfect [complete]\nto do his will, working in us that which is well pleasing in his\nsight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be the glory for ever and ever.\nAmen.\u201d[665]\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[425] Gen. 4 : 2-5.\n\n[426] Heb. 11 : 4.\n\n[427] Ruth 1 : 14.\n\n[428] Gen. 4 : 10, 11.\n\n[429] \u201cFor it must be observed, that by the outpouring of the blood,\nthe life which was in it was not destroyed, though it was separated\nfrom the organism which before it had quickened: Gen. 4 : 10; comp.\nHeb. 12 : 24 (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f0d\u03b2\u03b5\u03bb); Apoc. 6 : 10\u201d (Westcott\u2019s _Epistles of\nSt. John_, p. 34).\n\n[430] See pages 143-147, _supra_.\n\n[431] See pages 110-113, _supra_.\n\n[432] Gen. 8 : 20.\n\n[433] Exod. 24 : 5, 6; 29 : 15-25; Lev. 1 : 1-6, 10-12, 14, 15; 8 : 18,\n19, etc. See also pages 102, 106-109, _supra_.\n\n[434] See _Speaker\u2019s Commentary_, in loco.\n\n[435] Gen. 9 : 3-6.\n\n[436] \u201cA man might not use another\u2019s life for the support of his\nphysical life\u201d (Westcott\u2019s _Epistles of St. John_, p. 34).\n\n[437] See Acts 15 : 2-29; also 21 : 18-25.\n\n[438] Those, indeed, who would put the dictum of the Church of Rome\nabove the explicit commands of the Bible, can claim that that Church\nhas affirmed the mere temporary nature of this obligation, which the\nBible makes perpetual. But apart from this, there seems to be no show\nof justification for the abrogation, or the suspension, of the command.\n\n[439] James 2 : 23.\n\n[440] Isaiah 41 : 8.\n\n[441] 2 Chron. 20 : 7.\n\n[442] The only instance in which it might _seem_ that there was an\nexception to this statement, is Exodus 33 : 11, where it is said,\n\u201cThe Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his\nfriend.\u201d But here the Hebrew word is _re\u2019a_ (\u05e8\u05b5\u05e2\u05b7) with the idea of\n\u201ca companion,\u201d or \u201ca neighbor\u201d; while the word applied to Abraham is\n_ohebh_ (\u05d0\u05b9\u05d4\u05b5\u05d1), \u201ca loving one.\u201d\n\n[443] See Appendix, _infra_, p. 322.\n\n[444] Gen. 17 : 2.\n\n[445] Gen. 17 : 7-9.\n\n[446] Gen. 17 : 10, 11.\n\n[447] See page 174 f., _supra_.\n\n[448] Gen. 17 : 13.\n\n[449] Bearing in the flesh the marks of one\u2019s devotedness to a\ndivinity, is a widely observed custom in the East. Burton tells of the\nhabit, in Mekkeh, of cutting three parallel gashes down the fleshy\ncheek of every male child; and of the claim by some that these gashes\n\u201cwere signs that the scarred [one] was the servant of Allah\u2019s house\u201d\n(_Pilgrimage to Mecca and Medinah_, third ed., p. 456). In India, there\nare various methods of receiving such flesh-marks of devotedness. \u201cOne\nof the most common consists in stamping upon the shoulders, chest,\nand other parts of the body, with a red-hot iron, certain marks, to\nrepresent the armor [or livery] of their gods; the impressions of which\nare never effaced, but are accounted sacred, and are ostentatiously\ndisplayed as marks of distinctions\u201d (Dubois\u2019s _Des. of Man. and Cust.\nin India_, Part III., chap. 3). \u201cFrom henceforth let no man trouble\nme,\u201d says Paul: \u201cfor I bear branded on my body the marks of Jesus\u201d\n(Gal. 6 : 17).\n\n[450] See Price\u2019s _Hist. of Arabia_, p. 56.\n\n[451] It is certainly noteworthy, that the Canaanitish god\n\u201cBaal-bereeth\u201d (see Judges 8 : 33; 9 : 4) seems to have had its centre\nof worship at, or near, Shechem; and there was where the Canaanites\nwere induced to seek, by circumcision, a part with the house of Jacob\nin the blood-covenant of Abraham (see Gen. 34 : 1-31).\n\n[452] See Godwyn\u2019s _Moses and Aaron_, p. 216 f.\n\n[453] Buxtorf, who is a recognized authority, in the knowledge of\nRabbinical literature and of Jewish customs, says, on this point: \u201cCum\ndeinde compater infantulum in sinu habet jacentem, tum Mohel sive\ncircumcisor eum \u00e8 fasciis evolvit, pudendum ejus apprehendit, ejusque\nanteriorem partem per cuticulam pr\u00e6putii comprehendit, granulumque\npudendi ejus retrorsum premit; quo facto cuticulam pr\u00e6putii fricat, ut\nilla per id emortua infantulus c\u00e6suram tanto minus sentiscat. Deinde\ncultellum circumcisorium \u00e8 pueri astantis manu capit, claraque voce,\nBenedictus (inquit) esto tu Deus, Domine noster, Rex mundi, qui nos\nmandatis tuis sanctificasti, nobisque pactum circumcisionis dedisti.\nInterim dum ille loquitur sic, particulam pr\u00e6putii anteriorem usque\neo abscindit, ut capitellum pudendi nudum conspici queat, illamque\nfestinanter in patellam arena ista plenam conjicit; puero quoque isti,\n\u00e0 quo acceperat, cultellum reddit circumcisorium; ab alio vero poculum\nvino rubro (ceu dictum fuit) impletum, capit; haurit ex eo quantum ore\ncontinere potest, quod mox super infantulum expuit, eoque sanguinem\nejus abluit: in faciem quoque infantuli vini aliquid expuit, si eum\nviribus defici conspexerit. Mox pudendum puelli ore comprehendit, et\nsanguinis ex eodem quantumcunque potest, exugit, ut sanguis idem tanto\ncitius se sistat; sanguinem exuctum in alterum poculorum vino rubro\nrefertorum, vel in patellam arena abundantem, expuit.\u201d (_Synagoga\nJudaica_, Cap. II.)\n\n[454] Gen. 15 : 6; Rom. 4 : 3; Gal. 3 : 6; James 2 : 23.\n\n[455] See Fuerst\u2019s _Heb. Chald. Lex._, s. v.\n\n[456] See Freytag\u2019s _Lex. Arab. Lat._, s. v.\n\n[457] See Lane\u2019s _Arab.-Eng. Lex._, s. v.\n\n[458] In the Chinese language, likewise, \u201cthe word for faithfulness\nmeans both to be trustworthy, and also to trust to, and refers chiefly\nto friendship.\u201d (Edkins\u2019s _Relig. in China_, p. 118.)\n\n[459] The Rabbis give a preeminent place to circumcision as the rite\nby which Abraham became the Friend of God. They say (see citations\nfrom the Talmud, in _Nethivoth Olam_, p. 367): \u201cAbraham was not\ncalled perfect before he was circumcised; and because of the merit of\ncircumcision was the covenant made with him concerning the inheritance\nof the Land. It [circumcision] also saves from the punishment of hell;\nfor our sages have said, that Abraham sits at the gates of hell and\nsuffers no one to enter in there who is circumcised.\u201d\n\n[460] James 2 : 23.\n\n[461] Exod. 4 : 21-23.\n\n[462] Exod. 4 : 25, 26.\n\n[463] See Fuerst\u2019s _Heb. Chald. Lex._, s. v.\n\n[464] See Deut. 22 : 13-21. To this day, in the East, an exhibit of\nblood-stains, as the indubitable proof of a consummated covenant of\nmarriage, is common. See Niebuhr\u2019s _Beschreibung von Arabien_, pp.\n35-39; Burckhardt\u2019s _Arabic Proverbs_, p. 140; Lane\u2019s _Mod. Egypt._,\nI., 221, note.\n\n[465] See Lane, and Freytag, s. vv., _Khatan_, _Khatana_.\n\n[466] Gen. 22 : 1, 2.\n\n[467] \u201cHeaven awaits not one who is destitute of a son,\u201d say the\nBrahmans (See page 194, _supra_). See, also, e. g., Thomson\u2019s _Land\nand Book_, I., 177; Roberts\u2019s _Orient. Ill._, p. 53 f., Ginsburg\u2019s\n\u201cIllustrations,\u201d in _Bible Educator_, I., 30; Lane\u2019s _Mod. Egypt._,\nI., 68. Livingstone\u2019s _Trav. and Res. in So. Af._, p. 140; Pierotti\u2019s\n_Cust. and Trad. of Pal._, pp. 177 f., 190 f.\n\n[468] See illustrations of this error in Tylor\u2019s _Prim. Cult._,\nII., 403.\n\n[469] See page 185 f., _supra_.\n\n[470] See page 119 f., _supra_.\n\n[471] See page 120, _supra_.\n\n[472] See page 117, _supra_.\n\n[473] See page 118 f., 120 f., _supra_.\n\n[474] See discussions of this point, by Hengstenberg, Kurtz, Oehler,\nEwald, Kuenen, Lange, Keil and Delitzsch, Stanley, Mozeley, etc.\n\n[475] John 15 : 13.\n\n[476] Heb. 11 : 17-19.\n\n[477] Gen. 22 : 15-18.\n\n[478] James 2 : 21-23.\n\n[479] See Exod. 4 : 9; 7 : 17-21.\n\n[480] See Exod. 12 : 1-6.\n\n[481] See a reference to a similar custom in China, at page 153,\n_supra_.\n\n[482] Exod. 12 : 7-13.\n\n[483] See, again, at pages 154, _supra_.\n\n[484] See page 7 f., _supra_.\n\n[485] See page 81 f., _supra_. It is, indeed, by no means improbable,\nthat the Hebrew word t\u00f4taph\u00f4th (\u05d8\u05d5\u05b9\u05d8\u05b8\u05e4\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea), translated \u201cfrontlets,\u201d as\napplied to the phylacteries was an Egyptian word. Its etymology has\nbeen a puzzle to the critics.\n\n[486] See Exod. 13 : 11-16.\n\n[487] See references to _Zohar_, Pt. II., Fol. 2, by Farrar, in\nSmith-Hackett\u2019s _Bible Dictionary_, Art. \u201cFrontlets.\u201d\n\n[488] Smith-Hackett\u2019s _Bib. Dict._, Art. \u201cFrontlets.\u201d\n\n[489] On this point I have the emphatic testimony of intelligent native\nSyrians. \u201cAs I live, saith the Lord\u201d--or more literally, \u201cI, living,\nsaith the Lord.\u201d \u201cFor when God made promise to Abraham, since he could\nswear by no greater, he sware by himself\u201d--by his life. (Comp.\nIsa. 49: 18; Jer. 22 : 24; Ezek. 5 : 11; Heb. 6 : 13.)\n\n[490] This also I am assured of, by native Syrians. One who had resided\nin both Syria and Upper Egypt told me, that in Syria, in the rite of\nblood-friendship, the blood is taken from the _arm_ as the symbol\nof strength; while in portions of Africa where the legs are counted\nstronger than the arms, through the training of the people as runners\nrather than as burden-bearers, the _leg_ supplies the blood for this\nrite (See reference to Stanley and Mirambo\u2019s celebration of this rite\nat pages 18-20, _supra_).\n\n[491] See page 79, _supra_.\n\n[492] See e. g. Gen. 14 : 22; Dan. 12 : 7. \u201cIt is an interesting fact,\nthat many of the images of the gods of the heathen have the right hand\nlifted up.\u201d (Roberts\u2019s _Orient. Ill. of Scrip._, p. 20.)\n\n[493] See Prov. 6 : 1; 11 : 15 (margin); 22 : 24-26.\n\n[494] See page 47, _supra_.\n\n[495] See Lepsius\u2019s exemplar of the _Todtenbuch_; also Birch, in\nBunsen\u2019s _Egypt\u2019s Place_, V., 125.\n\n[496] See Farrar\u2019s article on \u201cFrontlets,\u201d in Smith-Hackett\u2019s\n_Bib. Dic._\n\n[497] Joshua 2 : 18-20.\n\n[498] See pages 93 f., _supra_.\n\n[499] See Roberts\u2019s _Orient. Ill. of Scrip._, p. 20.\n\n[500] Lynd\u2019s _Hist. of Dakotas_, p. 81.\n\n[501] Bayard Taylor\u2019s _India, China, and Japan_, p. 52.\n\n[502] See _Home and Syn. of Mod. Jew_, p. 5.\n\n[503] See Targum, in Buxtorf\u2019s _Biblia Rabbinica_, in loco.\n\n[504] See Jones\u2019s _Credulities Past and Present_, p. 188.\n\n[505] See _Kadesh Barnea_, p. 382, note.\n\n[506] Heb. 9 : 19.\n\n[507] See Exod. 24 : 1-11.\n\n[508] Lev. 7 : 26.\n\n[509] Lev. 17 : 10-12.\n\n[510] Lev. 17 : 14.\n\n[511] Rom. 6 : 23.\n\n[512] Lev. 17 : 3-6.\n\n[513] Comp. Heb. 13 : 20.\n\n[514] Lev. 17 : 13.\n\n[515] A traveler in Mauritius, describing a Hindoo sacrifice there, of\na he-goat, in fulfilment of a vow, says: \u201cIt was killed on soft ground,\nwhere the blood would sink into the earth, and leave no trace\u201d (Pike\u2019s\n_Sub-Tropical Rambles_, p. 223). See also page 109, _supra_.\n\n[516] Rom. 5 : 12-21.\n\n[517] See _Quarterly Statement_, of Pales. Expl. Fund, for July 1885,\npp. 197-207.\n\n[518] _The Temple, Its Ministry and Services_, p. 88, f.\n\n[519] _The Old Test. in the Jewish Church_, Notes on Lect. XII.\n\n[520] See pages 11, 12, _supra_.\n\n[521] Lev. 1 : 13, 17; 2 : 2, 12; 3 : 8, 26.\n\n[522] _Christian Institutions_, Chap. 4.\n\n[523] _The Temple, Its Min. and Serv._, p. 82.\n\n[524] _The Temple, Its Min. and Serv._, p. 82.\n\n[525] Lev. 4 : 7, 18, 25, 30, 34.\n\n[526] Lev. 4 : 6, 7, 17; 16 : 14, 15.\n\n[527] Lev. 1 : 5, 11, 15.\n\n[528] Lev. 8 : 14-22; 9 : 8-22; 14 : 19, 20; 16 : 3-25.\n\n[529] Edersheim\u2019s _The Temple, Its Min. and Serv._, p. 100.\n\n[530] \u201cFrom its derivation it might also be rendered, the offering of\ncompletion\u201d (Edersheim\u2019s _The Temple, Its Min. and Serv._, p. 106).\n\n[531] See page 149, _supra_.\n\n[532] Edersheim\u2019s _The Temple, Its Min. and Serv._, p. 86.\n\n[533] Psa. 16 : 4, 5.\n\n[534] Heb. 9 : 8.\n\n[535] Heb. 10 : 4.\n\n[536] Psa. 50 : 7-17.\n\n[537] Isaiah 1 : 11-17.\n\n[538] Isa. 25 : 6.\n\n[539] Jer. 7 : 21-23.\n\n[540] Hosea 6 : 4-7.\n\n[541] Deut. 10 : 14-16.\n\n[542] Deut. 30 : 1-6.\n\n[543] Gal. 3 : 7-9; Rom. 4 : 11, 12.\n\n[544] Rom. 2 : 26-29; Phil. 3 : 3.\n\n[545] Prov. 3 : 1-4.\n\n[546] Prov. 7 : 2, 3.\n\n[547] Jer. 31 : 31-34.\n\n[548] Col. 2 : 17.\n\n[549] Num. 35 : 12; Deut. 19 : 6, 12; Josh. 20 : 3, 5, 9.\n\n[550] Num. 35 : 19, 21, 24, 25, 27; 2 Sam. 14 : 11.\n\n[551] Job 19 : 25; Psa. 19 : 14; 78 : 35; Prov. 23 : 11; Isa. 41 : 14;\n43 : 14; 44 : 6, 24; 47 : 4; 48 : 17; 49 : 7, 26; 54 : 5, 8; 59 : 20;\n60 : 16; 63 : 16; Jer. 50 : 34.\n\n[552] Comp. Isa. 51 : 10; Jer. 31 : 11.\n\n[553] \u201cA term of which the original import is uncertain. The very\nobscurity of its etymology testifies to the antiquity of the office\nwhich it denotes.\u201d (_Speaker\u2019s Com._ at Num. 35 : 12.)\n\n[554] Cited from Herzog\u2019s B. Cycl., in Keil and Delitzsch\u2019s _Bib. Com.\non the Pent._, at Num. 35 : 9-34.\n\n[555] See Niebuhr\u2019s _Beschreibung von Arabien_, p. 32 f.; Burckhardt\u2019s\n_Beduinen und Wahaby_, pp. 119-127; Lane\u2019s _Thousand and One Nights_,\nI., 431, note; Pierotti\u2019s _Customs and Traditions of Palestine_, pp.\n220-227; Mrs. Finn\u2019s \u201cThe Fellaheen of Palestine,\u201d in _Surv. of West\nPal._, \u201cSpecial Papers,\u201d pp. 342-346.\n\n[556] Comp. Exod. 21 : 18-27; 22 : 14-17; Lev. 27 : 1-8.\n\n[557] Num. 36 : 30-34.\n\n[558] Sooras, 2 and 17.\n\n[559] Livingstone and Stanley on several occasions, made payments, or\nhad them made, to avoid a conflict on a question of blood. See, e. g.\n_Trav. and Res. in So. Africa_, pp. 390, 368-370, 482 f., _The Congo_,\nI., 520-527.\n\n[560] _Reise in Hadhramaut_, p. 199.\n\n[561] _Surv. of West. Pal._, \u201cSpecial Papers,\u201d p. 342.\n\n[562] _A Pilgrimage to Mec. and Med._, 357.\n\n[563] _Cust. and Trad. of Pal._, p. 221.\n\n[564] _A Pilgrimage_, p. 367.\n\n[565] See pages 126-133, _supra_.\n\n[566] See page 132 f., _supra_.\n\n[567] Pierotti\u2019s _Cust. and Trad. of Pal._, p. 216.\n\n[568] Comp. Gen. 15 : 18; Jer. 34 : 18; 2 Sam. 12 : 17.\n\n[569] See Gesenius, Fuerst, Cocceius, s. v.\n\n[570] Gen. 21 : 22-24.\n\n[571] See pages 14, 16, 20, 22, 25, 27, etc., _supra_.\n\n[572] See page 47, _supra_.\n\n[573] Gen. 21 : 31.\n\n[574] Comp. Gen. 31 : 44-47.\n\n[575] Gen. 21 : 30.\n\n[576] See page 53, _supra_.\n\n[577] Gen. 21 : 33.\n\n[578] See references to the blood-stained covenant-tree, in Appendix,\n_infra_.\n\n[579] Gen. 22 : 18.\n\n[580] See page 61 f., _supra_.\n\n[581] Gen. 26 : 25-29.\n\n[582] Gen. 26 : 30, 31.\n\n[583] See page 62, _supra_.\n\n[584] Comp. Gen. 12 : 6-8; 28 : 18-22; 31 : 19-36.\n\n[585] Mr. Forbes tells of a custom, in Sumatra, of taking a binding\noath, above the grave of the original patriarch of the Passumah. An\nanimal is sacrificed, cut into small pieces, and cooked in a pot.\n\u201cThen he who is to take the oath, holding his hand, or a long kriss\nof the finest sort, over the grave-stone, and over the cooked animal,\nsays: \u2018If such and such be not the case, may I be afflicted with the\nworst evils.\u2019 The whole of the company then partake of the food\u201d (_A\nNaturalist\u2019s Wanderings_, p. 198 f.). This seems to be a vestige of the\nprimitive custom of eating on the witness-heap of an oath.\n\n[586] Gen. 31 : 44-54.\n\n[587] 1 Sam. 18 : 1-3.\n\n[588] See pages 14, 24, 28, 35 f., 62, _supra_.\n\n[589] 1 Sam. 18 : 4; 20 : 1-13.\n\n[590] 1 Sam. 19 : 1-7.\n\n[591] 2 Sam. 1 : 26.\n\n[592] See pages 10, 53, _supra_.\n\n[593] 1 Sam. 20 : 13-17.\n\n[594] 2 Sam. 7 : 1; 9 : 1.\n\n[595] 2 Sam. 9 : 2-13.\n\n[596] Heb. 10 : 1-4.\n\n[597] Rom. 8 : 22.\n\n[598] Rom. 8 : 32.\n\n[599] Heb. 13 : 20.\n\n[600] Comp. John 1 : 1-14; Heb. 1 : 1-3; 2 : 14-16.\n\n[601] Gen. 21 : 12; Heb. 11 : 18.\n\n[602] 1 Pet. 1 : 20.\n\n[603] Rev. 13 : 8.\n\n[604] See page 250, _supra_, note (footnote 530).\n\n[605] Heb. 10 : 5-9.\n\n[606] John 6 : 53-58.\n\n[607] John 6 : 63.\n\n[608] John 6 : 60.\n\n[609] John 6 : 60.\n\n[610] Heb. 1 : 14-16.\n\n[611] Gal. 3 : 6-9, 16, 29.\n\n[612] Keble.\n\n[613] \u201cIn the garden of Gethsemane, Christ endured mental agony so\nintense that, had it not been limited by divine interposition, it\nwould probably have destroyed his life without the aid of any other\nsufferings; but having been thus mitigated, its effects were confined\nto violent palpitation of the heart accompanied with bloody sweat....\nDr. Millingen\u2019s explanation of bloody sweat ... is judicious. \u2018It is\nprobable,\u2019 says he, \u2018that this strange disorder arises from a violent\ncommotion of the nervous system, turning the streams of blood out of\ntheir natural course, and forcing the red particles into the cutaneous\nexcretories.\u2019\u201d (Stroud\u2019s _Physical Cause of the Death of Christ_, pp.\n74, 380).\n\n[614] Luke 22 : 44.\n\n[615] John 13 : 1.\n\n[616] Luke 22 : 14, 15.\n\n[617] As to the points in this dispute, see Andrews\u2019s _Life of our\nLord_, pp. 425-460, and Farrar\u2019s _Life of Christ_, Excursus X.,\nAppendix.\n\n[618] Matt. 26 : 26.\n\n[619] Luke 22 : 19, 20.\n\n[620] Mark 14 : 23.\n\n[621] Matt. 26 : 27, 28.\n\n[622] Luke 22 : 20.\n\n[623] Matt. 26 : 28.\n\n[624] 1 Cor. 11 : 25.\n\n[625] Mark 14 : 23.\n\n[626] John 15 : 13-15.\n\n[627] John 15 : 4-7.\n\n[628] John 17 : 1-24.\n\n[629] 2 Tim. 1 : 10.\n\n[630] Heb. 9 : 16, 17.\n\n[631] John 15 : 13.\n\n[632] John 10 : 10, 18.\n\n[633] John 6 : 51.\n\n[634] John 6 : 55.\n\n[635] See Matt. 27 : 33-54; Mark 15 : 22-39; Luke 23 : 33-47; John 19 :\n17-37.\n\n[636] \u201cHe was ultimately \u2018slain,\u2019 not by the effects of the anguish\nof his corporeal frame, but by the effects of the mightier anguish of\nhis mind; the fleshy walls of his heart--like the veil, as it were,\nin the temple of his human body--becoming rent and riven, as, for us,\n\u2018he poured out his soul unto death.\u2019\u201d (Sir James Y. Simpson, cited in\nAppendix to Stroud\u2019s _Physical Cause of Death of Christ_.)\n\n[637] Isa. 53 : 12.\n\n[638] Comp. Rom. 6 : 23; 1 Pet. 3 : 18; Isa. 53 : 4-6.\n\n[639] 1 John 5 : 11, 12.\n\n[640] Lev. 17 : 11.\n\n[641] Lev. 17 : 14.\n\n[642] See pages 116-125.\n\n[643] Eph. 1 : 7.\n\n[644] 1 John 1 : 7.\n\n[645] Rev. 1 : 5.\n\n[646] 2 Cor. 5 : 17.\n\n[647] Col. 3 : 3.\n\n[648] 1 John 5 : 20.\n\n[649] 1 John 5 : 13.\n\n[650] John 20 : 31.\n\n[651] Rom. 5 : 8-12.\n\n[652] 2 Pet. 1 : 4.\n\n[653] Gal. 2 : 20.\n\n[654] John 5 : 26.\n\n[655] Col. 1 : 19, 20.\n\n[656] Eph. 2 : 11-16.\n\n[657] Col. 2 : 9-11.\n\n[658] Gal. 3 : 28, 29.\n\n[659] Heb. 10 : 14-22.\n\n[660] See page 167 ff., _supra_.\n\n[661] Comp. Heb. 9 : 24-28; 10 : 10.\n\n[662] Heb. 10 : 28, 29.\n\n[663] The Covenant of Bread and the Covenant of Blood are two distinct\ncovenants, in Oriental practice as well as in biblical teaching;\nalthough this difference has been strangely overlooked by biblical\nstudents in the realm of Orientalisms. The Covenant of Bread is\ntemporary; the Covenant of Blood is permanent. The one secures a\ntruce; the other secures a vital union. Symbolically, the one gives\nnourishment; the other gives life. The Covenant of Bread is an\nexhibit and a pledge of hospitality, and it brings one into family or\ntribal relations with those proffering it. The Covenant of Blood is\nimmediately personal and individual. There seems to be an unconscious\ntrace of this distinction in the refusal of the Romish Church to\ninclude the laity in the symbolizing of the Covenant of Blood, at the\nLord\u2019s table.\n\n[664] 1 Cor. 10 : 14-17.\n\n[665] Heb. 13 : 20, 21.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\n\nIMPORTANCE OF THIS RITE STRANGELY UNDERVALUED.\n\nIt seems strange that a primitive rite like the blood-covenant, with\nits world-wide sweep, and its manifold applications to the history of\nsacrifice, should have received so little attention from students of\nthe latter theme. Nor has it been entirely ignored by them; although\nits illustrations have, in this connection, been drawn almost entirely\nfrom the field of the classic writers, where its religious aspects\nhave a minor prominence; and, as a result, the suggestion of any real\nimportance in the religious symbolism of this rite has been, generally,\nbrushed aside without its receiving due consideration.\n\nThus, in The Speaker\u2019s Commentary,--which is one of the more recent,\nand more valuable, scholarly and sensible compends of sound and\nthorough biblical criticism,--there are references to the rite of human\nblood-covenanting in its possible bearing on the blood-covenanting\nof God with Israel before Mount Sinai,[666] after this sort: \u201cThe\ninstances from classical antiquity, adduced, as parallels to this\nsacrifice of Moses, by B\u00e4hr, Knobel, and Kalisch, in which animals\nwere slaughtered on the making of covenants, are either, those in\nwhich the animal was slain to signify the punishment due to the party\nthat might break the covenant (Hom. _Il._, III., 298; XIX., 252; Liv.\n_Hist._, I., 24; XXI., 45); those in which confederates dipped their\nhands, or their weapons, in the same blood (\u00c6sch. _Sept. c. Theb._,\n43; Xenoph. _Anab._, II., 2, \u00a7 9); or those in which the contracting\nparties tasted each other\u2019s blood (Herodot. [_Hist._] I., 74; IV., 74;\nTac. _Annal._, XII., 47). All these usages are based upon ideas which\nare but very superficially related to the subject; they have indeed no\ntrue connection whatever with the idea of sacrifice as the seal of a\ncovenant between God and man.\u201d[667]\n\nWhen the entire history of man\u2019s outreaching after an inter-union of\nnatures with his fellow-man and with his God, is fairly studied, in the\nlight thrown on it by the teachings of the divine-human Being, who gave\nof his own blood for the consummation of the longed-for divine-human\ninter-union, it will be more clearly seen, whether it were the relation\nof the primitive rite itself to the idea of sacrifice, or the study of\nthat relation, which was \u201cvery superficial,\u201d as a cause of its popular\noverlooking.\n\nThe closest and most sacred form of covenant ever known in the\nprimitive world, was that whereby two persons covenanted to become one,\nthrough being partakers of the same blood. At Sinai, when Jehovah would\ncovenant with Israel, a common supply of substitute blood--proffered\nby Israel and accepted by Jehovah--was taken; and one-half of it was\ncast upon the altar, Godward, while the other half of it was cast\nIsraelward, upon the people.[668] The declaration of Moses to Israel,\nthen, was: \u201cBehold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made\nwith you;\u201d or, as that declaration is repeated, in Hebrews: \u201cThis is\nthe blood of the covenant which God covenanted to you-ward.\u201d[669] And\nfrom that time forward, the most sacred possession of Israel,--above\nwhich hovered the visible sign of the presence of Jehovah,--was the\ncasket which contained the record of that blood-made covenant; and it\nwas toward the mercy-seat cover of that Covenant Casket, that House of\nthe Covenant, that the symbolic blood of atonement through new life\nwas sprinkled, in the supreme renewals of that covenant by Israel\u2019s\nrepresentative year by year.\n\nEven the Speaker\u2019s Commentary says, of this mutual blood-sharing by\nIsrael and Jehovah at Sinai: \u201cThe blood thus divided between the two\nparties to the covenant signified the sacramental union between the\nLord and his people.\u201d[670] Of the blood which was to be poured out on\nCalvary, Jesus said: \u201cThis is my blood of the [new] covenant, which\nis shed for many.\u201d[671] And of the sacramental union which could be\nsecured, between his trustful disciples and himself, by tasting his\nblood, and by being nourished on his flesh, he said: \u201cExcept ye eat\nthe flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life\nin yourselves. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath\neternal life.\u201d[672] It really looks as if there were more than a\nsuperficial relation between the fact of an absolute inter-union of\ntwo natures through an inter-flow of a common life, in the rite of\nblood-covenanting, and the sacramental union between the Lord and his\npeople, which was typified in the blood-covenant at Sinai, and which\nwas consummated in the blood-covenant at Calvary.\n\nHerbert Spencer, indeed, seems to have a clearer conception than the\nSpeaker\u2019s Commentary, of the relation of human blood-covenanting,\nto the inter-union of those in the flesh, with spiritual beings. He\nperceives that the primitive offerings of blood over the dead, from\nthe living person, are, in some cases, \u201cexplicable as arising from\nthe practice of establishing a sacred bond between living persons by\npartaking of each other\u2019s blood: the derived conception being, that\nthose who give some of their blood to the ghost of a man just dead\nand lingering near [and of course, the principle is the same when the\noffering of blood is to the gods, thereby] effect with it a union,\nwhich on the one side implies submission, and on the other side\nfriendliness.\u201d[673] This admission by Mr. Spencer covers the essential\npoint in the argument of this entire volume.\n\n\nLIFE IN THE BLOOD, IN THE HEART, IN THE LIVER.\n\nAmong all primitive peoples, the blood has been deemed the\nrepresentative of life. The giving of blood has been counted the\ngiving of life. The receiving of blood has been counted the receiving\nof life. The sharing of blood has been counted the sharing of life.\nHence, the blood has always been counted the chief thing in any\nsacrificial victim proffered to the gods; and whatever was sought\nthrough sacrifice, was to be obtained by means of the blood of the\noffering. Even though no specific reference to the blood be found in\nthe preserved descriptions of one of the earlier sacrifices,--as, for\nexample, the Akkadian sacrifice of the first-born (page 166, _supra_),\nthe very fact that the offering made was of a _life_, and that _blood_\nwas recognized as life, is in itself the proof that it was the blood\nwhich gave the offering its value.\n\nSir Gardiner Wilkinson, who was thoroughly familiar with both Egyptian\nand biblical antiquities, was impressed by the \u201cstriking resemblance\u201d\nof many of the religious rites of the Jews to those of Egypt,\n\u201cparticularly the manner in which the sacrifices were performed;\u201d[674]\nand he points out the Egyptian method of so slaying the sacrificial\nox, that its blood should be fully discharged from the body; a point\nwhich was deemed of such importance in the Jewish ritual.[675] Of\nthe illustration of this ceremony given by Wilkinson from an ancient\nEgyptian painting,[676] the Speaker\u2019s Commentary says: \u201cThere is no\nreason to doubt that this picture accurately represents the mode\npursued in the court of the [Jewish] Tabernacle.\u201d[677]\n\nAlmost as universal as the recognition of the life in the blood,\nhas been the identification of the heart as the blood-centre and\nthe blood-fountain, and so as the epitome of the life itself. Says\nPierret,[678] the French Egyptologist, concerning the preeminence\ngiven to the heart, by the ancient Egyptians: \u201cThe heart was embalmed\nseparately in a vase placed under the guardianship of the genius\nDuaoumautew [rather, Tuau-mut-ef, or, Reverencer of his Mother. \u2018My\nheart was my mother.\u2019 See page 99, _supra_] without doubt because this\norgan, indispensable to the resurrection, could not be replaced in the\nbody of a man, until it had been weighed in the scale of the balance\nof the Osirian judgment (_Todtenbuch_, cxxv.); where representing the\nacts of the dead, it ought to make equilibrium with the statue of the\ngoddess Truth [Maat]. (See the framed papyri in the funereal hall\nof the Museum of the Louvre.) Indeed the favorable sentence is thus\nformulated: \u2018It is permitted that his heart be in its place.\u2019 It is\nsaid to Setee I., in the temple of Abydos: \u2018I bring thee thy heart to\nthy breast; I put it in its place.\u2019 The heart, principle of existence\nand of regeneration, was symbolized by the scarab\u00e6us: it is for this\nreason that the texts relative to the heart were inscribed upon the\nfunereal scarab\u00e6uses, which at a certain epoch were introduced into the\nbody of the mummy itself, to replace the absent organ.\u201d\n\nThe idea that the heart is in itself life, and that it can even live\napart from the body, is found all the world over. References to it in\nancient Egypt, in India, and in primitive America, have already been\npointed out (pages 100-110, _supra_). It shows itself, likewise, in the\nfolk-lore of the Arctic regions, and of South Africa, as well as of\nthe Norseland. In a Samoyed tale, \u201cseven brothers are in the habit of\ntaking out their hearts and sleeping without them. A captive damsel,\nwhose mother they have killed, receives the extracted hearts, and hangs\nthem on the tent-pole, where they remain till the following morning.\nOne night her brother contrives to get the hearts into his possession.\nNext morning, he takes them into the tent, where he finds the brothers\nat the point of death. In vain do they beg for their hearts, which he\nflings on the floor. \u2018And as he flings down the hearts, the brothers\ndie.\u2019\u201d[679] According to a Hottentot story, \u201cthe heart of a girl, whom\na lion has killed and eaten, is extracted from the lion, and placed\nin a calabash filled with milk [the \u2018heart\u2019 and \u2018milk\u2019; or blood and\nbread, life and its nourishment (See pages 10-12, 261 f., _supra_)].\n\u2018The calabash increased in size; and, in proportion to this, the girl\ngrew again inside [of] it.\u2019\u201d[680] \u201cIn a Norse story, a giant\u2019s heart\nlies in an egg, inside a duck, which swims in a well, in a church,\non an island;\u201d[681] and this story is found in variations in other\nlands.[682] So, again, in a \u201cRussian story, a prince is grievously\ntormented by a witch who has got hold of his heart, and keeps it\nperpetually seething in a magic cauldron.\u201d[683]\n\nThis same idea is found in the nomenclature of the Bible, and in the\nevery day speech of the civilized world of the present age. In more\nthan nine hundred instances, in our common English Bible, the Hebrew or\nthe Greek word for \u201cheart,\u201d as a physical organ, is applied to man\u2019s\npersonality; as if it were, in a sense, synonymous with his life, his\nself, his soul, his nature. In every phase of man\u2019s character, of\nman\u2019s needs, or of man\u2019s experiences, \u201cheart\u201d is employed by us as\nsignificant of his innermost and realest self. He is \u201chard-hearted,\u201d\n\u201ctender-hearted,\u201d \u201cwarm-hearted,\u201d \u201ccold-hearted,\u201d \u201chearty,\u201d or\n\u201cheartless.\u201d His words and his conduct are \u201cheart-touching,\u201d\n\u201cheart-cheering,\u201d \u201cheart-searching,\u201d \u201cheart-piercing,\u201d\n\u201cheart-thrilling,\u201d \u201cheart-soothing,\u201d or \u201cheart-rending;\u201d and they are a\ncause, in others, of \u201cheart-burning,\u201d \u201cheart-aching,\u201d \u201cheart-easing,\u201d\nor \u201cheart-expanding.\u201d At times, his \u201cheart is set upon\u201d an object of\nlonging, or again \u201chis heart is in his mouth\u201d because of his excited\nanxiety. It may be, that he shows that \u201chis heart is in the right\nplace,\u201d or that \u201chis heart is at rest\u201d at all times. The truest union\nof two young lives, is where \u201cthe heart goes with the hand\u201d in the\nmarriage covenant.\n\nAnd so, all the world over, from the beginning, primitive man, in the\nlowest state of savagery and in the highest stage of civilization,\nhas been accustomed to recognize the truth, and to employ the\nsymbolisms of speech, which are in accordance with the latest advances\nof physiological and psychological science, and with the highest\nspiritual conceptions of biblical truth, in our nineteenth Christian\ncentury, concerning the mental, the moral, and the religious needs and\npossibilities of the human race. Man as he is needs a \u201cnew heart,\u201d a\nnew nature, a new life; and that need can be supplied by the Author\nof life, through that regeneration which is indicated, and which, in\na sense, is realized in new blood which is pure at the start, and\nwhich purifies by its purging inflow. The recognition of this truth,\nand the outreaching of man in its direction, are at the basis of all\nforms of sacrifice in all the ages. And this wonderful attainment of\nprimitive man everywhere, we are asked to accept as man\u2019s mere natural\ninheritance from the sensory quiverings of his ancestral tadpole!\n\n\u201cThe knowledge of the ancients on the subject [of blood as the synonym\nof life] may, indeed, have been based on the mere observation that an\nanimal loses its life when it loses its blood,\u201d says the Speaker\u2019s\nCommentary. But it does seem a little strange, that none of the\nancients ever observed that man is very liable to lose his life when\nhe loses his _brains_, and that few animals are actively efficient for\npractical service without a _head_; whereas both men and the lower\nanimals do lose _blood_ freely without death resulting.\n\nIt is true that in many parts of the world the _liver_ was made\nprominent as seemingly a synonym of life; but this was obviously\nbecause of the popular belief that the liver was itself a mass of\ncoagulated blood. The idea seems to have been that as the heart was\nthe blood-fountain, the liver was the blood-cistern; and that, as the\nsource of life (or of blood, which life is,) was at the heart; so,\nthe great receptacle of life, or of blood, was the liver. Thus, in\nthe classic myth of Prometheus, the avenging eagle of Jupiter is not\npermitted to gnaw upon the life-giving heart itself of the tortured\nvictim, but upon the compacted body of life in the captive\u2019s liver; the\nfountain of life is not to be destroyed, but the cistern of life is\nto be emptied daily of all that it had received from the out-flowing\nheart during the preceding night. And in the symbolism of these two\norgans, the ancients seem to have been agreed, that \u201cThe heart is the\nseat of the soul [thumos (\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2) the nobler passions]; the liver [is\nthe seat] of desire;\u201d[684] or, as again it is phrased, \u201cThe seat of\nthe soul is unquestionably the heart, even as the liver is the seat of\nemotion.\u201d[685]\n\nBurton has called attention to the fact that among the Arabs, \u201cthe\nliver and the spleen are both supposed to be \u2018congealed blood,\u2019\u201d and\nthat the Bed\u00b4ween of the Hejaz justify their eating of locusts, which\nbelong to an \u201cunclean\u201d class of animals, and of liver which represents\nforbidden blood, by this couplet:\n\n   \u201cWe are allowed two carrions, and two bloods,\n    The fish and locust, the liver and the spleen.\u201d[686]\n\nHe has also noted that the American Indian partakes of the liver, as\nwell as of the heart of a fallen enemy, in order to the assimilating of\nthe enemy\u2019s life;[687] and he finds many correspondences between the\ndesert dwellers of America and of Arabia. \u201cThe [American] \u2018brave,\u2019\u201d he\nsays, \u201cstamps a red hand upon his mouth to show that he has drunk the\nblood of a foe. Of the Utaybah \u2018Harami,\u2019 it is similarly related, that\nafter mortal combat, he tastes the dead man\u2019s gore.\u201d[688]\n\nEven in modern English, the word \u201cliver\u201d has been thought by many to\nrepresent \u201clife\u201d or \u201cblood.\u201d Thus, in one of our dictionaries we are\ntold that the word is derived from the Anglo-Saxon and the Scandinavian\nverb \u201cto live,\u201d \u201cbecause [the liver is] of so great importance to\n_life_, or animal vitality.\u201d[689] In another, its derivation is\nascribed to _lopper_, and _lapper_, \u201cto coagulate,\u201d \u201cfrom its\nresemblance to a mass of clotted blood.\u201d[690]\n\nAmong the aborigines of America the prominence given to the blood\nand to the heart was as great, and as distinctly marked, as among\nthe peoples of ancient Egypt, or any other portion of the far East.\nThis truth has been brought out most fully by the valuable personal\nresearches of Mr. Frank H. Cushing, of the Smithsonian Institution,\ninto the mythology and sociology of the Zu\u00f1is of New Mexico. From his\nreports it would appear that, according to the priests of that people,\n\u201call true fetiches [or, material symbols of spiritual existences] are\neither actual petrifactions of the animals they represent, or were such\noriginally\u201d--according as the present form of the fetish is natural,\nor is mechanically fashioned. These rude stone images of the animals\nof prey, \u201cwhich are of course mere concretions or strangely eroded\nrock forms,\u201d are supposed to be the shriveled and distorted remains of\nbeings which were long ago turned to stone. Within these fetishes the\n_heart_ of the original animal still exists; (\u201chis heart still lives,\neven though his person be changed to stone\u201d;) and it needs for its\nsustenance the blood, or the \u201clife fluid,\u201d of the game which was, from\nthe beginning, the ordinary prey of that animal. Hence each fetish is\npleased to hear the prayers and to give success to the hunting of its\npresent possessor, in order to the obtaining of the life fluid which is\nessential to its nourishing.\n\nThese prey fetishes of the Zu\u00f1is belong to the Prey-God Brotherhood,\nand when not in use they are guarded by the \u201cKeeper of the Medicine\nof the Deer.\u201d Before they are employed in a hunt, there is an\nassembly for their worship; and, after ceremonial prayer to them for\ntheir assistance, they are taken out for service by members of the\nBrotherhood to which they belong. \u201cThe fetich is then placed in a\nlittle crescent-shaped bag of buckskin which the hunter wears suspended\nover the left breast (or, heart) by a buckskin thong, which is tied\nabove the right shoulder.\u201d When the trail of the animal hunted is\ndiscovered by the hunter, he finds a place where the animal has lain\ndown, and there he makes an oblation by depositing his offering \u201cin\nexactly the spot over which the heart of the animal is supposed to have\nrested.\u201d Then he brings out his fetish and with certain ceremonies and\ninvocations he puts it on the track of the prey.\n\n\u201cAs soon as the animal is dead, he [the hunter] lays open its viscera,\ncuts through the diaphragm, and makes an incision in the aorta, or in\nthe sac which incloses the heart. He then takes out [of its bag] the\nprey fetich, breathes on it, and addresses it thus: ... \u2018Si! My father,\nthis day of the blood [literally of the \u2018life fluid\u2019] of a game-being,\nthou shalt drink, ([shalt] water thyself). With it thou shalt enlarge\n(add unto) thy heart.\u2019 He then dips the fetich into the blood which the\nsac still contains, continuing meanwhile the prayer, as follows: ...\n\u2018Likewise, I, a \u201cdone\u201d being [a living human being], with the blood\n[the \u201clife-fluid,\u201d which is] the flesh of a raw being (game animal),\nshall enlarge (add unto) my heart.\u2019 Which [prayer] finished, he scoops\nup, with his hand, some of the blood and sips it; then tearing forth\nthe _liver_, ravenously devours a part of it [as the blood-flesh, or,\nthe blood which is the flesh], and exclaims, \u2018_\u00c9-lah-kw\u00e1!_\u2019 (Thanks).\u201d\nAfter all this, he deposits a portion of the clot of blood from within\nthe heart, commingled with various articles, in a grave digged on the\nspot where the animal has died; repeating, as he does this, a prayer\nwhich seems to show his belief that the slain animal still lives in\nthis buried heart-blood. Again, when the game is at the hunter\u2019s home,\nthe women \u201clay on either side of its body, next to the heart, an ear\nof corn (significant of renewed life), and say prayers\u201d over it.\nFinally \u201cthe fetich is returned to the Keeper of the Deer Medicine,\nwith thanksgiving and a prayer, not unlike that uttered on taking it\nforth.\u201d[691]\n\nIn these ceremonies, it is evident that the Zu\u00f1is, like the Orientals,\nrecognize the blood as the life, the heart as the epitome of life, the\nliver as a congealed mass of blood, and the transference of blood as\nthe transference of life. Moreover, there is here a trace of that idea\nof the revivifying, by blood-bathing, of a being that had turned into\nstone; which is found in the legends of Arabia, and of the Norseland\n(See page 119 f., _supra_). Is there not, indeed, a reference to this\nworld-wide figure of the living stone, in the Apostle\u2019s suggestion,\nthat those who were counted as worthless stones by an ignorant world\nare vivified by the renewing blood of Christ, and so are shown to be\na holy people? \u201cAs new born babes [renewed by the blood of Christ],\nlong for the spiritual milk [the means of sacred nourishment] which\nis without guile, that ye may grow thereby unto salvation; if ye\nhave tasted that the Lord is gracious [if, indeed, ye have been made\nalive by the touch of his blood]: unto whom coming, [unto Him who is]\na Living Stone rejected indeed of men, but with God [who knows the\npossibilities of that Stone], precious,--ye also, as living stones [as\nnew blood-vivified petrifactions], are built up a spiritual house, to\nbe a holy priesthood, to offer up holy sacrifices, acceptable to God\nthrough Jesus Christ.\u201d[692]\n\nThere is another gleam of this idea of the stones vivified by blood,\nin a custom reported from among the Indians of British Columbia, in\na private letter written by a careful observer of Indian habits and\nceremonies. When the Indian girls arrived at the years of womanhood\nthey were accustomed, there as in many other parts of the world, to\npass through a formal initiation into a new stage of existence. Going\napart by themselves, at some distance from their settlements, they\nwould lacerate their bodies, in order that blood might flow freely;\nand, laying a series of stones in a row, they would walk over them,\nallowing their blood to fall upon them. The young woman who could cover\nthe largest number of stones with her blood, had the fairest prospect\nin life, in the line of a woman\u2019s peculiar mission. This certainly\nwould be a not unnatural thought as an outgrowth of the belief that\nstones anointed with freely surrendered blood, can be made to have\nlife in themselves.\n\nIt is much the same in war as in the hunt, among the Zu\u00f1is. \u201cAs with\nthe hunter, so with the warrior; the fetich is fed on the life-blood\nof the slain.\u201d[693] And here, again, is a link of connection between\ncannibalism and religious worship. Another illustration of the\npreeminence given to the heart, as the epitome of the very being\nitself, is the fact that the animals pictured on the pottery of these\npeople, and of neighboring peoples, commonly had the rude conventional\nfigure of a heart represented in its place on each animal; as if to\nshow that the animal was living, and that it had a living soul.[694]\n\nAt the other side of the world, as it were, in Borneo, there is given\nsimilar preeminence, as among the Zu\u00f1is, to the blood as the life,\nto the liver as a representative of blood, and to the heart as the\nepitome of the life. \u201cThe principal sacrifice of the Sakarang Dayaks,\u201d\nsays Mr. St. John, \u201cis killing a pig and examining its _heart_, which\nis supposed to foretell events with the utmost certainty.\u201d This\ncustom seems to have grown out of the idea that the heart of any God\ndevoted organism, as the embodiment of its life is closely linked\nwith the Author of all life; who is the Disposer of all events. A\nhuman heart is naturally deemed preferable to a pig\u2019s; but the latter\nis the common substitute for the former. Yet, \u201cnot many years ago,\u201d\none of the Sakarang chiefs put to death a lad \u201cof his own race,\u201d\nremarking, as he did so: \u201cIt has been our custom heretofore to examine\nthe heart of a pig, but now we will examine a human one.\u201d[695] The\nKayans, again, examine \u201cthe _heart_ and _liver_,\u201d as preliminary to\ncovenant-making.[696] Among the Dayaks, the blood of a fowl sacrificed\nby one who is supposed to be in favor with the gods, has peculiar\npotency when sprinkled upon \u201cthe lintels of the doors.\u201d[697] And a\nhouse will be deserted by its Dayak inhabitants, \u201cif a drop of blood be\nseen sprinkled on the floor, unless they can prove whence it came.\u201d[698]\n\nAn incidental connection of this recognition of the blood as the\nlife, with the primitive rite of blood covenanting, is seen in one\nform of the marriage rite among the Dayaks.[699]--In the rite of\nblood-covenanting itself, as consummated between Mr. St. John and\nSi\u00f1gauding, a cigarette stained with the blood of the covenanting\nparties was smoked by them mutually (See page 51, _supra_). In the\nmarriage covenant, a cigar and betel leaf prepared with the areca nut\nare put first into the mouth of the bride by the bridegroom, and then\ninto the mouth of the bridegroom by the bride; while two fowls are\nwaved over their heads by a priest, and then killed; their blood being\n\u201ccaught in two cups\u201d for examination, instead of for drinking.[700]\n\nSo, whether it be the heart as the primal fountain of blood, or\nthe liver as the great receptacle of blood, or the blood itself in\nits supposed outflowing from the heart through the liver, that is\nmade prominent in the rites and teachings of primitive peoples, the\nroot-idea is still the same,--that \u201cas to the life of all flesh, the\nblood thereof is all one with the life thereof;\u201d[701] and that as a\nman is in his blood, so he is in his nature; that his \u201cgood blood\u201d or\n\u201chis bad blood,\u201d his \u201chot blood\u201d or his \u201ccold blood,\u201d will be evidenced\nin his daily walk; for that which shows out in his outer life is \u201cin\nthe blood\u201d which is his inner life; and that in order to a change of\nhis nature there must in some way be a change of his blood. Hence, the\nuniversal outreaching of the race after new blood which is new life.\nHence, the provisions of God for new life through that blood which is\nthe Life.\n\n\nTRANSMIGRATION OF SOULS.\n\nA belief in the transmigration of souls, from man to the lower animals,\nand _vice vers\u00e2_, has been found among various peoples, in all the\nhistoric ages. The origin of this belief has been a puzzling question\nto rationalistic myth-students. Starting out, as do most of these\nstudents, with the rigid theory that man worked himself slowly upward\nfrom the lowest savagery, without any external revelation, they are\nconfronted with primitive customs on every side which go to show a\npopular belief in soul-transmigration, and which they must try to\naccount for within the limits of their unproven theory. The result is,\nthat they first presuppose some conception in the primitive man\u2019s mind\nof spiritual things, and then they conveniently refer all confusing\nfacts to that presupposed conception. \u201cAnimism\u201d is one of the pet\nnames for this resolvent of grave difficulties. And when \u201cAnimism\u201d\nis supplemented by \u201cFetishism,\u201d \u201cZoolatry,\u201d and \u201cTotemism,\u201d the\nrequisite number of changes is secured for the meeting of any number of\nperplexing facts in the religious belief of primitive man everywhere.\n\nAs a matter of simple fact, man\u2019s conception of spiritual existences\nis not accounted for by the \u201cscientists.\u201d And the claim that such\na conception was innate in primitive man, or that it was a natural\ngrowth in man\u2019s unaided progress, is at the best but an unproved\ntheory. In the early part of this century, there were thousands of\ndeaf-mutes in the United States, who had never been educated by the\nsystem which is now so effective for that class in the community. This\ngave a rare opportunity of learning the normal spiritual attainments\nof unsophisticated man; of man uninfluenced by external revelation or\ntraditions. Nor was this opportunity unimproved for a good purpose.\nWhen the Rev. Thomas H. Gallaudet (himself a philosophical scientist)\nintroduced the system of deaf-mute instruction into this country, he\nmade a careful examination into the intelligence of all the deaf mutes\nbrought under his care, on this point of spiritual conceptions. His\ndeclaration was, that he never found a person who, prior to specific\ninstruction, had any conception of the nature or the existence of God.\nA single illustration of Mr. Gallaudet\u2019s experiences in this line will\nsuffice for the entire series of them. A young girl of sixteen years of\nage, or so, who proved to be of far more than ordinary intelligence and\nmental capacity, had been brought up in a New England Christian home.\nShe had been accustomed to bow her head when grace was said at the\ndaily meals, to kneel in family prayer, and to attend church regularly,\nfrom early childhood; yet she had no idea of God, no thought of\nspiritual existences of any sort whatsoever, until she was instructed\nin those things, in the line of her new education.[702] A writer on\nthis subject, who differed with Mr. Gallaudet in his conclusions from\nthese facts, added: \u201cThis testimony is confirmed by that of all the\nteachers of the deaf and dumb, and the fact must be admitted.\u201d[703]\nUntil some human being can be found with a conception of spiritual\nexistences, without his having received instruction on that point from\nthose who went before him, the claim--in the face of such facts as\nthese--that primitive man ever obtained his spiritual knowledge or his\nspiritual conceptions from within himself alone, or without an external\nrevelation to him, is an unscientific assumption, in the investigation\nof the origin of religions in the world.\n\nBut, with man\u2019s conception of spiritual things, already existing[704]\n(however he came by it), and with the existing belief that the blood\nis the life, or the soul, or the nature, of an organism, the idea of\nthe transmigration of souls as identical with the transference of\nblood, is a very natural corollary. The blood being the life, or the\nsoul, of man and of beast, if the blood of man passes into the body\nof a beast, or the blood of a beast passes into the body of a man, why\nshould it not be inferred that the soul of the man, or of the beast,\ntransmigrated accordingly? If the Hindoo, believing that the blood of\nman is the soul of man, sees the blood of a man drunk up by a tiger,\nis it strange that he should look upon that tiger as having within him\nthe soul of the Hindoo, which has been thus appropriated? If the South\nAfrican supposes that, by his drinking the blood or eating the heart of\na lion, he appropriates the lion\u2019s courage,[705] is it to be wondered\nat that when he sees a lion licking the blood and eating the heart of a\nSouth African, he should infer that the lion is thereby the possessor\nof whatever was distinctive in the Zulu, or the Hottentot, personality?\n\nIndeed, as has been already stated, in the body of this work, there\nis still a question among physiologists, how far the transference of\n_blood_ from one organism to another carries a transmigration of _soul_\n(of the _psyche_, not of the _pneuma_).[706] However this may be, the\npopular belief in such transmigration is fully accounted for, by the\nrecognized conviction that the blood is the soul.\n\nIn this view of the case, there is an added force in the Mosaic\nprohibition--repeated as it is in the Apostolic Encyclical--of the\neating, or drinking, of the blood of the lower animals; with the\npossibility of thereby being made a partaker of the lower animal\nnature. And what fresh potency is given to Elijah\u2019s prophecy against\nAhab and Jezebel, by this conception of the transference of nature\nby the transference of blood! \u201cThus saith the Lord [to Ahab] Hast\nthou killed [Hast thou taken the blood of Naboth?], and also taken\npossession [of Naboth\u2019s vineyard]?... Thus saith the Lord, In the place\nwhere dogs licked the blood of Naboth, shall dogs lick thy blood, even\nthine.... And of Jezebel also spake the Lord, saying, The dogs shall\neat Jezebel by the ramparts of Jezreel.\u201d The blood, the life, the soul\nof royalty, shall become a portion of the very life of the prowling\nscavenger dogs of the royal city. And it came to pass accordingly, to\nboth Ahab and Jezebel.[707]\n\n\nTHE BLOOD-RITE IN BURMAH.\n\nMention is made, in the text of this volume,[708] of the fact that\nthe primitive rite of blood-covenanting is in practice all along the\nChinese border of the Burman Empire. In illustration of this truth, the\nfollowing description of the rite and its linkings, is given by the\nRev. R. M. Luther, of Philadelphia, formerly a missionary among the\nKarens, in Burmah. This interesting sketch was received, in its present\nform, at too late a date for insertion in its place in the text; hence\nits appearance here.\n\n\u201cThe blood-covenant is well known, and commonly practised among the\nKarens of Burmah. There are three methods of making brotherhood, or\ntruce, between members of one tribe and those of another.\n\n\u201cThe first is the common method of eating together. This, however, is\nof but little binding force, being a mere agreement to refrain from\nhostilities for a limited time, and the truce thus made is liable to be\nbroken at the briefest notice.\n\n\u201cThe second method is that of planting a tree. The parties to this\ncovenant select a young and vigorous sapling, plant it with certain\nceremonies, and covenant with each other to keep peace so long as the\ntree lives. A covenant thus made is regarded as of greater force than\nthat effected or sealed by the first method.\n\n\u201cThe third method is that of the blood-covenant, properly so-called.\nIn this covenant the chief stands as the representative of the tribe,\nif it be a tribal agreement; or, the father as the representative\nof the family, if it be a more limited covenant. The ceremonies are\npublic and solemn. The most important act is, of course, the mingling\nof the blood. Blood is drawn from the thigh of each of the covenanting\nparties, and mingled together. Then each dips his finger into the blood\nand applies it to his lips. In some cases, it is said that the blood\nis actually drunk; but the more common method is that of touching the\nlips with the blood-stained finger.[709]\n\n\u201cThis covenant is of the utmost force. It covers not merely an\nagreement of peace, or truce, but also a promise of mutual assistance\nin peace and in war. It also conveys to the covenanting parties mutual\ntribal rites. If they are chiefs, the covenant embraces their entire\ntribes. If one is a private individual, his immediate family and direct\ndescendants are included in the agreement.\n\n\u201cI never heard of the blood-covenant being broken. I do not remember\nto have inquired particularly on this point, because the way in which\nthe blood-covenant was spoken of, always implied that its rupture was\nan unheard-of thing. It is regarded as a perfectly valid excuse for any\namount of reckless devotion, or of unreasoning sacrifice on behalf of\nanother, for a Karen to say: \u2018_Thui p\u2019aw th\u2019coh li_;\u2019 literally, \u2018The\nblood,--we have drunk it together.\u2019 An appeal for help on the basis of\nthe blood-covenant is never disregarded.\n\n\u201cA few of our missionaries have entered into the blood-covenant with\nKaren tribes; though most have been deterred, either from never having\nvisited the \u2018debatable land\u2019 where the strong arm of British rule does\nnot reach, or else, as in most instances, from a repugnance to the\nact by which the covenant is sealed. In one instance, at least, where\na missionary did enter into covenant with one of these tribes, the\nagreement has been interpreted as covering not only his children, but\none who was so happy as to marry his daughter. In an enforced absence\nof fifteen years from the scene of his early missionary labors nothing\nhas been at once so touching and so painful to the writer, as the\nfrequent messages and letters asking \u2018When will you come back to _your\npeople_?\u2019 Yet, mine is only the inherited right above mentioned.\n\n\u201cThe blood-covenant gives even a foreigner every right which he would\nhave, if born a member of the tribe. As an instance, the writer once\nshot a hawk in a Karen village, just as it was swooping down upon\na chicken. He was surprised to find, an half-hour afterward, that\nhis personal attendant, a straightforward Mountain Karen, had gone\nthrough the village and \u2018collected\u2019 a fat hen from each house. When\nremonstrated with, the mountaineer replied, \u2018Why, Teacher, it is your\nright,--that is our custom,--you are one of us. These people wouldn\u2019t\nunderstand it if I did not ask for a chicken from each house, when you\nkilled the hawk.\u2019\n\n\u201cIn the wilder Karen regions, it is almost impossible to travel unless\none is in blood-covenant with the chiefs, while on the other hand one\nis perfectly safe, if in that covenant. The disregard of this fact has\ncost valuable lives. When a stranger enters Karen territory, the chiefs\norder the paths closed. This is done by tying the long elephant grass\nacross the paths. On reaching such a signal, the usual inquiry in the\ntraveling party is, \u2018Who is in blood-covenant with this tribe?\u2019 If\none is found, even among the lowest servants, his covenant covers the\nparty, on the way, as far as to the principal village or hill fortress.\nThe party goes into camp, and sends this man on as an ambassador.\nUsually, guides are sent back to conduct the party at once to the\nchief\u2019s house. If no one is in covenant with the tribe, and the wisp of\ngrass is broken and the party passes on, the lives of the trespassers\nare forfeited. A sudden attack in some defile, or a night surprise,\nscatters the party and drives the survivors back the way they came.\nIt is said by the Karens that Mr. Cooper, the famous English explorer\nof China and Thibet, was killed \u2018because he had broken the grass.\u2019 A\nday\u2019s delay for the blood-covenant would have saved his life, and given\nhim time to complete his most important labors. The men who killed him\nwould have been his devoted body-guard, ready and willing to give their\nlives in defence of his. If the Karen account of his death is true, it\nis most unfortunate that he entered the Karen country from China (where\nthe blood-covenant does not now prevail), and so was ignorant of the\nfact that by so slight a concession to Karen custom he could obtain a\nguarantee of safe conduct for at least a thousand miles.\u201d\n\nAnother account of the blood-covenant rite in Burmah is kindly\nfurnished to me, by the Rev. Dr. M. H. Bixby, of Providence, Rhode\nIsland; who was also for some years a missionary among the Karens. He\nsays:\n\n\u201cIn my first journey over the mountains of Burmah, into Shanland,\ntoward Western China, I passed through several tribes of wild Karens\namong whom the practice of \u2018covenanting by blood\u2019 prevailed.\n\n\u201c\u2018If you mean what you say,\u2019 said the old chief of the Gecho tribe to\nme, referring to my professions of friendship, \u2018You will drink truth\nwith me.\u2019 \u2018Well, what is drinking truth?\u2019 I said. In reply, he said:\n\u2018This is our custom. Each chief pierces his arm--draws blood--mingles\nit in a vessel with whisky, and drinks of it; both promising to be true\nand faithful to each other, down to the seventh generation.\u2019\n\n\u201cAfter the chiefs had drunk of the mingled blood and whisky, each one\nof their followers drunk of it also, and were thereby included in the\ncovenant of friendship.\n\n\u201cA company of Shans laid a plot to kill me and my company in Shanland,\nfor the purpose of plunder. They entered into covenant with each other\nby drinking the blood of their leader mingled with whisky, or a kind of\nbeer made from rice.\n\n\u201cThose wild mountain tribes have strange traditions which indicate that\nthey once had the Old Testament Scriptures, although now they have no\nwritten language. Some of the Karen tribes have a written language,\ngiven them by the missionaries.\n\n\u201cThe covenant, also, exists in modified forms, in which the blood is\nomitted.\u201d\n\n\nBLOOD-STAINED TREE OF THE COVENANT.\n\nIn various parts of the East, a _tree_ is given prominence in the\nrite of blood-covenanting. In Burmah, as above shown, one mode of\ncovenanting is by the mutual planting of a tree.[710] In Timor, a\nnewly planted fig-tree is made to bear a portion of the blood of the\ncovenant, and to remain as a witness to the sacred rite itself.[711] In\none portion of Central Africa, a forked palm branch is held by the two\nparties, at their entering into blood-friendship;[712] and, in another\nregion, the ashes of a burned tree and the blood of the covenanting\nbrothers are brought into combination, in the use of a knotted palm\nbranch which the brothers together hold.[713] And, again, in Canaan, in\nthe days of Abraham, the planting of a tree was an element in covenant\nmaking; as shown in the narrative of the covenant which Abraham cut\nwith Abimelech, at Beer-sheba.[714]\n\nIt may, indeed, be fair to suppose that the trees at Hebron, which\nmarked the dwelling-place of Abraham were covenant-trees, witnessing\nthe covenant between Abraham and the three Amorite chiefs; and that\ntherefore they have prominence in the sacred story. \u201cNow he [Abram]\ndwelt by [or, in: Hebrew, _be\u00eblonay_ (\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u05b9\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9)] the [four] oaks\n[or, terebinths], of Mamre, the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother\nof Aner; and these [three it was who] were confederate [literally,\nwere masters of the covenant] with [the fourth one] Abram.\u201d[715]\nThis rendering certainly gives a reason for the prominent mention\nof the trees at Hebron, in conjunction with Abram\u2019s covenant with\nAmorite chieftains; and it accords with Oriental customs of former\ndays, and until to-day. So, also, it would seem that the tree which\nwitnessed[716] the confirmation, or the recognition, of the covenant\nbetween another Abimelech, and the men of Shechem and the men of\nBeth-millo, by the pillar (the symbol of Baal-bereeth)[717] in\nShechem,[718] was a covenant-tree, after the Oriental custom in sacred\ncovenanting.\n\nThere is apparently a trace of the blood-covenanting and tree-planting\nrite of primitive times, in the blood-stained \u201cFiery Cross\u201d of the\nScottish Highlands, with its correspondent Arabian symbol of tribal\ncovenant-duties in the hour of battle. Von Wrede, describing his\ntravels in the south-eastern part of Arabia, tells of the use of this\nsymbol as he saw it employed, as preliminary to a tribal warfare. A\nwar-council had decided on conflict. Then, \u201cthe fire which had burned\nin the midst of the circle was newly kindled with a great heap of wood,\nand the up-leaping flames were greeted with loud rejoicing. The green\nbranch of a n\u016dbk tree [sometimes called the \u2018lote-tree,\u2019 and again\nknown as the \u2018d\u00f4m,\u2019 although it is not the d\u00f4m palm][719] was then\nbrought, and also a sheep, whose feet were at once tied by the oldest\nshaykh. After these preparations, the latter seized the branch, spoke\na prayer over it, and committed it to the flames. As soon as every\ntrace of green had disappeared, he snatched it from the fire, again\nsaid a short prayer, and cut with his _jembeeyeh_ [his short sword]\nthe throat of the sheep, with whose blood the yet burning branch was\nquenched. He then tore a number of little twigs from the burnt branch,\nand gave them to as many Bed\u00b4ween, who hastened off with them in\nvarious directions. The black bloody branch was then planted in the\nearth.... The little twigs, which the shaykh cut off and gave to the\nBed\u00b4ween, serve as alarm signals, with which the messengers hasten from\nvalley to valley, calling the sons of the tribe to the impending war\n[by this blood-stained symbol of the sacred covenant which binds them\nin brotherhood]. None dare remain behind, without loss of honor, when\nthe chosen [covenant] sign appears at his encampment, and the voice\nof its bearer calls to the war.... At the conclusion of the war [thus\ninaugurated], the shaykhs of the propitiated tribe return the branches\nto the fire, and let them burn to ashes.\u201d[720]\n\nHow strikingly this parallels the use and the symbolism of the Fiery\nCross, in the Scottish Highlands, as portrayed in The Lady of the Lake.\nSir Roderick Dhu would summon Clan Alpine against the King.\n\n   \u201cA heap of withered boughs was piled,\n    Of juniper and rowan wild,\n    Mingled with shivers from the oak,\n    Rent by the lightning\u2019s recent stroke.\n    Brian the Hermit by it stood,\n    Barefooted, in his frock and coat.\n    .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .\n    \u2019Twas all prepared;--and from the rock\n    A goat, the patriarch of the flock,\n    Before the kindling fire was laid,\n    And pierced by Roderick\u2019s ready blade.\n    Patient the sickening victim eyed\n    The life-blood ebb in crimson tide\n    Down his clogged beard and shaggy limb,\n    Till darkness glazed his eyeballs dim.\n    The grisly priest, with murmuring prayer,\n    A slender crosslet framed with care,\n    A cubit\u2019s length in measure due;\n    The shaft and limbs were rods of yew,\n    Whose parents in Inch-Cailliach wave\n    Their shadows o\u2019er Clan Alpine\u2019s grave.\u201d\n\nLifting up this fragment of the tree from the grave of the patriarch\nof the Clan,[721] the old priest sounded anathemas against those who\nshould be untrue to their covenant obligations as clansmen, when they\nrecognized this symbol of their common brotherhood.\n\n   \u201cBurst with loud roar their answer hoarse,\n          \u2018Woe to the traitor, woe!\u2019\n    Ben-an\u2019s gray scalps the accents knew,\n    The joyous wolf from covert drew,\n    The exulting eagle screamed afar,--\n    They knew the voice of Alpine\u2019s war.\n\n    \u201cThe shout was hushed on lake and fell,\n    The monk resumed his muttered spell:\n    Dismal and low its accents came,\n    The while he scathed the cross with flame.\n    .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .\n    The crosslet\u2019s points of sparkling wood\n    He quenched among the bubbling blood,\n    And, as again the sign he reared,\n    Hollow and hoarse his voice was heard:\n    \u2018When flits this cross from man to man,\n    Vich-Alpine\u2019s summons to his clan,\n    Burst be the ear that fails to heed!\n    Palsied the foot that shuns to speed!\n    .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .\n    Then Roderick with impatient look\n    From Brian\u2019s hand the symbol took:\n    \u2018Speed, Malise, speed!\u2019 he said, and gave\n    The crosslet to his henchman brave.\n    \u2018The muster-place be Lanrick mead--\n    Instant the time--Speed, Malise, speed!\u2019\u201d[722]\n\n\u201cAt sight of the Fiery Cross,\u201d says Scott, \u201cevery man, from sixteen\nyears old to sixty, capable of bearing arms, was obliged instantly\nto repair, in his best arms and accoutrements, to the place of\nrendezvous.... During the civil war of 1745-6, the Fiery Cross often\nmade its circuit; and upon one occasion it passed through the whole\ndistrict of Breadalbane, a tract of thirty-two miles, in three\nhours.\u201d[723]\n\n\nBLOOD-DRINKING.\n\nAnother item of evidence that the blood-covenant in its primitive form\nwas a well-known rite in primitive Europe, is a citation by Athen\u00e6us\nfrom Poseidonios to this effect: \u201cConcerning the Germans, Poseidonios\nsays, that they, embracing each other in their banquets, open the\nveins upon their foreheads,[724] and mixing the flowing blood with\ntheir drink, they present it to each other; esteeming it the farthest\nattainment of friendship, to taste each other\u2019s blood.\u201d[725] As\nPoseidonios was earlier than our Christian era, this testimony shows\nthat the custom with our ancestors was in no sense an outgrowth, nor\nyet a perversion, of Christian practices.\n\nIn Moore\u2019s Lalla Rookh, the young maiden, Zelica, being induced by\nMokanna, the Veiled Prophet of Khorassan, to accompany him to the\ncharnel-house, pledged herself to him, body and soul, in a draught of\nblood.\n\n   \u201cThere in that awful place, when each had quaffed\n    And pledged in silence such a fearful draught,\n    Such--oh! the look and taste of that red bowl\n    Will haunt her till she dies--he bound her soul\n    By a dark oath, in hell\u2019s own language fram\u2019d.\u201d\n\nIt was after this, that he reminded her of the binding force of this\nblood-covenant:\n\n   \u201cThat cup--thou shudderest, Lady--was it sweet?\n    That cup we pledg\u2019d, the charnel\u2019s choicest wine,\n    Hath bound thee--aye--body and soul all mine.\u201d\n\nAnd her bitter memory of that covenant-scene, in the presence of the\n\u201cbloodless ghosts,\u201d was:\n\n   \u201cThe dead stood round us, while I spoke that vow,\n    Their blue lips echo\u2019d it. I hear them now!\n    Their eyes glared on me, while I pledged that bowl,\n    \u2019Twas burning blood--I feel it in my soul!\u201d\n\nAlthough this is Western poetry, it had a basis of careful Oriental\nstudy in its preparation; and the blood-draught of the covenant is\nknown to Persian story and tradition.\n\nOne of the indications of the world-wide belief in the custom of\ncovenanting, and again of life seeking, by blood-drinking, is the fact\nthat both Jews and Christians have often been falsely charged with\ndrinking the blood of little children, at their religious feasts. This\nwas one of the frequent accusations against the early Christians (See\nJustin Martyr\u2019s _Apol._, I., 26; Tertullian\u2019s _Apol._, VIII., IX.) And\nit has been repeated against the Jews, from the days of Apion down\nto the present decade. Such a baseless charge could not have gained\ncredence, but for the traditional understanding that men were wont to\npledge each other to a close covenant by mutual blood-drinking.\n\n\nCOVENANT-CUTTING.\n\nIt is worthy of note that when the Lord enters into covenant with\nAbraham by means of a prescribed sacrifice (Gen. 15 : 7-18), it is\nsaid that the Lord \u201ccut a covenant with Abram\u201d; but when the Lord\ncalls on Abraham to cut a covenant of blood-friendship, by the rite of\ncircumcision (Gen. 17 : 1-12), the Lord says, for himself, \u201cI will make\n[or I will fix] my covenant between me and thee.\u201d In the one case, the\nHebrew word is _karath_ (\u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b7\u05ea) \u201cto cut\u201d; in the other, it is _nathan_\n(\u05e0\u05b8\u05ea\u05b7\u05df) \u201cto give,\u201d or \u201cto fix.\u201d This change goes to show that the idea\nof cutting a covenant includes the act of a cutting--of a cutting of\none\u2019s person or the cutting of the substitute victim--as an integral\npart of the covenant itself; that a covenant may be made, or fixed,\nwithout a cutting, but that the term \u201ccutting\u201d involves the act of\ncutting.\n\nThus, again, in Jeremiah 34 : 18, there is a two-fold reference to\ncovenant-cutting; where the Lord reproaches his people for their\nfaithlessness to their covenant. \u201cAnd I will give [to destruction] the\nmen that have transgressed my covenant, which have not performed the\nwords of the covenant which they made [literally, \u2018cut\u2019] before me\n[in my sight] when they cut the calf in twain, and passed between the\nparts thereof.\u201d In this instance, there is in the Hebrew, a pun, as\nit were, to give added force to the accusation and reproach. The same\nword _\u2019abhar_ (\u05e2\u05b8\u05d1\u05b7\u05e8) means both \u201cto transgress\u201d and \u201cto pass over\u201d\n[or, \u201cbetween\u201d], so that, freely rendered, the charge here made, is,\nthat they went through the covenant when they had gone through the\ncalf; which is another way of saying that they cut their duty when they\nclaimed to cut a covenant.\n\nThe correspondence of cutting the victim of sacrifice, and of cutting\ninto the flesh of the covenanting parties, in the ceremony of making\nblood-brotherhood, or blood-friendship, is well-illustrated in the\ninterchanging of these methods in the primitive customs of Borneo.[726]\nThe pig is the more commonly prized victim of sacrifice in Borneo. It\nseems, indeed, to be there valued only next after a human victim.\nIn some cases, blood-brotherhood is made, in Borneo, by \u201cimbibing\neach other\u2019s blood.\u201d In other cases, \u201ca pig is brought and placed\nbetween the two [friends] who are to be joined in brotherhood. A\nchief addresses an invocation to the gods, and marks with a lighted\nbrand[727] the pig\u2019s shoulder. The beast is then killed, and after an\nexchange of jackets,[728] a sword is thrust into the wound, and the\ntwo [friends] are marked with the blood of the pig.\u201d On one occasion,\nwhen two hostile tribes came together to make a formal covenant of\nbrotherhood, \u201cthe ceremony of killing a pig for each tribe\u201d was the\ncentral feature of the compact; as in the case of two Kayans becoming\none by interchanging their own blood, actually or by a substitute pig.\nAnd it is said of the tribal act of cutting the covenant by cutting the\npig, that \u201cit is thought more fortunate if the animal be severed in two\nby one stroke of the parang (half sword, half chopper).\u201d In another\ninstance, where two tribes entered into a covenant, \u201ca pig was placed\nbetween the representatives of [the] two tribes; who, after calling\ndown the vengeance of the spirits on those who broke the treaty,\nplunged their spears into the animal [\u2018cutting a covenant\u2019 in that\nway], and then exchanged weapons.[729] Drawing their krises, they each\nbit the blade of the other [as if \u2018drinking the covenant\u2019],[730] and so\ncompleted the affair.\u201d So, again, \u201cif two men who have been at deadly\nfeud, meet in a house [where the obligations of hospitality restrain\nthem], they refuse to cast their eyes upon each other till a fowl has\nbeen killed, and the blood sprinkled over them.\u201d\n\nIn every case, it is the _blood_ that seals the mutual covenant,\nand the \u201ccutting of the covenant\u201d is that cutting which secures the\ncovenanting, or the inter-uniting, blood. The cutting may be in the\nflesh of the covenanting parties; or, again it may be in the flesh of\nthe substitute victim which is sacrificed.\n\n\nBLOOD-BATHING.\n\nIn the Midrash Rabboth (_Shemoth_, Beth, 92, col. 2.) there is this\ncomment by the Rabbis, on Exodus 2 : 23: \u201c\u2018And the king of Egypt died.\u2019\nHe was smitten with leprosy.... \u2018And the children of Israel sighed.\u2019\nWherefore did they sigh? Because the magicians of Egypt said: \u2018There is\nno healing for thee save by the slaying of the little children of the\nIsraelites. Slay them in the morning, and slay them in the evening; and\nbathe in their blood twice a day.\u2019 As soon as the children of Israel\nheard the cruel decree, they poured forth great sighings and wailings.\u201d\nThat comment gives a new point, in the rabbinical mind, to the first\nplague, whereby the waters of the Nile, in which royalty bathed (Exod.\n2 : 5), were turned into blood, because of the bondage of the children\nof Israel.\n\nA survival of the blood-baths of ancient Egypt, as a means of\nre-vivifying the death-smitten, would seem to exist in the medical\npractices of the Bechuana tribes of Africa; as so many of the customs\nof ancient Egypt still survive among the African races (See page 15,\n_supra_). Thus, Moffat reports (_Missionary Labours_, p. 277) a method\nemployed by native physicians, of killing a goat \u201cover the sick person,\nallowing the blood to run down the body.\u201d\n\n\nBLOOD-RANSOMING.\n\nAmong other Bible indications that the custom of balancing, or\ncanceling, a blood account by a payment in money, was well known in\nancient Palestine, appears the record of David\u2019s conference with the\nGibeonites, concerning their claim for blood against the house of Saul,\nin 2 Samuel 21 : 1-9. When it was found that the famine in Israel\nwas because of Saul\u2019s having taken blood--or life--unjustly from the\nGibeonites, David essayed to balance that unsettled account. \u201cAnd the\nGibeonites said unto him, It is no matter of silver or gold between us\nand Saul, or his house; neither is it for us to put any man to death\nin Israel;\u201d which was equivalent to saying: \u201cMoney for blood we will\nnot take. Blood for blood we have no power to obtain.\u201d Then said David,\n\u201cWhat ye shall say, that will I do for you.\u201d At this, the Gibeonites\ndemanded, and obtained, the lives of the seven sons of Saul. The blood\naccount must be balanced. In this case, as by the Mosaic law, it could\nonly be by life for life.\n\nIn some parts of Arabia, if a Muhammadan slays a person of another\nreligion, the relatives of the latter are not allowed to insist on\nblood for blood, but must accept an equivalent in money. The claim\nfor the spilled blood is recognized, but a Muhammadan\u2019s blood is too\nprecious for its payment. (See Wellsted\u2019s _Travels in Arabia_, I., 19.)\n\nIt is much the same in the far West as in the far East, as to this\ncanceling of a blood-debt by blood or by other gifts. Parkman (_Jesuits\nin No. Am._, pp. lxi.-lxiii.; 354-360) says of the custom among the\nHurons and the Iroquois, that in case of bloodshed the chief effort of\nall concerned was to effect a settlement by contributions to the amount\nof the regular tariff rates of a human life.\n\nAnother indication that the mission of the goel was to cancel the loss\nof a life rather than to avenge it, is found in the primitive customs\nof the New World. \u201cEven in so rude a tribe as the Brazilian Topanazes,\u201d\nthe Farrer (citing Eschwege, in _Prim. Man. and Cust._, p. 164), \u201ca\nmurderer of a fellow tribesman would be conducted by his relations to\nthose of the deceased, to be by them forthwith strangled and buried\n[with his forfeited blood in him], in satisfaction of their rights; the\ntwo families eating together for several days after the event as though\nfor the purpose of [or, as in evidence of] reconciliation,\u201d--not of\nsatisfied revenge.\n\nYet more convincing than all, in the line of such proofs that it is\nrestitution, and not vengeance, that is sought by the pursuit of blood\nin the mission of the goel, is the fact that in various countries,\nwhen a man has died a natural death, it is the custom to seek blood,\nor life, from those immediately about him; as if to restore, or to\nequalize, the family loss. Thus, in New South Wales, \u201cwhen any one of\nthe tribe dies a natural death, it is usual to avenge [not to avenge,\nbut to meet] the loss of the deceased by taking blood from one or other\nof his friends,\u201d and it is said that death sometimes results from this\nendeavor (Angas\u2019s _Sav. Life_, II., 227). In this fact, there is added\nlight on the almost universal custom of blood-giving to, or over, the\ndead. (See, _e. g._ Ellis\u2019s _Land of Fetish_, pp. 59, 64; Stanley\u2019s\n_The Congo_, II., 180-182; Angas\u2019s _Sav. Life_, I., 98, 331; II., 84,\n89 f.; Ellis\u2019s _Polyn. Res._, I., 527-529; Dodge\u2019s _Our Wild Indians_,\np. 172 f.; _First An. Rep. of Bureau of Ethn._, pp. 109, 112, 159 f.,\n164, 183, 190.)\n\n\nTHE COVENANT-REMINDER.\n\nIt has already been shown, that the blood-stained record of the\ncovenant of blood, shielded in a leathern case, is proudly worn as\nan armlet or as a necklace, by the Oriental who has been fortunate\nenough to become a sharer in such a covenant; and that there is reason\nfor believing that there are traces of this custom, in the necklaces,\nthe armlets, the rings, and the frontlets, which have been worn as\nthe tokens of a sacred covenant, in well-nigh all lands, from the\nearliest days of Chaldea and Egypt down to the present time. There\nis a confirmation of this idea in the primitive customs of the North\nAmerican Indians, which ought not to be overlooked.\n\nThe distinctive method by which these Indians were accustomed to\nconfirm and signalize a formal covenant, or a treaty, was the exchange\nof belts of wampum; and that these wampum belts were not merely\nconventional gifts, but were actual records, tokens, and reminders,\nof the covenant itself, there is abundant evidence. In a careful\npaper on the \u201cArt in Shell of the Ancient Americans,\u201d in one of the\nreports of the Bureau of Ethnology, of the Smithsonian Institution, the\nwriter[731] says: \u201cOne of the most remarkable customs practiced by\nthe Americans is found in the mnemonic use of wampum.... It does not\nseem probable ... that a custom so unique and so widespread could have\ngrown up within the historic period, nor is it probable that a practice\nforeign to the genius of tradition-loving races could have become so\nwell established and so dear to their hearts in a few generations....\nThe mnemonic use of wampum is one, which, I imagine, might readily\ndevelop from the practice of gift giving and the exchange of tokens\nof friendship, such mementoes being preserved for future reference\nas reminders of promises of assistance or protection.... The wampum\nrecords of the Iroquois [and the same is found to be true in many\nother tribes] were generally in the form of belts [as an encircling\nand binding token of a covenant], the beads being strung or woven\ninto patterns formed by the use of different colors.\u201d Illustrations,\nby the score, of this mnemonic use of the covenant-confirming belts,\nor \u201cnecklaces,\u201d[732] as they are sometimes called, are given, or are\nreferred to, in this interesting article.\n\nIn the narrative of a council held by the \u201cFive Nations,\u201d at Onondaga,\nnearly two hundred years ago, a Seneca sachem is said to have presented\na proposed treaty between the Wagunhas and the Senecas, with the words:\n\u201cWe come to join the two bodies into one\u201d; and he evidenced his good\nfaith in this endeavor, by the presentation of the mnemonic belts\nof wampum. \u201cThe belts were accepted by the Five Nations, and their\nacceptance was a ratification of the treaty.\u201d[733] Lafitau, writing of\nthe Canadian Indians, in the early years of the eighteenth century,\nsays: \u201cThey do not believe that any transaction can be concluded\nwithout these belts;\u201d and he mentions, that according to Indian\ncustom these belts were to be exchanged in covenant making; \u201cthat is\nto say, for one belt [received] one must give another [belt].\u201d[734]\nAnd a historian of the Moravian Missions says: \u201cEverything of moment\ntransacted at solemn councils, either between the Indians themselves,\nor with Europeans, is ratified and made valid by strings and belts\nof wampum.\u201d[735] \u201cThe strings,\u201d according to Lafitau, \u201care used for\naffairs of little consequence, or as a preparation for other more\nconsiderable presents\u201d; but the binding \u201cbelts\u201d were as the bond of\nthe covenant itself.\n\nThese covenant belts often bore, interwoven with different colored\nwampum beads, symbolic figures, such as two hands clasped in\nfriendship, or two figures with hands joined. As the belts commonly\nsignalized tribal covenants, they were not worn by a single individual;\nbut were sacredly guarded in some tribal depository; yet their form and\ntheir designation indicate the origin of their idea.\n\nThere is still preserved, in the Historical Society of Pennsylvania,\nthe wampum belt which is supposed to have sealed the treaty of peace\nand friendship between William Penn and the Indians. It contains\ntwo figures, wrought in dark colored beads, representing \u201can Indian\ngrasping with the hand of friendship the hand of a man evidently\nintended to be represented in the European costume, wearing a hat.\u201d[736]\n\nStill more explicit in its symbolism, is the royal belt of the\nprimitive kings of Tahiti. Throughout Polynesia, red feathers, which\nhad been inclosed in a hollow image of a god, were considered not only\nas emblematic of the deities, but as actually representing them in\ntheir personality (Ellis\u2019s _Polyn. Res._, I., 79, 211, 314, 316; II.,\n204; _Tour thro\u2019 Hawaii_, p. 121). \u201cThe inauguration ceremony [of the\nTahitian king], answering to coronation among other nations, consisted\nin girding the king with the _maro ura_, or sacred girdle of red\nfeathers; which not only raised him to the highest earthly station, but\n_identified him with their gods_ [as by oneness of blood]. The _maro_,\nor girdle, was made with the beaten fibres of the ava; with these a\nnumber of _ura_, red feathers, taken from the images of their deities\n[where they had, seemingly, represented the blood, or the life, of the\nimage], were interwoven; ... the feathers [as the blood] being supposed\nto retain all the dreadful attributes of vengeance which the idols\npossessed, and with which it was designed to endow the king.\u201d In lieu\nof the king\u2019s own blood, in this symbolic ceremony of inter-union, a\nhuman victim was sacrificed, for the \u201cfastening on of the sacred maro.\u201d\n\u201cSometimes a human victim was offered for every fresh piece added to\nthe girdle [blood for blood, between the king and the god]; ... and the\ngirdle was considered as consecrated by the blood of those victims.\u201d\nThe chief priest of the god Oro formally invested the king with this\n\u201csacred girdle, which, the [blood-representing] feathers from the idol\nbeing interwoven in it, was supposed to impart to the king a power\nequal to that possessed by Oro.\u201d After this, the king was supposed to\nbe a sharer of the divine nature of Oro, with whom he had entered into\na covenant of blood-union (Ellis\u2019s _Polyn. Res._, II., 354-360).\n\nThus it seems that a band, as a bond, of a sacred covenant is treasured\nreverently in the New World; as a similar token, of one kind, or\nanother, was treasured, for the same reason, in the Old World. Yet,\nin the face of such facts as these, one of the notable rationalistic\ntheological writers on Old Testament manners and customs, in the\nlatest edition of the Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica, coolly ascribes the\nidea of the Jewish phylacteries to the superstitious idea of a pagan\n\u201camulet.\u201d He might indeed, with good reason, have ascribed the idea of\nthe pagan amulet itself to a perversion of that common primitive idea\nof the binding bond of a sacred covenant, which shows itself in the\nblood-friendship record of Syria, in the red covenant-cord of China\nand India, in the divine-human covenant token of ancient Egypt, in\nthe red-feather belt of divine-royal union, in the Pacific Islands,\nin the wampum belt of America, and in the evolved wedding-covenant\nring, or amulet, of a large portion of the civilized world. But that\nwould hardly have been in accordance with the fashionable method of\nthe modern rationalistic theologian; which is, to fix on some later\nheathenish perversion of a primitive sacred rite, and then to ascribe\nthe origin of all the normal uses of that primitive rite, to its own\nlater perversions.\n\nYet another indication that the binding circlet of the covenant-token\nstands, among primitive peoples, as also among cultivated ones, as\nthe representative, or proof, of this very covenant itself, is found\nin a method of divorce prevailing among the Balau Dayaks, of Borneo.\nIt has already been shown (page 73, _supra_) that a ring of blood is\na binding symbol in the marriage covenant in some parts of Borneo. It\nseems, also, that when a divorce has been agreed on by a Balau couple,\n\u201cit is necessary for the offended husband to send a ring to his wife,\nbefore the marriage can be considered as finally dissolved; without\nwhich, should they marry again, they would be liable to be punished\nfor infidelity.\u201d[737] This practice seems to have grown out of the old\ncustom already referred to (page 73 f.), of the bride giving to the\nbridegroom a blood-representing ring in the marriage cup. Until that\nsymbolic ring is returned to her by the bridegroom, it remains as the\nproof of her covenant with him.\n\nThis connection of the encircling ring with the heart\u2019s blood, is of\nvery ancient origin, and of general, if not of universal, application.\nWilkinson (_Anc. Egypt._, III., 420) cites Macrobius as saying, that\n\u201cthose Egyptian priests who were called prophets, when engaged in\nthe temple near the altars of the gods, moistened [anointed] the\nring-finger of the left hand (which was that next to the smallest)\nwith various sweet ointments, in the belief that a certain nerve\ncommunicated with it from the heart.\u201d He also says, that among the\nEgyptian women, many finger rings were worn, and that \u201cthe left was\nconsidered the hand peculiarly privileged to wear these ornaments; and\nit is remarkable that its third finger [next to the little finger] was\nconsidered by them, as by us, _par excellence_ the ring finger; though\nthere is no evidence [to his knowledge] of its having been so honored\nat the marriage ceremony.\u201d Birch adds (_Ibid._, II., 340), that \u201cit is\nvery difficult to distinguish between the ring worn for mere ornament,\nand the signet [standing for the wearer\u2019s very life] employed to seal\n[and to sign] epistles and other things.\u201d The evidence is, in fact,\nample, that the ring, in ancient Egypt, as elsewhere, was not a mere\nornament, nor yet a superstitious amulet, but represented one\u2019s heart,\nor one\u2019s life, as a symbol and pledge of personal fidelity.\n\nIn South Australia, the rite of circumcision is one of the steps by\nwhich a lad enters into the sphere of manhood. This involves his\ncovenanting with his new god-father, and with his new fellows in the\nsphere of his entering. In this ceremony, the very ring of flesh itself\nis placed \u201con the third finger of the boy\u2019s left hand\u201d (Angas\u2019s _Sav.\nLife_, I., 99). What stronger proof than this could be given, that the\nfinger-ring is a vestige of the primitive blood-covenant token?\n\nAn instance of the use of a large ring, or bracelet, encircling the two\nhands of persons joining in the marriage covenant, is reported to me\nfrom the North of Ireland, in the present century. It was in the county\nDonegal. The Roman Catholic priest was a French exile. In marrying the\npeople of the poorer class, who could not afford to purchase a ring, he\n\u201cwould take the large ring from his old-fashioned double-cased watch,\nand hold it on the hands, or the thumbs, of the contracting parties,\nwhile he blessed their union.\u201d\n\nYet another illustration of the universal symbolism of the ring, as a\ntoken of sacred covenant, is its common use as a pledge of friendship,\neven unto death. The ring given by Queen Elizabeth to the unfortunate\nEarl of Essex, is an instance in point. Had that covenant-token reached\nher, her covenant promises would have been redeemed.\n\nThere is an old Scottish ballad, \u201cHynd Horn,\u201d--perhaps having a\ncommon origin with the Bohemian lay on which Scott based The Noble\nMoringer,[738]--which brings out the idea of a covenant-ring having\nthe power to indicate to its wearer the fidelity of its giver;\ncorresponding with the popular belief to that effect, suggested by\nBacon.[739] Hynd Horn has won the heart of the king\u2019s daughter, and the\nking sends him over the sea, as a means of breaking up the match. As he\nsets out Hynd Horn carries with him a symbol of his lady-love\u2019s troth.\n\n   \u201cO his love gave him a gay gold ring,\n      With a hey lillelu, and a how lo lan;\n    With three shining diamonds set therein,\n      And the birk and the broom blooms bonnie.\n\n   \u201cAs long as these diamonds keep their hue,\n      With a hey lillelu, and a how lo lan,\n    Ye\u2019ll know that I\u2019m a lover true,\n      And the birk and the broom blooms bonnie.\n\n   \u201cBut when your ring turns pale and wan,\n      With a hey lillelu, and a how lo lan,\n    Then I\u2019m in love with another man,\n      And the birk and the broom blooms bonnie.\u201d[740]\n\nSeven years went by, and then the ring-gems grew \u201cpale and wan.\u201d Hynd\nHorn hastened back, entered the wedding-hall disguised as a beggar,\nsent the covenant-ring to the bride in a glass of wine; and the sequel\nwas the same as in The Noble Moringer.\n\nAt a Brahman wedding, in India, described by Miss H. G. Brittan (in\n\u201cThe Missionary Link,\u201d for October, 1864; cited in _Women of the\nOrient_, pp. 176-179) a silver dish, filled with water, (probably with\nwater colored with saffron, or with turmeric, according to the common\ncustom in India,) \u201calso containing a very handsome ruby ring, and a\nthin iron bracelet,\u201d was set before the father of the bride, during the\nmarriage ceremony. At the covenanting of the young couple, \u201cthe ring\nwas given to the groom; the bracelet to the bride; then some of the\n[blood-colored?] water was sprinkled on them (See page 194, _supra_),\nand some flowers [were] thrown at them.\u201d Here seem to be combined,\nthe symbolisms of the ring, the bracelet, and the blood, in a sacred\ncovenanting.\n\n\nHINTS OF BLOOD-UNION.\n\nFrom the very fact that so little attention has been given to the\nprimitive rite of blood-covenanting, in the studies of modern scholars,\nthere is reason for supposing that the rite itself has very often\nbeen unnoticed by travelers and missionaries in regions where it was\npracticed almost under their eyes. Indeed, there is proof of this to\nbe obtained, by comparing the facts recorded in this volume with the\nwritings of visitors to the lands here reported from. Hence, it is\nfair to infer, that more or less of the brotherhoods or friendships\nnoted among primitive peoples, without any description of the methods\nof their consummating, are either directly based on the rite of\nblood-covenanting, or are outgrowths and variations of that rite; as,\nfor example, in Borneo, blood-tasting is sometimes deemed essential\nto the rite, and again it is omitted. It may be well, therefore, to\nlook at some of the hints of blood-union among primitive peoples, in\nrelationships and in customs where not all the facts and processes\ninvolved, are known to us.\n\nPeculiarly is it true, that wherever we find the idea of an absolute\nmerging of two natures into one, or of an inter-union or an\ninter-changing of two personalities in loving relation, there is reason\nfor suspecting a connection with the primitive rite of inter-union\nthrough a common blood flow. And there are illustrations of this idea\nin the Old World and in the New, all along the ages.\n\nIt has already been mentioned (page 109, _supra_) that, in India,\nthe possibility of an inter-union of two natures, and of their\ninter-merging into one, is recognized in the statement that \u201cthe\nheart of Vishnu is Siv\u00e2, and the heart of Siv\u00e2 is Vishnu\u201d; and it is\na well-known philosophical fact that man must have an actual basis of\nhuman experience for the symbolic language with which he illustrates\nthe nature and characteristics of Deity.\n\nIn the most ancient portion of the ancient Egyptian Book of the\nDead,[741] there is a description of the inter-union of Osiris and R\u0101,\nnot unlike that above quoted concerning Siv\u00e2 and Vishnoo. It says,\nthat \u201cOsiris came to Tattu (Mendes) and found the soul of R\u0101 there;\neach embraced the other, and become as one soul in two souls\u201d[742]--as\none life in two lives; or, as it would be phrased concerning two human\nbeings united in blood-friendship, \u201cone soul in two bodies\u201d; a common\nlife in two personalities. Again it is said in an Egyptian sacred text,\n\u201cR\u0101 is the soul of Osiris, and Osiris is the soul of R\u0101.\u201d[743]\n\nAn exchange of names, as if in exchange of personalities, in connection\nwith a covenant of friendship, is a custom in widely diverse countries;\nand this custom seems to have grown out of the idea of an inter-union\nof natures by an inter-union of blood; even if it be not actually an\naccompaniment of that rite in every instance. It is common in the\nSociety Islands,[744] as an element in the adoption of a \u201ctayo,\u201d or a\npersonal friend and companion (See page 56, _supra_). It is to be found\nin various South Sea islands, and on the American continent.\n\nAmong the Araucanians, of South America, the custom of making brothers,\nor brother-friends, is called _Lacu_. It includes the killing of a lamb\nand dividing it--\u201ccutting\u201d it--between the two covenanting parties;\nand each party must eat his half of the lamb--either by himself or\nby such assistance as he chooses to call in. None of it must be left\nuneaten. Gifts also pass between the parties; and the two friends\nexchange names. \u201cThe giving [the exchanging] of a name [with this\npeople] establishes between the namesakes a species of relationship\nwhich is considered almost as sacred as that of blood, and obliges them\nto render to each other certain services, and that consideration which\nnaturally belongs to relatives.\u201d[745]\n\nIt is related of Tolo, a chief of the Shastika Indians, on the Pacific\ncoast, that when he made a treaty with Col. McKee, an American soldier,\nin 1852, for the cession of certain tribal rights, he was anxious for\nsome ceremony of brotherhood, that should give binding sacredness to\nthe mutual covenant. After some parleying, he proposed the formal\nexchange of names, and this was agreed to. Thenceforward he desired to\nbe known as \u201cMcKee.\u201d The American colonel was now \u201cTolo.\u201d But after a\nwhile the Indian found that, as in too many other instances, the terms\nof the treaty were not adhered to by the authorities making it. Then he\ndiscarded his new name, \u201cMcKee,\u201d and refused to resume his former name,\n\u201cTolo.\u201d He would not answer to either, and to the day of his death he\ninsisted that his name, his identity, was \u201clost.\u201d[746]--There is a\nprofound sentiment underneath such a course, and such a custom, as that.\n\nSo fully is the identity of one\u2019s name and one\u2019s life recognized\nby primitive peoples, that to call on the name of a dead person is\ngenerally supposed to summon the spirit of that person to the caller\u2019s\nservice. Hence, among the American Indians, if one calls the dead by\nname, he must answer to the dead man\u2019s goel. He must surrender his\nown blood, or pay blood-money, in restitution of the life--of the\ndead--taken by him. (_First An. Rep. of Bureau of Ethnol._, p. 200.)\n\nEven Herbert Spencer sees the correspondence of the blood-covenant and\nthe exchange of names. He says: \u201cBy absorbing each other\u2019s blood, men\nare supposed to establish actual community of nature. Similarly with\nthe ceremony of exchanging names.... This, which is a widely-diffused\npractice, arises from the belief that the name is vitally connected\nwith its owner.... To exchange names, therefore, is to establish some\nparticipation in one another\u2019s being.\u201d[747] Hence, as we may suppose,\ncame the well-nigh universal Oriental practice of inter-weaving the\nname of one\u2019s Deity with one\u2019s name, as a symbolic evidence of one\u2019s\ncovenant-union with the Deity. The blood-covenant, or the blood-union,\nidea is at the bottom of this.\n\nAnother custom, having a peculiar bearing upon this thought of a new\nname, or a new identity, through new blood, is the rite of initiation\ninto manhood, by the native Australians. During childhood the\nAustralian boys are under the care of their mothers, and they bear\nnames which designate the place and circumstances of their birth.\nBut when the time comes for them to put away childish things,[748]\nthey are subjected to a series of severe and painful tests, to\nprove their powers of physical and mental endurance, preparatory to\ntheir reception of a new name, as indicative of a new life. A rite\nresembling circumcision is one step in their progress. During these\nceremonies, there is selected for each lad a sponsor (or godfather)\nwho is a representative of that higher life into which the lad seeks\nan entrance. One of the latest steps in the long series of ceremonies,\nis the choosing and conferring, by the sponsor, of the lad\u2019s new\nname, which he is to retain thenceforward during his life. With a\nstone-knife, the sponsor opens a vein in his own arm, and causes the\nlad to drink his warm-flowing blood. After this, the lad drops forward\non his hands and knees, and the sponsor\u2019s blood is permitted to form a\npool on his back, and to coagulate there. Then the sponsor cuts, with\nhis stone-knife, broad gashes in the lad\u2019s back, and pulls open the\ngaping wounds with the fingers. The scars of these gashes remain as\npermanent signs of the covenant ceremony.[749] And encircling tokens of\nthe covenant[750] are bound around the neck, each arm, and the waist,\nof the young man; who is now reckoned a new creature[751] in the life\nrepresented by that godfather, who has given him his new name, and has\nimparted to him of his blood.[752]\n\nThat the transfusion of blood in this ceremony is the making of a\ncovenant between the youth and his sponsor, and not the giving him\nblood in vivification, is indicated in another form of the same rite of\nmanhood-initiation, as practised in New South Wales. There, the youth\nis seated upon the shoulders of his sponsor; while one of his teeth\nis knocked out. The blood that flows from the boy\u2019s lacerated gum in\nthis ceremony is not wiped away, but is suffered to run down upon his\nbreast, and thence upon the head of his sponsor, whose name he takes.\nThis blood, which secures, by its absorption, a common life between the\ntwo, who have now a common name, is permitted to dry upon the head of\nthe man and upon the breast of the boy, and to remain there untouched\nfor several days.\n\nIn this New South Wales ceremonial, there is another feature, which\nseems to suggest that remarkable connection of life with a stone,\nwhich has been already referred to (page 307, _supra_); and yet again\nto suggest the giving of a new name as the token of a new life. A\nwhite stone, or a quartz crystal, called _mundie_, is given to each\nnovitiate in manhood, at the time he receives his new name. This stone\nis counted a gift from deity, and is held peculiarly sacred. A test of\nthe young man\u2019s moral stamina is made by the old men\u2019s trying, by all\nsorts of persuasion, to induce him to surrender this possession, when\nfirst he has received it. This accompaniment of a new name \u201cis worn\nconcealed in the hair, tied up in a packet, and is never shown to the\nwomen, who are forbidden to look at it under pain of death.\u201d The youths\nreceiving and retaining these white stones, with their new names, are\ntermed \u201c_Kebarrah_, from _keba_, a rock, or stone.\u201d (Angas\u2019s _Savage\nLife_, II., 221.) That the idea of a sacred covenant, a covenant\nof brotherhood and friendship, is underneath these ceremonies, is\nindicated by the fact, that when the rites of Kebarrah are celebrated,\neven \u201chostile tribes meet in peace; all animosity between them being\nlaid aside during the performance of these ceremonies.\u201d \u201cTo him that\novercometh, [saith the Spirit,] ... I will give him a white stone, and\nupon the stone a new name written, which no one knoweth but he that\nreceiveth it\u201d (Rev. 2 : 17). The Rabbis recommend the giving secretly\nof a new name, as a means of new life, to him who is in danger of\ndying. (See _Seph. Hakhkhay._, p. 37 f. and note.)\n\nAgain, in a form of marriage ceremony in Tahiti, there is a hint of\nthis universal idea of inter-union by blood. An observer of this\nceremony, in describing it says: \u201cThe female relatives cut their\nfaces and brows[753] with the instrument set with shark\u2019s teeth,[754]\nreceived the flowing blood on a piece of native cloth, and deposited\nthe cloth, sprinkled with the mingled blood of _the mothers_ of the\nmarried pair, at the feet of the bride. By the latter parts of the\nceremony, any inferiority of rank that might have existed was removed,\nand they were [now] considered as equal. The two families, also, to\nwhich they respectively belonged, were ever afterwards regarded as one\n[through this new blood-union].\u201d[755] Had these mothers mingled and\ninterchanged their own blood before the births of their children, the\nchildren--as children of a common blood--would have been debarred from\nmarriage; but now that the two children were covenanting to be one,\ntheir mothers might interchange their blood, that the young couple\nmight have an absolute equality of family nature.\n\nThere are frequent references by travelers to the rite of brotherhood,\nor of close friendship, in one part of the world or another, with\nor without a description of its methods. Thus of one of the tribes\nin Central Africa it is said: \u201cThe Wanyamuezi have a way of making\nbrotherhood, similar to that which has already been described, except\nthat instead of drinking each other\u2019s blood, the newly made brothers\nmix it [their blood] with butter on a leaf, and exchange leaves. The\nbutter is then rubbed into the incisions, so that it acts as a healing\nointment at the same time that blood is exchanged.[756] The ceremony is\nconcluded by tearing the leaves to pieces and showering the fragments\non the heads of the brothers.\u201d[757] The Australians, again, are said to\nhave \u201cthe custom of making \u2018_Kotaiga_,\u2019 or brotherhood, with strangers.\nWhen Europeans visit their districts, and behave as they ought to do,\nthe natives generally unite themselves in bonds of fellowship with the\nstrangers; each selecting one of them as his Kotaiga. The new relations\nare then considered as having mutual responsibilities, each being bound\nto forward the welfare of the other.\u201d[758] Once more, in Feejee, two\nwarriors sometimes bind themselves to each other by a formal ceremony,\nand although its details are not described, a missionary writer says\nof it: \u201cThe manner in which they do this is singular, and wears the\nappearance of a marriage contract; and the two men entering into it are\nspoken of as man and wife, to indicate the closeness of their military\nunion. By this mutual bond, the two men pledge themselves to oneness of\npurpose and effort, to stand by each other in every danger, defending\neach other to the death, and if needful to die together.\u201d[759]\n\nWith the American Indians, there are various traces of the\nblood-brotherhood idea. Says Captain Clark, in his work on the Indian\nSign Language: \u201cAmong many tribes there are brothers by adoption,\nand the tie seems to be held about as sacredly as though created by\nnature.\u201d[760] Stephen Powell, writing of the Pacific Coast Indians,\ngives this tie of brotherhood-adoption yet more prominence, than does\nClark. He says: \u201cThere is an interesting institution found among\nthe Wyandots, as among some other of our North American tribes,\nnamely, that of fellowship. Two young men agree to be perpetual\nfriends to each other, or _more than brothers_. Each reveals to the\nother the secrets of his life, and counsels with him on matters of\nimportance, and defends him from wrong and violence, and at his death\nis chief mourner.\u201d[761] This certainly suggests the relation of\nblood-brotherhood; whether blood be intermingled in the consummation of\nthe rite, or not.\n\nColonel Dodge tells of a ceremony of Indian-brotherhood, which includes\na bloody rite, worthy of notice in this connection. He says: \u201cA strong\nflavor of religious superstition attaches to a scalp, and many solemn\ncontracts and binding obligations can only be made over or by means of\na scalp;\u201d for is it not the representative of a life? In illustration\nof this, he gives an incident which followed an Indian battle, in which\nthe Pawnees had borne a part with the whites against the Northern\nCheyennes. Colonel Dodge was sitting in his tent, when \u201cthe acting\nhead-chief of the Pawnees stalked in gravely, and without a word.\u201d\nThe Colonel continues: \u201cWe had long been friends, and had on several\noccasions been in tight places together. He sat down on the side of\nmy bed, looked at me kindly, but solemnly, and began in a low tone to\nmutter in his own language, half chant, half recitative. Knowing that\nhe was making \u2018medicine\u2019 [that he was engaged in a religious exercise]\nof some kind, I looked on without comment. After some moments, he stood\nerect, and stretched out his hand to me. I gave him my hand. He pulled\nme into a standing position, embraced me, passed his hands lightly\nover my head, face, arms, body, and legs to my feet, muttering all\nthe while; embraced me again, then turned his back upon me, and with\nhis face toward heaven, appeared to make adoration. He then turned\nto embrace and manipulate me again. After some five minutes of this\nperformance, he drew from his wallet a package, and unrolling it,\ndisclosed a freshly taken [and therefore still bloody] scalp of an\nIndian. Touching me with this [blood-vehicle] in various places and\nways, he finally drew out his knife, [and \u2018cutting the covenant\u2019 in\nthis way, he] divided the scalp carefully along the part [the seam]\nof the hair, and handing me one half, embraced me again, kissing me\non the forehead. \u2018Now,\u2019 said he in English, \u2018you are my brother.\u2019\nHe subsequently informed me that this ceremony could not have been\nperformed without this scalp.\u201d[762]\n\nHere seems to be an illustration of cutting the covenant of\nblood-brotherhood, by sharing the life of a substitute human victim. It\nis much the same in the wild West as in the primitive East.\n\nSo simple a matter as the clasping of hands in token of covenant\nfidelity, is explicable, in its universality, only as a vestige of\nthe primitive custom of joining pierced hands in the covenant of\nblood-friendship. Hand-clasping is not, by any means, a universal, nor\nis it even the commonest, mode of friendly and fraternal salutation\namong primitive peoples. Prostrations, embracings, kissings,\nnose-rubbings, slappings of one\u2019s own body, jumpings up and down,\nthe snappings of one\u2019s fingers, the blowing of one\u2019s breath, and\neven the rolling upon one\u2019s back, are all among the many methods of\nprimitive man\u2019s salutations and obeisances (See, e. g., Spencer\u2019s\n_Principles of Sociology_, II., 16-19). But, even where hand clasping\nis unknown in salutation, it is recognized as a symbol of the closest\nfriendship. Thus, for example, among tribes of North American Indians\nwhere nose-rubbing is the mode of salutation, there is, in their widely\ndiffused sign language, the sign of clasped, or inter-locked, hands,\nas indicative of friendship and union. (_First An. Rep. of Bureau of\nEthnol._, pp. 385 f., 521, 534 f.) So again, similarly, in Australia\n(_Ibid._, citation from Smith\u2019s _Aborigines of Victoria_, II., 308). In\nthe Society Islands, the clasping of hands marks the marriage union,\nand marks a loving union between two brothers in arms; although it has\nno place in ordinary greetings (Ellis\u2019s _Polyn. Res._, II., 11, 492,\n569). And so, again, in other primitive lands.\n\nThere seems, indeed, to be a gleam of this thought in Job 17 : 3:\n\n   \u201cGive now a pledge, be surety for me with thyself;\n    Who is there that will strike hands with me?\u201d\n\nThe Hebrew word _taq\u2019a_[763] (\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05e7\u05b7\u05e2) here translated \u201cstrike,\u201d has\nalso the meaning \u201cto pierce\u201d (Judg. 4 : 21) and \u201cto blow through,\u201d or\n\u201cto drive through\u201d (Num. 10 : 3); and Job\u2019s question might be freely\nrendered; Who is there that will pierce [or that will clasp pierced]\nhands with me, in blood-friendship? Thus, suretyship grew out of\nblood-covenanting.\n\nAgain, in Zechariah 13 : 6, where the prophet foretells the moral\nreformation of Judah, there is a seeming reference to the pierced hands\nof blood-friendship. When one is suspected of being a professional\nprophet, by certain marks of cuttings between his hands, he declares\nthat these are marks of his blood-covenant with his friends. \u201cAnd one\nshall say unto him, What are these wounds [these cuttings] between\nthine hands? Then he shall answer, [They are] these [cuttings] with\nwhich I was wounded [or stricken, or pierced] in the house of my\nfriends [in the covenant of friendship].\u201d If, indeed, the translation\nof the Revisers, \u201cbetween thine arms,\u201d were justified, the cuttings\nwould still seem to be the cuttings of the blood-covenant (See pages\n13, 45, _supra_).\n\nIt is a noteworthy fact, that among the Jews in Tunis, near the old\nPh\u0153nician settlement of Carthage, the sign of a bleeding hand is\nstill an honored and a sacred symbol, as if in recognition of the\ncovenant-bond of their brotherhood and friendship. \u201cWhat struck me most\nin all the houses,\u201d says a traveler (Chevalier de Hesse-Wartegg) among\nthese Jews, \u201cwas the impression of an open bleeding hand, on every wall\nof each floor. However white the walls, this repulsive [yet suggestive]\nsign was to be seen everywhere.\u201d\n\nHow many times, in the New Testament epistles, does the idea show\nitself, of an inter-union of lives, between Christ and his disciples,\nand between these disciples and each other. \u201cWe, who are many, are one\nbody in Christ, and severally members one of another\u201d (Rom. 12 : 5).\n\u201cWe are members of his body\u201d (Eph. 5 : 30). \u201cWe are members one of\nanother\u201d (Eph. 4 : 25). \u201cKnow ye not that your bodies are members of\nChrist?\u201d (1 Cor. 6 : 15). \u201cYe are the body of Christ, and severally\n[are] members thereof\u201d (1 Cor. 12 : 27).\n\nIt is in this truth of truths, concerning the possibility of an\ninter-union of the human life with the divine, through a common\ninter-bloodflow, that there is found a satisfying of the noblest heart\nyearnings of primitive man everywhere, and of the uttermost spiritual\nlongings of the most advanced Christian believer, in the highest grade\nof intellectual and moral enlightenment. No attainment of evolution,\nor of development, has brought man\u2019s latest soul-cry beyond the\nintimations of his earliest soul-outreaching.\n\n   \u201cTake, dearest Lord, this crushed and bleeding heart,\n    And lay it in thine hand, thy pierc\u00e8d hand;\n    That thine atoning blood may mix with mine,\n    _Till I and my Beloved are all one_.\u201d\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[666] See pages 238-240, _supra_.\n\n[667] _Speaker\u2019s Comm._, at Exod. 24 : 8.\n\n[668] Exod. 24 : 3-8.\n\n[669] Heb. 9 : 20.\n\n[670] _Speaker\u2019s Com._, at Exod. 24 : 8.\n\n[671] Mark 14 : 24.\n\n[672] John 6 : 53, 54.\n\n[673] _Principles of Sociology_, II., \u00a7 364.\n\n[674] _Anc. Egypt._, III., 411.\n\n[675] See pages 245 f., _supra_.\n\n[676] _Anc. Egypt._, II., 32.\n\n[677] Note on Lev. chap. 17.\n\n[678] _Dictionnaire d\u2019Arch\u00e9ologie \u00c9gyptienne_, s. v. \u201cC\u0153ur.\u201d\n\n[679] In substance from Castren\u2019s _Ethnologische Vorlesungen \u00fcber die\nAltaischen V\u00f6lker_, p. 174, as cited in Ralston\u2019s _Russian Folk Tales_,\np. 122.\n\n[680] From Bleek\u2019s _Reynard the Fox in South Africa_, p. 55; as cited\n_Ibid._, p. 123, note.\n\n[681] From _Asbjornsen and Moe_, No. 36, Dasent, No. 9, p. 71, as cited\n_Ibid._, p. 120.\n\n[682] See references to K\u00f6hler\u2019s _Orient und Occident_, II., 99-103,\n_Ibid._, p. 123, note.\n\n[683] From Khudyakof, No. 110, as cited _Ibid._, p. 124.\n\n[684] Tim\u00e6us of Locri, cited in Liddell and Scott\u2019s _Greek Eng. Lex._,\ns. v., \u201cHepar.\u201d See also page 108 f., _supra_.\n\n[685] Pollux\u2019s _Onomasticon_, II., 4, 226.\n\n[686] _Pilgrim. to Mec. and Med._, p. 376.\n\n[687] See page 128, _supra_.\n\n[688] _Pilgrim. to Mec. and Med._, p. 378. See also page 129 f.,\n_supra_.\n\n[689] Richardson\u2019s _Eng. Dict._, s. v., \u201cLiver.\u201d\n\n[690] Annandale\u2019s Ogilvie\u2019s _Imperial Dict._, s. v., \u201cLiver.\u201d\n\n[691] See Cushing\u2019s paper on \u201cZu\u00f1i Fetiches,\u201d in _Second Annual Report\nof the Bureau of Ethnology_, pp. 3-43.\n\n[692] 1 Peter 2 : 2-5.\n\n[693] Cushing\u2019s \u201cZu\u00f1i Fetiches,\u201d p. 43.\n\n[694] See \u201cIllustrated Catalogue of Collections from Indians of New\nMexico and Arizona,\u201d 1879, in _Second Annual Report of Bureau of\nEthnology_, Figures 361-387; 421-430.\n\n[695] St. John\u2019s _Life in Far East_, I., 74 f.\n\n[696] _Ibid._, I., 115 f.\n\n[697] St. John\u2019s _Life in Far East_, I., 160.\n\n[698] _Ibid._, I., 187.\n\n[699] This is a different form from that reported at page 192 f.,\n_supra_.\n\n[700] St. John\u2019s _Life in Far East_, I., 61.\n\n[701] Lev. 17 : 14.\n\n[702] As to this specific instance, I can bear personal testimony,\nfrom my frequent communications on the subject, with the person whose\nexperience is here recited.\n\n[703] _Am. Annals of Deaf and Dumb_, Vol. VI., p. 134.\n\n[704] Paul\u2019s claim, in Romans 1 : 18-23, is not that man knows God\nintuitively; but that, having the knowledge of God, which he does have\nby tradition, man ought not to liken God to \u201cfour-footed beasts and\ncreeping things.\u201d\n\n[705] See page 136, _supra_.\n\n[706] See page 133 f., _supra_.\n\n[707] 1 Kings 21 : 17-23; 22 : 35-38; 2 Kings 9 : 30-37.\n\n[708] At page 44, _supra_.\n\n[709] See page 154, _supra_.\n\n[710] See page 313, _supra_.\n\n[711] See page 53, _supra_.\n\n[712] See page 35, _supra_.\n\n[713] See page 37, _supra_.\n\n[714] Gen. 21 : 33.\n\n[715] See Gen. 13 : 18; 14 : 13; 18 : 1.\n\n[716] The covenant was \u201cwith\u201d [Hebrew, \u05e2\u05b4\u05dd _\u2019im_, not \u201cwith\u201d as an\ninstrument, but \u201cwith\u201d as in the presence of, as accompanied by] the\ntree at Shechem.\n\n[717] See page 218, _supra_, note.\n\n[718] Judges 9 : 1-6.\n\n[719] Robinson\u2019s _Biblical Researches_, II., 210 f., note.\n\n[720] Von Wrede\u2019s _Reise in Hadhramaut_, p. 197 f.\n\n[721] See reference (in footnote 585 at page 268 f. _supra_) to the\ncustom in Sumatra, of taking an oath over the \u201cgrave of the original\npatriarch of the Passumah.\u201d\n\n[722] _Lady of the Lake_, Canto III.\n\n[723] _Ibid._, note.\n\n[724] See pages 13, 86 f., _supra_.\n\n[725] Athen\u00e6us\u2019s _Deipnosophist\u00e6_, II., 24 (45).\n\n[726] St. John\u2019s _Life in Far East_, Comp. I., 38, 46, 56, 74-76, 115,\n117, 185.\n\n[727] A trace of the burnt branch of the covenant-tree.\n\n[728] See page 270, _supra_.\n\n[729] See page 270, _supra_.\n\n[730] See pages 9, 154, _supra_.\n\n[731] W. H. Holmes, in _Second Annual Report of Bureau of Ethnol._,\npp. 240-254.\n\n[732] W. H. Holmes, in _Second Annual Report of Bureau of Ethnol._,\np. 243.\n\n[733] _Events in Indian History_, p. 143: cited _Ibid._, p. 242 f.\n\n[734] _Moeurs des Sauvages Ameriq._, tom. II., pp. 502-507; cited\n_Ibid._, p. 243 ff.\n\n[735] Loskiel\u2019s _Missions of the United Brethren_, Trans. by La Trobe,\nBk. I., p. 26; cited in _Ibid._, p. 245 f.\n\n[736] _Ibid._, p. 253 f.\n\n[737] St. John\u2019s _Life in the Far East_, I., 67.\n\n[738] See page 73, _supra_.\n\n[739] See page 75, _supra_.\n\n[740] Allingham\u2019s _Ballad Book_, p. 6 f.\n\n[741] _Todtenbuch_, xvii., 42, 43.\n\n[742] Renouf\u2019s _The Relig. of Anc. Egypt_, p. 107.\n\n[743] Renouf\u2019s _The Relig. of Anc. Egypt_, p. 107.\n\n[744] _Miss. Voyage to So. Pacif. Ocean_, p. 65.\n\n[745] See E. R. Smith\u2019s _The Araucanians_, p. 262.\n\n[746] Power\u2019s \u201cTribes of California,\u201d in _Contrib. to No. Am. Ethnol._,\nIII., 247.\n\n[747] _Principles of Sociology_, II., 21.\n\n[748] 1 Cor. 13 : 11.\n\n[749] See note at page 218, _supra_.\n\n[750] See pages 65-77, _supra_.\n\n[751] 2 Cor. 5 : 17; Eph. 4 : 24; Col. 3 : 9, 10.\n\n[752] Angas\u2019s _Savage Life_, I., 114-116.\n\n[753] See references to drawing blood from the forehead, at page\n86 ff., _supra_.\n\n[754] See pages 85-88, _supra_.\n\n[755] Ellis\u2019s _Polynesian Researches_, II., 569 f.\n\n[756] See Prov. 27 : 9.\n\n[757] Cited from Capt. Grant\u2019s description; in Wood\u2019s _Unciv. Races_,\nI., 440.\n\n[758] _Ibid._, II., 81.\n\n[759] Williams and Calvert\u2019s _Fiji and Fijians_, p. 35.\n\n[760] _Indian Sign Language_, s. v. \u201cBrother.\u201d\n\n[761] _Contributions to No. Am. Ethnology_, Vol. III., p. 68.\n\n[762] Dodge\u2019s _Our Wild Indians_, page 514 f.\n\n[763] Is there any correspondence between this word, _taq\u2019a_, and the\nHindoo word _tika_ (the blood-mark on the Rajput chief), referred to at\npage 137, _supra_?\n\n\n\n\nINDEXES.\n\n\n\n\nTOPICAL INDEX.\n\n\n  Abel, his blood-giving, 210 ff.\n\n  Abimelech, his covenant:\n    with Abraham, 265;\n    with Isaac, 267 f.\n\n  Abraham:\n    The friend of God, 215-221;\n    his blood-giving, 217-221;\n    his faith-testing, 224-230;\n    his covenant with Abimelech, 265 f.\n\n  Adoption, blood used in, 195 f.\n\n  Ahab\u2019s fate, significance of, 312.\n\n  Altar, a table of communion, 167, 292 f.\n\n  Amulet:\n    house of the, 7, 65, 298;\n    of the covenant, 81 f., 83, 232-238.\n    See Phylactery: Token of covenant.\n\n  Anointing with blood:\n    in Central America, 90 f.;\n    in Arabia, 120;\n    in the Arthurian romance, 120 f.;\n    among the Bheels, 136 f.;\n    among the Caribs, 137 f.;\n    among the Central Africans, 138;\n    among the Chinese, 154;\n    among the North American Indians, 306 f.;\n    among the Australians, 336 f.\n\n  Antiquity of the blood-covenant, 6, 58 ff., 77 ff., 206, 320.\n\n  Ark, the, covering record of blood covenant, 298.\n    See Amulet, house of the.\n\n  Assiratum, its meaning, 63 ff.\n\n  Avenger of blood. See Goel.\n\n\n  Baal-bereeth:\n    god-father in circumcision, 218;\n    god of the covenant, 218, 317.\n\n  Banquet, connection of, with sacrifice:\n    in China, 148 ff.;\n    in India, 159 ff.;\n    in Babylonia and Assyria, 167;\n    among the Bed\u00b4ween, 179 f.;\n    among American Indians, 179 f.\n\n  Bed\u00b4ween Brotherhoods, 9 f.\n    See also Blood-covenant.\n\n  Belt:\n    royal, of Tahiti, 328;\n    wampum of American Indian, a covenant record, 326 ff.\n\n  Blood:\n    thicker than milk, 10;\n    not eaten. See Prohibition of blood.\n    Vivifying power of, 110 ff.;\n    belongs to God, 204;\n    symbolism of, in universal speech, 309 f.;\n    life-giving, in:\n      Mexican legend, 111 f.;\n      Egyptian legend, 111 f.;\n      Chaldean legend, 112;\n      Ph\u0153nician legend, 112;\n      Greek legend, 112;\n      modern science, 115 f.;\n    sacredness of, in:\n      Egypt, 99 ff.;\n      America, 105 ff.;\n      India, 109, 158 ff.;\n      China, 109.\n    See Offerings of blood.\n\n  Blood-baths:\n    in Egypt, 116 f., 324;\n    in medi\u00e6val Europe, 117 ff.;\n    in Scandinavia, 121 f.;\n    in India, 122 f.;\n    in Bechuana-land, 324.\n\n  Blood-covenant:\n    defined, 4 f.;\n    a primitive rite, 4, 6, 8;\n    its sacredness, 6 f.;\n    influence of, 15;\n    refused, 21;\n    recognized, 26 f.;\n    in Syria, 5 ff.;\n    in Africa, 12-38;\n    in Europe, 39-43;\n    in China, 43 f.;\n    in Burmah, 44, 313 f.;\n    in Madagascar, 44 f., 44-49;\n    in Borneo, 49-52;\n    in Timor, 53 f.;\n    in Yucatan, 54 f.;\n    in Brazil, 55;\n    in Scythia, 58 f., 61 f.;\n    in South America, 334;\n    in Egypt, 77-84;\n    traces of, in China, 153;\n    full symbolism of, 202 f.;\n    Noah\u2019s, 213;\n    at Sinai, 238-240, 298;\n    importance commonly undervalued, 297;\n    a safeguard in Burmah, 315.\n\n  Blood-lickers, 11, 59.\n    See Drinking of Blood.\n\n  Blood-money:\n    in the East, 260 ff.;\n    refused by Gibeonites, 324 f.;\n    accepted:\n      by Arabs, 325;\n      by North American Indians, 325.\n    See Goel.\n\n  Blood-sucking, 8, 30, 43, 92, 114 f.\n    See Drinking of blood.\n\n  Blood-transference. See Blood-covenant; Transfusion of blood.\n\n  Book of the Dead, 78-83.\n\n  Bracelet, as symbol, 65-76.\n\n  Bread:\n    of R\u0101, 173;\n    covenant of, 293, 313.\n\n  Breaking the grass, 315.\n\n  Br\u00e9beuf, heart of, 127.\n\n  Brotherhoods, blood. See Blood-covenant.\n\n  Bruce, heart of, 107 f.\n\n  Burial in brotherhood, 41.\n\n\n  Cain, his blood withholding, 210 ff.\n\n  Cameron, Commander, making blood-friendship, 15 ff.\n\n  Cannibalism:\n    religious origin of, 183 f., 184;\n    in India, 185 f.;\n    in Feejee, 187;\n    in North America, 187 f., 308;\n    in Central and South America, 180 f.;\n    in Europe, 189 f.\n\n  Caste-distinctions lost in communion, 161 ff.\n\n  Cataline\u2019s blood-covenant, 60 f.\n    (See stamp on outside cover)\n\n  Christ, his blood, fulfillment of human desire, 271-286.\n\n  Christians, charges of cannabalism against, 321.\n\n  Circumcision, a mode of blood-covenanting, 215-223, 237;\n    its modern methods, 218 f.\n\n  Clasped hands: a relic of the covenant, 328, 340.\n    See Hands.\n\n  Classics, references to blood-covenant in, 58-65, 267, 297, 312.\n\n  Communion:\n    through blood, 147 ff.;\n    in China, 148 ff.;\n    in Assyria, 168 f.;\n    divine-human, in Egypt, 172.\n    See Altar; Banquet; Union.\n    In Christ, foretold, 275-278;\n    instituted, 280-284;\n    realized, 285 f.\n\n  Covenant, between those of different religions, 7.\n    See Blood-covenant.\n\n  Covenant of Bread, its symbolism, 293, 313.\n\n  Cry of blood from the ground, 212.\n\n  Cutting covenant:\n    meaning of term, 267 f., 322;\n    between Jacob and Laban, 269;\n    in one\u2019s own body, 322;\n    in substitute victim, 322;\n    both methods in Borneo.\n\n  Cuttings in flesh, 218;\n    in friendship, in Zechariah, 341.\n\n\n  David and Jonathan, covenanting, 269 ff.\n\n  Dead, blood-covenant with, 299.\n\n  Discerning the communion-body, 172.\n\n  Drinking of blood:\n    in North America, 127;\n    in Syria, 6;\n    in Central Africa, 13, 28 ff.;\n    in Europe, 41, 60 f.;\n    in Madagascar, 44, 48;\n    in Borneo, 49 f., 52;\n    in Timor, 53;\n    in Scythia, 59, 62, 126;\n    in Egypt, 83;\n    in India, 92 f.;\n    in China, 123 f.;\n    in France, 124;\n    in Italy, 124 f.;\n    in language of Fellaheen, 130;\n    among the Germans, 320;\n    in Persia, 321;\n    in Australia, 336;\n    charge of, against Jews, 179, 321;\n    charge of, against Christians, 321.\n\n  Drinking the covenant: 9, 17 f., 60, 191 f.;\n    in Borneo, 102;\n    in Feejee, 193;\n    in China, 196;\n    in Central America, 197;\n    in Europe, 198 ff.\n\n\n  Eating together, in covenant, 268 f.\n\n  Exchange:\n    of gifts, 14, 16, 20 f., 22, 25 f., 27 f., 32;\n    of garments, 14, 270;\n    of arms, 270.\n\n  Evolution, or deterioration, 4.\n\n\n  Feathers, red, their significance, 328 f.\n    See Red, as a symbol.\n\n  Feeding on the god: 176 f.\n    See Communion; Union.\n\n  Fiery cross:\n    its significance in Arabia, 317 f.;\n    in Scotland, 319 ff.\n\n  Fire, a gift of the gods, 174.\n\n  Firstborn, blood of the, 156.\n\n  ---- sacrifice of:\n    in China, 150 f.;\n    in pre-Semitic times, 166.\n\n  Food restrictions removed in communion:\n    in India, 161 ff.;\n    in Assyria, 168.\n\n  Friend, closer than brother, 7 f., 10.\n\n  Friendship, blood. See Blood-covenant.\n\n\n  Girdle. See Belts.\n\n  Ghouls seeking life in blood, 114 f.\n\n  Giving blood:\n    in proof of love, 85-92;\n    in worship, 89-93, 96.\n\n  _Goel_, pursuer, not avenger, of blood, 259-263;\n    in Brazil, 325;\n    in Australia, 325 f.\n\n  Golden legend, Blood transference in, 118 ff.\n\n\n  Hand, bleeding, in Tunis, 342.\n\n  Hands:\n    joined in blood, 12, 41 f., 235 f.;\n    clasped, token of, 328, 340 ff.\n\n  Healths, drinking of, relic of blood-drinking, 201 f.\n\n  Heart:\n    sacredness of, in Egypt, 99 ff., 300 ff.;\n    as life, outside of the body, 103 ff., 301 f.;\n    sacredness of, in Greece and Rome, 108 f.;\n    epitome of man, 107;\n    the symbol of personality, 204;\n    new, is new life, 303;\n    the seat of the soul, 304;\n    living, in petrifactions, 305;\n    source of life, 99 ff.;\n    of strength, 135;\n    of manhood, 135;\n    of courage, 136.\n\n  Heart-eating:\n    among American Indians, 128;\n    in British Guiana, 128;\n    in Australia, 129;\n    in Africa, 129;\n    in Borneo, 129.\n\n  Heathen communions and the Christian sacrament, 177.\n\n  Human sacrifices. See Sacrifices, human.\n\n\n  Idols, anointed with blood, 176 f., 306 f.\n\n  Illustrations of blood-covenant, in Bible, 264-271.\n\n  Imprecatory oaths, 6, 9, 16, 20, 31, 45 ff., 51, 53, 60 f., 62.\n\n  Imputation, doctrine of, 221.\n\n  Incest, in marriage of blood-friends, 10, 55 f.\n\n  Influence of blood-covenant, 15, 48.\n\n  Inspiration through blood:\n    in Homer, 113 ff.;\n    in Norseland legends, 119 f.;\n    on Pacific coast, 140 f.;\n    in India, 141 f.\n\n  Isaac:\n    his blood proffered, 225-230;\n    his covenant with Abimelech, 267 f.\n\n  Isis, blood of, 81 f., 233.\n\n\n  Jacob, his covenant with Laban, 268 f.\n\n  Jagan-natha, communion of, 163 f.\n\n  Jews, charged with human sacrifices, 178 f., 321.\n\n  Jezebel\u2019s fate, significance of, 312 f.\n\n  Jonathan and David, covenanting, 269 ff.\n\n\n  Kali, human sacrifices to, 158 f.\n\n  _Khatan_, one bound through bleeding, 222 f.\n\n  Krishna, communion of, 163 f.\n\n\n  Leprosy:\n    blood baths, for cure of, in Syria, 116;\n    in Egypt, 117, 324;\n    in medi\u00e6val Europe, 117.\n\n  Life: blood is, 38, 57, 79 ff., 88 f., 99, 211-215, 241-263,\n    299 ff., 306.\n\n  ---- from divine blood:\n    in Egypt, 111 f.;\n    in Mexico, 111 f.;\n    in Chaldea, 112;\n    in Ph\u0153nicia, 112;\n    in Greece, 112.\n\n  Life-transference in blood-transference, 126 ff.\n    See Soul transference; Transfusion of blood.\n\n  Liver:\n    a symbol of life, 303 f.;\n    proposed derivations of the word, 304 f.;\n    symbolism of:\n      as a blood-cistern, 303 f.;\n      as seat of emotion, 304;\n      as congealed blood, 304 f.;\n      eaten, like the heart, 306.\n\n  Livingstone, Dr., making blood-friendship, 13 ff.\n\n\n  Mandrakes, symbolism of, 111.\n\n  Marriage, blood-drinking in, 191 ff., 332.\n    See Symbolic substitutes for blood; Wedding, ceremonies of.\n\n  Marriage-covenant, blood in, 192 f.\n\n  Milk-brothers, 11 f.\n\n  Moses:\n    his child\u2019s circumcision, 221 ff.;\n    his blood-covenant at Sinai, 238 ff.\n\n\n  Name:\n    a lost, 334;\n    the new, 337 f.;\n    restitution for calling, of the dead, 335.\n\n  ---- represents the life, 334 f.;\n    in the Society Islands, 334;\n    among Indians, 334 f.;\n    among Australians, 335 f.\n\n  Names, exchange of, 334 ff.\n\n  Nature, transference of, by blood transference: 126 ff.;\n    among the Caribs, 137 f.;\n    among the Kaffirs, 138;\n    among the Yarubas, 138 f.\n\n  Necklace, symbolism of, 76 f.\n\n  New covenant, Christ\u2019s body and blood in, 299.\n\n  Noah\u2019s blood-giving, 212 ff.\n\n  Norseland legends, 41 ff., 88 f.\n\n\n  Odin and L\u00f4k\u00e9, in covenant, 39 ff.\n\n  Offerings of blood:\n    in Egypt, 102 f.;\n    in America, 106 f.;\n    in Greece and Rome, 108 f.;\n    in Ph\u0153nicia, 109:\n    in India, 109;\n    in China, 109;\n    in Arabia, 180.\n\n  One soul in two bodies, 38, 80, 92 f., 334.\n\n  Ordeal of touch:\n    in the Nibelungen Lied, 143 f.;\n    in Denmark, 144 f.;\n    in Scotland, 145;\n    in England, 146 f.;\n    in America, 147.\n\n  Otaheite. See Tahiti, under Union.\n\n\n  Passover, substitute blood of, 231 f.\n\n  Ph\u0153nicia, blood-giving in, 89 f.\n\n  Phylacteries, the token of blood-covenant, 233-236;\n    and amulet, 329.\n\n  Preserving blood, as life, 88 f., 337 f.\n    See Life, blood is.\n\n  Prohibition of blood-drinking: 214 f.;\n    in the Mosaic law, 240 f.;\n    reason for, 312.\n\n  Prophecy, Blood as a means of, 113 ff.\n\n\n  Quich\u00e9 god, Tohil, his terms of covenant, 174.\n\n\n  R\u0101, communion with, in Amenti, 172, 333 f.\n\n  Ransoming by blood, 324 ff. See Goel.\n\n  Record of the divine blood-covenant, 298;\n    of the covenant: among American Indians, 326 ff.\n\n  Red, as a symbol of blood:\n    in Egypt, 102 f., 173;\n    in China, 196;\n    the colour, its symbolism, 236 f.\n    See also, Feathers, red.\n\n  Revenger of blood. See Goel.\n\n  Ring:\n    symbolism of, 65-76, 330 ff.;\n    in Dayak divorce, 330;\n    of flesh, 331.\n\n  Rosetta-stone of the covenant, 267.\n\n  Russia:\n    customs in, 73;\n    blood giving in, 96.\n\n\n  Sacrament, Christian:\n    its relation to heathen communions, 177;\n    foreshadowed in the Old Testament, 274 f.;\n    instituted by Jesus, 281 ff.;\n    not a sacrifice, 292;\n    a two-fold covenant, 293.\n\n  ---- of the Holy Food, 164.\n\n  Sacredness of blood:\n    in Egypt, 99 ff.;\n    in America, 105 ff.;\n    in India, 155.\n    See Offerings of blood.\n\n  Sacrifice:\n    as communion, in China, 149 ff.;\n    not necessarily expiatory, 166;\n    of Isaac, 224-230.\n\n  Sacrifices; Egyptian and Jewish, their resemblance, 300.\n\n  ---- human:\n    among the Nahuas, 105 f.;\n    among the Mayas, 106 f.;\n    in India, 157 ff., 227;\n    in Assyria, 166 f.;\n    of children:\n      in Guatemala, 174;\n      in Arabia, 227;\n      in the Norseland, 227;\n      in Great Britain, 227 f.\n\n  ---- human and animal, succession of:\n    in China, 152;\n    in India, 155 f.;\n    in the Brahmanical books, 157 f.\n\n  \u201cSacrificial part,\u201d blood the, 157 f.\n\n  Saffron, symbolism of, 77, 165.\n\n  ---- water:\n    in wedding, 332;\n    a substitute for blood, 195 f.\n\n  Saul, his phylacteries, 237 f.\n\n  Scarab\u00e6us, a symbol of heart, 100, 300.\n\n  Signing with blood, 93 ff.\n\n  Smoking, in inter-union, 51, 309.\n\n  Society Islands, brotherhoods in, 56 f.\n\n  Soul-transference by blood-transference, 312 f.\n    See Life-transference; Transfusion of blood.\n\n  Spiritual conceptions not innate, 311.\n\n  Stanley, Henry M., making blood-friendship, 18-38.\n\n  Stone, white, and new name, 337.\n\n  Stones, living, 119 f., 307 f.\n\n  Striking:\n    a covenant, 59, 62;\n    hands, in covenant, 236, 341 f.\n\n  Substitute-blood offered:\n    in Borneo, 52, 73;\n    in Egypt, 72;\n    in China, 148;\n    in South America, 177;\n    in Bible times, 211, 213;\n    at Sinai, 239-258.\n    See Symbolic substitutes.\n\n  Sucking-brothers, 11 f.\n\n  Symbolic substitutes for blood, 191 ff.;\n    the assiratum, 63 ff.;\n    arrack, 192;\n    coffee, 192;\n    any ordinary spirituous liquor, 193;\n    saffron, 194, 332;\n    wine and honey, 196;\n    chica, 197;\n    wine, 198 ff.;\n    whisky, 316.\n\n  Symbols, scriptural and ethnic, their relationship, 206.\n\n\n  Table-Altar:\n    in Assyria, 167;\n    in the Old Testament, 167 f.;\n    in the New Testament, 292 f.\n\n  Thumbs bound, in covenant, 59, 71, 331.\n\n  Token of passover covenant, 232.\n    See Phylacteries, the token of blood-covenant.\n\n  Touch, life by, of blood, 134 ff.\n\n  Transfusion of blood: 38 f.;\n    modern scientific, 115 f.;\n    among Egyptians, 116 f.;\n    among Hebrews, 116;\n    among Syrians, 116;\n    in Tasmania, 126;\n    a cure for insanity, 133 f.\n\n  Transmigration of souls, origin of belief in, 310.\n\n  Tree:\n    branch of, in the covenant, 35 ff.;\n    of the covenant, 53;\n    the fiery cross in Scotland, 317 ff.;\n    the war-signal in Arabia, 318.\n    See Tree-planting.\n\n  Tree-planting in blood-covenant:\n    in Borneo, 53;\n    in India, 165;\n    in Burmah, 313;\n    in Israel, 316;\n    traces of, 316 f.\n\n  Trial by blood:\n    in the Nibelungen Lied, 143 f.;\n    in Denmark, 144 f.;\n    in Scotland, 145;\n    in England, 146 f.;\n    in America, 147.\n\n  Turkey, blood-giving in, 85.\n\n  Types, insufficiency of, 252-258.\n\n\n  Uarda, citation from, 84.\n\n  Union, (divine) through blood:\n    in Egypt, 333 f.;\n    in the Norseland, 40 f.\n\n  ---- (divine-human) through blood:\n    in Ph\u0153nicia, 89;\n    in Armenia, 90;\n    in India, 92, 156 ff.;\n    in Central America, 90 f., 175 f.;\n    in Russia, 95;\n    in China, 148 f.;\n    in Assyria, 167 f.;\n    in Persia, 169 f.;\n    in Egypt, 170 f.;\n    in Guatemala, 174;\n    in the Mosaic ritual, 242-248;\n    Abel\u2019s outreaching for it, 210 ff.;\n    Noah\u2019s outreaching for it, 213 ff.;\n    Abraham\u2019s outreaching for it, 217-221;\n    universal longing for it, 272;\n    realised, through Christ, 273-293, 342.\n\n  ---- (human) through blood:\n    in Syria, 5-12;\n    in Africa, 12-38;\n    in the Norseland, 41 ff.;\n    in Madagascar, 44-49;\n    in Borneo, 49-52, 73;\n    in Timor, 52-54;\n    in Yucatan, 54 f.;\n    in Brazil, 55;\n    in North America, 55 f., 339 f.;\n    in the South Sea Islands, 56 f.;\n    in Scythia, 59 f., 61 f.;\n    in Armenia, 59 f.;\n    in Arabia, 62 f.;\n    in Egypt, 72, 77-84;\n    in India, 156;\n    in Tahiti, 338;\n    in Central Africa, 338;\n    in Burmah, 314 f.\n\n  ---- (Satanic-human) through blood:\n    among witches, 93 ff.;\n    among wonder-workers, 95.\n\n  Unity of the human race, 57, 96, 178 f.\n\n\n  Vampires:\n    seeking life in blood, 114 f.;\n    in the Old World and the New, 115.\n\n  Vicarious blood-absorption: 131 f.;\n    among the Araucanians, 131;\n    among the Abyssinians, 132;\n    among the Australians, 133.\n\n  Victim, representing a deity, 177 f., 183 f.\n\n  Vivifying power of blood. See Blood, life-giving.\n\n\n  Wampum-belts, a covenant record, 326.\n\n  Water-of-saffron children, 195.\n\n  Wedding, ceremonies of, 69-74.\n\n  Wine, symbolism of, 63 ff., 73.\n\n  Witchcraft, blood in, 93 ff.\n\n  Witness-heap, 62, 266.\n\n\n  Xolotl, rescues a lost race, 112.\n\n\n  Yajna, great sacrifice of, 161 ff.\n\n\n  Zipporah, her act of blood-giving, 222 f.\n\n  Zoroastrians, their communion, 169 f.\n\n\n\n\nSCRIPTURAL INDEX.\n\n\n GENESIS.\n    TEXT                             PAGE\n    4 : 2-5                           211\n    4 : 10, 11                        212\n    8 : 20                            213\n    9 : 3-6                           214\n    12 : 6-8                          268\n    13 : 18                           317\n    14 : 13                      264, 317\n    14 : 22                           235\n    15 : 6                            220\n    15 : 7-18                         322\n    15 : 18                           264\n    17 : 1-12                         322\n    17 : 2, 7-9, 10, 11, 13           217\n    18 : 1                            317\n    21 : 12                           275\n    21 : 22-24                        265\n    21 : 30, 31, 33                   266\n    21 : 33                           317\n    22 : 1, 2                         225\n    22 : 15, 18                       230\n    22 : 18                           267\n    26 : 25-29                        268\n    26 : 30, 31                       268\n    28 : 18-22                        268\n    30 : 14-17                        111\n    31 : 19-36                        268\n    31 : 44-47                        266\n    31 : 44-54                        269\n    34 : 1-31                         218\n    41 : 41, 42                        70\n    49 : 11                           191\n\n  EXODUS.\n    2 : 5                             324\n    4 : 9                             231\n    4 : 20-26                    221, 222\n    7 : 17-21                         231\n    12 : 1-6                          231\n    12 : 7-10                         153\n    12 : 7-13                         232\n    13 : 3-10, 11-16                  233\n    21 : 18-27                        261\n    22 : 14-17                        261\n    24 : 1-11                         240\n    24 : 3-8                          298\n    24 : 8                            299\n    24 : 5, 6                         213\n    29 : 15-25                        213\n    33 : 11                           216\n\n  LEVITICUS.\n    1 : 1-6                           213\n    1 : 5, 11, 15                     249\n    1 : 10-12                         213\n    1 : 13, 17                         247\n    1 : 14, 15                        213\n    2 : 2, 12                         247\n    3 : 8, 26                         247\n    4 : 6, 7, 17, 18, 25, 30, 34      248\n    4 : 13, 14                        247\n    7 : 26                            241\n    8 : 14-22                         249\n    8 : 18, 19                        213\n    9 : 8-22                          249\n    14 : 19, 20                       249\n    16 : 3-25                         249\n    16 : 14, 15                       248\n    17 : 3-6                          243\n    17 : 10-12                        241\n    17 : 11-14                        287\n    17 : 13                           243\n    17 : 14                      241, 309\n    25 : 25 ff.                       260\n    25 : 47 ff.                        260\n    27 : 1-8                          261\n\n  NUMBERS.\n    35 : 12                           259\n    35 : 19, 21, 24, 25, 27           259\n    35 : 9-34                         260\n    36 : 30-34                        261\n\n  DEUTERONOMY.\n    6 : 4-9, 13-22                    234\n    8 : 3                             173\n    10 : 14-16                        256\n    12 : 23                            64\n    19 : 6, 12                        259\n    22 : 13-21                        223\n    27 : 9-26                          47\n    28 : 1-68                          47\n    30 : 1-6                          257\n    32 : 14                           191\n\n  JOSHUA.\n    2 : 18-20                         236\n    20 : 3, 5, 9                      259\n\n  JUDGES.\n    8 : 33                            218\n    9 : 4                             218\n    9 : 1-6                           317\n\n  RUTH.\n    1 : 14                            211\n\n  1 SAMUEL.\n    18 : 1-3                          270\n    18 : 4                            270\n    19 : 1-7                          270\n    20 : 1-13                         270\n    20 : 13-17                        271\n\n  2 SAMUEL.\n    1 : 1-16                          237\n    1 : 10                             75\n    1 : 26                            270\n    7 : 1                             271\n    9 : 1-13                          271\n    12 : 17                           264\n    14 : 11                           259\n    21 : 1-9                          324\n\n  1 KINGS.\n    18 : 26-28                         90\n    21 : 17-23                        313\n    22 : 35-38                        313\n\n  2 KINGS.\n    5 : 1-14                          116\n    9 : 30-37                         313\n    19 : 37                           168\n\n  2 CHRONICLES.\n    20 : 7                            216\n\n  EZRA.\n    4 : 2                             168\n\n  ESTHER.\n    3 : 10-12                          70\n    8 : 2                              70\n\n  JOB.\n    3 : 2-9                            46\n    19 : 25                           259\n    23 : 12                           173\n\n  PSALMS.\n    16 : 4                             63\n    16 : 4, 5                         252\n    19 : 14                           259\n    50 : 7-17                         253\n    56 : 8                             81\n    78 : 35                           259\n\n  PROVERBS.\n    3 : 1-4                           257\n    4 : 18                             78\n    4 : 23                            101\n    6 : 1                             236\n    7 : 2, 3                          257\n    11 : 15 margin                    236\n    18 : 24                             7\n    22 : 24-26                        236\n    23 : 11                           259\n    27 : 9                            338\n\n  ECCLESIASTES.\n    4 : 9, 10                           8\n\n  ISAIAH.\n    1 : 11-17                         254\n    25 : 6                            254\n    37 : 38                           168\n    41 : 8                            216\n    41 : 14                           259\n    43 : 14                           259\n    44 : 6, 24                        259\n    47 : 4                            259\n    48 : 17                           259\n    49 : 7, 26                        259\n    49 : 16                           234\n    49 : 18                           235\n    51 : 10                           259\n    53 : 4-6, 12                      286\n    54 : 5, 8                         259\n    59 : 20                           259\n    60 : 16                           259\n    62 : 8                            234\n    63 : 16                           259\n    65 : 11                           167\n\n  JEREMIAH.\n    7 : 21-23                         255\n    22 : 24                           235\n    31 : 11                           259\n    31 : 31-34                        258\n    34 : 18                      264, 322\n    50 : 34                           259\n\n  EZEKIEL.\n    5 : 11                            235\n\n  DANIEL.\n    12 : 7                            235\n\n  HOSEA.\n    6 : 4-7                           255\n\n  MALACHI.\n    1 : 6, 7                          167\n\n  ECCLESIASTICUS.\n    39 : 26                           191\n    50 : 15                           191\n\n  1 MACCABEES.\n    6 : 34                            191\n\n  MATTHEW.\n    4 : 4                             173\n    6 : 31, 32                         47\n    13 : 12                            47\n    25 : 29                            47\n    26 : 26-28                        281\n    27 : 33-54                        285\n\n  MARK.\n    14 : 23                           281\n    14 : 24                           299\n    15 : 22-39                        285\n\n  LUKE.\n    15 : 22                            70\n    22 : 44                           280\n    22 : 14, 15, 19, 20               281\n    23 : 33-47                        285\n\n  JOHN.\n    1 : 1-14                          274\n    4 : 34                            173\n    5 : 26                            290\n    6 : 51, 55                        285\n    6 : 53, 54                        299\n    6 : 53-58                         276\n    6 : 60, 63                        277\n    6 : 60                            278\n    8 : 31, 32                        173\n    10 : 10, 18                       285\n    13 : 1                            280\n    15 : 4-7                          283\n    15 : 13                   7, 229, 285\n    15 : 13-15                        282\n    16 : 13                           173\n    17 : 1-24                         284\n    17 : 19                           173\n    19 : 17-37                        285\n    20 : 31                           288\n\n  ACTS.\n    15 : 2-29                         215\n    21 : 18-25                        215\n\n  ROMANS.\n    1 : 18-23                         311\n    2 : 26-29                         257\n    4 : 3                             220\n    4 : 11, 12                        257\n    5 : 8-12                          289\n    5 : 12-21                         245\n    6 : 4-6                            42\n    6 : 23                       242, 286\n    8 : 22                            272\n    8 : 32                            273\n    12 : 5                            342\n\n  1 CORINTHIANS.\n    6 : 15                            342\n    10 : 14-17                        293\n    10 : 21                           168\n    11 : 29                           164\n    11 : 25                           281\n    12 : 27                           342\n    13 : 11                           336\n\n  2 CORINTHIANS.\n    5 : 17                       288, 336\n\n  GALATIANS.\n    2 : 20                            289\n    3 : 6                             220\n    3 : 6-9, 16, 29                   278\n    3 : 7-9                           257\n    3 : 28, 29                        291\n    4 : 5                             195\n    6 : 17                            218\n\n  EPHESIANS.\n    1 : 7                             288\n    2 : 11-16                         290\n    4 : 24                            336\n    5 : 30                            342\n\n  PHILIPPIANS.\n    3 : 3                             257\n\n  COLOSSIANS.\n    1 : 19, 20                        290\n    2 : 9-11                          291\n    2 : 12                             42\n    2 : 17                            258\n    3 : 3                             288\n    3 : 9, 10                         336\n\n  2 TIMOTHY.\n    1 : 10                            284\n\n  HEBREWS.\n    1 : 1-3                           274\n    1 : 14-16                         278\n    2 : 14-16                         274\n    6 : 13                            235\n    9 : 8                             252\n    9 : 16, 17                        284\n    9 : 19                            239\n    9 : 20                            298\n    9 : 24-28                         292\n    10 : 1-4                          272\n    10 : 4                            252\n    10 : 5-9                          275\n    10 : 10, 14-22, 28, 29            292\n    11 : 4                            211\n    11 : 17-19                        229\n    11 : 18                           275\n    12 : 24                           212\n    13 : 20                      243, 273\n    13 : 20, 21                       293\n\n  JAMES.\n    2 : 21-23                         230\n    2 : 23                  216, 220, 221\n\n  1 PETER.\n    1 : 20                            275\n    2 : 2-5                           307\n    2 : 17                             45\n    3 : 18                            286\n\n  2 PETER.\n    1 : 4                             289\n\n  1 JOHN.\n    1 : 7                             288\n    5 : 11, 12                        286\n    5 : 13, 20                        288\n\n  REVELATION.\n    1 : 5                             288\n    6 : 10                            212\n    7 : 3                             154\n    9 : 4                             154\n    13 : 8                            275\n    13 : 16                           154\n    14 : 1                            154\n    20 : 4                            154\n    22 : 4                            154\n\n\n\n\n  BY THE SAME AUTHOR.\n\n  _KADESH-BARNEA_;\n\n  ITS IMPORTANCE AND PROBABLE SITE, WITH THE STORY OF A HUNT\n  FOR IT; INCLUDING STUDIES OF THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS, AND\n  THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE HOLY LAND.\n\n\n  _One volume, 8vo., 478 pages, with two maps and four\n  full page illustrations, $5.00._\n\n\n  CRITICAL NOTICES.\n\n  FROM _The Athen\u00e6um_ (LONDON).\n\n\u201cThis book contains a great deal of new information on the topography\nof the Holy Land, derived from the latest hieroglyphic documents,\nas well as from the accounts of recent travelers.... The wilderness\nof Shur (a word meaning a wall) was beyond the Great Wall of Egypt,\nand was also, according to the happy conjecture of our author, the\nwilderness of Etham. This is an important identification, which will be\na new starting-point for the history of the exodus.\u201d\n\n  FROM _The Academy_ (LONDON).\n\n\u201cThis is a truly noteworthy book, and will at once command the\nattention of all biblical scholars.\u201d\n\n  FROM THE _London Quarterly Review_.\n\n\u201cThis is one of the noblest historical monographs that we have, and in\nsome respects surpasses all other books of the kind.... The reader will\nfind this work of our American divine deeply engrossing; combining,\nin fact, many kinds of interest not often meeting in one volume. We\nhave a fine historical insight running through all the ages; a keen\nappreciation of the difficulties of the exodus, an intelligent attempt\nto settle them; an intense enthusiasm for the biblical history as such,\nand the dramatic skill of a modern traveler.... It is a book which our\nyoung Hebraists and students of the Old Testament should read over and\nover again.\u201d\n\n  FROM PROFESSOR A. H. SAYCE, OF OXFORD UNIVERSITY.\n\n\u201cIt is one of the most \u2018thorough\u2019 books I have ever come across. Among\nother points proved by you, your identification of the desert of Shur\nis perhaps the neatest and most important.\u201d\n\n  FROM PROFESSOR DR. FRANZ DELITZSCH, OF LEIPZIG UNIVERSITY.\n\n\u201cAs an apple of Tantalus, your splendid work concerning Kadesh-Barnea\nsways above me. I am not yet filled with it; ... but it is unbearable\nthat I should longer refrain from thanking you.... It is a great\nservice that you, following the lead of the sainted Palmer, have made\n\u00can Kude\u00ees the object of your investigation.... My commentary on Genesis\nis out of print.... Would that I could yet once more work over this\ncommentary.... Then I would have an opportunity to show my thankful\nappreciation of your work.\u201d\n\n  FROM DR. HERMANN GUTHE (SECRETARY OF THE GERMAN PALESTINE\n  SOCIETY) IN THE _Theologische Literatur-Zeitung_, OF LEIPZIG.\n\n\u201cTrumbull appears to me to be specially felicitous in his determination\nof the three roads leading out from Egypt to the East, which are of\ngreat importance for the general history of the further East.... The\nhappy result of his journey is very gratifying, and we have to thank\nhis diligent studies for a valuable contribution to biblical geography.\u201d\n\n  FROM PROFESSOR C. A. BRIGGS (OF UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY) IN\n  _The Presbyterian Review_.\n\n\u201cThis is the most important work upon the geography of the Holy\nLand produced in America since the Biblical Researches of Edward\nRobinson.... Dr. Trumbull ... has established the site of Kadesh-Barnea\nso thoroughly, and so fortified his conclusions on every hand, that we\nbelieve no one will hereafter think of questioning them.... The book is\nwritten in an interesting and fervent style. The author grapples with\nhis reader. His enthusiasm is contagious. The critic has to take care\nand stand firm lest he be swept off his feet. We thank Dr. Trumbull for\nhis labor of love and enthusiasm. He has done honor to American pluck\nand indefatigable research. We are proud of the book and the man.\u201d\n\n\u2042 _For sale by all booksellers, or sent post-paid upon receipt of\nprice, by_\n\n          CHARLES SCRIBNER\u2019S SONS,\n      Nos. 743 and 745 Broadway, New York.\n\n\n\n\n  Transcriber\u2019s Note:\n\n  Footnotes have been renumbered and repositioned. Where the author has\n  cross-referenced a footnote, the footnote number in this text has been\n  added to the original reference.\n\n  Two page numbers in the Contents, and one in the Index, have been\n  amended.\n\n  Hieroglyphs and one Syriac word in the original book are represented\n  by [Illustration].\n\n  Quotations from other sources, and transliterated materials, have\n  been transcribed as they appear in the original book.\n\n  Spelling, grammar, and variation in hyphenation and word usage have\n  been retained.\n\n  Punctuation has been changed occasionally where a clear predominance\n  of usage could be ascertained.\n\n  Typographical changes have been made as follows:\n\n  p. 31:\n  the slighest breach\n    changed to\n  the slightest breach\n\n  p. 57:\n  _Miss. Vogage to So. Pacif. Ocean_\n    changed to\n  _Miss. Voyage to So. Pacif. Ocean_ (footnote 95)\n\n  p. 77:\n  Dubois _Des. of Man. and Cust. of India_\n    changed to\n  Dubois\u2019s _Des. of Man. and Cust. of India_ (footnote 151)\n\n  p. 90:\n  Montolinia\u2019s _Hist. Ind. de Nueva Espa\u00f1a_\n    changed to\n  Motolinia\u2019s _Hist. Ind. de Nueva Espa\u00f1a_ (footnote 181)\n\n  p. 111:\n  M. Edouard Naville, the eminent Swiss Egyptologist\n    changed to\n  M. \u00c9douard Naville, the eminent Swiss Egyptologist (footnote 222)\n\n  p. 125:\n  Bruy\u2019s _Histoire des Papes_\n    changed to\n  Bruys\u2019s _Histoire des Papes_ (footnote 251)\n\n  p. 156:\n  Taittir\u012bya-brahmana\n    changed to\n  Taittir\u012bya-br\u0101hmana\n\n  p. 174:\n  Anderson\u2019s _Lake Ngami_\n    changed to\n  Andersson\u2019s _Lake Ngami_  (footnote 360)\n\n  p. 185:\n  the Abbe Dubois\n    changed to\n  the Abb\u00e9 Dubois\n\n  p. 189:\n  _Native Relig. in Mex. and Peru_\n    changed to\n  _Native Relig. of Mex. and Peru_ (footnote 388)\n\n  p. 235 and 236:\n  Robert\u2019s _Orient. Ill. of Scrip._\n    changed to\n  Roberts\u2019s _Orient. Ill. of Scrip._ (footnotes 492 and 499)\n\n  p. 200:\n  Godwyn\u2019s _Rom. Historiae_\n  changed to\n  Godwyn\u2019s _Rom. Histori\u00e6_ (footnote 421)\n\n  p. 234:\n  in the covenant thus memoralized\n    changed to\n  in the covenant thus memorialized\n\n  p. 300:\n  _Dictionnaire d\u2019Arch\u00e9ologie \u00c9gyptienne_, s. v. \u201cCoeur.\u201d\n    changed to\n  _Dictionnaire d\u2019Arch\u00e9ologie \u00c9gyptienne_, s. v. \u201cC\u0153ur.\u201d (footnote 678)\n\n  p. 312:\n  and also taken possesion\n  changed to\n  and also taken possession\n\n  p. 317:\n  Mamre, the Amorite, brother of Eschol\n  changed to\n  Mamre, the Amorite, brother of Eshcol\n\n  p. 332:\n  colored with saffron, or with tumeric\n  changed to\n  colored with saffron, or with turmeric\n\n  p. 346:\n  _Goel_, pursuer, not avenger, of blood, 259-563;\n  changed to\n  _Goel_, pursuer, not avenger, of blood, 259-263;\n\n  p. 347:\n  Otaheite, See Tahiti.\n  changed to\n  Otaheite. See Tahiti, under Union.\n\n  p. 347:\n  See Covenant, token of the.\n  changed to\n  See Phylacteries, the token of blood-covenant.\n\n  p. 348:\n  in the Mosaic ritual, 242-2 8;\n    changed to\n  in the Mosaic ritual, 242-248;\n\n  These were not changed:\n\n   p. 261:\n  whether the loss life shall be restored\n    might read\n  whether the lost life shall be restored\n\n  p. 325:\n  \u201cEven in so rude a tribe as the Brazilian Topanazes,\u201d the Farrer\n    might read\n  \u201cEven in so rude a tribe as the Brazilian Topanazes,\u201d says Farrer","title":"The Blood Covenant: A Primitive Rite and its Bearings on Scripture","tradition":"folklore-oral-tradition","translated_text":null,"word_count":92429}