Part 19 (2/2)
”Thus in ancient Egypt, in ancient Canaan, in ancient Mexico, in modern Turkey, in modern Russia, in modern India, and in modern Otaheite, in Africa, in Asia, in America, in Europe, and in Oceanica, blood-giving was life-giving. Life-giving was love-showing. Love-showing was a heart-yearning after union in love and in life and in blood and in very being. That was the primitive thought in the primitive religions of all the world.
”An ancient Chaldean legend, as recorded by Bero-sus, ascribes a new creation of mankind to the mixture by the G.o.ds of the dust of the earth with the blood that flowed from the severed head of the G.o.d Belus. 'On this account it is that men are rational and partake of divine knowledge,' says Berosus. The blood of the G.o.d gives them the life and nature of a G.o.d. Yet, again, the early Phnician and the early Greek theogonies, as recorded by Sanchoniathon and by Hesiod, ascribe the vivifying of mankind to the outpoured blood of the G.o.ds. It was from the blood of Ouranos, or of Saturn, dripping into the sea and mingling with its foam, that Venus was formed, to become the mother of her heroic posterity. 'The Orphies, which have borrowed so largely from the East,'
says Lenormant, 'said that the immaterial part of man, his soul, his life, sprang from the blood of Dionysus Zagreus, whom... t.i.tans had torn to pieces, partly devouring his members.'
”Homer explicitly recognizes this universal belief in the power of blood to convey life and to be a means of revivifying the dead.
”Indeed, it is claimed, with a show of reason, that the very word (_surquinu_) which was used for 'altar' in the a.s.syrian was primarily the word for 'table'-that, in fact, what was known as the 'altar' to the G.o.ds was originally the table of communion between the G.o.ds and their wors.h.i.+ppers.”
From the writings of Livingstone, the African explorer, as well as from the reports of Stanley, it appears that the custom of blood-covenanting is kept up in Africa in these modern times.
Describing the ceremony, Livingstone says: ”It is accomplished thus: The hands of the parties are joined (in this case Pitsane and Sambanza were the parties engaged). Small incisions are made on the clasped hands, on the pits of the stomach of each, and on the right cheeks and foreheads.
A small quant.i.ty of blood is taken from these points, in both parties, by means of a stalk of gra.s.s. The blood from one person is put into a pot of beer, and that of the second into another; each then drinks the other's blood, and they are supposed to become perpetual friends or relations. During the drinking of the beer some of the party continue beating the ground with short clubs and utter sentences by way of ratifying the treaty.”
The primitive character of these customs is the more probable from the fact that Livingstone first found them existing in a region where, in his opinion, the dress and household utensils of the people are identical with those represented on the monuments of ancient Egypt.
Concerning the origin of this rite in this region, Cameron says: ”This custom of making brothers, I believe to be really of Semitic origin.”
Henry M. Stanley, who was sent to rescue Livingstone, gives many interesting accounts of his experience with the blood-covenanters. In 1871, Stanley encountered the forces of Mirambo, the greatest of African warriors. They agreed to make ”strong friends.h.i.+p” with each other. The ceremony is thus described:
”Manwa Sera, Stanley's 'chief captain,' was requested to seal our friends.h.i.+p by performing the ceremony of blood-brotherhood between Mirambo and myself. Having caused us to sit fronting each other on a straw carpet, he made an incision in each of our right legs, from which he extracted blood, and, interchanging it, he exclaimed aloud, 'If either of you break this brotherhood now established between you, may the lion devour him, the serpent poison him, bitterness be in his food, his friends desert him, his gun burst in his hands and wound him, and everything that is bad do wrong to him until death.'” The same blood now flowed in the veins of both Stanley and Mirambo. They were friends and brothers in a sacred covenant-life for life. At the conclusion of the covenant they exchanged gifts, as the customary ratification or accompaniment of the compact. They even vied with each other in proofs of their unselfish fidelity in this new covenant of friends.h.i.+p.
Again and again, before and after this incident, Stanley entered into the covenant of blood-brotherhood with representative Africans more than fifty times, in some instances by the opening of his own veins; at other times by allowing one of his personal escort to bleed for him.
Thus we see that in ancient and modern times, among all people and in all portions of the earth, this idea of blood-friends.h.i.+p prevailed. In the primitive East, in the wild West, in the cold North, and in the torrid South this rite shows itself. ”It will be observed,” says Dr.
Trumbull, ”that we have already noted proofs of the independent existence of this rite of blood-brotherhood or blood-friends.h.i.+p among the three great primitive divisions of the race-the Semitic, the Hamitic, and the j.a.phetic; and this in Asia, Africa, Europe, America, and the islands of the sea; again, among the five modern and more popular divisions of the human family-Caucasian, Mongolian, Ethiopian, Malay, and American. This fact in itself would seem to point to a common origin of its various manifestations in the early Oriental home of the now scattered peoples of the world.
”The Egyptian amulet of blood-friends.h.i.+p was red, as representing the blood of the G.o.ds. The Egyptian word for 'red' sometimes stood for 'blood.' The sacred directions in the Book of the Dead were written in red; hence follows our word 'rubric,' The Rabbis say that when persecution forbade the wearing of the phylacteries with safety, a red thread might be subst.i.tuted for this token of the covenant with the Lord. It was a red thread which Joshua gave to Rahab as a token of her covenant relations with the people of the Lord. The red thread in China to-day binds the double cup from which the bride and bridegroom drink their covenant draught of 'wedding wine,' as if in symbolism of the covenant of blood. And it is a red thread which in India to-day is used to bind a sacred amulet around the arm or the neck. Among the American Indians scarlet, or red, is the color which stands for sacrifices or for sacrificial blood in all their picture-painting; and the shrine, or _tunkan_, which continues to have its devotees, 'is painted red, as a sign of active or living wors.h.i.+p.' The same is true of the shrines in India; the color red shows that wors.h.i.+p is still living there; red continues to stand for blood.”
When a Jewish child is circ.u.mcised, it is commonly said of him that he is caused ”to enter into the covenant of Abraham and his G.o.dfather or sponsor is called Baal-beerith, master of the covenant.” Moreover, even down to modern times the rite of circ.u.mcision has included a recognition, however unconscious, of the primitive blood-friends.h.i.+p rite, by the custom of the a rabbi, G.o.d's representative, receiving into his mouth the prepuce or foreskin that is cut from the boy, and thereby made a partaker of the blood mingled with the wine according to the method described among the Orientals, in the rite of blood-friends.h.i.+p, from the earliest days of history. We make this statement on the testimony of Buxtorf, who is a recognized authority in matters of Jewish customs, though he gives it in Latin, with a view of limiting a knowledge of the facts.
All that we have stated concerning the blood-covenant brings us nearer and nearer to the disgusting and beastly habit of cannibalism. Dr.
Trumbull says: ”It would even seem to be indicated, by all the trend of historic facts, that cannibalism-gross, repulsive, inhuman cannibalism-had its basis in man's perversion of this outreaching of his nature (whether that outreach-ing were first directed by revelation or by divinely-given innate promptings) after inter-union and intercommunion with G.o.d, after life in G.o.d's life, and after growth through the partaking of G.o.d's food or of that food which represents G.o.d. The studies of many observers in widely-different fields have led both the rationalistic and the faith-filled student to conclude that in _their_ sphere of observation it was a religious sentiment, and not a mere animal craving-either through a scarcity of food or from a spirit of malignity-that was at the bottom of cannibalistic practices there, even if that field were an exception to the world's fields generally.
And now we have a glimpse of the nature and workings of that religious sentiment which prompted cannibalism wherever it has been practised. In misdirected pursuance of this thought men have given the blood of a consecrated human victim to bring themselves into union with G.o.d; and then they have eaten the flesh of that victim which had supplied the blood which made them one with G.o.d. This seems to be the basis of fact in the premises, whatever may be the understood philosophy of the facts.
Why men reasoned thus may indeed be in question. That they reasoned thus seems evident. Certain it is, that where cannibalism has been studied in modern times it has commonly been found to have had originally a religious basis; and the inference is a fair one that it must have been the same wherever cannibalism existed in earlier times. Even in some regions where cannibalism has long since been prohibited there are traditions and traces of its former existence as a purely religious rite. Thus, in India little images of flour paste or clay are now made for decapitation or other mutilation in the temples, in avowed imitation of human beings who were once offered and eaten there.”
Reville, treating of the native religions of Mexico and Peru, comes to a similar conclusion with Dorman, and he argues that the state of things which was there was the same the world over, so for as it related to cannibalism. ”Cannibalism,” he says, ”which is now restricted to a few of the savage tribes who have remained closest to the animal life, was once universal to our race. For no one would ever have conceived the idea of offering to the G.o.ds a kind of food which excited nothing but disgust and horror.” In this suggestion Reville indicates his conviction that the primal idea of an altar was a table of blood-bought communion.
There is something that looks very much like cannibalism in the sixth chapter of John's Gospel. The Jews murmured that Jesus spoke of himself as the bread which came down from heaven, and inquired, ”How can this man give us of his flesh to eat? Jesus therefore said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood ye have not life in yourselves. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me, and I in him.
As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father; so he that eateth me, he also shall live because of me. This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers did eat, and died; he that eateth this bread shall live for ever. These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.”
This was spoken nearly two years before he is said to have inst.i.tuted the memorial Supper, and has always been a mystery to commentators, though they allege that the whole mystery is explained in John 6: 63:
”It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.” This seems to be very farfetched indeed-an afterthought. It did not satisfy some of his disciples, for ”from that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.”
From this simple idea of securing faithfulness by the transfusion of the blood of two persons seems to have come the idea of _propitiating_ the G.o.ds by offering them b.l.o.o.d.y sacrifices. In primitive times, among barbarous and uncivilized peoples, the conception was universal that the G.o.ds were very much like themselves, and that therefore they would be pleased with presents. When offended they could be conciliated, and when some crime had been committed they could be induced to forgive the transgressor by some valuable offering, such as the first-fruits of the soil or the most immaculate animals of the flock. This idea of obtaining favors from the invisible powers was carried to such extremes that for the honor of humanity we should feel inclined to doubt the monstrous stories were they not so well attested. The offering of these sacrifices became so degraded and disgusting by superst.i.tion that it ended in the belief that the deity's anger could be appeased, his revenge satisfied, his vanity flattered, and that he could be made generally pleased, by holocausts of human beings; so that the more costly the sacrifice, the more certain was the deity to smile upon the donor. The Moloch-wors.h.i.+p, the mother placing the babe in the arms of the monstrous idol and seeing it burned before her own eyes, seems to exhaust the horrors of human ingenuity. We have only s.p.a.ce to state that these abominations prevailed over most of the heathen world when the Old-Testament rites and ceremonies came into use among the Jews. We find the custom of offering sacrifices in the early pages of Genesis, when it led to the first murder. Cain's sacrifice, sacerdotal-ists tell us, was not accepted by Jehovah because there was no _blood_ in it, as there was in the offering of Abel. Abraham was about to slay his own son when the blood of a ram was provided instead; and, in fact, all the Bible patriarchs sacrificed, and the exodus from Egypt itself was brought about under the pretence that the people had to go to the desert to offer their accustomed sacrifice.
The Jews borrowed their idea of sacrifice from the heathen, and sometimes were more heathenish than the heathens themselves. Thousands and thousands of innocent animals were cruelly butchered for sacrifice, as the Jews were full of Egyptian reminiscences on one hand and of Canaanitish modes of wors.h.i.+p on the other. It is said that Jehovah allowed these abominations because of the ignorance of these people and their hardness of heart, lest they might despise a naked religion and be dazzled by the imposing ceremonies by which they were surrounded. The whole system of b.l.o.o.d.y sacrifices was based upon anthropomorphic conceptions of their Jehovah, to whom the ”agreeable smell” of the blood was a sweet satisfaction. The Jews adopted the very worst features of paganism in regard to these b.l.o.o.d.y sacrifices, which they offered on all occasions-so much so that their prophets cried out against them and Jehovah himself denounced them.
<script>