Note 3 — Chapter III · TRANSACTIONS AT OTAHEITE, AND THE SOCIETY ISLANDS; AND PROSECUTION OF THE VOYAGE TO THE COAST OF NORTH AMERICA.

Footnote 3:

(return)

We must trespass a little on the reader's patience as was formerly threatened. But on so curious, and indeed so exceedingly important a subject as human sacrifices, it is allowable to claim the serious attention of every intelligent being. Who can withhold anxiety from an enquiry into the reality of the fact, as a fundamental part of religion in every nation at some period of its history—or dare to affect indifference as to the origin and meaning of so portentous and horrible a rite? It will be our study to be as brief as possible in conveying the information respecting both, which every man ought to possess, who values correct opinions respecting the moral condition of our nature. First, then, as to the universality of the practice. This is of course to be ascertained from testimony. And perhaps on no subject in the history of mankind, is there a more decided agreement in the assertions of different witnesses. We shall run over the various nations of the earth, of whom we have any thing like satisfactory evidence. Here we avail ourselves of the labours of several authors, as Dr Jenkin, De Paauw, Mr Bryant, Mr Parkhurst, Dr Magee, and others. We commence with the Egyptians, of whom alone, we believe, any doubt as to their being implicated in the practice has been entertained. Thus Dr Forster, in his Observations on Cook's Second Voyage, excepts them from his remark that all the ancient nations sacrificed men, saying that where-ever it is affirmed in old writers that these people were addicted to it, we are to understand them as alluding to the Arabian shepherds, who at one time subdued Egypt. Such was the opinion of the writer of this note, but more attentive enquiry has induced him, in this instance, to disregard the distinction. Diodorus Siculus and Plutarch, quoted by Dr Magee, mention their sacrificing red-haired men at the tomb of Osiris; and from other sources, it appears that they had a custom of sacrificing a virgin to the river Nile, by flinging her into its stream. The Phoenicians, Canaanites, Moabites, Ammonites, and other neighbouring people, were in the habit of sacrificing their children to their idols, especially Moloch, on certain, calamities, and for various reasons. See on this head some of the commentators on Scripture, as Ainsworth on Levit. 18th, and still more particularly, consult Selecta Sacra Braunii, a work formerly referred to. The Ethiopians, according to the Romance of Heliodorus, admitted to be good authority as to manners, &c. sacrificed their children to the sun and moon. The Scythians, as related in the curious description given of them by Herodotus, in Melpom. 62, particularly honoured the god Mars, by sacrificing to him every hundredth captive. This they did, he says, by cutting their throats, &c. The same author informs us of the Persians, that they had a custom of burying persons alive, generally young ones it would seem, in honour of the river Strymon, considered by them as a deity. Polym. 114. In this he is confirmed by Plutarch. Other writers, also, charge the Persians with using human sacrifices, as is shewn by Dr Magee. The same may be said of the Chinese and Indians, according to works mentioned by that gentleman. The case of the latter people has been made notorious by Dr Buchanan. With respect to the Grecian states in general, we have the most indubitable evidence of the prevalence of supplicating their gods by human sacrifices, when going against their enemies, as we see done by the Otaheitans, and on other occasions. The Roman history, in its early state especially, abounds in like examples, as every reader will be prepared to prove. The practice was shockingly prevalent amongst the Carthaginians and other inhabitants of Africa. The writer above quoted, specifies the works which mention it, and has enumerated the authorities for asserting the same of a great many other ancient people, as the Getae, Leucadians, Goths, Gauls, Heruli, Britons, Germans; besides the Arabians, Cretans, Cyprians, Rhodians, Phocians, and the inhabitants of Chios, Lesbos, Tenedos, and Pella. The northern nations, without exception, are chargeable with the same enormity. Of this, satisfactory evidence has been adduced by Dr Magee from various authors, as Mr Thorkelin in his Essay on the Slave Trade, Mallet, in his work on Northern Antiquities, &c. And it is well known that the evil existed amongst the Mexicans, Peruvians, and other people of America, in a degree surpassing its magnitude in any other country. The perusal of the present narrative, and of other accounts of voyages, will evince the continuance of the practice throughout more recent people. On the whole then, we assert, that the fact of the universality of human sacrifice amongst the various nations of the world is perfectly well authenticated. Let us next say a word or two respecting its origin and meaning. Here we shall find it necessary to consider the origin and meaning of sacrifice in general, as it is self-evident that the notion of sacrifice is previous to the selection of the subjects for it, that of human beings differing only in degree of worth or excellence from those of any other kind. What then could induce mankind universally to imagine, that sacrifices of animals could be agreeable to those beings whom they judged superior to themselves, and the proper objects of religious adoration? Reason gives no sanction to the practice; on the contrary, most positively condemns it, as unnecessary, unjust, cruel, and therefore more likely to incur displeasure than to obtain favour. Besides, it must always have been expensive, and very often dangerous, so that we must entirely discard the notion of a sense of interest having given occasion to it, unless we can prove, that some valuable consequence was to result from it. This however cannot be done without first shewing its acceptableness to the Being whose regard is thereby solicited. There remain, perhaps, only two other motives which we can conceive to have given origin to the custom, viz. some instinctive principle of our nature by which we are led to it, independent of either reason or a sense of interest, as in the case of our appetites, and a positive injunction or command to that effect by some being who has the requisite authority over our conduct. The author so often alluded to, Dr Magee, who has so profoundly considered this subject in his work on Atonement, &c. rejects the former supposition, affirming that we have no natural instinct to gratify, in spilling the blood of an innocent creature; and, as he has also set aside the other two notions, of course, he adopts the latter as sufficient for the solution of the question. The writer concurs in this opinion, but at the same time, he thinks it of the utmost importance to observe, that as the original injunction or command was assuredly subsequent to the sense of moral delinquency, and was directed in the view of a relief to the conscience of man, so the continuance of the practice, according to any perversion of the primitive and consequently proper institution, is always connected with, and in fact implies, the existence of a feeling of personal demerit and danger. In other words, he conceives there is a suitableness betwixt the operation of man's conscience and that effectual remedy for its uneasiness to which the original institution of animal sacrifices pointed. But it does not follow from this, that man's conscience or reason, or any thing else within him, could ever have made the discovery of the remedy. A sense of his need of it, would undoubtedly set him on various efforts to relieve himself, but this, it is probable, would be as blind a principle as the appetite of hunger, and as much would require aid from an external power. Among the devices to which it might have recourse, very possibly, the notion of giving up a darling object, ought to be included; so it would appear, thought a king of Moab, spoken of by Micah the prophet, chap. 6th, "Shall I give my first-born for my transgression," &c. But even admitting this, we still see the primary difficulty remaining, viz. what reason is there for imagining that the gift in any shape, and more especially when slaughtered, will be accepted? We are driven then to contemplate the revelation of the divine will as the only adequate explanation; and this, it is evident, we must consider as having been handed down by a corrupt process of tradition, among the various nations of the earth. It would be easy to urge arguments in behalf of this opinion. But already the matter has gone beyond common bounds, and the writer dare not hazard another remark. All he shall do then, is to commend this interesting topic to the reader's attention, and to request, that due allowances be made for the omission of certain qualifications which are requisite for some of the remarks now made, but which the limits of the note could not allow to be inserted.—E.