India; but the ceremonials remind us of the ritual of the temple in Jerusalem, and the circumcision, baptism, and other rites impress us with a very strange sense of recognition. We are greatly amazed as we think of the resemblance, and do not wonder that the superstitious Spaniards went to work to destroy these symbols of worship, thinking that the devil had counterfeited the Bible and presented it to these barbaric races. The Orientalists look upon the hieroglyphics of the East and study for words, but they do not often find in mythology, archæology, or philology, such striking resemblances to the Jewish ritual as we in America do in these very barbaric ornaments, symbols, and ceremonies of the American Aborigines. Many of the Orientalists reduce the religious symbols, myths, and expressions of the eastern races to an allegory, and recognise in them a primitive sun-worship. In this way they interpret Egyptian, Hindoo, and Scandinavian mythology, but in America the sun-worship is on the face of things, and the moral or personal conceptions are in the background. The sacrifices are in their details appalling and full of cruelties, but the superstitions at the back of them point to a fearful sense of sin. The personifications which are common among all the tribes of America and the mythologies which are full of personal exploits, show that the divinity in America was always

All-father, no

66

regarded as a person. We have no "bright heavens," no shining sky," no thundering Jupiter," no mighty celestial power"; but the divinity is a hero with divine attributes and supernatural powers, or an animal with human attributes. It seems sometimes as if the "culture-heroes were all of them of the same general character, full of remarkable exploits, possessing natural traits, but endowed with supernatural powers. We cannot dwell now upon the culture-heroes who introduced civilisation, but will only refer to them briefly. The White-God of the Aztecs, Quetzalcoatl, the bearded god of the Toltecs, the Manco-Capac of Peru, Virococha of Quito, the Montezuma of the Zunis were all personal divinities. Below these, among the wild tribes, are divinities with human attributes and with human history. The Mano-bozho of the Mandans, the Hiawatha Atotarho of the Iroquois, the Glooskap of the Abenakis, the Michabo of the Algonquins, the Ioskeha of the Hurons,—all had human attributes. Other divinities were prevalent among these tribes, but the chief Law-giver and controller of the tribes was a culture-hero. Still lower than these was the animal divinity who was the creator or restorer, but who was represented as the great "master of life." The conception of

the divinity varied according to the cultus of the people. The culture-hero was the divinity of the more advanced tribes, but an animal divinity was the master of life with the more degraded tribes. Dr. D. G. Brinton, of Philadelphia, a great authority, thinks that all culture-heroes were personifications of the sun-divinity; but he has taken some examples from tribes which had not reached sun-worship, and therefore is mistaken in his interpretation. They were divinities which possessed human attributes, and it is gratuitous to identify them with nature-powers, for some did not even symbolise these powers. The animal divinities, also, had personal attributes, and many of them had a history which was almost as human as the culture-heroes. The Coyote, the Wolf and Dog of the Chinooks, the Serpent of the Pecos, the Raccoon of the Navajoes, the Eagle of the Pimas, the Hawk of the Californians, the Grizzly Bear of the Mount Shastas, the Raven of the Thlinkeets, the Dog of the Tinnehs were all supernatural beings whose work was to create or to restore, and who assumed control over other animals by their supernatural powers as well as by their human intelligence. This element of personal character which is so frequently ascribed to animal divinities must have come from the religious consciousness, and not from any elaborate philosophy. It takes a great deal of study to trace any analogy between the animal divinities and the sun or naturepowers; but a very primitive fancy was enough to personify an animal, and make it represent a divinity with human attributes. The attempt to naturalise the human divinities and cultureheroes breaks down, but the work of humanising animal divinities is done for us by the natives already. Take the adventures of any one of these "culture-heroes" or masters of life" which bears an animal name and semblance, and see how much of the human element there is, and how little of the natural. The imagery is always expressive of the habits of the people: bows and arrows, canoes, caves, trees, lodges, medicinebags, villages, islands, lakes, mountains, forests, fire-brands, waves, salt water, river banks, and a thousand things which are familiar to the savage and hunter tribes are mentioned when telling the story of their animal divinities. There is a different framework for the culture-heroes, which bear personal names. Here there are council-houses, conversations, hours of meditation, and many other scenes which indicate a contemplative and purely human condition.

Personality was ascribed to all the divinities. Even the fetiches, which were mere stones or sticks of trees, had personal qualities, and were supposed to be possessed by

spirits resembling human souls. The animals were also personified, and were regarded as human personalities. The myths and poetic stories always represent the animals as if they were human beings. There are myths in which the animal divinities and human divinities are associated. Sometimes the animal is supreme and sometimes the human deity is supreme. But in the narratives the adventures of the one are quite similar to those of the other, and transformation frequently takes place. This idea of personality is as common in America as in Africa. It is a prominent feature in American mythology.

IV. The religion of the aborigines of America had one quality which we must consider. The far-off, the mysterious, the incomprehensible, the wonderful, the unknown are always suggestive of divinity. It would seem that all the divine attributes were condensed into this. Whatever had this was divine. It might be a stick or a snake, a tree or a stone. If it was strange and outré, it was regarded as "a Manitou." This was the nature of superstition. It magnified the shadowy; it deified the wonderful. If an object was mysterious, it was sure to be worshipped. The dark rock, the rapid stream, the shadowy cave, the over-hanging forest, the swift lightnings were worshipped for no other reason than that they were mysterious. The animals which were wild and weird were always exalted to the level of supreme deities. If they were subtle and stealthy, and held themselves aloof from men, they were feared. They were the greatest deities because they were mysterious. It was on this account that the Coyote, the Eagle, and the Hare were chosen to represent the supreme divinity. These creatures were wary and wild, and far off from man. They roamed the forest, cleaved the air, hid among the rocks, and were full of mystery, and so were regarded as superior. These were the chief divinities of the hunter races. It was on this account that the nature-powers were worshipped. These were the divinities of the civilised races. Every element that was mysterious, incomprehensible, or full of power was exalted to the level of a supreme divinity. Even the human personalities which figured so conspicuously in the systems of the Toltecs and Aztecs were worshipped as supreme because of the mystery which surrounded them. The White-God was mysterious. He came from a far-off country, and went away again. His advent and his departure were enveloped in mystery. He was a Melchizedek in disguise. His character was different from every other person. He suffered for his people, and secured good for them, but

was overcome by his enemies, and retired. His return was hourly expected. He was the Christ of the American races. He was not Hercules, nor Dyonysus, nor Apollo, nor Mercury. He was more like Christ than any of these, but he was very mysterious. Some say that he was an historic personage, a Buddhist priest; others that he was a personification of the sun; others that he was a pure creation of the fancy;-but, whatever he was, he bore a remarkable character. His moral attributes were, unlike those ascribed to the other divinities, certainly in contrast to those possessed by the other nature-divinities. Strangely enough this culture-hero was driven away, and the nature-gods took his place. Where did this idea which is so much like the Christ come from? Was it brought in from another continent, or was it the product of the native thought and conscience? The Bible idea was not totally unknown, for the Toltec divinity, in his life and character, has a wonderful resemblance to the promised Messiah.

V. We now turn to the main question, and shall, by quoting the opinions of others, suggest an explanation. There are many writers who have given opinions upon this question which are worthy of regard. Some of these writers are mere speculative thinkers, but others have based their opinions upon facts, rather than upon theories. The ethnic religions of the earth have been studied attentively, and among them those of the native races of America have gained prominence. Perhaps they have not been treated as fully as they should have been, but they are at least taken into the account.

The religious sentiment is the first object of thought. This is a mysterious power in nature. The question is, in what way this sentiment first expresses itself.

On this point there seems to be a great diversity of opinion. Caspari says that "Parents, chieftains, and sages were the first objects of religious reverence and homage." Jules Baissac, on the other hand, concludes that the generative principle was the beginning. Motherhood was deified. Next to this the male principle, and after that the phallic worship was the form which the religious sentiment took. Comte takes the ground that the earliest attitude assumed by the mind in interpreting nature was a fetichistic one. Spencer, however, thinks that the very fact that the first man could easily distinguish animate from inanimate objects would refute this, and takes the position that animistic and fetichistic beliefs were not primary beliefs. De Brosses and Tiele assert

but Quatrefages and Tylor deny the primitiveness of fetichism or animism.

He

Darwin conceives the first men to be capable of rising in thought above the knowledge furnished by the senses. says that the same high mental faculties which first led men to believe in unseen spiritual agencies, then in fetichism, then in polytheism, and ultimately in monotheism, would infallibly lead him, so long as his powers remained poorly developed, to various strange superstitions and customs. These are aberrations of the human intellect, but they show the loftiness of man's powers. Lubbock also ascribes to the earliest men a like ability to conceive of the super-sensual; and Tylor says, that "high above all the doctrines of souls, of divine manes, of local nature, spirits, of the great deities, of the elements, there are to be discerned in savage theology shadows quaint or majestic of the conception of a supreme deity." He says also that the races of North and South America, of Africa, of Polynesia, recognising a number of great deities, are usually considered polytheists, yet their acknowledgment of a supreme creator would entitle them to the name of monotheists. Max Müller takes the ground that fetichism itself points to antecedent ideas which give force to the fetich.

Yet

The great objection to these views is found in the low morality of the native religions, but it should be added that the character of the deity partakes of the character of the worshippers. The ideas of morality among the natives of America are quite low, but their divinities compare favourably with others. There were many deceptions practised by the gods, and occasionally a deed of lust appears in the record. they never equal the amours of the classical divinities, and the deceptions, if compared with those of the Scandinavian, are harmless and without malice. The sacrifices which were introduced by Montezuma, the King of Mexico, were cruel and bloodthirsty; but so were the sacrifices of the Phoenicians. Cannibalism existed in America, but there was a peculiar superstition about it. It was to secure the bravery or the virtue of the victim that the people ate his flesh. Phallic worship prevailed to some extent on this continent, but never reached the base degradation which was common in the East. The worship of Bacchus never prevailed to any extent here. We do not claim for the divinities of America any quality of holiness; but there was often a benevolent disposition in them which was quite remarkable amongst such a race. The WhiteGods and the culture-heroes were the embodiments of lofty and majestic purity, of self-denial for the good of others, and