ported by Diodorus, to have offered two hundred human victims at once; and to so unnatural an extreme was this horrid superstition carried by this people, that it was usual for the parent himself, to slaughter the dearest and most beautiful of his offspring at the altars of their bloody deities. Scripture proves the practice to have existed in Canaan, before the Israelites came thither. (Levit. xx. 23.) Of the Arabians, the Cretans, the Cyprians, the Rhodians, the Phocæans, those of Chios, Lesbos, and Tenedos, the same may be established; see Porphyr. apud Euseb. P. Ev. lib. iv. cap. 16. Monimus, as quoted by Clem. Alexand. (Euseb. ibid.) affirms the same of the inhabitants of Pella. And Euripides has given to the bloody altars of the Tauric Diana, a celebrity that rejects additional confirmation. So that the universality of the practice in the ancient Heathen world, cannot reasonably be questioned. In what light then, the Heathens of antiquity considered their deities, and how far they were under the impression, of the existence of a Supreme Benevolence requiring nothing but repentance and reformation of life, may be readily inferred, from this review of facts. Agreeably to the inference which these furnish, we find the reflecting Tacitus pronounce, (Hist. lib. i. cap. 4.) "that the Gods interfere in human concerns, but to punish."-Non esse, curæ Diis securitatem nostram, esse ultionem. And in this, he seems but to repeat the sentiments of Lucan, who in his Pharsalia, (iv. 107, &c.) thus expresses himself: Felix Roma, quidem, civesque habitura beatos, Quam vindicta placet On this subject, the Romans appear to have inhe rited the opinions of the Greeks. Meiners (Historia doctrinæ de vero Deo, p. 208.) asserts, that the more ancient Greeks imagined their Gods to be envious of human felicity; so that, whenever any great success attended them, they were filled with terror, lest the Gods should be offended at it, and bring on them some dreadful calamity. In this, the learned professor but affirms, what we have seen in p. 97. is the formal declaration attributed to Solon by Herodotus: a declaration repeated and confirmed by the Historian, in the instances of Polycrates and Xerxes: in the former of which, the prudent Amasis grounds his alarm for the safety of the too prosperous prince of Samos, on the notoriety of the envious nature of the divine being, το θείον επιςάμενω w5 ε5ɩ plovepov (lib. iii. cap. 40.)—and in the latter, the sage Artabanus warns Xerxes, that even the blessings which the Gods bestow in this life, are derived from an envious motive, ο δε θεος γλυκον γευσας τον αιώνα, φθονερος εν αυτώ ευρίσκεται εων (lib. vii. cap. 46.) That fear of the Gods, was not an unusual attendant on the belief of their existence, may be inferred likewise from the saying of Plutarch, (De Superst.) τελος του μη νομίζειν θεούς, μη φοβείσθαι : and Pliny, (lib. ii. cap. 7.) speaking of the deification of death, diseases, and plagues, says, that "these are ranked among the Gods, whilst with a trembling fear we desire to have them pacified,"-dum esse placatas, trepido metu cupimus. Cudworth also, (Intell. Syst. p. 664.) shews, in the instances of Democritus and Epicurus, that terror was attached to the notion of a divine existence: and that it was with a view to get free from this terror, that Epicurus laboured to remove the idea of a providential administration of human affairs. The testimony of Plato is likewise strong to the same purpose: speaking of the punishment of wicked men, he says, all VOL. I. 13 these things "hath Nemesis decreed to be executed in the second period, by the ministry of vindictive terrestrial demons, who are overseers of human affairs; to which demons, the supreme God hath committed the government of this world."-De Anima Mundi. Opera p. 1096, ed. Franc. 1602. Thus the Gentile Religion, in early ages, evidently appears to have been a religion of fear. The same it has been found likewise in later times, and continues to this day. Of the length of time, during which this practice of human sacrifice continued among the Northern nations, Mr. Thorkelin, who was perfectly conversant with Northern literature, furnishes several instances, in his "Essay on the Slave Trade." Ditmarus charges the Danes with having put to death in their great sacrifices, no fewer than ninety-nine slaves at once. (Loccen. Antiq. Sue. Goth. lib. i. cap. 3.) In Sweden, on urgent occasions, and particularly in times of scarcity and famine, they sacrificed kings and princes. Loccenius (Histor. Rer. Suecic. lib. i. p. 5.) gives the following account: "Tanta fame Suecia afflicta est, ut ei vix gravior unquam incubuerit; cives inter se dissidentes, cum pœnam delictorum divinam agnoscerent, primo anno boves, altero homines, tertio regem ipsum, velut iræ cœlestis piaculum, ut sibi persuasum habebant, Odino immolabant:" and we are told, that the Swedes, at one time, boasted of having sacrificed five kings, in a single day. Adam of Bremen, (Hist. Eccles. cap. 234.) speaking of the awful grove of Upsal, a place distinguished for the celebration of those horrid rites, says, "there was not a single tree in it, that was not reverenced, as gifted with a portion of the divinity, because stained with gore, and foul with human putrefaction." In all the other Northern nations, without exception, the practice is found to have prevailed; and to so late a period did it continue, that we learn from St. Boniface, that Gregory II. was obliged to make the sale of slaves for sacrifice by the German converts, a capital offence; and Carloman in the year 743, found it necessary to pass a law for its prevention. Mallet, whose account of this horrid custom among the Northern nations deserves particularly to be attended to, affirms that it was not abolished in those regions until the ninth century. (Northern Antiquities, vol. i. p. 132-142.) And Jortin (Remarks on Eccles. Hist. vol. v. p. 233,) reports from Fleury, an adherence to this custom, in the island of Rugia, even so late as to the close of the twelfth century. The same dreadful usage is found to exist, to this day, in Africa; where, in the inland parts, they sacrifice the captives, taken in war, to their fetiches: as appears from Snelgrave, who in the king of Dahoome's camp, was witness to his sacrificing multitudes, to the deity of his nation. Among the islanders of the South seas, we likewise learn from Captain Cook, that human sacrifices were very frequent: he speaks of them as customary in Otaheitè, and the Sandwich Islands; and in the Island of Tongataboo, he mentions ten men offered at one festival. All these however are far exceeded by the pious massacre of human beings, in the nations of America. The accounts given by Acosta, Gomara and other Spanish writers, of the monstrous carnage of this kind, in these parts of the world, are almost incredible. The annual sacrifices of the Mexicans, required many thousands of victims; and in Peru, two hundred children were devoted for the health of the Ynca. (Acost. Hist. of Ind. p. 379–388. ed. 1604.-Anton. de Solis. and Clavig. Hist. of Mex. lib. vi. sect. 18, 19, 20.) Mr. Maurice also informs us, that at this day, among certain tribes of the Mahrattas, human victims distinguished by their beauty and youthful bloom, are fattened like oxen for the altar, (Ind. Antiq. p. 843. :) and the same writer (pp. 1077, 1078) instances other facts from Mr. Crauford's Sketches of Indian mythology, from which he concludes, that the notion of the efficacy of human sacrifice is by no means extinct in India at the present time. This position is certainly contradictory to the testimonies of Dow, Holwel, and Grose. But as the laborious research of Mr. Maurice, has drawn together numerous and authentic documents in corroboration of his opinion, it may fairly be questioned, whether the authority of these writers is to be considered as of much weight in the opposite scale. The learned professor Meiners (Historia Doct. de vero Deo. Sect. iv.) does not hesitate to pronounce the two former, unentitled to credit: the first, as being of a disposition too credulous; and the second, as deserving to be reckoned, for fiction and folly, another Megasthenes.* Mr. Dow's * In addition to the authorities already referred to upon this head, I would suggest to the reader a perusal of Mr. Mickle's Enquiry into the Brahmin Philosophy, suffixed to the seventh Book of his Translation of Camoens Lusiad. He will find in that interesting summary, abundant proofs not only of the existence of the practice of human sacrifice in modern India, but also of the total incredibility of the romances of Dow and Holwel; and he will at the same time discover the reason, why these authors are viewed with so much partiality by a certain description of writers. The philosophic tincture of their observations upon religion, and the liberties taken, by Mr. Holwel especially, with both the Mosaic and Christian revelations, were too nearly allied to the spirit of Unitarianism not to have had charms for the advocates of that system.-The superiority of the revelation of Brahma over that of Moses, Mr. Holwel instances in the creation of man. In the former, he says, "the creation of the human form is clogged with no difficulties, no ludicrous unintelligible circumstances, or inconsistencies. God previously constructs mortal bodies of both sexes for the reception of the angelic spirits." (Mickle's Lusiad, vol. ii. p. 253.) Mr. Holwel, also, in his endeavours to prove the |