Adair's History of the American Indians

“If the usual proper care had been taken, neither Jupiter nor fate would have hindered Troy from standing at this time.” But, if the time of dying was unalterably fixed, according to the Indian system, or that of our fatalists, how would its votaries reconcile the scheme of divine Providence? which must be in conformity to truth, reason, and goodness,—and how explain the nature of moral good and evil? On their principle, self-murder would be a necessary act of a passive being set on work by the first mover; and his obligations would be proportionable, only to his powers and faculties; which would excuse the supposed criminal from any just future punishment for suicide. But religion, and true reason, deny the premises, and they themselves will not own the consequence.

It is their opinion of the THEOCRACY, or, that God chose them out of all the rest of mankind, as his peculiar and beloved people,—which animates both the white Jew, and the red American, with that steady hatred against all the world, except themselves, and renders them hated or despised by all. The obstinacy of the former, in shutting their eyes against the sacred oracles, which are very explicit and clear in the original text, and of which they were the trustees, incites both our pity and reproof; whereas the others firm adherence to, and strong retention of, the rites and customs of their forefathers, only attract our admiration.

The American Indians are so far from being Atheists, as some godless Europeans have flattered themselves, to excuse their own infidelity, that they have the great sacred name of God, that describes his divine essence, and {34} by which he manifested himself to Moses—and are firmly persuaded they now live under the immediate government of the Deity. The ascension of the smoke of their victim, as a sweet savour to Yohewah, (of which hereafter) is a full proof to the contrary, as also that they worship God, in a smoke and cloud, believing him to reside above the clouds, and in the element of the, supposed, holy annual fire. It is no way material to fix any certain place for the residence of Him, who is omnipresent, and who sustains every system of beings. It is not essential to future happiness, whether we believe his chief place of abode is in cælo tertio, paradiso terrestri, or elemento igneo. God hath placed conscience in us for a monitor, witness, and judge.—It is the guilty or innocent mind, that accuses, or excuses us, to Him. If any farther knowledge was required, it would be revealed; but St. Paul studiously conceals the mysteries he saw in the empyreal heavens.

The place of the divine residence is commonly said to be above the clouds; but that is because of the distance of the place, as well as our utter ignorance of the nature of Elohim’s existence, the omnipresent spirit of the universe. Our finite minds cannot comprehend a being who is infinite. This inscrutable labyrinth occasioned Simonides, a discreet heathen poet and philosopher, to request Hiero, King of Sicily, for several days successively, to grant him a longer time to describe the nature of the Deity; and, at the end, to confess ingenuously, that the farther he waded in that deep mystery, the more he sunk out of his depth, and was less able to define it.

If we trace Indian antiquities ever so far, we shall find that not one of them ever retained, or imbibed, atheistical principles, except such whose interest as to futurity it notoriously appeared to be—whose practices made them tremble whenever they thought of a just and avenging God: but these rare instances were so far from infecting the rest, that they were the more confirmed in the opinion, of not being able either to live or die well, without a God. And this all nature proclaims in every part of the universe.

Argument IV.

We have abundant evidence of the Jews believing in the ministration of angels, during the Old-Testament dispensation; their frequent appearances, and their services, on earth, are recorded in the oracles, which the Jews themselves receive as given by divine inspiration. And St. Paul in his {35} epistle addressed to the Hebrews, speaks of it as their general opinion, that “Angels are ministring spirits to the good and righteous on earth.” And that it was the sentiment of those Jews who embraced christianity, is evident from Acts xii. where an angel is said to deliver Peter from his imprisonment, and when the maid reported that Peter stood at the gate knocking, his friends doubting, said, “It is his angel.” Women also are ordered to have their heads covered in religious assemblies, because of the presence of the angels, and to observe silence, the modest custom of the eastern countries. The Indian sentiments and traditions are the same.—They believe the higher regions to be inhabited by good spirits, whom they call Hottuk Ishtohoollo, and Nana Ishtohoollo, “holy people,” and “relations to the great, holy One.” The Hottuk ookproose, or Nana ookproose, “accursed people,” or “accursed beings,” they say, possess the dark regions of the west; the former attend, and favour the virtuous; and the latter, in like manner, accompany and have power over the vicious: on which account, when any of their relations die, they immediately fire off several guns, by one, two, and three at a time, for fear of being plagued with the last troublesome neighbours: all the adjacent towns also on the occasion, whoop and halloo at night; for they reckon, this offensive noise sends off the ghosts to their proper fixed place, till they return at some certain time, to repossess their beloved tract of land, and enjoy their terrestrial paradise. As they believe in God, so they firmly believe that there is a class of higher beings than men, and a future state and existence.

There are not greater bigots in Europe, nor persons more superstitious, than the Indians, (especially the women) concerning the power of witches, wizards, and evil spirits.^[19] It is the chief subject of their idle winter night’s chat: and both they, and several of our traders, report very incredible and shocking stories. They will affirm that they have seen, and distinctly, most surprising apparitions, and heard horrid shrieking noises. They pretend, it was impossible for all their senses to be deluded at the same time; especially at Okmulge,^[20] the old waste town, belonging to the Muskohge, 150 miles S. W. of Augusta in Georgia, which the South-Carolinians destroyed about the year 1715. They strenuously aver, that when necessity forces them to encamp there, they always hear, at the dawn of the morning, the usual noise of Indians singing their joyful religious notes, and dancing, as if going down to the river to purify themselves, and then returning to the old town-house: with a great deal more to the same effect. Whenever I have been {36} there, however, all hath been silent. Our noisy bacchanalian company might indeed have drowned the noise with a greater of their own. But as I have gone the tedious Chikkasah war path^[21], through one continued desart, day and night, much oftener than any of the rest of the traders, and alone, to the Chikkasah country, so none of those frightful spirits ever appeared to, nor any tremendous noise alarmed me. But they say this was “because I am an obdurate infidel that way.”

The Hebrews seem to have entertained notions pretty much resembling the Indian opinions on this head, from some passages in their rabbins, and which they ground even on the scriptures^[VIII]. We read Isa. xiii. 21. “But wild beasts of the desart shall lie there, and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures, and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there^[IX].”

Several warriors have told me, that their Nana Ishtohoollo, “concomitant holy spirits,” or angels, have forewarned them, as by intuition, of a dangerous ambuscade, which must have been attended with certain death, when they were alone, and seemingly out of danger; and by virtue of the impulse, they immediately darted off, and, with extreme difficulty, escaped the crafty, pursuing enemy. Similar to this, was the opinion of many of the Jews, and several of the ancient and refined heathens, and is the sentiment of moderns, that intimations of this kind, for man’s preservation and felicity, proceed from God by the instrumentality of good angels, or superior invisible beings, which he employs for that purpose—who can so impress the imagination, and influence the mind, as to follow the suggestions, but not so as to destroy the liberty of the will.—Thus Homer introduces Minerva as suggesting what was proper for the persons she favoured—and other superior beings; but they deliberated on the counsel, and chose that which appeared to be right.

Argument V.

The Indian language, and dialects, appear to have the very idiom and genius of the Hebrew. Their words and sentences are expressive, concise, emphatical, {37} sonorous, and bold—and often, both in letters and signification, synonymous with the Hebrew language. It is a common and old remark, that there is no language, in which some Hebrew words are not to be found. Probably Hebrew was the first, and only language, till distance of time and place introduced a change, and then soon followed a mixture of others. The accidental position of the characters, might also coincide with some Hebrew words, in various dialects, without the least intention. As the true pronunciation of the Hebrew characters, is lost in a considerable degree, it is too difficult a task, for a skilful Hebraist, to ascertain a satisfactory identity of language, between the Jews, and American Aborigines; much more so to an Indian trader, who professes but a small acquaintance with the Hebrew, and that acquired by his own application. However, I will endeavour to make up the deficiency of Hebrew, with a plenty of good solid Indian roots.

The Indian nouns have neither cases nor declensions. They are invariably the same, through both numbers, after the Hebrew manner. In their verbs, they likewise sometimes use the preterperfect, instead of the present tense of the indicative mood; as Blahsas Aiahre, Apeesahre, “Yesterday I went and saw;” and Eemmako Aiahre, Apeesahre, “Now I go and see.” Like the Hebrews, they have no comparative, or superlative degree. They express a preference, by the opposite extremes; as Chekusteene, “You are virtuous;” Sahakse, “I am vicious.” But it implies a comparative degree, and signifies, “You are more virtuous than I am.” By prefixing the adverbs, which express little, and much, to the former words, it conveys the same meaning; the former of which is agreeable to the Hebrew idiom. And a double repetition of the same adjective, makes a superlative, according to the Hebrew manner; as Lawwa, Lawwa, “most, or very many.” To add hah to the end of an adjective, unless it is a noun of multitude like the former, makes it also a superlative; as Hakse to hah, “They are most, or very wicked.” Hakse signifies vicious, probably when the vicious part of the Israelites were under the hand of the corrector, the judge repeated that word: ta, is a note of plurality, and hah an Hebrew accent of admiration; which makes it a superlative. To join the name of God, or the leading vowel of the mysterious, great, divine name, to the end of a noun, likewise implies a superlative; as Hakse-ishto, or Hakse-o, “He, or she is very wicked.” The former method of speech exactly agrees with the Hebrew idiom; as the original text shews, in innumerable instances. {38}

When the Hebrews compare two things, and would signify a parity between them, they double the particle of resemblance; “I am as thou art; and my people as thy people:” And the Indians, on account of that original defective standard of speech, are forced to use the like circumlocution; as Che Ahōba sia, “I am like you;” and Sahottuk Chehottuk tooah, &c. for Hottuk signifies people, and the S expresses the pronoun my, or mine: and it likewise changes an active, into a passive verb. Although this Indian and Hebrew method of speech, is rather tedious and defective, yet, at the same time, they who attain any tolerable skill in the dialects of the one, and language of the other, will discover the sense plain enough, when a comparison is implied.

There is not, perhaps, any one language or speech, except the Hebrew, and the Indian American, which has not a great many prepositions. The Indians, like the Hebrews, have none in separate and express words. They are forced to join certain characters to words, in order to supply that great defect. The Hebrew consonants, called serviles, were tools to supply the place of the prepositions. The Indians, for want of a sufficient number of radical words, are forced to apply the same noun and verb, to signify many things of a various nature. With the Cheerake, Eeankke, signifies a prisoner, captive, slave, awl, pin, needle, &c.; which occasions the Indian dialects to be very difficult to strangers. The Jewish Rabbins tell us, that the Hebrew language contains only a few more than a thousand primitive words, of which their whole language is formed. So that the same word very often denotes various, though not contrary things. But there is one radical meaning, which will agree to every sense that word is used in.

By custom, a Hebrew noun frequently supplied the place of a pronoun; by which means, it caused a tedious, and sometimes an ambiguous circumlocution. From this original defective standard of speech, the Indians have forgotten all their pronouns, except two primitives and two relatives; as, Anòwah, Ego, and Ishna, Tu: the latter bears a great many significations, both as singular and plural, viz. Eeàpa and Eeàko; which signify he, she, this, that, &c.: And they are likewise adverbs of place; as here, there, &c. הוא Hewa, signifies he or she; אני Ani we; and אנ, Anowa, he, she, him, her, &c. {39}

The Hebrew language frequently uses hyperboles, or magnifying numbers, to denote a long space of time: the Indians, accordingly, apply the words, Neetak akroohah, “all days,” or, in other words, “for ever,” to a long series of years. With the Jews, sitting, signified dwelling; and, with the Indians, it is the very same; for, when they ask a person where he dwells, they say, Katèmuk Ishbeneele (chuak?), which is literally “where do you sit?” And when they call us irreligious, they say Nãna U-bat, “No thing,” or literally, “a relation to nothing;” for Nãna signifies a relation: and the other is always a negative adverbial period; which seems also to proceed from a religious custom of the Hebrews, in giving despicable borrowed names to idols; as to בעלים, Baalim, “Particles of air,” meaning, nothing. To which the Psalmist alludes, saying, “I will not take up their names in my lips.” And St. Paul says, “We know that an idol is nothing.” This expression the Indians apply, in a pointed metaphor, to the white people, but never to each other.

Like the Hebrews, they seldom, if ever, double the liquid consonant R; for they generally seem desirous of shuffling over it, at any rate: And they often give it the sound of L; but, if it precedes a word, where the other consonant soon follows, they always give it its proper sound, contrary to the usage of the Chinese: as the name of a stone, they often call, Tahle, instead of Tahrè; but the Indians say, “Tahre lakkana”lakkana”, literally, “Yellow stone,” i. e. gold.

The Hebrews subjoined one of their serviles, to words, to express the pronoun relative, thy or thine: And as that particle was also a note of resemblance, it shews the great sterility of that language. As a specimen—They said אביך, (Abiche) “your father,” and אמך, (Ameche) “Your mother,” &c. Only that the Hebrew period is initial, in such a case, to the Indian nouns, they always use the very same method of expression. This I shall illustrate with two words in the dialects of the Chikkasah and Cheerake—as Chinge and Chatokta, “your father;” Angge and Aketohta signifying “my father,” in resemblance of אב, Abba, of the same import; likewise Chishka and Chacheeah, “your mother;” for Saske and Akachee signify “my mother,” in imitation of אשה, Ashe. Also Sas Kish signifies podex meus, Chish Kish, podex tuus, and Kish Kish, podex illius; which I guess to be an {40} opprobrious allusion to Kish the father of Saul, for the son’s assuming the throne at the end of the Jewish theocracy. In their adjectives and verbs, they use the same method of speech; as Nahoorèso Chin-Chookoma, “Your book is good.” The former word is compounded of נא (Na) now, or the present time, and Hoorèso, delineated, marked, or painted. Aia signifies to go, and Maia-Cha, “Go along,” or Maia, the same; for, by prefixing מ to it, it implies a requisite obedience. In like manner, Apeesah, to see, and Peesàcha, look, or “see you.” And, when that particle is prefixed to a verb, it always expresses the accusative case of the same pronoun; as Chepeesahre, “I saw you,” and Chepeesahras, “I shall see you.” Each of the Hebrew characters are radicals; although half of them are serviles, according to that proper term of the scholiasts; for, when they are prefixed, inserted, or subjoined, either at the beginning, middle, or end of a radical word, they serve to form its various augments, inflexions, and derivatives. According to this difficult standard of speech, the Indian nouns, moods, and tenses, are variously formed to express different things. As there is no other known language or dialect, which has the same tedious, narrow, and difficult principles; must we not consider them to be twin-born sisters? The want of proper skill to observe the original fixed idea of the Indian words, their radical letters, and the due sounds in each of them, seems to have been the only reason why the writers on the American Aborigines, have not exhibited the true and genuine properties of any one of their dialects; as they are all uniform in principle: so far at least, as an extensive acquaintance reaches.

The Hebrew nouns are either derived from verbs, or both of them are one and the same; as ברכה, (Beroche) “Blessing,” from ברך, (Beroch) “to bless,” and דבר חבר, (Dabar Daber) “he spoke the speech.” This proper name signifies “loquacious,” like the Indian Sekàkee, signifying the “grasshopper.” The Indian method of expression, exactly agrees with that Hebrew mode of speech; for they say Anumbole Anumbole (kis) “I spake the speaking;” and Anumbole Enumbole (kis), “he spoke the speaking, or speech.” And by inserting the name of God between these two words, their meaning is the very same with those two first Hebrew words. I shall subjoin another word of the same sort—Hookseeleta signifies “a shutting instrument;” and they say Ishtookseelèta, or Hookseelèta, Ish-hookseetas, or Hookseetà Cha, “You shall, or, shut you the door.” Their period of the last word, always denotes the second person singular of the imperative mood; {41} and that of the other preceding it, either the first or second person singular of the indicative mood; which is formed so by a fixed rule, on account of the variegating power of the serviles, by affixing, inserting, or suffixing them, to any root. According to the usage of the Hebrews, they always place the accusative case also before the verb; as in the former Indian words.

With the Hebrews, תפלח signified “a prayer,” or a religious invocation, derived from פלח, Phelac, “to pray to, or invoke the Deity.” In a strong resemblance thereof, when the Indians are performing their sacred dance, with the eagles tails, and with great earnestness invoking Yo He Wah to bless them with success and prosperity, Phale signifies, “waving,” or invoking by waving, Ishphāle, you wave, Phalècha, wave you, Aphalàle, I waved, Aphalèlas, I will wave, &c. Psalmodists seem to have borrowed the notes fa, la, from the aforesaid Hebrew words of praying, singing to, or invoking Elohim. פעל, (Phoole) “to work,” is evidently drawn from the former Hebrew word, which signifies to invoke (and probably to wave the feathers of the cherubic eagle before) Yo He Wah. The greatest part of the Levitical method of worshipping, consisted in laborious mechanical exercises, much after the Indian manner; which the popish priests copy after, in a great many instances, as pulling off their clothes, and putting on others; imagining that the Deity is better pleased with persons who variegate their external appearances, like Proteus, than with those who worship with a steady, sincere disposition of mind; besides a prodigious group of other superstitious ceremonies, which are often shamefully blended with those of the old pagans.

As the Hebrew word נא, Na, signifies the present time—so when the Indians desire a person to receive something from them speedily, they say, Nà (short and gutturally) eescha, “take it, now.” He replies Unta, or Omeh, which are good-natured affirmatives. The pronoun relative, “you,” which they term Ishna, is a compounded Hebrew word, signifying (by application) the person present, or “you.”

With the Hebrews, הר הר, Hara Hara, signifies, “most, or very, hot;” the repetition of the word makes it a superlative. In a strict resemblance of that word, and mode of speech, when an Indian is baffled by any of their {42} humorous wits, he says, in a loud jesting manner, Hara Hara, or Hala Hala, according to their capacity of pronouncing the liquid R: and it signifies, “you are very hot upon me:” their word, which expresses “sharp,” conveys the idea of bitter-heartedness with them; and that of bitterness they apply only to the objects of taste.

With the Cheerake, Chikkasah, and Choktah Indians, Nannè signifies “a hill:” and Nannéh, with the two last-mentioned nations, “a fish;” and Unchàba, “a mountain.” But they call an alligator, or crocodile, Nannéh Chunchāba, literally, “the fish like a mountain;” which the English language would abbreviate into the name of a mountain-fish; but, instead of a hyphen, they use the Hebrew כ, a note of resemblance, which seems to point at the language from which they derived it. In like manner, Aà signifies to walk, and Eette, wood; but Eette Chanáa, any kind of wheel; which is consonant to the aforesaid Hebrew idiom; with many others of the like nature: but a specimen of this sort must suffice.

The Hebrew and Indian words, which express delineating, writing, decyphering, marking, and painting, convey the same literal meaning in both languages; as Exod. xvii. 14. כתב שפר (Chethéba Sepháre) “delineate this with delineations;” and, with the Indians, Hoorèso is, in like manner, the radical name of books, delineating, &c.; and Ootehna that for numbering, instead of reading. The nearest approach they can make to it, is, Anumbōle hoorèso Ishanumbōlas, “You shall speak the speech, which is delineated.”

They call a razor, Baspoo Shaphe, “A shaving knife:” and Shaphe always signifies to shave; probably, because when they first began to shave themselves, they were ridiculed by the higher, or more religious part of the people, for imitating that heathenish custom. The Hebrew שפּה (Shaphe) signifying lip, confession, or worship; which divine writ assures us, the descendants of Noah changed, when they opposed the divine will of settling various parts of the earth, and built the great tower of Babel, as an emblem of greatness, to get them a name^[X]. {43}

Loak signifies fire, and Loak Ishtohoollo, “the holy or divine fire,” or the anger of Ishtohoollo, “the great, holy One;” which nearly agrees with the Hebrew להט, that which flames, or scorches with vehement heat. And it is the scripture method of conveying to us a sensible idea of the divine wrath, according to the cherubic name אש, which likewise signifies fire. But the Persians worshipped the burning fire, by the name of Oromazes; and darkness, or the spirit, by that of Aramanius; quite contrary to the religious system of the Indian Americans: and the aforesaid Indian method of expression, seems exactly to coincide with the Hebrew idiom.

Buk-she-ah-ma is the name of their Indian flap, or broad slip of cloth with which the men cover their nakedness; but the word they use to express our sort of breeches, is a compound, Bala-phooka, derived from the Hebrew באל, which signifies, behind; and the Indian Naphooka, a coat, any kind of clothes, or covering; Baloka signifies, behind; silently telling us, they formerly wore a different sort of breeches to what they use at present. They likewise say, Neeppe-Phú-ka, “A flesh-covering.”

The father of King Saul was called Kish, “podex;” which signifies also the rear of an army, or the hindermost person, according to the Hebrew idiom. Thus the Indians, by Kish, express the podex of any animal—the hindermost person—the gavel-end of an house, and the like. Kish Kish, is with them a superlative, and, as before hinted, used to convey the contempt they have for that proper name. May not the contemptible idea the West-Florida-Missisippi Indians affix to the name of Kish, be on account of his son’s succession to the throne, at the end of the theocracy of Israel, and beginning a despotic regal government?

The Indians, according to the usage of the Hebrews, always prefix the substantive to the adjective; as Netak Chookòma, “A good day;” Nakkàne and Eho Chookòma, “A goodly man and woman.” The former of which is termed, in Hebrew, Yoma Tobe, signifying, according to our method of salutation, a good-day, a merry season, a festival day, &c. And the Indian appellatives are similarly exprest in Hebrew, Behtobe and Ashe-Tobe, “A good, goodly, discreet, or wise man and woman.” Chookoma, with the Indians, is the proper name of a comely woman, when A is prefixed to it; as A-chookòma, “My goodly, or beautiful:” they use it for a warrior, {44} when it is compounded without the A; as Chookòma hummáshtàbe, “One who killed a beautiful, great, red, or war-chieftain;” which is compounded of Chookoma, comely, Humma, red, אש, Ash, fire, and Abe, a contraction of אבל, Abele, signifying grief, or sorrow. Hence it appears, that because the Hebrews affixed a virtuous idea to Tobe, goodly; the Indians call white by the same name, and make it the constant emblem of every thing that is good, according to a similar Hebrew custom. Of this the sacred oracles make frequent mention.

The Jews called that, which was the most excellent of every thing, the fat; and the Indians, in like manner, say, Oosto Neehe, “The fat of the pompion,” Tranche Neehe, “The fat of the corn.”corn.” Neeha is the adjective, signifying fat, from which the word Neeta, “a bear,” is derived. They apply the word heart, only to animate beings.

As the Deity is the soul of every system—and as every nation, from the remotest ages of antiquity, believed that they could not live well, without some god or other; when, therefore, we clearly understand the name, or names, by which any society of people express their notions of a deity, we can with more precision form ideas of the nature of their religious worship, and of the object, or objects, of their adoration. I shall therefore here give a plain description of the names by which the Indian Americans speak of God.

Ishtohoollo is an appellative for God. Ishtohoollo points at the greatness, purity, and goodness, of the Creator in forming אישאיש and אישא: it is derived from Ishto, GREAT, which was the usual name of God through all the prophetic writings; likewise, from the present tense of the infinitive mood of the active verb, Ahoollo, “I love,” and from the preter tense of the passive verb, Hoollo, which signifies “sanctifying, sanctified, divine, or holy.” Women set apart, they term, Hoollo, i. e. sanctifying themselves to Ishtohoollo: likewise, Netakhoollo signifies “a sanctified, divine, or holy day;” and, in like manner, Ookka Hoollo, “water sanctified,” &c. So that, Ishtohoollo, when applied to God, in its true radical meaning, imports, “The great, beloved, holy Cause;” which is exceedingly comprehensive, and more expressive of the true nature of God, than the Hebrew name Adonai, which is applicable to a human being. Whenever the {45} Indians apply the epithet, compounded, to any of their own religious men, it signifies the great, holy, beloved, and sanctified men of the Holy One.

They make this divine name point yet more strongly to the supreme author of nature; for, as אב, signifies father; and as the omnipresent Spirit of the universe, or the holy father of mankind, is said to dwell above, they therefore call the immense space of the heavens, Aba, Abáse, and Abatàra: and, to distinguish the King of kings, by his attributes, from their own Minggo Ishto, or great chieftains, they frequently name him Minggo Ishto Aba, &c.; Ishto Aba, &c.; Minggo Aba, &c.; and, when they are striving to move the passions of the audience, Ishtohoollo Aba. The Hebrew servants were not allowed to call their master or mistress אב, Abba, till they were adopted: to which custom St. Paul alludes, Rom. viii. 15.

They have another appellative, which with them is the mysterious, essential name of God—the tetragrammaton, or great four-lettered name—which they never mention in common speech,—of the time and place, when, and where, they mention it, they are very particular, and always with a solemn air.

There is a species of tea, that grows spontaneously, and in great plenty, along the sea-coast of the two Carolinas, Georgia, and East and West Florida, which we call Yopon, or Cusseena:^[22] The Indians transplant, and are extremely fond of it; they drink it on certain stated occasions, and in their most religious solemnities, with awful invocations: but the women, and children, and those who have not successfully accompanied their holy ark, pro Aris et Focis, dare not even enter the sacred square, when they are on this religious duty; otherwise, they would be dry scratched with snakes teeth, fixed in the middle of a split reed, or piece of wood, without the privilege of warm water to supple the stiffened skin.

When this beloved liquid, or supposed holy drink-offering, is fully prepared, and fit to be drank, one of their Magi brings two old consecrated, large conch-shells, out of a place appropriated for containing the holy things, and delivers them into the hands of two religious attendants, who, after a wild ceremony, fill them with the supposed sanctifying, bitter liquid: then they approach near to the two central red and white seats, (which the {46} traders call the war, and beloved cabbins) stooping with their heads and bodies pretty low; advancing a few steps in this posture, they carry their shells with both hands, at an instant, to one of the most principal men on those red and white seats, saying, on a bass key, Y’ah, quite short: then, in like manner, they retreat backward, facing each other, with their heads bowing forward, their arms across, rather below their breast, and their eyes half shut; thus, in a very grave, solemn manner, they sing on a strong bass key, the awful monosyllable, O, for the space of a minute: then they strike up majestic He, on the treble, with a very intent voice, as long as their breath allows them; and on a bass key, with a bold voice, and short accent, they at last utter the strong mysterious sound, Wah, and thus finish the great song, or most solemn invocation of the divine essence. The notes together compose their sacred, mysterious name, Y-O-He-Wah.^[23]

That this seems to be the true Hebrew pronunciation of the divine essential name, יהוה, Jehovah, will appear more obvious from the sound they seem to have given their characters. The Greeks, who chiefly copied their alphabet from the Hebrew, had not jod, but ιοτα, very nearly resembling the sound of our Y. The ancient Teutonic and Sclavonian dialects, have Yah as an affirmative, and use the consonant W instead of V. The high importance of the subject, necessarily would lead these supposed red Hebrews, when separated from other people in America, to continue to repeat the favourite name of God, YO He Wah, according to the ancient pronunciation.

Contrary to the usage of all the ancient heathen world, the American Indians not only name God by several strong compounded appellatives, expressive of many of his divine attributes, but likewise say Yah at the beginning of their religious dances, with a bowing posture of body; then they sing Yo Yo, He He, and repeat those sacred notes, on every religious occasion: the religious attendants calling to Yah to enable them humbly to supplicate, seems to point to the Hebrew custom of pronouncing, יה, Yah, which likewise signifies the divine essence. It is well known what sacred regard the Jews had to the four-lettered divine name, so as scarcely ever to mention it, but once a year, when the high-priest went into the holy sanctuary, at the expiation of sins. Might not the Indians copy from them, this sacred invocation? Their method of invoking God, in a {47} solemn hymn, with that reverential deportment, and spending a full breath on each of the two first syllables of the awful divine name, hath a surprizing analogy to the Jewish custom, and such as no other nation or people, even with the advantage of written records, have retained.

It may be worthy of notice, that they never prostrate themselves, nor bow their bodies, to each other, by way of salute, or homage, though usual with the eastern nations, except when they are making or renewing peace with strangers, who come in the name of Yah; then they bow their bodies in that religious solemnity—but they always bow in their religious dances, because then they sing what they call divine hymns, chiefly composed of the great, beloved, divine name, and addressed to Yo He Wah. The favoured persons, whom the religious attendants are invoking the divine essence to bless, hold up the shells with both hands, to their mouths, during the awful sacred invocation, and retain a mouthful of the drink, to spirt out on the ground, as a supposed drink-offering to the great self-existent Giver; which they offer at the end of their draught. If any of the traders, who at those times are invited to drink with them, were to neglect this religious observance, they would reckon us as godless and wild as the wolves of the desart^[XI]. After the same manner, the supposed holy waiters proceed, from the highest to the lowest, in their synedrion: and, when they have ended that awful solemnity, they go round the whole square, or quadrangular place, and collect tobacco from the sanctified sinners, according to ancient custom; “For they who serve at the altar, must live by the altar.”

The Cheerake method of adjuring a witness to declare the truth, strongly corroborates the former hints, and will serve as a key to open the vowels of the great, mysterious, four-lettered name of God. On small affairs, the judge, who is an elderly chieftain, asks the witness, Cheeakõhgà (sko?) “Do you lie?” To which he answers, Ansa Kai-e-koh-gà, “I do not lie.” But {48} when the judge will search into something of material consequence, and adjures the witness to speak the naked truth, concerning the point in question, he says “O E A (sko?)” “What you have now said, is it true, by this strong emblem of the beloved name of the great self-existent God?” To which the witness replies, O E A, “It is true, by this strong pointing symbol of YO He Wah.” When the true knowledge of the affair in dispute, seems to be of very great importance, the judge swears the witness thus: O E A—Yah (sko?) This most sacred adjuration imports, “Have you now told me the real truth by the lively type of the great awful name of God, which describes his necessary existence, without beginning or end; and by his self-existent literal name, in which I adjure you.” The witness answers, O E A—Yah, “I have told you the naked truth, which I most solemnly swear, by this strong religious picture of the adorable, great, divine, self-existent name, which we are not to prophane; and I likewise attest it, by his other beloved, unspeakable, sacred, essential name.”

When we consider that the period of the adjurations, according to their idiom, only asks a question; and that the religious waiters say Yah, with a profound reverence, in a bowing posture of body, immediately before they invoke YO He Wah,—the one reflects so much light upon the other, as to convince me, that the Hebrews, both invoked and pronounced the divine tetragrammaton, YO He Wah, and adjured their witnesses to give true evidence, on certain occasions, according to the Indian usage; otherwise, how could they possibly, in a savage state, have a custom of so nice and strong-pointing a standard of religious caution? It seems exactly to coincide with the conduct of the Hebrew witnesses even now on the like religious occasions—who being sworn, by the name of the great living God, openly to declare the naked truth, hold up their right hand, and answer, אמנ אמנ Amen Amen, or “very true;” “I am a most faithful witness.” The Hebrew word signifies faithful, and by being repeated twice, becomes a superlative, and O E A—Yah is one of the highest degree.

St. John, in his gospel, according to the Hebrew method of adjuration, often doubles the Amen. And the same divine writer, at the beginning of each of his seven epistles, in describing the glorious and transcendant qualities of Jesus Christ, and particularly in the epistle to the church of Laodicea, points at the same custom, “These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God.” {49}

The Cheerake use another expression, which bears a strong analogy to the former method of adjuration; though it is not so sacred in their opinion, because of one letter prefixed, and another subjoined. The judge, in small controversies, asks the witness, To e u (sko?) To which he answers, To e u, or To e u hah, “It is very true,” or “a most certain truth.” Such an addition of any letter, or letters, to the vowels of the supposed divine, four-lettered name, seems to proceed from a strict religious custom of proportioning them to the circumstances of persons and things, lest, otherwise, they should blaspheme, or prophane the emblems of the great divine name. And the vowel U seems to allude to אחד, i. e. One—a name of God, figuratively—for, in their dialect, when it is a period, it makes a superlative, according to their usage in applying the rest of the divine appellatives, symbols, or names.

They esteem To e u hah so strong an assent to any thing spoken, that Cheesto Kaiēhre, “the old rabbet,” (the name of the interpreter) who formerly accompanied seven of their head warriors to London,^[24] assured me, they held there a very hot debate, in their subterranean lodgings, in the dead hours of the night of September the 7th, 1730, whether they should not kill him, and one of the war-chieftains, because, by his mouth, the other answered To e u hah to his Majesty’s speech, wherein he claimed, not only their land, but all the other unconquered countries of the neighbouring nations, as his right and property. When they returned home, they were tried again, by the national sanhedrim, for having betrayed the public faith, and sold their country, for acknowledged value, by firm compact, as representatives of their country; they having received a certain quantity of goods, and a decoying belt of white wampum: but, upon serious deliberation, they were honourably acquitted, because it was judged, the interpreter was bound, by the like oath, to explain their speeches; and that surprise, inadvertence, self-love, and the unusual glittering show of the courtiers, extorted the sacred assent, To e u hah, out of the other’s mouth, which spoiled the force of it; being much afraid, lest they should say something amiss, on account of the different idiom of the English, and Indian American dialects^[XII]. As there is no alternative between a falsehood, and a lie, they {50} usually tell any person, in plain language, “You lie,” as a friendly negative to his reputed untruth. The cheerful, inoffensive old rabbet told me, he had urged to them, with a great deal of earnestness, that it was certain death by our laws, to give his Majesty the lie to his face; and cautioned them to guard their mouths very strongly from uttering such dangerous language: otherwise, their hearts would become very heavy, and even sorrowful to death; as he would be bound as firmly by our holy books, to relate the bare naked truth, as they were by repeating To e u ah, or even O-E-A—Yah.