,,the ,,hartford-,,lamson ,,lectures    
,,on   ,,the ,,religions ,,of ,,the     
,,world    ,,an ,,introduction  ,,to    
,,the ,,study ,,of  ,,comparative       
,,religion   ,,by  ,,frank ,,byron      
,,jevons   ,,principal ,,of ,,bishop    
,,hatfield',s ,,hall1 ,,durham          
,,university1 ,,durham1 ,,england       
,new ,york  ,,the ,,macmillan ,,company 
#aibj  ,all rights reserved             
,,copyright1 #aijh1  ,by ,,the          
,,macmillan ,,company4   ,set up and    
electrotyped4  ,published ,october1     
#aijh4       ,norwood ,press   ,j4 ,s4  
,cushing--,berwick  ,smith ,co4         
,norwood1 ,mass41 ,u4,s4,a4     v       
,,note  ,the ,hartford-,lamson ,lectures
 on ,the ,religions of the ,world are   
delivered at ,hartford ,theological     
,seminary in connection with the ,lamson
 ,fund1 which was established by a group
 of friends in honor of the late        
,charles ,m4 ,lamson1 ,d4,d41 sometime  
,president of the ,american ,board of   
,commissioners for ,foreign ,missions1  

to assist in preparing students for the 
foreign missionary field4  ,the         
,lectures are designed primarily to give
 to such students a good knowledge of   
the religious history1 beliefs1 and     
customs of the peoples among whom they  
expect to labor4  ,as they are delivered
 by scholars of the first rank1 who are 
authorities in their respective fields1 
it is expected that in published form   
they will prove to be of value to       
students generally4     vii  ,,contents 
,,page    ,,introduction 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4    #a    
,,immortality  4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4   #cd   ,,magic  4 
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 
4 4 4 4 4   #gj   ,,fetichism  4 4 4 4 4
 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4  
#aje   ,,prayer 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4  #ach       
,,sacrifice  4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4  #age   ,,morality 
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 
4 4 4 4 4  #baa   ,,christianity 4 4 4 4

 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4  
#bci   ,,appendix 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4  #bfg       
,,bibliography 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4  #bga   ,,index  4 
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 
4 4 4 4 4  #bge     ix  ,,analytical    
,,table ,,of ,,contents   ,,introduction
  ,the use of any science lies in its   
application to practical purposes4 ,for 
,christianity1 the use of the science of
 religion consists in applying it to    
show that ,christianity is the highest  
manifestation of the religious spirit4  
,to make this use of the science of     
religion1 we must fully and frankly     
accept the facts it furnishes1 and must 
recognise that others are at liberty to 
use them for any opposite purpose4  ,but
 we must also insist that the science of
 religion is limited to the             
establishment of facts and is excluded  
from passing judgment on the religious  
value of those facts4  ,the science of  
religion as a historical science is     

concerned with the chronological order1 
and not with the religious value1 of its
 facts2 and the order of those facts    
does not determine their value any more 
in the case of religion than in the case
 of literature or art4  ,but if their   
value is a question on which the science
 refuses to enter1 it does not follow   
that the question is one which does not 
admit of a truthful answer3 science has 
no monopoly of truth4  ,the value of    
anything always implies a reference to  
the future3 to be of value a thing must 
be of use for some purpose1 and what is 
purposed is in the future4  ,things have
 value1 or have not1 according as they  
are useful or not for our purposes4     
,the conviction that we can attain our  
purposes and ideals1 the conviction     
without which we should not even attempt
 to attain them is faith2 and it is in  
faith and by faith that the man of      
religion proposes to x conquer the      
world4  ,it is by faith in ,christianity
 that the missionary undertakes to      

convert men to ,christianity4  ,the     
comparative value of different religions
 can only be ascertained by comparison  
of those religions2 and the missionary1 
of all men1 ought to know what is to be 
learnt from such comparison4  ,it is    
sometimes supposed 7wrongly7 that to    
admit that all religions are comparable 
is to admit that all are identical2 but1
 in truth1 it is only because they      
differ that it is possible to compare   
them4  ,for the purpose of comparison   
both the differences and the            
resemblances must be assumed to exist2  
and even for the purposes of the science
 of religion there is nothing to compel 
us to postulate a period in which either
 the differences or the resemblances    
were non-existent4  ,but though there is
 nothing to compel us to assume that the
 lowest form in which religion is found 
was necessarily the earliest to exist1  
it is convenient for us to start from   
the lowest forms4  ,for the practical   
purposes of the missionary it is        

desirable where possible to discover any
 points of resemblance or traits of     
connection between the lower form with  
which his hearers are familiar and the  
higher form to which he proposes to lead
 them4  ,it is therefore proper for him 
and reasonable in itself to look upon   
the long history of religion as man's   
search for ,god1 and to regard it as the
 function of the missionary to keep     
others in that search 4 4 4 #a-cc       
,,immortality  ,the belief in           
immortality is more prominent1 though   
less intimately bound up with religion1 
amongst uncivilised than it is amongst  
civilised peoples4  ,in early times the 
fancy luxuriates1 unchecked1 on this as 
on other matters4  ,it is late in the   
history of religion that the immortality
 of the soul is found to be postulated  
alike by morality and religion4  ,the   
belief that the soul exists after death 
doubtless manifested itself first in the
 xi fact that men dream of those who    
have died4  ,but1 were there no desire  

to believe1 it may be doubted whether   
the belief would survive1 or even       
originate4  ,the belief originates in   
desire1 in longing for one loved and    
lost2 and dreams are not the cause of   
that desire1 though they are one region 
in which it manifests itself1 or rather 
one mode of its manifestation4  ,the    
desire is for continued communion2 and  
its gratification is found in a         
spiritual communion4  ,such communion   
also is believed to unite worshippers   
both with one another and with their    
,god4  ,where death is regarded as a    
disruption of communion between the     
living and the departed1 death is       
regarded as unnatural1 as a violation of
 the original design of things1 which   
calls for explanation2 and the          
explanation is provided in myths which  
account for it by showing that the      
origin of death was due to accident or  
mistake4  ,at first1 it is felt that the
 mistake cannot be one without remedy3  
the deceased is invited to come to us   

again4  ,if he does not return in his   
old body1 then he is believed to        
reappear in some new-born child4  ,or   
the doctrine of rebirth may be satisfied
 by the belief that the soul is         
reincarnated in animal form4  ,this     
belief is specially likely to grow up   
where totem ancestors are believed to   
manifest themselves in the shape of some
 animal4  ,belief in such animal        
reincarnation has1 in its origin1       
however1 no connection with any theory  
that transmigration from a human to an  
animal form is a punishment4  ,up to    
this point in the evolution of the      
belief in immortality1 the belief in    
another world than this does not show   
itself4  ,even when ancestor-worship    
begins to grow up1 the ancestors' field 
of operations is in this world1 rather  
than in the next4  ,but the fact that   
their aid and protection can be invoked 
by the community tends to elevate them  
to the level of the god or gods of the  
community4  ,this tendency1 however1 may

 be defeated1 as it was in ,juda1 where 
the religious sentiment will not permit 
the difference between ,god and man to  
be blurred4  xii ,where the fact that   
the dead do not return establishes      
itself as incontrovertible1 the belief  
grows up that as the dead continue to   
exist1 it is in another world that their
 existence must continue4  ,at first    
they are conceived to continue to be as 
they are remembered to have been in this
 life4 ,later the idea grows up that    
they are punished or rewarded there1    
according as they have been bad or good 
here2 according as they have or have not
 in this life sought communion with the 
true ,god4  ,this belief thus differs   
entirely from the earlier belief1 e4g4  
as it is found amongst the ,eskimo1 that
 it is in this world the spirits of the 
departed reappear1 and that their       
continued existence is unaffected by    
considerations of morality or religion4 
,it is1 however1 not merely the belief  
in the next world that may come to be   

sanctified by religion and moralised4   
,the belief in reincarnation in animal  
form may come to be employed in the     
service of religion and morality1 as it 
is in ,buddhism4 ,there1 however1 what  
was originally the transmigration of    
souls was transformed by ,gotama into   
the transmigration of character2 and the
 very existence of the individual soul1 
whether before death or after1 was held 
to be an illusion and a deception4      
,this tenet pushes the doctrine of      
self-sacrifice1 which is essential both 
to religion and to morality1 to an      
extreme which is fatal in logic to      
morality and religion alike3 communion  
between man and ,god--the indispensable 
presupposition of both religion and     
morals--is impossible1 if the very      
existence of man is illusory4  ,the     
message of the missionary will be that  
by ,christianity self-sacrifice is shown
 to be the condition of morality1 the   
essence of communion with ,god and the  
way to life eternal 4 4 4 #cd-fi        

,,magic  ,a view sometime held was that 
magic is religion1 and religion magic4  
,with equal reason1 or want of reason1  
it might be held that magic was science1
 and science magic4  xiii ,even if we   
correct the definition1 and say that to 
us magic appears1 in one aspect1 as a   
spurious system of science2 and1 in     
another1 as a spurious system of        
religion2 we still have to note that1   
for those who believed in it1 it could  
not have been a spurious system1 whether
 of science or religion4  ,primitive man
 acts on the assumption that he can     
produce like by means of like2 and about
 that assumption there is no magic of   
any kind4  ,it is only when an effect   
thus produced is a thing not commonly   
done and not generally approved of1 that
 it is regarded as magic2 and it is     
magic1 because not every one knows how  
to do it1 or not every one has the power
 to do it1 or not every one cares to do 
it4  ,about this belief1 so long as     
every one entertains it1 there is       

nothing spurious4  ,when however it     
begins to be suspected that the magician
 has not the power to do what he        
professes1 his profession tends to      
become fraudulent and his belief        
spurious4  ,on the other hand1 a thing  
commonly done and generally approved of 
is not regarded as magical merely       
because the effect resembles the cause1 
and like is in this instance produced by
 like4 ,magic is a term of evil         
connotation2 and the practice of using  
like to produce like is condemned when  
and because it is employed for          
anti-social purposes4  ,such practices  
are resented by the society1 amongst    
whom and on whom they are employed2 and 
they are offensive to the ,god who looks
 after the interests of the community4  
,in fine1 the object and purpose of the 
practice determines the attitude of the 
community towards the practice3 if the  
object is anti-social1 the practice is  
nefarious2 and the witch1 if smelled    
out1 is killed4  ,the person who is     

willing to undertake such nefarious     
proceedings comes to be credited with a 
nefarious personality1 that is to say1  
with both the power and the will to do  
what ordinary1 decent members of the    
community could not and would not do3   
personal power comes to be the most     
important1 because the most mysterious1 
characteristic of the man believed to   
xiv be a magician4  ,if we turn to      
things1 such as rain-making1 which are  
socially beneficial1 we find a similar  
growth in the belief that some men have 
extraordinary power to work wonders on  
behalf of the tribe4  ,a further stage  
of development is reached when the man  
who uses his personal power for         
nefarious purposes undertakes by means  
of it to control spirits3 magic then    
tends to pass into fetichism4           
,similarly1 when rain and other social  
benefits come to be regarded as gifts of
 the gods1 the power of the rainmaker   
comes to be regarded as a power to      
procure from the gods the gifts that    

they have to bestow3 magic is displaced 
by religion4  ,the opposition of        
principle between magic and religion    
thus makes itself manifest4  ,it makes  
itself manifest in that the one promotes
 social and the other anti-social       
purposes3 the spirit worshipped by any  
community as its god is a spirit who has
 the interests of the community at      
heart1 and who ex officio condemns and  
punishes those who by magic or otherwise
 work injury to the members of the      
community4  ,finally1 the decline of the
 belief in magic is largely due to the  
discovery that it does not produce the  
effects it professes to bring about4    
,but the missionary will also dwell on  
the fact that his hearers feel it to be 
anti-social and to be condemned alike by
 their moral sentiments and their       
religious feeling 4 4 4 #gj-ajd         
,,fetichism  ,fetichism is regarded by  
some as a stage of religious            
development1 or as the form of religion 
found amongst men at the lowest stage of

 development known to us4  ,from this   
the conclusion is sometimes drawn that  
fetichism is the source of all religion 
and of all religious values2 and1       
therefore1 that 7as fetichism has no    
value7 religion 7which is an evolved    
form of fetichism7 has no value either4 
,this conclusion is then believed to be 
proved by the science of religion4 ,in  
fact1 however1 students of the science  
of religion disclaim this conclusion and
 rightly xv assert that the science does
 not undertake to prove anything as to  
the truth or the value of religion4     
,much confusion prevails as to what     
fetichism is2 and the confusion is      
primarily due to ,bosman4  ,he confuses1
 while the science of religion          
distinguishes between1 animal gods and  
fetiches4  ,he asserts what we now know 
to be false1 viz41 that a fetich is an  
inanimate object and nothing more2 and  
that the native rejects1 or breaks1 one 
of these gods1 knowing it to be a god4  
,any small object which happens to      

arrest the attention of a negro1 when he
 has a desire to gratify1 may impress   
him as being a fetich1 i4e4 as having   
power to help him to gratify his desire4
  ,here1 ,hffding says1 is the simplest 
conceivable construction of religious   
ideas3 here is presented religion under 
the guise of desire4  ,let it be        
granted1 then1 that the object attracts 
attention and is involuntarily          
associated with the possibility of      
attaining the desired end4  ,it follows 
that1 as in the period of animism1 all  
objects are believed to be animated by  
spirits1 fetich objects are             
distinguished from other objects by the 
fact--not that they are animated by     
spirits but--that it is believed they   
will aid in the accomplishment of the   
desired end4 ,the picking up of a fetich
 object1 however1 is not always followed
 by the desired result2 and the negro   
then explains that it has lost its      
spirit4  ,the spirit goes out of it1    
indeed1 but may perchance be induced or 

even compelled to return into some other
 object2 and then fetiches may be       
purposely made as well as accidentally  
found1 and are liable to coercion as    
well as open to conciliation4  ,but1    
throughout this process1 there is no    
religion4  ,religion is the worship of  
the gods of a community by the community
 for the good of the community4  ,the   
cult of a fetich is conducted by an     
individual for his private ends2 and the
 most important function of a fetich is 
to work evil against those members of   
the community who have incurred the     
fetich owner's resentment4  ,thus       
religion xvi and fetich-worship are     
directed to ends not merely different   
but antagonistic4  ,from the very outset
 religion in social fetichism is        
anti-social4  ,to seek the origin of    
religion in fetichism is vain4          
,condemned1 wherever it exists1 by the  
religious and moral feelings of the     
community1 fetichism cannot have been   
the primitive religion of mankind4  ,the

 spirits of fetichism1 according to     
,hffding1 become eventually the gods of 
polytheism3 such a spirit1 so long as it
 is a fetich1 is the god of a moment1   
and must come to be permanent if it is  
to attain to the ranks of the           
polytheistic gods4  ,but fetiches1 even 
when their function becomes permanent1  
remain fetiches and do not become gods4 
,they do not even become departmental   
gods1 for their powers are to further a 
man's desires generally4  ,on the other 
hand1 they have personality1 even if    
they have not personal names4  ,finally1
 if1 as ,hffding believes1 the word god 
originally meant he who is worshipped1  
and gods are worshipped by the          
community1 then fetiches1 as they are   
nowhere worshipped by the community1 are
 in no case gods4  ,the function of the 
fetich is anti-social2 of the gods1 to  
promote the well-being of the community4
  ,to maintain that a god is evolved out
 of a fetich is to maintain that        
practices destructive of society have   

only to be pushed far enough and they   
will prove the salvation of society 4 4 
4 #aje-acg   ,,prayer  ,prayer is a     
phenomenon in the history of religion to
 which the science of religion has      
devoted but little attention--the reason
 alleged being that it is so simple and 
familiar as not to demand detailed      
study4  ,it may1 however1 be that the   
phenomenon is indeed familiar yet not   
simple4 ,simple or not1 it is a matter  
on which different views may be held4   
,thus though it may be agreed that in   
the lower forms of religion it is the   
accomplishment of desire that is asked  
for1 a divergence of opinion emerges    
xvii the moment the question is put1    
,whose desire8 that of the individual or
 of the community8  ,and instances may  
be cited to show that it is not for his 
own personal1 selfish advantage alone   
that the savage always or even usually  
prays4  ,it is the desires of the       
community that the god of the community 
is concerned to grant3 the petition of  

an individual is offered and harkened to
 only so far as it is not prejudicial to
 the interests of the community4  ,the  
statement that savage prayer is         
unethical may be correct in the sense   
that pardon for moral sin is not sought2
 it is incorrect1 if understood to mean 
that the savage does not pray to do the 
things which his morality makes it      
incumbent on him to do1 e4g4 to fight   
successfully4  ,the desires which the   
god is prayed to grant are ordinarily   
desires which1 being felt by each and   
every member of the community1 are the  
desires of the community1 as such1 and  
not of any one member exclusively4      
,charms1 it has been suggested1 in some 
cases are prayers that by vain          
repetition have lost their religious    
significance and become mere spells4    
,and similarly it has been suggested    
that out of mere spells prayer may have 
been evolved4  ,but1 on the hypothesis  
that a spell is something in which no   
religion is1 it is clear that out of it 

no religion can come2 while if prayer1  
i4e4 religion1 has been evolved out of  
spells1 then there have never been      
spells wholly wanting in every religious
 element4  ,whether a given formula then
 is prayer or spell may be difficult to 
decide1 when it has some features which 
seem to be magical and others which seem
 to be religious4  ,the magical element 
may have been original and be in process
 of disappearing before the dawn of the 
religious spirit4  ,now1 the formula    
uttered is usually accompanied by       
gestures performed4  ,if the words are  
uttered to explain the gesture or rite1 
the explanation is offered to some one1 
the words are of the nature of a prayer 
to some one to grant the desire which   
the gesture manifests4  xviii ,on the   
other hand1 if the gestures are         
performed to make the words more        
intelligible1 then the action performed 
is1 again1 not magical1 but is intended 
to make the words--the prayer--more     
emphatic4  ,in neither case1 then1 is   

the gesture or rite magical in intent4  
,dr4 ,frazer's suggestion that it       
required long ages for man to discover  
that he could not always succeed--even  
by the aid of magic--in getting what he 
wanted2 and that only when he made this 
discovery did he take to religion and   
prayer1 is a suggestion which cannot be 
maintained in view of the fact that     
savage man is much more at the mercy of 
accidents than is civilised man4  ,the  
suggestion1 in fact1 tells rather       
against than in favour of the view that 
magic preceded religion1 and that spells
 preceded prayer4  ,the ,australian     
black fellows might have been expected  
to present us with the spectacle of a   
people unacquainted with prayer4  ,but  
in point of fact we find amongst them   
both prayers to ,byamee and formul      
which1 though now unintelligible even to
 the natives1 may originally have been  
prayers4  ,and generally speaking the   
presumption is that races1 who          
distinctly admit the existence of       

spirits1 pray to those spirits1 even    
though their prayers be concealed from  
the white man's observation4 ,gods are  
there for the purpose of being prayed   
to4  ,prayer is the essence of religion1
 as is shown by the fact that gods1 when
 they cease to be prayed to1 are ignored
 rather than worshipped4  ,such gods--as
 in ,africa and elsewhere--become little
 more than memories1 when they no longer
 have a circle of worshippers to offer  
prayer and sacrifice to them4  ,the     
highest point reached in the evolution  
of pre-,christian prayer is when the    
gods1 as knowing best what is good1 are 
petitioned simply for things good4  ,our
 ,lord's prayer is a revelation which   
the theory of evolution cannot account  
for or explain4  ,nor does ,hffding's   
antinomy of religious feeling present   
itself to the ,christian soul as an     
antinomy 4 4 4 #ach-agd   xix           
,,sacrifice  ,prayer and sacrifice      
historically go together1 and logically 
are indissoluble4  ,sacrifice1 whether  

realised in an offering dedicated or in 
a sacrificial meal1 is prompted by the  
worshippers' desire to feel that they   
are at one with the spirit worshipped4  
,that desire manifests itself specially 
on certain regularly occurring occasions
 7harvest1 seed time1 initiation7 and   
also in times of crisis4  ,at harvest   
time the sacrifices or offerings are    
thank-offerings1 as is shown by the fact
 that a formula of thanksgiving is      
employed4  ,primitive prayer does not   
consist solely in petitions for favours 
to come2 it includes thanksgiving for   
blessings received4  ,such thanksgivings
 cannot by any possibility be twisted   
into magic4  ,analogous to these        
thanksgivings at harvest time is the    
solemn eating of first-fruits amongst   
the ,australian black fellows4  ,if this
 solemn eating is not in ,australia a   
survival of a sacramental meal1 in which
 the god and his worshippers were       
partakers1 it must be merely a ceremony 
whereby the food1 which until it is     

eaten is taboo1 is desacralised4  ,but1 
as a matter of fact1 such food is not   
taboo to the tribe generally2 and the   
object of the solemn eating cannot be to
 remove the taboo and desacralise the   
food for the tribe4  ,if the harvest    
rites or first-fruit ceremonials are    
sacrificial in nature1 then the         
presumption is that so1 too1 are the    
ceremonies performed at seed time or the
 analogous period4  ,at initiation      
ceremonies or mysteries1 even amongst   
the ,australian black fellows1 there is 
evidence to show that prayer is offered2
 and generally speaking we may say that 
the boy initiated is admitted to the    
worship of the tribal gods4  ,the spring
 and harvest customs are closely allied 
to one another and may be arranged in   
four groups3 7#a7 ,in ,mexico they      
plainly consist of the worship of a     
god--by means of sacrifice and          
prayer--and of communion4  xx 7#b7 ,in  
some other cases1 though the god has no 
proper or personal name1 and no image is

 made of him1 the new corn1 ,dr4 ,frazer
 says1 is itself eaten sacramentally1   
that is1 as the body of the corn spirit2
 and it is by this sacramental meal that
 communion is effected or maintained4   
7#c7 ,in the harvest customs of northern
 ,europe1 bread and dumplings are made  
and eaten sacramentally1 as a substitute
 for the real flesh of the divine being2
 or an animal is slain and its flesh and
 blood are partaken of4  7#d7 ,amongst  
the ,australian tribes there is a       
sacramental eating of the totem animal  
or plant4  ,now1 these four groups of   
customs may be all religious 7and ,dr4  
,frazer speaks of them all as           
sacramental7 or all magical2 or it may  
be admitted that the first three are    
religious1 and maintained that the      
fourth is strictly magical4  ,but such a
 separation of the ,australian group    
from the rest does not commend itself as
 likely2 further1 it overlooks the fact 
that it is at the period analogous to   
harvest time that the headman eats      

solemnly and sparingly of the plant or  
animal1 and that at harvest time it is  
too late to work magic to cause the     
plant or animal to grow4  ,the          
probability is1 then1 that both the     
,australian group and the others are    
sacrificial rites and are religious4    
,such sacrificial rites1 however1 though
 felt to be the means whereby communion 
was effected and maintained between the 
god and his worshippers1 may come to be 
interpreted as the making of gifts to   
the god1 as the means of purchasing his 
favour1 or as a full discharge of their 
obligations4  ,when so interpreted they 
will be denounced by true religion4     
,but though it be admitted that the     
sacrificial rite might be made to bear  
this aspect1 it does not follow1 as is  
sometimes supposed1 that it was from the
 outset incapable of bearing any other4 
,on the contrary1 it was1 from the      
beginning1 not only the rite of making  
offerings to the god but1 also1 the rite
 whereby communion was attained1 whereby

 the society of worshippers was brought 
into the presence of the god they xxi   
worshipped1 even though the chief       
benefits which the worshippers conceived
 themselves to receive were earthly     
blessings4  ,it is because the rite had 
from the beginning this potentiality in 
it that it was possible for it to become
 the means whereby1 through ,christ1 all
 men might be brought to ,god 4 4 4     
#age-baj   ,,morality  ,the question    
whether morality is based on religion1  
or religion on morality1 is one which   
calls for discussion1 inasmuch as it is 
apt to proceed on a mistaken view of    
facts in the history of religion4  ,it  
is maintained that as a matter of       
history morality came first and religion
 afterwards2 and that as a matter of    
philosophy religion presupposes         
morality4  ,reality1 that is to say1 is 
in the making2 the spirit of man is     
self-realising2 being is in process of  
becoming rationalised and moralised2    
religion in process of disappearing4    

,early religion1 it is said1 is         
unethical3 it has to do with spirits1   
which1 as such1 are not concerned with  
morality2 with gods which are not       
ethical or ideal1 and are not objects of
 worship in our sense of the term4      
,now1 the spirits which1 in the period  
of animism1 are believed to animate     
things1 are not1 it is true1 concerned  
with morality2 but then1 neither are    
they gods4  ,to be a god a spirit must  
have a community of worshippers2 and it 
is as the protector of that community   
that he is worshipped4  ,he protects the
 community against any individual member
 who violates the custom of the         
community4  ,the custom of the community
 constitutes the morality of the        
society4  ,offences against that custom 
are offences against the god of the     
community4  ,a god starts as an ethical 
power1 and as an object of worship4     
,still1 it may be argued1 before gods   
were1 before religion was evolved1      
morality was2 and this may be shown by  

the origin and nature of justice1 which 
throughout is entirely independent of   
religion and religious xxii             
considerations4  ,on this theory1 the   
origin of justice is to be found in the 
resentment of the individual4  ,but1    
first1 the individual1 apart from       
society1 is an abstraction and an       
impossibility3 the individual never     
exists apart from but always as a member
 of some society4  ,next1 justice is not
 the resentment of any individual1 but  
the sentiment of the community1         
expressing itself in the action not of  
any individual but of the community as  
such4  ,the responsibility both for the 
wrong done and for righting it rests    
with the community4  ,the earliest      
offences against which public action is 
taken are said to be witchcraft and     
breaches of the marriage laws4  ,the    
latter are not injuries resented by any 
individual3 they are offences against   
the gods and are punished to avert the  
misfortunes which otherwise would visit 

the tribe4  ,witchcraft is especially   
offensive to the god of the community4  
,in almost1 if not quite1 the lowest    
stages of human development1 disease and
 famine are regarded as punishments     
which fall on the community as a whole1 
because the community1 in the person of 
one of its members1 has offended some   
supernatural power4  ,in quite the      
lowest stage the guilt of the offending 
member is also regarded as capable of   
infecting the whole community2 and he   
is1 accordingly1 avoided by the whole   
community and tabooed4  ,taboo is due to
 the collective action1 and expresses   
the collective feeling of the community 
as a whole4  ,it is from such collective
 action and feeling that justice has    
been evolved and not from individual    
resentment1 which is still and always   
was something different from justice4   
,the offences punished by the community 
have always been considered1 so far as  
they are offences against morality1 to  
be offences against the gods of the     

community4 ,the fact that in course of  
time such offences come to be punished  
always as militating against the good of
 society testifies merely to the general
 assumption that the good of man is the 
will of ,god3 men do not believe that   
murder1 adultery1 etc41 are merely      
offences xxiii against man's laws4  ,it 
is only by ignoring this patent fact    
that it becomes possible to maintain    
that religion is built upon morality1   
and that we are discovering religion to 
be a superfluous superstructure4  ,it   
may be argued that the assumption that  
murder1 adultery1 etc41 are offences    
against ,god's will is a mere           
assumption1 and that in making the      
assumption we are fleeing to the bosom  
of faith4  ,the reply is that we are    
content not merely to flee but to rest  
there 4 4 4 #baa-bch   ,,christianity   
,if we are to understand the place of   
,christianity in the evolution of       
religion1 we must consider the place of 
religion in the evolution of humanity2  

and ,i must explain the point of view   
from which ,i propose to approach the   
three ideas of 7#a7 evolution1 7#b7 the 
evolution of humanity1 7#c7 the         
evolution of religion4  ,i wish to      
approach the idea of evolution from the 
proposition that the individual is both 
a means by which society attains its    
end1 and an end for the sake of which   
society exists4  ,utilitarianism has    
familiarised us with the view that      
society exists for the sake of the      
individual and for the purpose of       
realising the happiness and good of     
every individual3 no man is to be       
treated merely as a chattel1 existing   
solely as a means whereby his owner1 or 
the governing class1 may benefit4  ,but 
this aspect of the facts is entirely    
ignored by the scientific theory of     
evolution3 according to that theory1 the
 individual exists only as a factor in  
the process of evolution1 as one of the 
means by which1 and not as in any sense 
the end for which1 the process is       

carried on4  ,next1 this aspect of the  
facts is ignored not only by the        
scientific theory of evolution1 but also
 by the theory which humanitarianism    
holds as to the evolution of humanity1  
viz4 that it is a process moving through
 the three stages of custom1 religion1  
and humanitarianism4 ,that process is   
still1 as it has long been in the past1 
far from complete3 xxiv the end is not  
yet4  ,it is an end in which1 whenever  
and if ever realised on earth1 we who   
are now living shall not live to        
partake3 we are--on this theory of the  
evolution of humanity--means1 and solely
 means1 to an end which1 when realised1 
we shall not partake in4  ,being an end 
in which we cannot participate1 it is   
not an end which can be rationally set  
up for us to strive to attain4  ,nor    
will the generation1 which is ultimately
 to enjoy it1 find much satisfaction in 
reflecting that their enjoyment has been
 purchased at the cost of others4  ,to  
treat a minority of individuals as the  

end for which humanity is evolved1 and  
the majority as merely means1 is a      
strange pass for humanitarianism to come
 to4  ,approaching the evolution of     
religion from the point of view that the
 individual must always be regarded both
 as an end and as a means1 we find that 
,buddhism denies the individual to be   
either the one or the other1 for his    
very existence is an illusion1 and an   
illusion which must be dispelled1 in    
order that he may cease from an         
existence which it is an illusion to    
imagine that he possesses4  ,if1        
however1 we turn to other religions less
 highly developed than ,buddhism1 we    
find that1 in all1 the existence of the 
individual as well as of the god of the 
community is assumed2 that the interests
 of the community are the will of the   
community's god2 that the interests of  
the community are higher than the       
interests of the individual1 when they  
appear to differ2 and that the man who  
prefers the interests of the community  

to his own is regarded as the higher    
type of man4  ,in fine1 the individual1 
from this point of view1 acts           
voluntarily as the means whereby the end
 of society may be realised4  ,and1 in  
so acting1 he testifies to his          
conviction that he will thereby realise 
his own end4  ,throughout the history of
 religion these two facts are implied3  
first1 the existence of the individual  
as a member of society seeking communion
 with ,god2 next1 the existence of      
society as a means of which the         
individual is xxv the end4  ,hence two  
consequences with regard to evolution3  
first1 evolution may have helped to make
 us1 but we are helping to make it2     
next1 the end of evolution is not wholly
 outside any one of us1 but in part is  
realised in us4  ,and it is just because
 the end is both within us and without  
us that we are bound up with our        
fellow-man and ,god4  ,whether the      
process of evolution is moving to any   
end whatever1 is a question which       

science declines--formally refuses--to  
consider4 ,whether the end at which     
religion aims is possible or not1 has in
 any degree been achieved or not1 is a  
question which the science of religion  
formally declines to consider4  ,if1    
however1 we recognise that the end of   
religion1 viz4 communion with ,god1 is  
an end at which we ought to aim1 then   
the process whereby the end tends to be 
attained is no longer evolution in the  
scientific sense4  ,it is a process in  
which progress may or may not be made4  
,as a fact1 the missionary everywhere   
sees arrested development1 imperfect    
communion with ,god2 for the different  
forms of religion realise the end of    
religion in different degrees4          
,christianity claims to be final1 not in
 the chronological sense1 but in that it
 alone finds the true basis and the only
 end of society in the love of ,god4    
,the ,christian theory of society again 
differs from all other theories in that 
it not only regards the individuals     

composing it as continuing to exist     
after death1 but teaches that the       
society of which the individual is truly
 a member1 though it manifests itself in
 this world1 is realised in the next4   
,the history of religion is the history 
of man's search for ,god4  ,that search 
depends for its success1 in part1 upon  
man's will4  ,christianity cannot be    
stationary3 the extent to which we push 
our missionary outposts forward gives us
 the measure of our vitality4  ,and in  
that respect1 as in others1 the vitality
 of the ,united ,states is great 4 4 4  
#bci-bfe   ,,appendix 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 #bff ad fin4  
#a  ,,introduction  ,of the many things 
that fill a visitor from the old country
 with admiration1 on his first visit to 
the ,united ,states1 that which arrests 
his attention most frequently1 is the   
extent and success with which science is
 applied to practical purposes4  ,and it
 is beginning to dawn upon me that in   
the ,united ,states it is not only pure 

science which is thus practically       
applied1--the pure sciences of          
mechanics1 physics1 mathematics1--but   
that the historic sciences also are     
expected to justify themselves by their 
practical application2 and that amongst 
the historic sciences not even the      
science of religion is exempted from the
 common lot4  ,it also may be useful2   
and had better be so1--if any one is to 
have any use for it4  ,it must make     
itself useful to the man who has        
practical need of its results and wishes
 to apply them--the missionary4  ,he it 
is who1 for the practical purposes of   
the work to which he is called1 requires
 an applied science of religion2 and    
,hartford #b ,theological ,seminary may1
 ,i believe1 justly claim to be the     
first institution in the world which has
 deliberately and consciously set to    
work to create by the courses of        
lectures1 of which this series is the   
very humble beginning1 an applied       
science of religion4  ,how1 then1 will  

the applied science differ from the pure
 science of religion8  ,in one way it   
will not differ3 an applied science does
 not sit in judgment upon the pure      
science on which it is based2 it accepts
 the truths which the pure science      
presents to all the world1 and bases    
itself upon them4  ,the business of pure
 science is to discover facts2 that of  
the applied science is to use them4     
,the business of the science of religion
 is to discover all the facts necessary 
if we are to understand the growth and  
history of religion4  ,the business of  
the applied science is1 in our case1 to 
use the discovered facts as a means of  
showing that ,christianity is the       
highest manifestation of the religious  
spirit4  ,in dealing with the applied   
science1 then1 we recover a liberty     
which the pure science does not enjoy4  
,the science of religion is a historic  
science4  ,its student looks back upon  
the past2 #c and looks back upon it with
 a single purpose1 that of discovering  

what1 as a matter of fact1 did happen1  
what was the order in which the events  
occurred4  ,in so looking back he may1  
and does1 see many things which he could
 wish had not occurred2 but he has no   
power to alter them2 he has no choice   
but to record them2 and his duty1 his   
single duty1 is to ascertain the        
historic facts and to establish the     
historic truth4  ,with the applied      
science the case is very different4     
,there the student sets his face to the 
future1 no longer to the past4  ,the    
truths of pure science are the weapons  
placed in his hand with which he is to  
conquer the world4  ,it is in the faith 
that the armour provided him by science 
is sure and will not fail him that he   
addresses himself to his chosen work4   
,the implements are set in his hands4   
,the liberty is his to employ them for  
what end he will4  ,that liberty is a   
consequence of the fact that the        
student's object no longer is to        
ascertain the past1 but to make the     

future4  ,the business of the pure      
science is to ascertain the facts and   
state the truth4  ,to what use the facts
 and truth are afterwards put1 is a     
question with which the pure science has
 nothing to do4  #d ,the same facts may 
be put to very different uses3 from the 
same facts very different conclusions   
may be drawn4  ,the facts which the     
science of religion establishes may be  
used and are used for different and for 
contradictory purposes4  ,the man who is
 agnostic or atheist uses them to       
support his atheism or agnosticism2 or  
even1 if he is so unwise1 to prove it4  
,the man who has religion is equally at 
liberty to use them in his support2 and 
if he rarely does that1 at any rate he  
still more rarely commits the mistake of
 imagining that the science of religion 
proves the truth of his particular views
 on the subject of religion4 ,indeed1   
his tendency is rather in the opposite  
direction3 he is unreasonably uneasy and
 apt to have a disquieting alarm lest   

the science of religion may really be a 
danger to religion4  ,this alarm may    
very naturally arise when he discovers  
that to the scientific student one      
religion is as another1 and the question
 is indifferent whether there is any    
truth in any form4  ,it is very easy to 
jump from these facts to the erroneous  
conclusion that science of religion is  
wholly incompatible with religious      
belief4  ,and of course it is quite     
human and perfectly intelligible that   
that conclusion should be proclaimed    
aloud as correct #e and inevitable by   
the man who1 being an atheist1 fights   
for what he feels to be the truth4  ,we 
must1 therefore1 once more insist upon  
the simple fact that science of religion
 abstains necessarily from assuming     
either that religion is true or is not  
true4  ,what it does assume is what no  
one will deny1 viz4 that religion is a  
fact4  ,religious beliefs may be right  
or they may be wrong3 but they exist4   
,therefore they can be studied1         

described1 classified1 placed in order  
of development1 and treated as a branch 
of sociology and as one department of   
the evolution of the world4  ,and all   
this can be done without once asking the
 question whether religious belief is   
true and right and good1 or not4        
,whether it is pronounced true or false 
by you or me1 will not in the least     
shake the fact that it has existed for  
thousands of years1 that it has had a   
history during that period1 and that    
that history may be written4 ,we may    
have doubts whether the institution of  
private property is a good thing1 or    
whether barter and exchange are         
desirable proceedings4 ,but we shall not
 doubt that private property exists or  
that it may be exchanged4  ,and we shall
 not imagine that the science of        
political economy1 which deals1 among   
other #f things with the production and 
exchange of wealth which is private     
property1 makes any pronouncement       
whatever on the question whether private

 property is or is not an institution   
which we ought to support and believe   
in4  ,the conclusions established by the
 science of political economy are set   
forth before the whole world2 and men   
may use them for what purpose they will4
  ,they may and do draw very different  
inferences from them1 even contradictory
 inferences4  ,but if they do1 it is    
because they use them for different ends
 or contradictory purposes4  ,and the   
fact that the communist or socialist    
uses political economy to support his   
views no more proves that socialism is  
the logical consequence of political    
economy than the fact that the atheist  
uses or misuses1 for his own purposes1  
the conclusions of the science of       
religion proves his inferences to be the
 logical outcome of the science4  ,the  
science of religion deals essentially   
with the one fact that religion has     
existed and does exist4  ,it is from    
that fact that the missionary will      
start2 and it is with men who do not    

question the fact that he will have to  
do4  ,the science of religion seeks to  
trace the historic growth1 the evolution
 of religion2 to establish what actually
 was1 not to #g judge what ought to have
 been1--science knows no ought1 in that 
sense or rather in that tense1 the past 
tense4  ,its work is done1 its last word
 has been said1 when it has demonstrated
 what was4  ,it is the heart which sighs
 to think what might have been1 and     
which puts on it a higher value than it 
does on what actually came to pass4     
,there is then another order in which   
facts may be ranged besides the         
chronological order in which            
historically they occurred2 and that is 
the order of their value4  ,it is an    
order in which we do range facts1       
whenever we criticise them4  ,it is the 
order in which we range them1 whenever  
we pass judgment on them4  ,or1 rather1 
passing judgment on them is placing them
 in the order of their value4  ,and the 
chronological order of their occurrence 

is quite a different thing from the     
order in which we rank them when we     
judge them according to their value and 
importance4  ,it is1 or rather it would 
be1 quite absurd to say1 in the case of 
literature1 or art1 for instance1 that  
the two orders are identical4  ,there it
 is obvious and universally admitted    
that one period may reach a higher level
 than another which in point of time is 
later4  ,the classical period is        
followed by a post-classical period2    
culmination is followed by decline4  #h 
,now1 this difference in point of the   
literary or artistic value of two       
periods is as real and as fundamental as
 the time order or chronological        
relation of the two periods4  ,it would 
be patently ridiculous for any ardent   
maintainer of the importance of         
distinguishing between good literature  
and bad1 good art and bad art1 to say   
that the one period1 being good1 must   
have been chronologically prior to the  
other1 because1 from the point of art1  

it was better than that other4  ,every  
one can see that4  ,the chronological   
order1 the historic order1 is one thing2
 the order of literary value or artistic
 importance is another4  ,but if this is
 granted1 and every one will grant it1  
then it is also1 and thereby1 granted   
that the historic order of events is not
 the same thing as the order of their   
value1 and is no guide to it4  ,thus far
 ,i have illustrated these remarks by   
reference to literary and artistic      
values4 ,but ,i need hardly say that ,i 
have been thinking really all the time  
of religious values4  ,if the student of
 literature or of art surveys the       
history of art and literature with the  
purpose of judging the value of the     
works produced1 the student of religion 
may and must survey the history of      
religion with the same purpose4  ,if the
 one student is entitled1 as he #i      
justly is entitled1 to say that the     
difference between the literary or      
artistic value of two periods is as real

 and as fundamental as is their         
difference in the order of time1 then   
the student of religion is claiming no  
exceptional or suspicious privilege for 
himself4  ,he is claiming no privilege  
at all2 he is but exercising the common 
rights of all students like himself1    
when he points out that differences in  
religious values are just as real and   
just as fundamental as the historic or  
chronological order itself4  ,the       
assignment of values1 then1--be it the  
assignment of the value of works of art1
 literature1 or religion1--is a         
proceeding which is not only possible   
7as will be somewhat contemptuously     
admitted by those who believe that      
evolution is progress1 and that there is
 no order of value distinct from the    
order of history and chronological      
succession72 the assignment of value is 
not only permissible 7as may be admitted
 by those who believe1 or for want of   
thought fancy they believe1 that the    
historic order of events is the only    

order which can really exist71 it is    
absolutely inevitable4  ,it is the      
concomitant or rather an integral part  
of every act of perception4  ,everything
 that we perceive is either dismissed   
from attention because it is judged at  
the moment to have #aj no value1 or1 if 
it has value1 attention is concentrated 
upon it4  ,from this point of view1     
then1 it should be clear that there is  
some deficiency in such a science as the
 science of religion1 which1 by the very
 conditions that determine its          
existence1 is precluded from ever       
raising the question of the value of any
 of the religions with which it deals4  
,why does it voluntarily1 deliberately1 
and of its own accord1 rigidly exclude  
the question whether religions have any 
value--whether religion itself has any  
value8  ,one answer there is to that    
question which once would have been     
accepted as conclusive1 viz4 that the   
object of science is truth4  ,that      
answer delicately implies that whether  

religion has any value is an enquiry to 
which no truthful answer can be given4  
,the object of science is truth2        
therefore science alone1 with all       
modesty be it said1 can attain truth4   
,science will not ask the question--or1 
when it is merciful1 abstains from      
asking the question--whether religion is
 true4  ,so the reasonable and truthful 
man must1 on that point1 necessarily be 
agnostic3 whether religion is true1 he  
does not know4  ,this train of          
inferences follows--so far as it is     
permitted illogical inferences to follow
 at all--from #aa the premise that the  
object of science is truth4  ,or1       
rather1 it follows from that premise as 
we should now understand it1 viz4 that  
the object of historic science is       
historic truth4  ,that is the object of 
the science of religion--to be true to  
the historic facts1 to discover and to  
state them accurately4 ,on the principle
 of the division of labour1 or on the   
principle of taking one thing at a time1

 it is obviously wise that when we are  
endeavouring to discover the historic   
sequence of events1 we should confine   
ourselves to that task and not suffer   
ourselves to be distracted and diverted 
by other and totally different          
considerations4 ,the science of         
religion1 therefore1 is justified1 in   
the opinion of all who are entitled to  
express an opinion1 in steadfastly      
declining to consider any other point   
than the historic order of the facts    
with which it deals4  ,but in so        
declining to go beyond its              
self-appointed task of reconstituting   
the historic order of events and tracing
 the evolution of religion1 it does not1
 thereby1 imply that it is impossible to
 place them1 or correctly place them1 in
 their order of value4  ,to say that    
they have no value would be just as     
absurd as to say that works of          
literature or art have no literary or   
artistic value4 ,to say that it is      
difficult to assign their value may be  

#ab true1 but is no argument against1 it
 is rather a stimulus in favour of1     
making the attempt4  ,and it is just the
 order value1 the relative value1 of    
forms of religion which is of absorbing 
interest to missionaries4  ,it is a     
valuation which is essential to what ,i 
have already designated as the applied  
science of religion4  ,thus far in      
speaking of the distinction between the 
historic order in which the various     
forms of art1 literature1 and religion  
have occurred1 and the order of value in
 which the soul of every man who is     
sensible either to art or to literature 
or to religion instinctively attempts to
 place them1 ,i have necessarily assumed
 the position of one who looks backward 
over the past4  ,it was impossible to   
compare and contrast the order value    
with the historic order1 save by doing  
so4  ,it was necessary to point out that
 the very same facts which can be       
arranged chronologically and in the     
order of their evolution can also       

be--and1 as a matter of fact1 by every  
man are--arranged more or less roughly1 
more or less correctly1 or incorrectly1 
in the order of their value4  ,it is now
 necessary for us to set our faces      
towards the future4  ,i say necessary   
for the simple reason that the idea of  
value carries with it a reference to the
 future4  ,if a thing has value1 it is  
because we #ac judge that it may produce
 some effect and serve some purpose     
which we foresee1 or at least surmise4  
,if1 on looking back upon past history1 
we pronounce that an event had value1 we
 do so because we see that it served1 or
 might have served1 some end of which we
 approve4  ,its value is relative in our
 eyes to some end or purpose which was  
relatively future to it4 ,the objects   
which we aim at1 the ends after which we
 strive1 are in the future4  ,those     
things have value which may subserve our
 ends and help us to attain our         
purposes4  ,and our purposes1 our ends1 
and objects are in the future4  ,there1 

there is hope and freedom1 room to work1
 the chance of remedying the errors of  
the past1 the opportunity to make some  
forward strides and to help others on4  
,it is the end we aim at1 the object we 
strive for1 the ideal we set before us1 
that gives value to what we do1 and to  
what has been done by us and others4    
,now our ends1 our objects1 and our     
ideals are matters of the will1 on which
 the will is set1 and not merely matters
 of which we have intellectual          
apprehension4  ,they are not past events
 but future possibilities4  ,the        
conviction that we can attain them or   
attain toward them is not1 when stated  
as a proposition1 a proposition that can
 be proved1 as a statement #ad referring
 to the past may be proved3 but it is a 
conviction which we hold1 or a          
conviction which holds us1 just as      
strongly as any conviction that we have 
about any past event of history4  ,the  
whole action of mankind1 every action   
that every man performs1 is based upon  

that conviction4  ,it is the basis of   
all that we do1 of everything that is   
and has been done by us and others4     
,and it is ,faith4  ,in that sign alone 
can the world be conquered4  ,when1     
then1 the man of religion proposes by   
faith to conquer the world1 he is simply
 doing1 wittingly and in full           
consciousness of what he is doing1 that 
which every man does in his every       
action1 even though he may not know it4 
,to make it a sneer or a reproach that  
religion is a mere matter of faith2 to  
imagine that there is any better1 or    
indeed that there is any other1 ground  
of action1--is demonstrably             
unreasonable4  ,the basis of such       
notions is1 of course1 the false idea   
that the man of sense acts upon         
knowledge1 and that the man who acts on 
faith is not a sensible man4  ,the error
 of such notions may be exposed in a    
sentence4  ,what knowledge have we of   
the future8  ,we have none4 ,absolutely 
none4  ,we expect that nature will prove

 uniform1 that causes will produce their
 effects4  ,we believe #ae the future   
will resemble1 to some extent1 the past4
  ,but we have no knowledge of the      
future2 and such belief as we have about
 it1 like all other belief1--whether it 
be belief in religion or in science1--is
 simply faith4  ,when1 then1 the man of 
science consults the records of the past
 or the experiments of the present for  
guidance as to what will or may be1 he  
is exhibiting his faith not in science1 
but in some reality1 in some real being1
 in which is no shadow of turning4      
,when the practical man uses the results
 of pure science for some practical end1
 he is taking them on faith and uses    
them in the further faith that the end  
he aims at can be realised1 and shall by
 him be realised1 if not in one way1    
then in another4  ,the missionary1 then1
 who uses the results of the science of 
religion1 who seeks to benefit by an    
applied science of religion1 is but     
following in the footsteps of the       

practical man1 and using business       
methods toward the end he is going to   
realise4  ,the end he is going to       
realise is to convert men to            
,christianity4  ,the faith in which he  
acts is that ,christianity is the       
highest form which religion can take1   
the final form it shall take4  ,as works
 of art or literature may be classed    
either according to order of history or 
order of value1 so the works of the #af 
religious spirit may be classed1 not    
only in chronological order1 but also in
 order of religious value4  ,i am not   
aware that any proof can be given to    
show that any given period of art or    
literature is better than any other4    
,the merits of ,shakespeare or of ,homer
 may be pointed out2 and they may1 or   
they may not1 when pointed out1 be felt4
  ,if they are felt1 no proof is needed2
 if they are not1 no proof is possible4 
,but they can be pointed out--by one who
 feels them4  ,and they can be          
contrasted with the work of other poets 

in which they are less conspicuous4     
,and the contrast may reveal the truth  
in a way in which otherwise it could    
never have been made plain4  ,i know no 
other way in which the relative values  
of different forms of religion can      
become known or be made known4  ,you may
 have been tempted to reflect1 whilst ,i
 have been speaking1 that1 on the       
principle ,i have laid down1 there is no
 reason why there should not be five    
hundred applied sciences1 or            
applications of the science1 of         
religion1 instead of one2 for every one 
of the many forms of religion may claim 
to apply the science of religion to its 
own ends4  ,to that ,i may reply first1 
that  priori you would expect that every
 nation would set up #ag its own        
literature as the highest2 but1 as a    
matter of fact1 you find ,shakespeare   
generally placed highest amongst        
dramatists1 ,homer amongst epic poets4  
,you do not find the conception of      
literary merit varying from nation to   

nation in such a way that there are as  
many standards of value as there are    
persons to apply them4  ,you find that  
there tends to be one standard4  ,next1 
since the different forms of religion   
must be compared if their relative      
values are to be ascertained1 the method
 of the applied science of religion must
 be the method of comparison4 ,whatever 
the outcome that is anticipated from the
 employment of the applied science1 it  
is by the method of comparison that it  
must act4 ,and one indication of genuine
 faith is readiness to employ that      
method1 and assured confidence in the   
result of its employment4  ,the         
missionary's life is the best1 because  
the most concrete example of the        
practical working of the method of      
comparison2 and the outcome of the      
comparison which is made by those       
amongst whom and for whom he works makes
 itself felt in their hearts1 their     
lives1 and sometimes in their           
conversion4  ,it is the best example1   

because the value of a religion to be   
known must be felt4  ,but though it is  
the best because it is the #ah simplest1
 the most direct1 and the most          
convincing it is not that which         
addresses itself primarily to the       
reason1 and it is not one which is      
produced by the applied science of      
religion4  ,it is not one which can be  
produced by any science1 pure or        
applied4  ,the object of the applied    
science of religion is to enable the    
missionary himself to compare forms of  
religion1 incidentally in order that he 
may know what by faith he feels1 and    
without faith he could not feel1 viz4   
that ,christianity is the highest form2 
but still more in order that he may     
teach others1 and may have at his       
command the facts afforded by the       
science of religion1 wherewith to       
appeal1 when necessary1 to the reason   
and intelligence as well as to the      
hearts and feelings of those for whose  
salvation he is labouring4  ,the time   

has happily gone by when the mere idea  
of comparing ,christianity with any     
other religion would have been rejected 
with horror as treasonous and           
treacherous4  ,the fact that that time  
has now gone by is in itself evidence of
 a stronger faith in ,christianity4     
,what1 if it was not fear1 at any rate  
presented the appearance of fear1 has   
been banished2 and we can and do1 in the
 greater faith that has been vouchsafed 
to us1 look with #ai confidence on the  
proposal to compare ,christianity with  
other religions4  ,the truth cannot but 
gain thereby1 and we rest on ,him who is
 the way and the truth4  ,we recognise  
fully and freely that comparison implies
 similarity1 points of resemblance1 ay6 
and even features of identity4  ,and of 
that admission much has been made--and  
more than can be maintained4  ,it has   
been pressed to mean that all forms of  
religion1 from the lowest to the        
highest1 are identical2 that therefore  
there is nothing more or other in the   

highest than in the lowest2 and that in 
the lowest you see how barbarous is     
religion and how unworthy of civilised  
man4  ,now1 that course of argument is  
open to one obvious objection which     
would be fatal to it1 even if it were   
the only objection1 which it is not4    
,that objection is that whether we are  
using the method of comparison for the  
purpose of estimating the relative      
values of different forms of religion2  
or whether we are using the comparative 
method of science1 with the object of   
discovering and establishing facts1     
quite apart from the value they may have
 for any purpose they may be put to when
 they have been established2 in either  
case1 comparison is only applied1 and   
can only be applied to things which1 #bj
 though they resemble one another1 also 
differ from one another4  ,it is because
 they differ1 at first sight1 that the  
discovery of their resemblance is       
important4  ,and it is on that aspect of
 the truth that the comparative method  

of science dwells4  ,comparative        
philology1 for instance1 devotes itself 
to establishing resemblances between1   
say1 the ,indo-,european languages1     
which for long were not suspected to    
bear any likeness to one another or to  
have any connection with each other4    
,those resemblances are examined more   
and more closely1 are stated with more  
and more precision1 until they are      
stated as laws of comparative philology1
 and recognised as laws of science to   
which there are no exceptions4  ,yet    
when the resemblances have been worked  
out to the furthest detail1 no one      
imagines that ,greek and ,sanskrit are  
the same language1 or that the          
differences between them are negligible4
  ,it is then surprising that any       
student of comparative religion should  
imagine that the discovery or the       
recognition of points of likeness       
between the religions compared will ever
 result in proving that the differences 
between them are negligible or          

non-existent4  ,such an inference is    
unscientific1 and it has only to be     
stated to show that the student #ba of  
comparative religion is but exercising a
 right common to all students of all    
sciences1 when he claims that points of 
difference cannot be overlooked or      
thrust aside4  ,if1 then1 the student of
 the science of religion directs his    
attention primarily to the discovery of 
resemblances between religions which at 
first sight bear no more resemblance to 
one another than ,greek did to the      
,celtic tongues2 if the comparative     
method of science dwells upon the fact  
that things which differ from one       
another may also resemble one another1  
and that their resemblances may be      
stated in the form of scientific        
laws1--there is still another aspect of 
the truth1 and it is that between things
 which resemble one another there are   
also differences4  ,and the jury of the 
world will ultimately demand to know the
 truth and the whole truth4  ,now1 to   

get not only at the truth1 but at the   
whole of the truth1 is precisely the    
business of the applied science of      
religion1 and is the very object of that
 which1 in order to distinguish it from 
the comparative method of science1 ,i   
have called the method of comparison4   
,for the purposes of fair comparison not
 only must the resemblances1 which the  
#bb comparative method of science dwells
 on1 be taken into account1 but the     
differences1 also1 must be weighed4     
,and it is the business of the method of
 comparison1 the object of the applied  
science of religion1 to do both things4 
,neither of the two can be dispensed    
with2 neither is more important than the
 other2 but for the practical purposes  
of the missionary it is important to    
begin with the resemblances2 and on     
grounds of logic and of theory1 the     
resemblances must be first established1 
if the importance1 nay6 the decisive    
value1 of the differences is to go home 
to the hearts and minds of the          

missionary's hearers4  ,the resemblances
 are there and are to be studied        
ultimately in order to bring out the    
differences and make them stand forth so
 plainly as to make choice between the  
higher form of religion and the lower   
easy1 simply because the difference is  
so manifest4  ,now1 the missionary's    
hearer could not know1 much less        
appreciate1 the difference1 the         
superiority of ,christianity1 as long as
 ,christianity was unknown to him4  ,and
 it is equally manifest1 though it has  
never been officially recognised until  
now and by the ,hartford ,theological   
,seminary1 that neither can the         
missionary adequately set forth the     
superiority of ,christianity to #bc the 
lower forms of religion1 unless he knows
 something about them and about the     
points in which their inferiority       
consists4  ,hitherto he has had to learn
 that for himself1 as he went on1 and1  
as it were1 by rule of thumb4  ,but1 on 
business principles1 economy of labour  

and efficiency in work will be better   
secured if he is taught before he goes  
out1 and is taught on scientific        
methods4  ,what he has to learn is the  
resemblances between the various forms  
of religion1 the differences between    
them1 and the relative values of those  
differences4  ,it may perhaps be asked1 
,why should those differences exist8    
,and if the question should be put1 ,i  
am inclined to say that to give the     
answer is beyond the scope of the       
applied science of religion4  ,the      
method of comparison assumes that the   
differences do exist1 and it cannot     
begin to be employed unless and until   
they exist4  ,they are and must be taken
 for granted1 at any rate by the applied
 science of religion1 and if the method 
of comparison is to be set to work4     
,indeed1 if we may take the principle of
 evolution to be the differentiation of 
the homogeneous1 we may go further and  
say that the whole theory of evolution1 
and not merely a particular historic    

science1 such as the science of         
religion1 #bd postulates differentiation
 and the principle of difference1 and   
does not explain it1--evolution cannot  
start1 the homogeneous cannot be other  
than homogeneous1 until the principle of
 difference and the power of            
differentiation is assumed4  ,that the  
science of religion at the end leaves   
untouched those differences between     
religions which it recognised at the    
beginning1 is a point on which ,i       
insisted1 as against those who          
unwarrantably proclaim the science to   
have demonstrated that all religions    
alike are barbarisms or survivals of    
barbarism4  ,it is well1 therefore1 to  
bear that fact in mind when attempts are
 made to explain the existence of the   
differences by postulating a period when
 they were non-existent4 ,that postulate
 may take form in the supposition that  
originally the true religion alone      
existed1 and that the differences arose 
later4 ,that is a supposition which has 

been made by more than one people1 and  
in more ages than one4  ,it carries with
 it the consequence that the history--it
 would be difficult to call it the      
evolution and impossible to call it the 
progress--of religion has been one of   
degradation generally4  ,owing1 however1
 to the far-reaching and                
deep-penetrating influence of the theory
 of evolution1 it has of late grown #be 
customary to assume that the movement1  
the course of religious history1 has    
been in the opposite direction2 and that
 it has moved upwards from the lowest   
forms of religion known to us1 or from  
some form analogous to the lowest known 
forms1 through the higher to the        
highest4  ,this second theory1 however  
different in its arrangement of the     
facts from the ,golden ,age theory first
 alluded to1 is still fundamentally in  
agreement with it1 inasmuch as it also  
assumes that the differences exhibited  
later in the history of religion at     
first were non-existent4 ,both theories 

assume the existence of the originally  
homogeneous1 but they disagree as to the
 nature of the differences which        
supervened1 and also as to the nature of
 the originally homogeneous4  ,i wish   
therefore to call attention to the      
simple truth that the facts at the      
disposal of the science of religion     
neither enable nor warrant us to decide 
between these two views4  ,if we were to
 come to a decision on the point1 we    
should have to travel far beyond the    
confines of the science of religion1 or 
the widest bounds of the theory of      
evolution1 and enquire why there should 
be error as well as truth--or1 to put   
the matter very differently1 why there  
should be truth at all4  ,but if we     
started travelling #bf on that enquiry1 
we should not get back in time for this 
course of lectures4  ,fortunately it is 
not necessary to take a ticket for that 
journey--perhaps not possible to secure 
a return ticket4  ,we have only to      
recognise that the science of religion  

confines itself to constating and       
tracing the differences1 and does not   
attempt to explain why they should      
exist2 while the applied science of     
religion is concerned with the practical
 business of bringing home the          
difference between ,christianity and    
other forms of religion to the hearts of
 those whose salvation may turn on      
whether the missionary has been properly
 equipped for his task4  ,if1 now1 ,i   
announce that for the student of the    
applied science it is advisable that he 
should turn his attention in the first  
place to the lowest forms of religion1  
the announcement need not be taken to   
mean that a man cannot become a student 
of the science of religion1 whether pure
 or applied1 unless he assumes that the 
lowest is the most primitive form4  ,the
 science of religion1 as it pushes its  
enquiries1 may possibly come across--may
 even already have come across--the     
lowest form to which it is possible for 
man to descend4  ,but whether that form 

is the most primitive as well as #bg the
 lowest1--still more1 whether it is the 
most primitive because it is the        
lowest1--will be questions which will   
not admit of being settled offhand4     
,and in the meantime we are not called  
upon to answer them in the affirmative  
as a sine qua non of being admitted     
students of the science4  ,the reason   
for beginning with the lowest forms     
is--as is proper in a practical         
science--a practical one4  ,as ,i have  
already said1 if the missionary is to   
succeed in his work1 he must know and   
teach the difference and the value of   
the difference between ,christianity and
 other religions4  ,but difference      
implies similarity3 we cannot specify   
the points of difference between two    
things without presupposing some        
similarity between them1--at any rate   
sufficient similarity to make a         
comparison of them profitable4  ,now1   
the similarity between the higher forms 
of religion is such that there is no    

need to demonstrate it1 in order to     
justify our proceeding to dwell upon the
 differences4  ,but the similarity      
between the higher and the lower forms  
is far from being thus obvious4         
,indeed1 in some cases1 for example in  
the case of some ,australian tribes1    
there is alleged1 by some students of   
the science of religion1 to be such a   
total absence of similarity that we are 
entitled or #bh compelled to recognise  
that however liberally1 or loosely1 we  
relax our definition of religion1 we    
must pronounce those tribes to be       
without religion4  ,the allegation thus 
made1 the question thus raised1         
evidently is of practical importance for
 the practical purposes of the          
missionary4  ,where some resemblances   
exist between the higher and the lower  
forms of religion1 those resemblances   
may be made1 and should be made1 the    
ground from which the missionary should 
proceed to point out by contrast the    
differences1 and so to set forth the    

higher value of ,christianity4  ,but if 
no such resemblances should exist1 they 
cannot be made a basis for the          
missionary's work4  ,without proceeding 
in this introductory lecture to discuss 
the question whether there are any      
tribes whatever that are without        
religion1 ,i may point out that         
religion1 in all its forms1 is1 in one  
of its aspects1 a yearning and          
aspiration after ,god1 a search after   
,him1 peradventure we may find ,him4    
,and if it be alleged that in some cases
 there is no search after ,him1--that   
amongst civilised men1 amongst our own  
acquaintances1 there is in some cases no
 search and no aspiration1 and that     
therefore among the more backward       
peoples of the earth there may also be  
tribes to whom the very idea of #bi such
 a search is unknown1--then we must bear
 in mind that a search1 after any object
 whatever1 may be dropped1 may even be  
totally abandoned2 and yet the heart may
 yearn after that which it is           

persuaded--or1 it may be1 is deluded    
into thinking--it can never find4       
,perhaps1 however1 that way of putting  
it may be objected to1 on the ground    
that it is a petitio principii and      
assumes the very fact it is necessary to
 prove1 viz4 that the lowest tribes that
 are or can be known to us have made the
 search and given it up1 whereas the    
contention is that they have never made 
the search4  ,that contention1 ,i will  
remark in passing1 is one which never   
can be proved4  ,but to those who       
consider that it is probable in itself1 
and that it is a necessary stage in the 
evolution of belief1 ,i would point out 
that every search is made in hope--or1  
it may be1 in fear--that search         
presupposes hope and fear4  ,vague1 of  
course1 the hope may be2 scarce         
conscious1 if conscious at all1 of what 
is hoped4  ,but without hope1 until     
there are some dim stirrings1 however   
vague1 search is unconceivable1 and it  
is in and by the process of search that 

the hope becomes stronger and the object
 sought more definite to view4  ,now1   
inasmuch as it is doubtful whether any  
tribe of #cj people is without religion1
 it may reasonably be held that the vast
 majority1 at any rate1 of the peoples  
of the earth have proceeded from hope to
 aspiration and to search2 and if there 
should be found a tribe which had not   
yet entered consciously on the search1  
the reasonable conclusion would be not  
that it is exempted from the laws which 
we see exemplified in all other peoples1
 but that it is tending to obey the same
 laws and is starting from the same     
point as they1--that hope which is the  
desire of all nations and has been made 
manifest in the ,son of ,man4  ,whatever
 be the earliest history of that hope1  
whatever was its nature and course in   
prehistoric times1 it has been worked   
out in history in many directions1 under
 the influence of many errors1 into many
 forms of religion4  ,but in them all we
 feel that there is the same striving1  

the same yearning2 and we see it with   
the same pity and distress as we may    
observe the distorted motions of the man
 who1 though partially paralysed1 yet   
strives to walk1 and move to the place  
where he would be4  ,it is with these   
attempts to walk1 in the hope of giving 
help to them who need it1 that we who   
are here to-day are concerned4  ,we must
 study them1 if we are to #ca understand
 them and to remedy them4  ,and there is
 no understanding them1 unless we       
recognise that in them all there is the 
striving and yearning after ,god1 which 
may be cruelly distorted1 but is always 
there4  ,it so happens that there has   
been great readiness on the part of     
students of the science of religion to  
recognise that belief in the continued  
existence of the soul after the death of
 the body has comparative universality  
amongst the lower races of mankind4     
,their yearning after continued         
existence developes into hope of a      
future life2 and the hope1 or fear1     

takes many forms3 the continued         
existence may or may not be on this     
earth2 it may or may not take the shape 
of a belief in the transmigration of    
souls2 it sometimes does1 and sometimes 
does not1 lead to belief in the judgment
 of the dead and future punishments and 
rewards2 it may or may not postulate the
 immortality of the soul2 it may shrink 
to comparative1 if not absolute1        
unimportance2 or it may be dreaded and  
denounced by philosophy and even by     
religion4 ,but whether dreaded or       
delighted in1 whether developed by      
religion or denounced1 the tendency to  
the belief is there--universal among    
mankind and ineradicable4  #cb  ,the    
parallel1 then1 between this belief and 
the belief or tendency to believe in    
,god is close and instructive2 and ,i   
shall devote my next lecture therefore  
to the belief in a future life among the
 primitive races of mankind4  ,that     
belief manifests itself1 as ,i shall    
hope to show1 from the beginning1 in a  

yearning hope for the continued         
existence of the beloved ones who have  
been taken from us by death1 as well as 
in dread of the ghosts of those who     
during their life were feared4  ,but in 
either case what it postulates and      
points to is man living in community    
with man4  ,it implies society2 and     
there again is parallel to religion4    
,it is with the hopes and fears of the  
community as such that religion has to  
do3 and it is from that point of view   
that ,i shall start when ,i come to deal
 with the subject of magic1 and its     
resemblance to and difference from      
religion4  ,its resemblance is not      
accidental and the difference is not    
arbitrary3 the difference is that       
between social and anti-social purposes4
  ,that difference1 if borne in mind1   
may give us the clue to the real nature 
of fetichism1--a subject which will     
require a lecture to itself4  ,i shall  
then proceed to a topic which has been  
ignored to a surprising extent by the   

science of religion2 that is1 the       
subject of #cc prayer3 and the light    
which is to be derived thence will1 ,i  
trust1 give fresh illumination to the   
meaning of sacrifice4  ,the relation of 
religion to morality will then fall to  
be considered2 and my final lecture will
 deal with the place of ,christianity in
 the evolution of religion4     #cd     
,,immortality  ,the missionary1 like any
 other practical man1 requires to know  
what science can teach him about the    
material on which he has to work4  ,so  
far as is possible1 he should know what 
materials are sound and can be used with
 safety in his constructive work1 and   
what must be thrown aside1 what must be 
destroyed1 if his work is to escape     
dry-rot and to stand as a permanent     
edifice4  ,he should be able to feel    
confidence1 for instance1 not merely    
that magic and fetichism are the        
negation of religion1 but that in       
teaching that fact he has to support him
 the evidence collected by the science  

of religion2 and he should have that    
evidence placed at his disposal for     
effective use1 if need be4  ,it may be  
also that amongst much unsound material 
he will find some that is sound1 that   
may be used1 and that he cannot afford  
to cast away4  ,he has to work upon our 
common humanity1 upon the humanity      
common to him and his hearers4  ,he has 
to remember that no man and no community
 of #ce men ever is or has been or ever 
can be excluded from the search after   
,god4  ,and his duty1 his chosen duty1  
is to help them in that search1 and as  
far as may be to make the way clear for 
them1 and to guide their feet in the    
right path4  ,he will find that they    
have attempted to make paths for        
themselves2 and it is not impossible    
that he will find that some of those    
paths for some distance do go in the    
right direction2 that some of their     
beliefs have in them an element of      
truth1 or a groping after truth which1  
rightly understood1 may be made to lead 

to ,christianity4  ,it is with one of   
those beliefs--the belief in            
immortality--that ,i shall deal in this 
lecture4  ,it is a fact worthy of notice
 that the belief in immortality fills1  
,i will not say a more important1 but a 
more prominent1 place in the hearts and 
hopes of uncivilised than of civilised  
man2 and it is also a fact worthy of    
notice that among primitive men the     
belief in immortality is much less      
intimately bound up with religion than  
it comes to be at a later period of     
evolution4  ,the two facts are probably 
not wholly without relation to one      
another4  ,so long as the belief in     
immortality luxuriates and grows wild1  
so to speak1 untrained and unrestrained 
by religion1 it #cf developes as the    
fancy wills1 and lives by flattering the
 fancy4  ,when1 however1 the relations  
of a future life to morality and        
religion come to be realised1 when the  
conception of the next world comes to be
 moralised1 then it becomes the subject 

of fear as well as of hope2 and the     
fancy loses much of the freedom with    
which it tricked out the pictures that  
once it drew1 purely according to its   
own sweet liking1 of a future state4    
,on the one hand1 the guilty mind       
prefers not to dwell upon the day of    
reckoning1 so long as it can stave off  
the idea2 and it may succeed more or    
less in putting it on one side until the
 proximity of death makes the idea      
insistent4  ,thus the mind more or less 
deliberately dismisses the future life  
from attention4  ,on the other hand1    
religion itself insists persistently on 
the fact that you have your duty here   
and now in this world to perform1 and   
that the rest1 the future consequences1 
you must leave to ,god4  ,thus1 once    
more1 and this time not from unworthy   
motives1 attention is directed to this  
life rather than to the next2 and it is 
this point that is critical for the fate
 both of the belief in immortality and  
of religion itself4  ,at this point1    

religion may1 as in the case of         
,buddhism it actually has done1 formally
 give up and disavow #cg belief in      
immortality4  ,and in that case it sows 
the seed of its own destruction4  ,or it
 may recognise that the immortality of  
the soul is postulated by and essential 
to morality and religion alike4  ,and in
 that case1 even in that case alone1 is 
religion in a position to provide a     
logical basis for morality and to place 
the natural desire for a future life on 
a firmer basis than the untutored fancy 
of primitive man could find for it4  ,it
 is then with primitive man or with the 
lower races that we will begin1 and with
 the comparative universality of their  
belief in the continued existence of the
 soul after the death of the body       
7,tylor1 ,primitive ,culture1 ,,ii1 i74 
,now1 the classical theory of this      
belief is that set forth by ,professor  
,tylor in his ,primitive ,culture4      
,whence does primitive man get his idea 
that the soul continues to exist after  

the death of the body8 the answer given 
is1 in the first place1 from the fact   
that man dreams4  ,he dreams of distant 
scenes that he visits in his sleep2 it  
is clear1 from the evidence of those who
 saw his sleeping body1 that his body   
certainly did not travel2 therefore he  
or his soul must be separable from the  
body and must have travelled whilst his 
body lay unmoving and unmoved4  ,but he 
also dreams of #ch those who are now    
dead1 and whose bodies he knows1 it may 
be1 to have been incinerated4  ,the     
explanation then is obvious that they1  
too1 or their souls1 are separable from 
their bodies2 and the fact that they    
survive death and the destruction of the
 body is demonstrated by their          
appearance in his dreams4  ,about the   
reality of their appearance in his      
dreams he has no more doubt than he has 
about the reality of what he himself    
does and suffers in his dreams4  ,if1   
however1 the dead appeared only in his  
dreams1 their existence after death     

might seem to be limited to the         
dream-time4  ,but as a matter of fact   
they appear to him in his waking moments
 also3 ghosts are at least as familiar  
to the savage as to the civilised man2  
and thus the evidence of his dreams1    
which first suggested his belief1 is    
confirmed by the evidence of his senses4
  ,thus the belief in the continued     
existence of the soul after the death of
 the body is traced back to the action  
of dreams and waking hallucinations4    
,now1 it is inevitable that the         
inference should be drawn that the      
belief in immortality has thus been     
tracked to its basis4  ,and it is       
inevitable that those who start with an 
inclination to regard the belief as     
palpably absurd should welcome this     
exhibition of #ci its evolution as proof
 conclusive that the belief could only  
have originated in and can only impose  
upon immature minds4  ,to that doubtless
 it is a perfectly sound reply to say   
that the origin of a belief is one thing

 and its validity quite another4  ,the  
way in which we came to hold the belief 
is a matter of historical investigation1
 and undoubtedly may form a very        
fascinating enquiry4  ,but the question 
whether the belief is true is a question
 which has to be considered1 no matter  
how ,i got it1 just as the question     
whether ,i am committing a trespass or  
not in being on a piece of ground cannot
 be settled by any amount of explaining 
how ,i got there4  ,or1 to put it in    
another way1 the very risky path by     
which ,i have scrambled up a cliff does 
not make the top any the less safe when 
,i have got there4  ,but though it is   
perfectly logical to insist on the      
distinction between the origin and the  
validity of any belief1 and to refuse to
 question or doubt the validity of the  
belief in immortality merely because of 
the origin ascribed to it by authorities
 on primitive culture1--that is no      
reason why we should not examine the    
origin suggested for it1 to see whether 

it is a satisfactory origin4  ,and that 
is what ,i propose now to do4  ,i wish  
to suggest first that belief in the     
appearance of #dj the dead1 whether to  
the dreamer or the ghost-seer1 is an    
intellectual belief as to what occurs as
 a matter of fact2 and next that thereby
 it is distinguished from the desire for
 immortality which manifests itself with
 comparative universality amongst the   
lower races4  ,now1 that the appearance 
of the dead1 whether to the waking or   
the sleeping eye1 is sufficient to start
 the intellectual belief will be        
admitted alike by those who do and those
 who do not hold that it is sufficient  
logically to warrant the belief4  ,but  
to say that it starts the desire to see 
him or her whom we have lost1 would be  
ridiculous4 ,on the contrary1 it would  
be much nearer the truth to say that it 
is the longing and the desire to see1   
once again1 the loved one1 that sets the
 mind a-dreaming1 and first gives to the
 heart hope4  ,the fact that1 were there

 no desire for the continuance of life  
after the death of the body1 the belief 
would never have caught on--that it     
either would never have arisen or would 
have soon ceased to exist--is shown by  
the simple consideration that only where
 the desire for the continuance of life 
after death dies down does the belief in
 immortality tend to wane4  ,if any     
further evidence of that is required it 
may be found in the teaching of those   
#da forms of philosophy and religion    
which endeavour to dispense with the    
belief in immortality1 for they all     
recognise and indeed proclaim that they 
are based on the denial of the desire   
and the will to live4  ,if1 and only    
if--as1 and only as--the desire to live1
 here and hereafter1 can be suppressed1 
can the belief in immortality be        
eradicated4  ,the basis of the belief is
 the desire for continued existence2 and
 that is why the attempt to trace the   
origin of the belief in immortality back
 to the belief in dreams and apparitions

 is one which is not perfectly          
satisfactory2 it leaves out of account  
the desire without which the belief     
would not be and is not operative4  ,but
 though it leaves out an element which  
is at least as important as any element 
it includes1 it would be an error to    
take no account of what it does         
contribute4  ,it would be an error of   
this kind if we closed our eyes to the  
fact that what first arrests the        
attention of man1 in the lower stages of
 his evolution1 is the survival of      
others than himself4  ,that is the      
belief which first manifests itself in  
his heart and mind2 and what first      
reveals it to him is the appearance of  
the dead to his sleeping or his waking  
eye4  ,he does not first hope or believe
 that he himself will survive the death 
of the body and then go #db on to infer 
that therefore others also will         
similarly survive4  ,on the contrary1 it
 is the appearance of others in his     
sleeping or waking moments that first   

gives him the idea2 and it is only later
 and on reflection that it occurs to him
 that he also will have1 or be1 a ghost4
  ,but though we must recognise the     
intellectual element in the belief and  
the intellectual processes which are    
involved in the belief1 we must also    
take into account the emotional element1
 the element of desire4 ,and first we   
should notice that the desire is not a  
selfish or self-regarding desire2 it is 
the longing for one loved and lost1 of  
the mother for her child1 or of the     
child for its mother4  ,it is desire of 
that kind which gives to dreams and     
apparitions their emotional value1      
without which they would have little    
significance and no spiritual           
importance4  ,that is the direction in  
which we must look for the reason why1  
on the one hand1 belief in the          
continuation of existence after death   
seems at first to have no connection    
with religion1 while1 on the other hand1
 the connection is ultimately shown by  

the evolution of belief to be so        
intimate that neither can attain its    
proper development without the other4   
,dreams are occasions on which the      
longing for #dc one loved and lost      
manifests itself1 but they are not the  
cause or the origin of the affection and
 the longing4  ,but dreams are not      
exclusively1 specially1 or even usually 
the domain in which religion plays a    
part4  ,hence the visions of the night1 
in which the memory of the departed and 
the craving for reunion with them are   
manifested1 bear no necessary reference 
to religion2 and it is therefore        
possible1 and prima facie plausible1 to 
maintain that the belief in the         
immortality of the soul has its origin  
in a centre quite distinct from the     
sphere of religion1 and that it is only 
very slowly1 if at all1 that the belief 
in immortality comes to be incorporated 
with religion4  ,on the other hand1 the 
very craving for reunion or continued   
communion with those who are felt not to

 be lost but gone before1 is itself the 
feeling which is1 not the base1 but at  
the base1 of religion4  ,in the lowest  
forms to which religion can be reduced1 
or in which it manifests itself1        
religion is a bond of community2 it     
manifests itself externally in joint    
acts of worship1 internally in the      
feeling that the worshippers are bound  
together by it and united with the      
object of their worship4 ,this feeling  
of communion is not a mere article of   
intellectual belief1 nor is it imposed  
upon the members2 it is what they       
themselves desire4 #dd ,hffding states  
the truth when he says that in its most 
rudimentary form we encounter religion  
under the guise of desire2 but in saying
 so he omits the essence of the truth1  
that essence without which the truth    
that he partially enunciates may become 
wholly misleading1--he omits to say1 and
 ,i think he fails to see1 that the     
desire which alone can claim to be      
considered as religious is the desire of

 the community1 not of the individual as
 such1 and the desire of the community  
as united in common worship4  ,the idea 
of religion as a bond of spiritual      
communion is implicit from the first1   
even though a long process of evolution 
be necessary to disentangle it and set  
it forth self-consciously4  ,now1 it is 
precisely this spiritual communion of   
which man becomes conscious in his      
craving after reunion or continued      
communion with those who have departed  
this life4  ,and it is with the history 
of his attempts to harmonise this desire
 with what he knows and demands of the  
universe otherwise1 that we are here and
 now concerned4  ,so strong is that     
desire1 so inconceivable is the idea    
that death ends all1 and divorces from  
us forever those we have loved and lost 
awhile1 that the lower races of mankind 
have been pretty generally driven #de to
 the conclusion that death is a mistake 
or due to a mistake4  ,it is widely held
 that there is no such thing as a       

natural death4  ,men do of course die1  
they may be killed2 but it is not an    
ordinance of nature that a man must be  
killed2 and1 if he is killed1 his death 
is not natural4  ,so strong is this     
feeling that when a man dies and his    
death is not obviously a case of murder1
 the inference which the savage prefers 
to draw is that the death is really a   
case of murder1 but that the murder has 
been worked by witchcraft or magic4     
,amongst the ,australian black fellows1 
as we are told by ,messrs4 ,spencer and 
,gillen1 no such thing as natural death 
is realised by the native2 a man who    
dies has of necessity been killed by    
some other man or perhaps even by a     
woman1 and sooner or later that man or  
woman will be attacked2 consequently1 in
 very many cases there takes place what 
the white man1 not seeing beneath the   
surface1 not unnaturally describes as   
secret murder2 but in reality 444 every 
case of such secret murder1 when one or 
more men stealthily stalk their prey    

with the object of killing him1 is in   
reality the exacting of a life for a    
life1 the accused person being indicated
 by the so-called medicine man as one   
who has brought about the death of      
another man by magic1 and whose #df life
 must therefore be forfeited 7,native   
,tribes of ,central ,australia1 p4 #dh74
  ,what underlies this idea that by man 
alone is death brought into the world is
 that death is unnatural and is no part 
of the original design of things4  ,when
 the fact comes to be recognised        
undeniably that deaths not caused by    
human agency do take place1 then the    
fact requires explanation2 and the      
explanation on which primitive races1   
quite independently of each other1 hit  
is that as death was no part of the     
original design of things1 its          
introduction was due to accident or     
mistake4  ,either men were originally   
exempt from death1 or they were intended
 to be exempt4  ,if they were intended  
to be exempt1 then the inference drawn  

is that the intention was frustrated by 
the carelessness of the agent intrusted 
with the duty of making men deathless4  
,if they were originally exempt from    
death1 then the loss of the exemption   
has to be accounted for4  ,and in either
 case the explanation takes the form of 
a narrative which relates how the       
mistake took place or what event it was 
that caused the loss of the exemption4  
,i need not quote examples of either    
class of narrative4  ,what ,i wish to do
 is to emphasise the fact that by       
primitive man death is felt to be       
inconsistent with the #dg scheme of     
things4  ,first1 therefore1 he denies   
that it can come in the course of       
nature1 though he admits that it may be 
procured by the wicked man in the way of
 murder or magic4 ,and it is at this    
stage that his hope of reunion with     
those loved and lost scarcely stretches 
beyond the prospect of their return to  
this world4  ,evidence of this stage is 
found partly in tales such as those told

 of the mother who returns to revisit   
her child1 or of persons restored to    
life4  ,stories of this latter kind come
 from ,tasmania1 ,australia1 and ,samoa1
 amongst other places1 and are found    
amongst the ,eskimo and ,american       
,indians1 as well as amongst the ,fjorts
 7,j4 ,a4 ,mac,cullough1 ,the ,childhood
 of ,fiction1 ch4 ,,iv74  ,even more    
direct evidence of the emotion which    
prompts these stories is afforded by the
 ,ho dirge1 quoted by ,professor ,tylor 
7,p4 ,c41 ,,ii1 #cb1 #cc73--      ,we   
never scolded you2 never wronged you2   
,come to us back6   ,we ever loved and  
cherished you2 and have lived long      
together         ,under the same roof2  
,desert it not now6   ,the rainy nights 
and the cold blowing days are coming on2
         ,do not wander here6   ,do not 
stand by the burnt ashes2 come to us    
again6   ,you cannot find shelter under 
the peepul1 when the rain comes down4   
#dh    ,the saul will not shield you    
from the cold bitter wind4         ,come

 to your home6   ,it is swept for you   
and clean2 and we are there who loved   
you ever2   ,and there is rice put for  
you and water2         ,come home1 come 
home1 come to us again6   ,in these     
verses it is evident that the death of  
the body is recognised as a fact4  ,it  
is even more manifest that the death of 
the body is put aside as weighing for   
naught against the absolute conviction  
that the loved one still exists4  ,but  
reunion is sought in this world2 another
 world is not yet thought of4  ,the next
 world has not yet been called into     
existence to redress the sorrows and the
 sufferings of this life4 ,where the    
discovery of that solution has not been 
made1 the human mind seeks such         
consolation as may be found elsewhere4  
,if the aspiration1 come to us1 come to 
us again1 can find no other realisation1
 it welcomes the reappearance of the    
lost one in another form4  ,in          
,australia1 amongst the ,euahlayi tribe1
 the mother who has lost her baby or her

 young child may yet believe that it is 
restored to her and born again in the   
form of another child4  ,in ,west       
,africa1 according to ,miss ,kingsley1  
the new babies as they arrived in the   
family were shown a selection of small  
articles belonging to deceased members  
whose souls #di were still absent1--the 
thing the child caught hold of          
identified him4  ',why1 he's ,uncle     
,john2 see6 he knows his own pipe2' or  
',that's ,cousin ,emma2 see6 she knows  
her market calabash2' and so on4  ,but  
it is not only amongst ,australian black
 fellows or ,west ,african negroes that 
the attempt is made to extract          
consolation for death from the          
speculation that we die only to be      
reborn in this world4  ,the theory of   
rebirth is put forward by a             
distinguished student of ,hegel--,dr4   
,mc,taggart--in a work entitled ,some   
,dogmas of ,religion4  ,it is admitted  
by ,dr4 ,mc,taggart to be true that we  
have no memory whatever of our previous 

stages of existence2 but he declares1 we
 may say that1 in spite of the loss of  
memory1 it is the same person who lives 
in the successive lives 7p4 #acj72 and  
he appears to find the same consolation 
as his remote forefathers did in looking
 forward to a future stage of existence 
in which he will have no more memory of 
his present existence1 and no more      
reason to believe in it1 than he now has
 memory of1 or reason to believe in1 his
 prexistence4  ,it is certain1 he says1 
that in this life we remember no        
previous lives1 and he accepts the      
position that it is equally certain we  
shall have in our next life absolutely  
no memory of our #ej present existence4 
,that1 of course1 distinguishes ,dr4    
,mc,taggart from the ,west ,african     
,uncle ,john who1 when he is reborn1 at 
any rate knows his own pipe4  ,the human
 mind1 as ,i have said1 seeks such      
consolation as it may find in the       
doctrine of rebirth4  ,it finds evidence
 of rebirth either in the behaviour of  

the new-born child or in its resemblance
 to deceased relations4  ,but it also   
comes to the conclusion that the        
reincarnation may be in animal form4    
,whether that conclusion is suggested by
 the strangely human expression in the  
eyes of some animals1 or whether it is  
based upon the belief in the power of   
transformation1 need not be discussed4  
,it is beyond doubt that transformation 
is believed in3 the ,cherokee ,indian   
sings a verse to the effect that he     
becomes a real wolf2 and after stating  
that he has become a real wolf1 the     
songster utters a prolonged howl1 and   
paws the ground like a wolf with his    
feet 7,frazer1 ,kingship1 p4 #ga74      
,indeed1 identity may be attained or    
manifested without any process of       
transformation2 in ,australia1 amongst  
the ,dieri tribe1 the head man of a     
totem consisting of a particular sort of
 a seed is spoken of by his people as   
being the plant itself which yields the 
seed 7ib41 p4 #aji74  #ea ,where such   

beliefs are prevalent1 the doctrine of  
the reincarnation of the soul in animal 
form will obviously arise at the stage  
of evolution which we are now           
discussing1 that is to say when the soul
 is not yet supposed to depart to       
another world1 and must therefore       
manifest itself in this world in one way
 or another1 if not in human shape1 then
 in animal form4  ,in the form of what  
animal the deceased will be reincarnated
 is a question which will be answered in
 different ways4  ,purely fortuitous    
circumstances may lead to particular    
animals being considered to be the      
reincarnation of the deceased4  ,or the 
fact that the deceased has a particular 
animal for totem may lead the survivors 
to expect his reappearance in the form  
of that particular animal4  ,the one    
fact of importance for our present      
purpose is that at its origin the belief
 in animal reincarnation had no         
necessary connection with the theory of 
future punishments and rewards4  ,at the

 stage of evolution in which the belief 
in transmigration arose many animals    
were the object of genuine respect      
because of the virtues of courage1 etc41
 which were manifested by them2 or      
because of the position they occupied as
 totems4 ,consequently no loss of status
 was involved when the soul             
transmigrated from a #eb human to an    
animal form4  ,no notion of punishment  
was involved in the belief4  ,the       
doctrines of reincarnation and          
transmigration belong to a stage in the 
evolution of belief1 or to a system of  
thought1 in which the conviction that   
the death of the body does not entail   
the destruction of the soul is          
undoubted1 but from which the           
conception1 indeed the very idea1 of    
another world than this is excluded4    
,that conception begins to manifest     
itself where ancestor worship           
establishes itself2 but the             
manifestation is incomplete4  ,deceased 
chieftains and heroes1 who have been    

benefactors to the tribe1 are           
remembered2 and the good they did is    
remembered also4  ,they are themselves  
remembered as the doers of good2 and    
their spirits are naturally conceived as
 continuing to be benevolent1 or ready  
to confer benefits when properly        
approached4 ,but thus envisaged1 they   
are seen rather in their relation to the
 living than in their relation to each  
other4  ,it is their assistance in this 
world that is sought2 their condition in
 the next world is of less practical    
importance and therefore provokes less  
of speculation1 in the first instance4  
,but when speculation is provoked1 it   
proves ultimately fatal to ancestor     
worship4  #ec  ,first1 it may lead to   
the question of the relation of the     
spirits of the deceased benefactors to  
the god or gods of the community4       
,there will be a tendency to blur the   
distinction between the god and his     
worshippers1 if any of the worshippers  
come to be regarded as being after death

 spirits from whom aid may be invoked   
and to whom offerings must be made4     
,and if the distinction ceases after    
death1 it is difficult and sometimes    
impossible to maintain it during life2  
an emperor who is to be deified after   
death may find his deification beginning
 before his death4  ,belief in such     
deification may be accepted by some     
members of the community4  ,others will 
regard it as proof that religion is     
naught2 and yet others will be driven to
 seek for a form of religion which      
affords no place for such deifications1 
but maintains explicitly that           
distinction between a god and his       
worshippers which is present in the most
 rudimentary forms of religion4  ,but   
though the tendency of ancestor worship 
is to run this course and to pass in    
this way out of the evolution of        
religion1 it may be arrested at the very
 outset1 if the religious spirit is1 as 
it has been in one case at least1 strong
 enough to stand against it at the      

beginning4  ,thus1 amongst the ,jews    
there #ed was a tendency to ancestor    
worship1 as is shown by the fact of its 
prohibition4  ,but it was stamped out2  
and it was stamped out so effectually   
that belief in the continued existence  
of the soul after death ceased for long 
to have any practical influence4        
,generally speaking1 the ,hebrews       
regarded the grave as the final end of  
all sentient and intelligent existence1 
'the land where all things are          
forgotten' 7,smith's ,dictionary of the 
,bible1 s4v4 ,sheol74  ,in death1 the   
,psalmist says to the ,lord1 there is no
 remembrance of thee3 in ,sheol who     
shall give thee thanks8 ,shall they that
 are deceased arise and praise thee8    
,shall thy loving-kindness be declared  
in the grave8 or thy righteousness in   
the land of forgetfulness8  ,thus the   
,sheol of the ,old ,testament remains to
 testify to the view taken of the state 
of the dead by a people amongst whom the
 worship of ancestors was arrested at   

the outset4  ,amongst such a people the 
dead are supposed simply to continue in 
the next world as they left this3 in    
,sheol the kings of the nations have    
their thrones1 and the mighty their     
weapons of war1 just as in ,virgil the  
ghost of ,deiphobus still shows the     
ghastly wounds by which he perished     
7,jevons1 ,history of ,religion1 p4     
#cja74  #ee  ,this continuation theory1 
the view that the dead continue in the  
next world as they left this1 means     
that1 to the people who entertain it1   
the dead are merely a memory4  ,it is   
forbidden to think of them as doing     
anything1 as affecting the living in any
 way4  ,they are conceived as powerless 
to gratify the wishes of the living1 or 
to thwart them4 ,where the ,lord ,god is
 a jealous ,god1 religion cannot        
tolerate the idea that any other spirit 
should be conceived as usurping ,his    
functions1 still less that such spirits 
should receive the offerings and the    
prayers which are the due of ,him alone4

  ,but though the dead are thus reduced 
to a mere memory1 the memory itself does
 not and cannot die4 ,accordingly the   
dead1 or rather those whose bodies are  
dead1 continue to live4  ,but1 as they  
exercise no action in1 or control over1 
the world of the living1 their place of 
abode comes to be regarded as another   
world1 to which they are confined4      
,speculation1 therefore1 where          
speculation is made1 as to the case of  
the inhabitants of this other world1    
must take the direction of enquiring as 
to their fate4 ,where speculation is not
 made1 the dead are conceived merely to 
continue to be as they are remembered to
 have been in this life4  ,but1 if there
 is to be room for any speculation #ef  
at all1 there must be assumed to be some
 diversity in their fate1 and therefore 
some reason1 intelligible to man1 for   
that diversity4  ,that is a conclusion  
to which tribes attain who have         
apparently gone through no period of    
ancestor worship1--indeed1 ancestor     

worship only impedes or defers the      
attainment of that conclusion4  ,the    
diversity of fate could only consist in 
the difference between being where you  
would be and being where you would not4 
,but the reasons for that diversity may 
be very different amongst different     
peoples4  ,first1 where religion is at  
its lowest or is in its least developed 
form1 the gods are not the cause of the 
diversity nor do they seem concerned in 
it4  ,such diversity as there is seems  
in its simplest form merely to be a     
continuance of the social distinctions  
which prevail among the living3 the high
 chieftains rest in a calm1 plenteous1  
sunny land in the sky2 while all        
,indians of low degree go deep down     
under the earth to the land of          
,chay-her1 with its poor houses and no  
salmon and no deer1 and blankets so     
small and thin1 that when the dead are  
buried the friends often bury blankets  
with them 7,tylor1 ,p4 ,c41 ,,ii1 #he74 
,elsewhere1 it is not social            

distinctions1 but moral1 that make the  
difference3 the rude ,tupinambas of     
,brazil think #eg the souls of such as  
had lived virtuously1 that is to say who
 have well avenged themselves and eaten 
many of their enemies1 7ib47 rejoin the 
souls of their fathers in the happy     
land1 while the cowards go to the other 
place4  ,thus1 though the distinctions  
in the next world do not seem originally
 to have sprung from or to have been    
connected with morality1 and still less 
with religion1 they are1 or may be at a 
very early period1 seized upon by the   
moral consciousness as containing truth 
or implying it1 when rightly understood4
  ,truth indeed of the highest import   
for morality is implied in the          
distinctions thus essayed to be drawn4  
,but before the truth implicit could be 
made explicit1 it was necessary that the
 distinctions should be recognised to   
have their basis in religion4  ,and that
 was impossible where religion was at   
its lowest or in its least developed    

form4  ,from the fact that on the one   
hand the conception of a future life in 
another world1 when it arose amongst    
people in a low stage of religious      
development1 bore but little moral and  
no religious fruit2 and on the other1   
where it did yield fruit1 there had been
 a previous period when religion closed 
its eyes as far as possible to the      
condition of the dead #eh in ,hades or  
in ,sheol1--we may draw the inference   
that the conception of the future state 
formed by such people1 as the rude      
,tupinambas of ,brazil had to be        
sterilised1 so to speak1--to be purified
 from associations dangerous both to    
morality and religion4  ,we may fairly  
say that as a matter of fact that was   
the consequence which actually happened1
 and that both in ,greece and ,juda the 
prospect of a future life at one time   
became practically a tabula rasa on     
which might be written a fairer message 
of hope than had ever been given before4
  ,in ,greece the message was written1  

indeed1 and was received with hope by   
the thousands who joined in the         
celebration of the mysteries4  ,but the 
characters in which it was written faded
 soon4  ,the message was found to reveal
 nothing4  ,it revealed nothing because 
it demanded nothing4  ,it demanded      
neither a higher life nor a higher      
conception of the deity4  ,it did not   
set forth a new and nobler morality2 and
 it accommodated itself to the existing 
polytheism4  ,what it did do was to     
familiarise the ,hellenic world with the
 conviction that there was a life       
hereafter1 better than this life2 and   
that the condition of its attainment was
 communion with the true ,god1          
peradventure ,he could be found4  ,it   
was by this #ei conviction and this     
expectation that the ground was         
prepared1 wherever ,hellenism existed1  
for the message that was to come from   
,israel4  ,from the beginning1 or let us
 say in the lowest forms in which       
religion manifests itself1 religion is  

the bond in which the worshippers are   
united with one another and with their  
,god4  ,the community which is thus     
united is at first the earliest form of 
society1 whatever that form may have    
been1 in which men dwell together for   
their common purposes4  ,it is the fact 
that its members have common purposes   
and common interests which constitute   
them a community2 and amongst the common
 interests without which there could be 
no community is that of common worship3 
knowledge of the sacra1 being confined  
to the members of the community1 is the 
test by which members are known1        
outsiders excluded1 and the existence of
 the community as a community secured4  
,at this stage1 in a large number of    
societies--negro1 ,malayo-,polynesian1  
,north ,american ,indians1 ,eskimo1     
,australians--the belief in             
reincarnation takes a form in which the 
presence of souls of the departed is    
recognised as necessary to the very     
conception of the community4  ,thus in  

,alaska1 among the ,unalits of ,st4     
,michael's #fj ,bay1 a festival of the  
dead is observed1 the equivalent of     
which appears to be found amongst all   
the ,eskimo4  ,m4 ,mauss 7,l',anne      
,sociologique1 ,,ix1 #ii7 thus describes
 it3 ,it comprises two essential parts4 
,it begins with praying the souls of the
 dead graciously to consent to          
reincarnate themselves for the moment in
 the namesake which each deceased person
 has2 for the custom is that in each    
station the child last born always takes
 the name of the last person who has    
died4 ,then these living representatives
 of the deceased receive presents1 and  
having received them the souls are      
dismissed from the abodes of the living 
to return to the land of the dead4      
,thus at this festival not only does the
 group regain its unity1 but the rite   
reconstitutes the ideal group which     
consists of all the generations which   
have succeeded one another from the     
earliest times4  ,mythical and historic 

ancestors as well as later ones thus    
mingle with the living1 and communion   
between them is conducted by means of   
the exchange of presents4 ,amongst      
people other than the ,eskimo1 a        
new-born child not only takes the name  
of the last member of the family or clan
 who has died1 but is regarded as the   
reincarnation of the deceased4  ,thus   
the number of individuals1 #fa of names1
 of souls1 of social functions in the   
clan is limited2 and the life of the    
clan consists in the death and rebirth  
of individuals who are always           
identically the same 7l4c4 #bfg74  ,the 
line of evolution thus followed by the  
belief in reincarnation results in the  
total separation of the belief from     
morality and from religion1 and results 
in rendering it infertile alike for     
morality1 religion1 and progress in     
civilisation generally4  ,where the     
belief in reincarnation takes the form  
of belief in the transmigration of the  
soul into some animal form1 it may be   

utilised for moral purposes1 provided   
that the people amongst whom the belief 
obtains have otherwise advanced so far  
as to see that the punishments and      
rewards which are essential to the      
development of morality are by no means 
always realised in this life4  ,when    
that conviction has established itself1 
the reincarnation theory will provide   
machinery by which the belief in future 
punishments and rewards can be conceived
 as operative3 rebirth in animal form1  
if the belief in it already exists1 may 
be held out as a deterrent to           
wrongdoing4  ,that is1 as a matter of   
fact1 the use to which the belief has   
been put by ,buddhism4  ,the form and   
station in which the deceased will be   
#fb reborn is no longer1 as amongst the 
peoples just mentioned1 conceived to be 
determined automatically1 so to speak1  
but is supposed to depend on the moral  
qualities exhibited during life4  ,if   
this view of the future life has struck 
deeper root and has spread over a       

greater surface than the doctrine taught
 in the ,greek mysteries ever did1 the  
reason may probably be found in the fact
 that the ,greek mysteries had no higher
 morality to teach than was already     
recognised1 whilst the moral teaching of
 the ,buddha was far more exalted and   
far more profoundly true than anything  
that had been preached in ,india before4
  ,if a moral system by itself1 on its  
own merits1 were capable of affording a 
sure foundation for religion1 ,buddhism 
would be built upon a rock4  ,to the    
spiritual community by which man may be 
united to his fellow-man and to his     
,god1 morality is essential and         
indispensable4  ,but the moral life     
derives its value solely from the fact  
that on it depends1 and by means of it  
is realised1 that communion of man with 
,god after which man has from the       
beginning striven4  ,if then that       
communion and the very possibility of   
that communion is denied1 the denial    
must prove fatal alike to religion and  

to morality4  ,now1 that is the denial  
which ,buddhism #fc makes4 ,but the fact
 of the denial is obscured to those who 
believe1 and to those who would like to 
believe1 in ,buddhism1 by the way in    
which it is made4  ,it is made in such a
 way that it appears and is believed to 
be an affirmation instead of a denial4  
,communion with ,god is declared to be  
the final end to which the              
transmigration of souls conducts4  ,but 
the communion to which it leads is so   
intimate that the human soul1 the       
individual1 ceases to be4  ,obviously1  
therefore1 if it ceases to be1 the      
communion also must cease2 there is no  
real communion subsisting between two   
spirits1 the human and the divine1 for  
two spirits do not exist1 but only one4 
,if this way of stating the case be     
looked upon with suspicion as possibly  
not doing justice to the teaching of    
,buddhism1 or as pressing unduly far the
 union between the human and the divine 
which is the ultimate goal of the       

transmigration of souls1 the reply is   
that in truth the case against ,buddhism
 is stronger than appears from this mode
 of stating it4  ,to say that from the  
,buddhist point of view the human soul1 
the individual1 eventually ceases to be1
 is indeed an incorrect way of putting  
the matter4  ,it implies that the human 
soul1 the individual1 now is2 and       
hereafter ceases to be4  ,but so far    
from #fd admitting that the individual  
now is1 the ,buddhist doctrine is that  
the existence of the soul1 now1 is mere 
illusion1 my4  ,it is therefore logical 
enough1 and at any rate self-consistent1
 to say that hereafter1 when the series 
of transmigrations is complete1 the     
individual will not indeed cease to be1 
for he never was1 but the illusion that 
he existed will be dissipated4          
,logically again1 it follows from this  
that if the existence of the individual 
soul is an illusion from the beginning1 
then there can strictly speaking be no  
transmigration of souls1 for there is no

 soul to transmigrate4  ,but with       
perfect self-consistency ,buddhism      
accepts this position3 what is          
transmitted from one being to the next  
in the chain of existences is not the   
individuality or the soul1 but the      
character4  ,professor ,rhys ,davids    
says 7,hibbert ,lectures1 pp4 #ia1 #ib73
 ,i have no hesitation in maintaining   
that ,gotama did not teach the          
transmigration of souls4  ,what he did  
teach would be better summarized1 if we 
wish to retain the word transmigration1 
as the transmigration of character4     
,but it would be more accurate to drop  
the word transmigration altogether when 
speaking of ,buddhism1 and to call its  
doctrine the doctrine of karma4  ,gotama
 held that after the death of any being1
 #fe whether human or not1 there        
survived nothing at all but that being's
 'karma1' the result1 that is1 of its   
mental and bodily actions4  ,he         
discarded the theory of the presence1   
within each human body1 of a soul which 

could have a separate and eternal       
existence4  ,he therefore established a 
new identity between the individuals in 
the chain of existence1 which he1 like  
his forerunners1 acknowledged1 by the   
new assertion that that which made two  
beings to be the same being was--not    
soul1 but--karma 7ib41 pp4 #ic1 #id74   
,thus once more it appears that there   
can be no eventual communion between the
 human soul1 at the end of its chain of 
existence1 and the divine1 for the      
reason1 not that the human soul         
ultimately ceases to be1 but that it    
never is or was1 and therefore neither  
transmigrates from one body to another1 
nor is eventually absorbed in the tmn4  
,logically consistent though this train 
of argument be1 it leaves unanswered the
 simple question1 ,how can the result of
 my actions have any interest for       
me--not hereafter1 but at the present   
moment--if ,i not only shall not exist  
hereafter but do not exist at the       
present moment8 ,it is not impossible   

for a man who believes that his         
existence will absolutely #ff cease at  
death to take some interest in and      
labour for the good of others who will  
come after him2 but it is impossible for
 a man who does not exist now to believe
 in anything whatever4  ,and it is on   
that fundamental absurdity that         
,buddhism is built3 it is directed to   
the conversion of those who do not exist
 to be converted1 and it is directed to 
the object of relieving from existence  
those who have no existence from which  
to be relieved4  ,where then lies the   
strength of ,buddhism1 if as a logical  
structure it is rent from top to bottom 
by glaring inconsistency8  ,it lies in  
its appeal to the spirit of             
self-sacrifice4  ,what it denounces1    
from beginning to end1 is the will to   
live4  ,the reason why it denounces the 
will to live is that that will manifests
 itself exclusively in the desires of   
the individual2 and it is to the desires
 of man that all the misery in the world

 are directly due4  ,destroy those      
desires by annihilating the will to     
live--and in no other way can they be   
destroyed--and the misery of the world  
will cease4  ,the only termination to   
the misery of the world which ,buddhism 
can imagine is the voluntary cessation  
of life which will ultimately ensue on  
the cessation of the will to live4  ,and
 the means by which that is to be       
brought about is #fg the uprooting and  
destruction of the self-regarding       
desires by means of the higher morality 
of self-sacrifice4  ,what the ,buddhist 
overlooks is that the uprooting and     
destruction of the self-regarding       
desires results1 not in the             
annihilation1 but in the purification   
and enhanced vitality1 of the self that 
uproots them4  ,the outcome of the      
unselfish and self-sacrificing life is  
not the destruction of individuality1   
but its highest realisation4  ,now1 it  
is only in society and by living for    
others that this unselfishness and      

self-sacrifice can be carried out2 man  
can only exist and unselfishness can    
only operate in society1 and society    
means the communion of man with his     
fellows4  ,it is true that only in      
society can selfishness exist2 but it is
 recognized from the beginning as that  
which is destructive of society1 and it 
is therefore condemned alike by the     
morality and the religion of the        
society4  ,the communion of man with his
 fellows and his ,god is hindered1      
impeded1 and blocked wholly and solely  
by his self-regarding desires2 it is    
furthered and realised solely by his    
unselfish desires4  ,but his unselfish  
desires involve and imply his           
existence--,i was going to say1 just as 
much1 ,i mean--far more than his selfish
 desires1 for they imply1 and are only  
possible on1 the assumption of #fh the  
existence of his fellow-man1 and of his 
communion with him4  ,nay6 more1 by the 
testimony of ,buddhism itself as well as
 of the religious experience of mankind 

at large1 the unselfish desires1 the    
spirit of self-sacrifice1 require both  
for their logical and their emotional   
justification1 still more for their     
practical operation1 the faith that by  
means of them the will of ,god is       
carried out1 and that in them man shows 
likest ,god4  ,it is in them and by them
 that the communion of man with his     
fellow-man and with his ,god is         
realised4  ,it is the faith that such   
communion1 though it may be interrupted1
 can never be entirely broken which     
manifests itself in the belief in       
immortality4  ,that belief may take     
shape in the idea that the souls of the 
departed revisit this earth temporarily 
in ghostly form1 or more permanently as 
reincarnated in the new-born members of 
the tribe2 it may body forth another    
world of bliss or woe1 and if it is to  
subserve the purposes of morality1 it   
must so do2 nay6 more1 if it is to      
subserve the purposes of morality1 it is
 into the presence of the ,lord that the

 soul must go4  ,but in any and whatever
 shape the belief takes1 the soul is    
conceived or implied to be in communion 
with other spirits4  ,there is no other 
way in which it is #fi possible to      
conceive the existence of a soul2 just  
as any particle of matter1 to be        
comprehended in its full reality1       
implies not only every other particle of
 matter but the universe which          
comprehends them1 so the existence of   
any spirit logically implies not only   
the existence of every other but also of
 ,him without whom no one of them could 
be4  ,it is in this belief in the       
communion of spirits wherever he may    
find it--and where will he not8--that   
the missionary may obtain a leverage for
 his work4  ,it is a sure basis for his 
operations because the desire for       
communion is universal2 and             
,christianity alone1 of the religions of
 the world1 teaches that self-sacrifice 
is the way to life eternal4     #gj     
,,magic  ,of all the topics which       

present themselves to the student of the
 science of religion for investigation  
and explanation there is none which has 
caused more diversity of opinion1 none  
which has produced more confusion of    
thought1 than magic4  ,the fact is that 
the belief in magic is condemned alike  
by science and religion1--by the one as 
essentially irrational1 and by the other
 as essentially irreligious4 ,but though
 it is thus condemned1 it flourishes1   
where it does flourish1 as being        
science1 though of a more secret kind   
than that usually recognised1 or as     
being a more potent application of the  
rites and ceremonies of religion4  ,it  
is indeed neither science nor religion2 
it lives by mimicking one or other or   
both4  ,in the natural history of belief
 it owes its survival1 so long as it    
does survive1 to its protective         
colouring and its power of mimicry4  ,it
 is1 always and everywhere1 an          
error1--whether tried by the canons of  
science or religion2 #ga but it lives1  

as error can only live1 by posing and   
passing itself off as truth4  ,if now   
the only persons deceived by it were the
 persons who believed in it1 students of
 the science of religion would have been
 saved from much fruitless controversy4 
,but so subtly protective is its        
colouring that some scientific enquirers
 have confidently and unhesitatingly    
identified it with religion1 and have   
declared that magic is religion1 and    
religion is magic4  ,the tyranny of that
 error1 however1 is now well-nigh       
overpast4  ,it is erroneous1 and we may 
suppose is seen to be erroneous1 in     
exactly the same way as it would be to  
say that science is magic1 and magic    
science4  ,the truth is that magic in   
one aspect is a colourable imitation of 
science3 in short1 as ,dr4 ,frazer says 
7,early ,history of the ,kingship1 p4   
#ch71 magic is a spurious system of     
natural law4  ,that is1 we must note1 it
 is a system which is spurious in our   
eyes1 but which1 to those who believed  

in it1 was a statement of the rules     
which determine the sequence of events  
throughout the world--a set of precepts 
which human beings observe in order to  
compare their ends 7ib41 p4 #ci74  ,the 
point1 then1 from which ,i wish to start
 is that #gb magic1 as it is now viewed 
by students of the science of religion1 
on the one hand is a spurious system of 
natural law or science1 and on the other
 a spurious system of religion4  ,our   
next point is that magic could not be   
spurious for those who believed in it3  
they held that they knew some things and
 could do things which ordinary people  
did not know and could not do2 and1     
whether their knowledge was of the      
secrets of nature or of the spirit      
world1 it was not in their eyes         
spurious4  ,our third point is more     
difficult to explain1 though it will    
appear not merely obvious1 but          
self-evident1 if ,i succeed in          
explaining it4  ,it will facilitate the 
work of explanation1 if you will for the

 moment suppose--without considering    
whether the supposition is true or      
not--that there was a time when no one  
had heard that there was such a thing as
 magic4  ,let us further suppose that at
 that time man had observed such facts  
as that heat produces warmth1 that the  
young of animals and man resemble their 
parents3 in a word1 that he had attained
 more or less consciously to the idea1  
as a matter of observation1 that like   
produces like1 and as a matter of       
practice that like may be produced by   
like4  ,having attained to that         
practical idea1 he will of #gc course   
work it not only for all that it is     
worth1 but for more4 ,that is indeed the
 only way he has of finding out how much
 it is good for2 and it is only repeated
 failure which will convince him that   
here at length he has reached the limit1
 that in this particular point things do
 not realise his expectations1 that in  
this instance his anticipation of nature
 has been too previous4  ,until that    

fact has been hammered into him1 he will
 go on expecting and believing that in  
this instance also like will produce    
like1 when he sets it to work2 and he   
will be perfectly convinced that he is  
employing the natural and reasonable    
means for attaining his end4  ,as a     
matter of fact1 however1 as we with our 
superior knowledge can see1 in the first
 place those means never can produce the
 desired effect2 and next1 the idea that
 they can1 as it withers and before it  
finally falls to the ground1 will change
 its colour and assume the hue of magic4
  ,thus the idea that by whistling you  
can produce a wind is at first as       
natural and as purely rational as the   
idea that you can produce warmth by     
means of fire4 ,there is nothing magical
 in either4  ,both are matter-of-fact   
applications of the practical maxim that
 like produces like4  #gd  ,that1 then1 
is the point which ,i have been wishing 
to make1 the third of the three points  
from which ,i wish to start4  ,there are

 three ways of looking at identically   
the same thing1 e4g4 whistling to       
produce a wind4  ,first1 we may regard  
it1 and ,i suggest that it was in the   
beginning regarded1 as an application1  
having nothing to distinguish it from   
any other application1 of the general   
maxim that like produces like4  ,the    
idea that eating the flesh of deer makes
 a man timid1 or that if you wish to be 
strong and bold you should eat tiger1   
is1 in this stage of thought1 no more   
magical than is the idea of drinking    
water because you are dry4  ,next1 the  
idea of whistling to produce a wind1 or 
of sticking splinters of bone into a    
man's footprints in order to injure his 
feet1 may be an idea not generally      
known1 a thing not commonly done1 a     
proceeding not generally approved of4   
,it is thus marked off from the         
commonplace actions of drinking water to
 moisten your parched throat or sitting 
by a fire to get warm4  ,when it is thus
 marked off1 it is regarded as magic3   

not every one knows how to do it1 or not
 every one has the power to do it1 or   
not every one cares to do it4  ,that is 
the second stage1 the heyday of magic4  
#ge  ,the third and final stage is that 
in which no educated person believes in 
it1 when1 if a man thinks to get a wind 
by whistling he may whistle for it4     
,these three ways of looking at         
identically the same thing may and do   
coexist4  ,the idea of whistling for a  
wind is for you and me simply a mistaken
 idea2 but possibly at this moment there
 are sailors acting upon the idea and to
 some of them it appears a perfectly    
natural thing to do1 while to others    
there is a flavour of the magical about 
it4  ,but though the three ways may and 
do coexist1 it is obvious that our way  
of looking at it is and must be the     
latest of the three1 for the simple     
reason that an error must exist before  
it can be exploded4 ,i say that our way 
of looking at it must be the latest1 but
 in saying so ,i do not mean to imply   

that this way of looking at it          
originates only at a late stage in the  
history of mankind4  ,on the contrary1  
it is present in a rudimentary form from
 very early times2 and the proof is the 
fact generally recognised that magicians
 amongst the lowest races1 though they  
may believe to a certain extent in their
 own magical powers1 do practise a good 
deal of magic which they themselves know
 to be fraudulent4  ,progress takes     
place when other people also1 and a #gf 
steadily increasing number of people1   
come to see that it is fraudulent4  ,in 
the next place1 just as amongst very    
primitive peoples we see that some magic
 is known by some people1 viz4 the      
magicians themselves1 to be fraudulent1 
though other people believe in it2 so1  
amongst very primitive peoples1 we find 
beliefs and practices existing which    
have not yet come to be regarded as     
magical1 though they are such as might  
come1 and do elsewhere come1 to be      
considered pure magic4  ,thus1 for      

instance1 when ,cherokee ,indians who   
suffer from rheumatism abstain from     
eating the flesh of the common grey     
squirrel because the squirrel eats in a 
cramped position1 which would clearly   
aggravate the pangs of the rheumatic    
patient 7,frazer1 ,history of the       
,kingship1 p4 #gj71 or when they will   
not wear the feathers of the bald-headed
 buzzard for fear of themselves becoming
 bald 7ib471 they are simply following  
the best medical advice of their        
day1--they certainly do not imagine they
 are practising magic1 any more than you
 or ,i do when we are following the     
prescriptions of our medical adviser4   
,on the contrary1 it is quite as        
obvious1 then1 that the feathers of the 
bald-headed buzzard are infectious as it
 is now that the clothes #gg of a fever 
patient are infectious4  ,neither       
proposition1 to be accepted as true1    
requires us to believe in magic3 either 
might spring up where magic had never   
been heard of4  ,and1 if that is the    

case1 it simply complicates things      
unnecessarily to talk of magic in such  
cases4  ,the tendency to believe that   
like produces like is not a consequence 
of or a deduction from a belief in      
magic3 on the contrary1 magic has its   
root or one of its roots in that        
tendency of the human mind4  ,but though
 that tendency helps to produce magic   
amongst other things1 magic is not the  
only thing which it produces3 it        
produces beliefs such as those of the   
,cherokees just quoted1 which are no    
more magical than the belief that fire  
produces warmth1 or that causa aequat   
effectum1 that an effect is1 when       
analysed1 indistinguishable from the    
conditions which constitute it4  ,to    
attempt to define magic is a risky      
thing2 and1 instead of doing so at once1
 ,i will try to mark off proceedings    
which are not magical2 and ,i would     
venture to say that things which it is  
believed any one can do1 and felt that  
any one may do1 are not magical in the  

eyes of those who have that belief and  
that feeling4  ,you may abstain from    
eating #gh squirrel or wearing fine     
feathers because of the consequences2   
and every one will think you are showing
 your common sense4  ,you may hang up   
the bones of animals you have killed1 in
 order to attract more animals of the   
like kind2 and you are simply practising
 a dodge which you think will be useful4
  ,wives whose husbands are absent on   
hunting or fighting expeditions may do  
or abstain from doing things which1 on  
the principle that like produces like1  
will affect their husbands' success2 and
 this application of the principle may  
be as irrational--and as perfectly      
natural--as the behaviour of the        
beginner at billiards whose body        
writhes1 when he has made his stroke1 in
 excess of sympathy with the ball which 
just won't make the cannon4  ,in both   
cases the principle acted               
on1--deliberately in the one case1 less 
voluntarily in the other1--the          

instinctive feeling is that like        
produces like1 not as a matter of magic 
but as a matter of fact4  ,if the       
behaviour of the billiard player is due 
to an impulse which is in itself natural
 and in his case is not magical1 we may 
fairly take the same view of the        
hunter's wife who abstains from spinning
 for fear the game should turn and wind 
like the spindle and the hunter be      
unable to hit it 7,frazer1 #gi p4 #ee74 
,the principle in both cases is that    
like produces like4  ,some applications 
of that principle are correct2 some are 
not4  ,the incorrectness of the latter  
is not at once discovered3 the belief in
 their case is erroneous1 but is not    
known to be erroneous4  ,and unless we  
are prepared to take up the position    
that magic is the only form of erroneous
 belief which is to be found amongst    
primitive men1 we must endeavour to draw
 a line between those erroneous beliefs 
which are magical and those erroneous   
beliefs which are not4 ,the line will   

not be a hard and fast line1 because a  
belief which originally had nothing     
magical about it may come to be regarded
 as magical4  ,indeed1 on the assumption
 that belief in magic is an error1 we   
have to enquire how men come to fall    
into the error4  ,if there is no such   
thing as magic1 how did man come to     
believe that there was8  ,my suggestion 
is that the rise of the belief is not   
due to the introduction of a novel      
practice1 but to a new way of looking at
 an existing practice4  ,it is due in   
the first instance to the fact that the 
practice is regarded with disapproval as
 far as its consequences are concerned  
and without regard to the means employed
 to produce them4 ,injury to a member of
 the community1 #hj especially injury   
which causes death1 is viewed by the    
community with indignant disapproval4   
,whether the death is produced by actual
 blows or by drawing the figure of a    
person and then stabbing it or doing it 
any other injury 7,frazer1 p4 #da71 it  

is visited with the condemnation of the 
community4  ,and consequently all such  
attempts to injure or destroy an enemy  
by injuring or destroying an effigy of  
him 7ib471 whenever they are made1      
whether they come off or not1 are       
resented and disapproved by society4    
,on the other hand1 sympathetic or      
homoeopathic magic of this kind1 when   
used by the hunter or the fisherman to  
secure food1 meets with no condemnation4
  ,both assassin and hunter use         
substantially the same means to effect  
their object2 but the disapproval with  
which the community views the object of 
the assassin is extended also to the    
means which he employs4  ,in fine1 the  
practice of using like to produce like  
comes to be looked on with loathing and 
with dread when it is employed for      
antisocial purposes4  ,any one can      
injure or destroy his private enemy by  
injuring an effigy of him1 just as any  
one can injure or destroy his enemy by  
assaulting and wounding him4  ,but      

though any one may do this1 it is felt  
#ha that no one ought to do it4  ,such  
practices are condemned by public       
opinion4  ,further1 as they are         
condemned by the community1 they are    
ipso facto offensive to the god of the  
community4  ,to him only those prayers  
can be offered1 and by him only those   
practices can be approved1 which are not
 injurious to the community or are not  
felt by the community to be injurious4  
,that is the reason why such practices  
are condemned by the religious as well  
as by the moral feeling of the          
community4  ,and they are condemned by  
religion and morality long before their 
futility is exposed by science or       
recognised by common sense4  ,when they 
are felt to be futile1 there is no call 
upon religion or morality especially to 
condemn the practices--though the       
intention and the will to injure our    
fellow-man remains offensive both to    
morality and religion4  ,with the means 
adopted for realising the will and      

carrying out the intention1 morality and
 religion have no concern4  ,if the same
 or similar means can be used for       
purposes consistent with the common     
weal1 they do not1 so far as they are   
used for such purposes1 come under the  
ban of either morality or religion4     
,therein we have1 ,i suggest1 the reason
 of a certain confusion of thought #hb  
in the minds of students of the science 
of religion4  ,we of the present day    
look at the means employed4  ,we see the
 same means employed for ends that are1 
and for ends that are not1 antisocial2  
and1 inasmuch as the means are the same 
and are alike irrational1 we group them 
all together under the head of magic4   
,the grouping is perfectly correct1     
inasmuch as the proceedings grouped     
together have the common attribute of   
being proceedings which cannot possibly 
produce the effects which those who     
employ them believe that they will and  
do produce4  ,but this grouping becomes 
perfectly misleading1 if we go on to    

infer1 as is sometimes inferred1 that   
primitive man adopted it4  ,first1 it is
 based on the fact that the proceedings 
are uniformly irrational--a fact of     
which man is at first wholly unaware2   
and which1 when it begins to dawn upon  
him1 presents itself in the form of the 
further error that while some of these  
proceedings are absurd1 others are not4 
,in neither case does he adopt the      
modern1 scientific position that all are
 irrational1 impossible1 absurd4  ,next1
 the modern position deals only with the
 proceedings as means1--declaring them  
all absurd1--and overlooks entirely what
 is to primitive man the point of       
fundamental importance1 viz4 the object 
#hc and purpose with which they are     
used4  ,yet it is the object and purpose
 which determine the social value of    
these proceedings4  ,for him1 or in his 
eyes1 to class together the things which
 he approves of and the things of which 
he disapproves would be monstrous3 the  
means employed in the two cases may be  

the same1 but that is of no importance  
in face of the fact that the ends aimed 
at in the two cases are not merely      
different but contradictory4  ,in the   
one case the object promotes the common 
weal1 or is supposed by him to promote  
it4  ,in the other it is destructive of 
the common weal4  ,if1 therefore1 we    
wish to avoid confusion of thought1 we  
must in discussing magic constantly bear
 in mind that we group together--and    
therefore are in danger of              
confusing--things which to the savage   
differ toto caelo from one another4  ,a 
step towards avoiding this confusion is 
taken by ,dr4 ,frazer1 when he          
distinguishes 7,history of the          
,kingship1 p4 #hi7 between private magic
 and public magic4  ,the distinction is 
made still more emphatic by ,dr4 ,haddon
 7,magic and ,fetichism1 p4 #bj7 when he
 speaks of nefarious magic4  ,the very  
same means when employed against the    
good of the community are regarded1 by  
morality and religion #hd alike1 as     

nefarious1 which when employed for the  
good of the community are regarded with 
approval4  ,the very same illegitimate  
application1--,i mean logically         
illegitimate in our eyes1--the very same
 application of the principle that like 
produces like will be condemned by the  
public opinion of the community when it 
is employed for purposes of murder and  
praised by public opinion when it is    
employed to produce the rain which the  
community desires4  ,the distinction    
drawn by primitive man between the two  
cases is that1 though any one can use   
the means to do either1 no one ought to 
do the one which the community condemns4
  ,that is condemned as nefarious2 and  
because it is nefarious1 the witch may  
be smelled out by the witch-doctor and  
destroyed by1 or with the approval of1  
the community4  ,but though that is1 ,i 
suggest1 the first stage in the process 
by which the belief in magic is evolved1
 it is by no means the whole of the     
process4  ,indeed1 it may fairly be     

urged that practices which any one can  
perform1 though no one ought to perform1
 may be nefarious 7as simple1           
straightforward murder is71 but so far  
there is nothing magical about them4    
,and ,i am prepared to accept that view4
  ,indeed1 #he it is an essential part  
of my argument1 for ,i seek to show that
 the belief in magic had a beginning and
 was evolved out of something that was  
not a belief in magic1 though it gave   
rise to it4  ,the belief that like      
produces like can be entertained where  
magic has not so much as been heard of4 
,and1 though it may ultimately be worked
 out into the scientific position that  
the sum of conditions necessary to      
produce an effect is indistinguishable  
from the effect1 it may also be worked  
out on other lines into a belief in     
magic2 and the first step in that       
evolution is taken when the belief that 
like produces like is used for purposes 
pronounced by public opinion to be      
nefarious4  ,the next step is taken when

 it comes to be believed not only that  
the thing is nefarious but that not     
every one can do it4  ,the reason why   
only a certain person can do it may be  
that he alone knows how to do it--or he 
and the person from whom he learnt it4  
,the lore of such persons when examined 
by folk-lore students is found generally
 to come under one or other of the two  
classes known as sympathetic and mimetic
 magic1 or homoeopathic and contagious  
magic4  ,in these cases it is obvious   
that the modus operandi is the same as  
it #hf was in what ,i have called the   
first stage in the evolution of magic   
and have already described at great     
length4  ,what differentiates this      
second stage from the first is that     
whereas in the first stage these        
applications of the principle that like 
produces like are known to every one1   
though not practised by every one1 in   
the second stage these applications are 
not known to every one1 but only to the 
dealers in magic4  ,some of those       

applications of the principle may be    
applications which have descended to the
 dealer and have passed out of the      
general memory2 and others may simply be
 extensions of the principle which have 
been invented by the dealer or his      
teacher4  ,again1 the public disapproval
 of nefarious arts will tend first to   
segregate the followers of such arts    
from the rest of the community2 and next
 to foster the notion that the arts thus
 segregated1 and thereby made more or   
less mysterious1 include not only things
 which the ordinary decent member of    
society would not do if he could1 but   
also things which he could not do if he 
would4  ,the mere belief in the         
possibility of such arts creates an     
atmosphere of suspicion in which things 
are believed because they are           
impossible4 ,when this stage has been   
reached1 when he who #hg practises      
nefarious arts is reported and believed 
to do things which ordinary decent      
people could not do if they would1 his  

personality inevitably comes to be      
considered as a factor in the results   
that he produces2 he is credited with a 
power to produce them which other       
people1 that is to say ordinary people1 
do not possess4  ,and it is that        
personal power which eventually comes to
 be the most important1 because the most
 mysterious1 article in his equipment4  
,it is in virtue of that personal power 
that he is commonly believed to be able 
to do things which are impossible for   
the ordinary member of the tribe4  ,thus
 far ,i have been tracing the steps of  
the process by which the worker of      
nefarious arts starts by employing for  
nefarious purposes means which any one  
could use if he would1 and ends by being
 credited with a power peculiar to      
himself of working impossibilities4  ,i 
now wish to point out that a process    
exactly parallel is simultaneously      
carried on by which arts beneficent to  
society are supposed to be evolved4     
,rain-making may be taken as an art     

socially beneficial4  ,the modus        
operandi of rain-making appears in all  
cases to be based on the principle that 
like produces like2 and to be in its #hh
 nature a process which any one can     
carry out and which requires no         
mysterious art to effect and no         
mysterious personal power to produce4   
,at the same time1 as it is a proceeding
 which is beneficial to the tribe as a  
whole1 it is one in which the whole     
tribe1 and no one tribesman in          
particular1 is interested4  ,it must be 
carried out in the interest of the tribe
 and by some one who in carrying it out 
acts for the tribe4 ,the natural        
representative of the tribe is the      
head-man of the tribe2 and1 though any  
one might perform the simple actions    
necessary1 and could perform them just  
as well as the head-man1 they tend to   
fall into the hands of the head-man2 and
 in any case the person who performs    
them performs them as the representative
 of the tribe4  ,the natural inference  

comes in course of time to be drawn that
 he who alone performs them is the man  
who alone can perform them2 and when    
that inference is drawn it becomes      
obvious that his personality1 or the    
power peculiar to him personally1 is    
necessary if rain is to be made1 and    
that the acts and ceremonies through    
which he goes and through which any one 
could go would not be efficacious1 or   
not as efficacious1 without his personal
 agency and mysterious power4  ,hence   
the man who works #hi wonders for his   
tribe or in the interests of his tribe1 
in virtue of his personal power1 does   
things which are impossible for the     
ordinary member of the tribe4  ,up to   
this point1 in tracing the evolution of 
magic1 we have not found it once        
necessary to bring in or even to refer  
to any belief in the existence of       
spiritual beings of any kind4  ,so far  
as the necessities of the argument are  
concerned1 the belief in magic might    
have originated in the way ,i have      

described and might have developed on   
the lines suggested1 in a tribe which   
had never so much as heard of spirits4  
,of course1 as a matter of fact1 every  
tribe in which the belief in magic is   
found does also believe in the existence
 of spirits2 animism is a stage of      
belief lower than which or back of which
 science does not profess to go4  ,but  
it is only in an advanced stage of its  
evolution that the belief in magic      
becomes involved with the belief in     
spirits4  ,originally1 eating tiger to  
make you bold1 or eating saffron to cure
 jaundice1 was just as matter of fact a 
proceeding as drinking water to moisten 
your throat or sitting by a fire to get 
warm2 like produces like1 and beyond    
that obvious fact it was not necessary  
to go--there was no more need to imagine
 that the action of the saffron was due 
to a spirit than to imagine #ij that it 
was a water spirit which slakes your    
thirst4  ,the fact seems to be that     
animism is a savage philosophy which is 

competent to explain everything when    
called upon1 but that the savage does   
not spend every moment of his waking    
life in invoking it3 until there is some
 need to fall back upon it1 he goes on  
treating inanimate things as things     
which he can utilise for his own        
purposes without reference to spirits4  
,that is the attitude also of the man   
who in virtue of his lore or his        
personal power can produce effects which
 the ordinary man cannot or will not3 he
 performs his ceremony and the effect   
follows--or will follow--because he     
knows how to do it or has mysterious    
personal power to produce the effect4   
,but he consults no spirits--at any rate
 in the first instance4 ,eventually he  
may do so2 and then magic enters on a   
further stage in its evolution4  7,see  
,appendix47  ,if the man who has the    
lore or the personal power1 and who uses
 it for nefarious purposes1 proposes to 
employ it on obtaining the same control 
over spirits as he has over things1 his 

magic reaches a stage of evolution in   
which it is difficult and practically   
unnecessary to distinguish it from the  
stage of fetichism in which the owner of
 a fetich #ia applies coercion to make  
the fetich spirit do what he wishes4    
,with fetichism ,i deal in another      
lecture4  ,if1 on the other hand1 the   
man who has the lore or the personal    
power and uses it for social or communal
 purposes 7,haddon1 p4 #da7 comes to    
believe that1 for the effects which he  
has hitherto sought to produce by means 
of his superior knowledge or superior   
power1 it is necessary to invoke the aid
 of spirits1 he will naturally address  
himself to the spirit or god who is     
worshipped by the community because he  
has at heart the general interests of   
the community2 or it may be that the    
spirit who produces such a benefit for  
the community at large1 as rain for     
example1 will take his place among the  
gods of the community as the rain-god1  
in virtue of the benefit which he       

confers upon the community generally4   
,in either case1 the attitude of the    
priest or person who approaches him on  
behalf of the community will be that    
which befits a supplicant invoking a    
favour from a power that has shown      
favour in the past to the community4    
,and it will not surprise us if we find 
that the ceremonies which were used for 
the purpose of rain-making1 before rain 
was recognised as the gift of the gods1 
continue for a time to be practised as  
the proper rites with #ib which to      
approach the god of the community or the
 rain-god in particular4  ,such         
survivals are then in danger of being   
misinterpreted by students of the       
science of religion1 for they may be    
regarded as evidence that religion was  
evolved out of magic1 when in truth they
 show that religion tends to drive out  
magic4 ,thus ,dr4 ,frazer1 in his       
,lectures on the ,early ,history of the 
,kingship 7pp4 #gc-ge71 describes the   
practice of the ,new ,caledonians who1  

to promote the growth of taro1 bury in  
the field certain stones resembling     
taros1 praying to their ancestors at the
 same time1 and he goes on to say3 ,in  
these practices of the ,new ,caledonians
 the magical efficacy of the stones     
appears to be deemed insufficient of    
itself to accomplish the end in view2 it
 has to be reinforced by the spirits of 
the dead1 whose help is sought by prayer
 and sacrifice4  ,thus in ,new          
,caledonia sorcery is blent with the    
worship of the dead2 in other words1    
magic is combined with religion4  ,if   
the stones ceased to be employed1 and   
the prayers and sacrifices to the       
ancestors remained1 the transition from 
magic to religion would be complete4    
,thus it seems to be suggested in these 
words of ,dr4 ,frazer's that religion   
may be evolved out of magic4  ,if that  
is what is suggested1 #ic then there is 
little doubt that the suggestion is not 
borne out by the instance given4  ,let  
us concede for the moment what some of  

us would be inclined to doubt1 viz4 that
 prayers and sacrifice offered to a     
human being1 alive or dead1 is religion2
 and let us enquire whether this form of
 religion is evolved out of magic4  ,the
 magic here is quite clear3 stones      
resembling taros are buried in the taro 
field to promote the growth of taros4   
,that is an application of the principle
 that like produces like which might be 
employed by men who had never heard of  
ancestor worship or of any kind of      
religion1 and who had never uttered     
prayers or offered sacrifices of any    
kind4  ,next1 the religious element1    
according to ,dr4 ,frazer1 is also quite
 clear3 it consists in offering         
sacrifices to the dead with the prayer  
or the words1 ,here are your offerings1 
in order that the crop of yams may be   
good4  ,now1 it is not suggested1 even  
by ,dr4 ,frazer1 that this religious    
element is a form of magic or is in any 
way developed out of or evolved from    
magic4 ,on the contrary1 if this element

 is religious--indeed1 whether it be    
really religious or not--it is obviously
 entirely distinct and different from   
sympathetic or homoeopathic magic4  ,the
 mere fact that the magical #id rite of 
burying in the taro fields stones which 
resemble taros has to be supplemented by
 rites which are1 on ,dr4 ,frazer's own 
showing1 non-magical1 shows that the    
primitive belief in this application of 
the principle that like produces like   
was already dying out1 and was in       
process of becoming a mere survival4    
,suppose that it died out entirely and  
the rite of burying stones became an    
unintelligible survival1 or was dropped 
altogether1 and suppose that the prayers
 and sacrifices remained in possession  
of the field1 which would be the more   
correct way of stating the facts1 to say
 that the magic had died out and its    
place had been taken by something       
totally different1 viz4 religion2 or    
that what was magic had become religion1
 that magic and religion are but two    

manifestations1 two stages1 in the      
evolution of the same principle8  ,the  
latter statement was formally rejected  
by ,dr4 ,frazer in the second edition of
 his ,golden ,bough1 when he declared   
that he had come to recognise a         
fundamental distinction and even        
opposition of principle between magic   
and religion 7,preface1 xvi74  ,his     
words1 therefore1 justify us in assuming
 that when he speaks1 in his ,lectures  
on the ,early ,history of the ,kingship1
 of the transition from magic to        
religion1 he cannot #ie mean that magic 
becomes religion1 or that religion is   
evolved out of magic1 for the           
distinction and even opposition of      
principle between the two is            
fundamental4  ,he can1 therefore1 only  
mean that magic is followed and may be  
driven out by something which is        
fundamentally opposed to it1 viz4       
religion4  ,what then is the fundamental
 opposition between magic and religion8 
and is it such as to require us to      

believe with ,dr4 ,frazer that magic    
preceded religion1 and that of two      
opposite ideas the mind can conceive the
 one without conceiving--and            
rejecting--the other8  ,the fundamental 
opposition between magic and religion ,i
 take to be that religion is supposed to
 promote the interests of the community1
 and that magic1 so far forth as it is  
nefarious1 is condemned by the moral and
 by the religious feeling of the        
community4  ,it is the ends for which   
nefarious magic is used that are        
condemned1 and not the means4 ,the means
 may be and1 as we see1 are silly and   
futile2 and1 for intellectual progress1 
their silliness and futility must be    
recognised by the intellect4  ,but1 it  
is only when they are used for purposes 
inimical to the public good that they   
are #if condemned by religion and       
morality as nefarious4  ,if therefore we
 talk of a fundamental opposition       
between magic and religion1 we must     
understand that the fundamental         

opposition is that between nefarious    
magic and religion2 neither religion nor
 morality condemns the desire to        
increase the food supply or to promote  
any other interest of the community4    
,whether a man uses skill that he has   
acquired1 or personal power1 or force of
 will1 matters not1 provided he uses it 
for the general good4  ,the question    
whether1 as a cold matter of fact1 the  
means he uses are efficacious is not one
 which moral fervour or religious ardour
 is competent by itself to settle3 the  
cool atmosphere and dry light of reason 
have rather that function to perform2   
and they have to perform it in the case 
both of means that are used for the     
general good and of those used against  
it4  ,i take it therefore that what     
religion is fundamentally opposed to is 
magic--or anything else--that is used   
for nefarious purposes4  ,the question  
then arises whether we have any reason  
to believe that magic used for nefarious
 purposes must have existed before      

religion4 ,now by nefarious purposes ,i 
mean purposes inconsistent with or      
destructive of the common good4  #ig    
,there can be no such purposes1 however1
 unless and until there is a community1 
however small1 having common interests  
and a common good4  ,as soon as there   
exists such a community1 there will be a
 distinction between actions which      
promote and actions which are           
destructive of the common good4  ,the   
one class will be approved1 the other   
disapproved1 of by public opinion4      
,magic will be approved and disapproved 
of according as it is or is not used in 
a way inconsistent with the public good4
  ,if there is a spirit or a god who is 
worshipped by the community because he  
is believed to be concerned with the    
good of the community1 then he will     
disapprove of nefarious proceedings     
whether magical or not4  ,but ,dr4      
,frazer's position ,i take to be that no
 such spirit or god can come to be      
believed in1 unless there has been      

previously a belief in magic4  ,now1    
that argument either is or is not based 
on the assumption that magic and        
religion are but two manifestations1 two
 stages1 in the evolution of the same   
principle4  ,if that is the basis1 then 
what manifested itself at first as magic
 subsequently manifests itself as       
religion2 and the transition from magic 
to religion implies the priority of     
magic to religion4  ,but1 as we have    
seen1 ,dr4 ,frazer #ih formally         
postulates1 not an identity1 but an     
opposition of principle between the two4
  ,we must therefore reject the         
assumption of an identity of principle2 
and accept the opposition of principle4 
,but if so1 then there must be two      
principles which are opposed to one     
another1 religion and magic2 and we     
might urge that line of argument        
consistently enough to show that there  
can be no magic save where there is     
religion to be opposed to it4  ,now1    
there is an opposition of principle     

between magic used for nefarious        
purposes and religion2 and the          
opposition is that the one promotes     
social and the other anti-social        
purposes4  ,nefarious purposes1 whether 
worked by magic or by other means1 are  
condemned by religion and are nefarious 
especially because offensive to the god 
who has the interests of the community  
at heart4  ,that from the moment society
 existed anti-social tendencies also    
manifested themselves will not be       
doubted2 and neither need we doubt that 
the principle that like produces like   
was employed from the beginning for     
social as well as for anti-social       
purposes4  ,the question is whether1 in 
the stage of animism1 the earliest and  
the lowest stage which science          
recognises in the evolution of man1     
there is ever found a society #ii of    
human beings which has not appropriated 
some one or more of the spirits by which
 all things1 on the animistic principle1
 are worked1 to the purposes of the     

community4  ,no such society has yet    
been proved to exist2 still less has any
  priori proof been produced to show    
that such a society must have existed4  
,the presumption indeed is rather the   
other way4  ,children go through a      
period of helpless infancy longer than  
the young of any other creatures2 and   
could not reach the age of self-help1 if
 the family did not hold together for   
some years at least4 ,but where there is
 a family there is a society1 even if it
 be confined to members of the family4  
,there also1 therefore1 there are social
 and anti-social tendencies and         
purposes2 and1 in the animistic stage1  
the spirits1 by which man conceives     
himself to be surrounded1 are either    
hostile or not hostile to the society1  
and are accordingly either worshipped or
 not worshipped by it4  ,doubtless1 even
 in those early times1 the father and   
the husband conceived himself to be the 
whole family2 and if that view had its  
unamiable side--and it still has--it    

also on occasion had the inestimable    
advantage of sinking self1 of           
self-sacrifice1 in defence of the       
family4  #ajj  ,thus far ,i have been   
concerned to show how1 starting from a  
principle such as that like produces    
like1 about which there is nothing      
magical in the eyes either of those who 
believe in magic or of those who have   
left the belief behind1 man might evolve
 the conception of magic as being the   
lore or the personal power which enables
 a man to do what ordinary people cannot
 do4  ,a few words are necessary as to  
the decline of the belief4  ,the first  
is that the belief is rotten before it  
is ripe4  ,those applications of the    
principle that like produces like which 
are magical are generally precisely     
those which are false4  ,the fact that  
they are false has not prevented them   
from surviving in countless numbers to  
the present day4  ,but some suspicion of
 their falsity in some cases does arise2
 and the person who has the most        

frequent opportunities of discovering   
their falsity1 the person on whose      
notice the discovery of their falsity is
 thrust most pointedly1 is the person   
who deals habitually and professionally 
in magic4  ,hence1 though it is his     
profession to work wonders1 he takes    
care as far as may be not to attempt    
impossibilities4  ,thus ,dr4 ,haddon    
7l4c41 p4 #fb7 found that the men of    
,murray ,island1 ,torres ,straits1 who  
made a big wind by magic1 only made it  
in the #aja season of the southeast     
trade wind4  ,on my asking1 he says1    
whether the ceremony was done in the    
north monsoon1 my informant said        
emphatically1 ',can't do it in          
northwest4'  ,that is1 the charm is     
performed only at that season of the    
year when the required result is        
possible--indeed when it is of normal   
occurrence4  ,in this1 as in other      
cases1 ,i found that the impossible was 
never attempted4  ,a rain charm would   
not be made when there was no           

expectation of rain coming1 or a        
southeast wind be raised during the     
wrong season4  ,the instance thus given 
to us by ,dr4 ,haddon shows how the     
belief in magic begins to give way      
before the scientific observation of    
fact4  ,the collapse of magic becomes   
complete when every one sees that the   
southeast trade wind blows at its       
appointed time1 whether the magic rites 
are performed or not4  ,in fine1 what   
kills magic regarded as a means for     
producing effects is the discovery that 
it is superfluous1 when for instance the
 desired wind or rain is coming1 and    
futile when it is not4  ,and whereas    
morality and religion only condemn the  
end aimed at by magic1 and only condemn 
it when it is anti-social1 science      
slowly shows that magic as a means to   
any end is superfluous and silly4  #ajb 
,science1 however1 shows this but       
slowly2 and if we wish to understand how
 it is that the belief in the magician's
 power has survived for thousands of    

years down to the present moment amongst
 numerous peoples1 we must remember that
 his equipment and apparatus are not    
limited to purely nonsensical notions4  
,on the contrary1 in his stock of       
knowledge1 carefully handed down1 are   
many truths and facts not generally     
known2 and they are the most efficacious
 articles of his stock in trade4  ,dr4  
,frazer may not go farther than his     
argument requires1 but he certainly goes
 farther than the facts will support    
him1 when he says 7l4c41 p4 #hc7 for it 
must always be remembered that every    
single profession and claim put forward 
by the magician as such is false2 not   
one of them can be maintained without   
deception1 conscious or unconscious4    
,if now1 in conclusion1 we look once    
more at the subject of magic and look at
 it from the practical point of view of 
the missionary1 we shall see that there 
are several conclusions which may be of 
use to him4  ,in the first place1 his   
attitude to magic will be hostile1 and  

in his hostility to it he will find the 
best starting-point for his campaign    
against it to be in the fact that       
everywhere magic is felt1 to a greater  
#ajc or less extent1 to be anti-social1 
and is condemned both by the moral      
sentiments and the religious feeling of 
the community4  ,it is felt to be       
essentially wicked2 and in warring      
against it the missionary will be       
championing the cause of those who know 
it to be wrong but who simply dare not  
defy it4  ,the fact that defiance is not
 ventured on is essential to the        
continuance of the tyranny2 and what is 
necessary1 if it is to be defied1 is an 
actual concrete example of the fact that
 when defied it is futile4  ,next1 where
 magic is practised for social purposes1
 where it mimics science or religion and
 survives in virtue of its power of     
protective colouring1 it is in fact     
superfluous and silly2 and where the    
natives themselves are beginning to     
recognise that the magic which is       

supposed1 for instance1 to raise the    
southeast trade wind won't act at the   
wrong season1 it should not be difficult
 to get them to see that it is          
unnecessary at the right season4  ,the  
natural process which tends thus to get 
rid of magic may be accelerated by the  
sensible missionary2 and some knowledge 
of science will be found in this1 as in 
other matters1 an indispensable part of 
his training4  ,finally1 the missionary 
may rest assured in the conviction that 
his flank will not be turned by the #ajd
 science of religion4  ,the idea that   
religion was preceded by and evolved out
 of magic may have been entertained by  
some students of the science of religion
 in the past1 and may not yet have been 
thrown off by all4  ,but it holds no    
place now in the science of religion4   
,to derive either science or religion   
from the magic which exists only by     
mimicking one or the other is just as   
absurd as to imagine that the insect    
which imitates the colour of the leaf   

whereon it lives precedes and creates   
the tree which is to support it4        
#aje  ,,fetichism  ,the line of action  
taken by the missionary at work will1   
like that of any other practical man1 be
 conditioned1 not only by the object    
which he wishes to attain1 but also by  
the nature of the material on which and 
with which he has to work4  ,he requires
 therefore all the information which the
 science of religion can place at his   
disposal about the beliefs and practices
 of those amongst whom his work is cast2
 and1 if he is to make practical use of 
that information1 he must know not only 
that certain beliefs and practices do as
 a matter of fact obtain1 he must know  
also what is their value for his special
 purpose--what1 if any1 are the points  
about them which have religious value1  
and can be utilized by him2 and what are
 those points about them which are      
obstructive to his purpose1 and how best
 they may be removed and counteracted4  
,to supply him with this information1 to

 give him this estimate of values1 to   
guide him as to the attitude he should  
assume and the way in which he may      
utilise or must #ajf attack native      
practices and beliefs1 is the object    
with which the applied science of       
religion1 when it has been constituted  
by the action of ,hartford ,theological 
,seminary1 will address itself4  ,now1  
it may seem from the practical point of 
view of the missionary that with regard 
to fetichism there can be no question as
 to what its value is or as to what his 
attitude should be towards it4  ,but1   
even if we should ultimately find that  
fetichism is obstructive to religion1 we
 shall still want to know what hints we 
can extract from the science of religion
 as to the best way of cutting at the   
roots of fetichism2 and therefore it    
will be necessary to consider what      
exactly fetichism is4 ,and1 as a matter 
of fact1 there is a tendency manifesting
 itself amongst students of the science 
of religion to say1 as ,dr4 ,haddon says

 7,magic and ,fetichism1 p4 #ia71 that  
fetichism is a stage of religious       
development2 and amongst writers on the 
philosophy of religion to take fetichism
 and treat it1 provisionally at any     
rate1 if not as the primitive religion  
of mankind1 then as that form of        
religion which we find amongst men at   
the lowest stage of development known to
 us 7,hffding1 ,philosophy of ,religion1
 ,e4 ,t41  #de1 #df74  ,if1 then1       
fetichism is the primitive religion of  
#ajg mankind or a stage of religious    
development1 a basis from which many    
other modes of religious thought have   
been developed 7,haddon1 p4 #ia71 it    
will have a value which the missionary  
must recognise4  ,and in any case he    
must know what value1 if any1 it has4   
,now1 if we are1 ,i will not say to do  
justice to the view that fetichism is   
the primitive religion of mankind or a  
stage from which other modes of         
religious thought have been developed1  
but if we are simply to understand it1  

we must clearly distinguish it from the 
view--somewhat paradoxical to say the   
least--that fetichism has no religious  
value1 and yet is the source of all     
religious values4  ,the inference which 
may legitimately be drawn from this     
second view is that all forms of        
religious thought1 having been evolved  
from this primitive religion of mankind1
 have precisely the same value as it    
has2 they do but make explicit what it  
really was2 the history of religion does
 but write large and set out at length  
what was contained in it from the first2
 in fetichism we see what from the first
 religion was1 and what at the last     
religion is4  ,on this view1 the source 
from which all religious values spring  
is fetichism2 fetichism has no value of 
any kind1 and therefore the #ajh evolved
 forms of fetichism which we call forms 
of religion have no value either of any 
kind4  ,thus1 science--the science of   
religion--is supposed to demonstrate by 
scientific methods the real nature and  

the essential character of all religion4
  ,now1 the error in this reasoning     
proceeds partly on a false conception of
 the object and method of science--a    
false conception which is slowly but    
surely disappearing4  ,the object of all
 science1 whether it be physical science
 or other1 whether it be historic       
science or other1 is to establish facts4
  ,the object of the historic science of
 religion is to record the facts of the 
history of religion in such a way that  
the accuracy of the record as a record  
will be disputed by no one qualified to 
judge the fact4  ,for that purpose1 it  
abstains deliberately and consistently  
from asking or considering the religious
 value of any of the facts with which it
 deals4  ,it has not to consider1 and   
does not consider1 what would have been1
 still less what ought to have been1 the
 course of history1 but simply what it  
was4  ,in this it is following merely   
the dictates of common sense2 before we 
can profitably express an opinion on any

 occurrence1 we must know what exactly  
it was that occurred2 and to learn what 
occurred we must #aji divest our minds  
of preconceptions4  ,it is the business 
of the science of religion to set aside 
preconceptions as to whether religion   
has or has not any value2 and if it does
 set them aside1 that is to say so far  
as it is scientific1 it will end as it  
began without touching on the question  
of the value of religion4  ,in fine1 it 
is1 and would ,i think now be generally 
admitted to be1 a misconception of the  
function of the science of religion to  
imagine that it does1 or can1 prove     
anything as to the truth of religion1   
one way or the other4  ,there is1       
however1 another error in the reasoning 
which is directed to show that in       
fetichism we see what religion was and  
essentially is4 ,that error consists not
 only in a false conception of what     
religion is1--the man who has himself no
 religion may be excused if he fails to 
understand fully what it is1--it is     

based on a misunderstanding of what     
fetichism is4  ,and so confusion is     
doubly confounded4  ,the source of that 
misunderstanding is to be found in      
,bosman 7,pinkerton1 ,voyages and       
,travels1 ,london1 #ahad1 ,,xvi1 #dic71 
who says3 ,i once asked a negro with    
whom ,i could talk very freely 444 how  
they celebrated their divine worship1   
and what number of gods they had2 he1   
laughing1 answered that ,i had #aaj     
puzzled him2 and assured me that nobody 
in the whole country could give me an   
exact account of it4  ',for1 as for my  
own part1 ,i have a very large number of
 gods1 and doubt not but that others    
have as many4  ,for any of us being     
resolved to undertake anything of       
importance1 we first of all search out a
 god to prosper our designed            
undertaking2 and going out of doors with
 the design1 take the first creature    
that presents itself to our eyes1       
whether dog1 cat1 or the most           
contemptible creature in the world for  

our god2 or1 perhaps1 instead of that1  
any inanimate that falls in our way1    
whether a stone1 a piece of wood1 or    
anything else of the same nature4  ,this
 new-chosen god is immediately presented
 with an offering1 which is accompanied 
by a solemn vow1 that if it pleaseth him
 to prosper our undertakings1 for the   
future we will always worship and esteem
 him as a god4  ,if our design prove    
successful1 we have discovered a new and
 assisting god1 which is daily presented
 with a fresh offering2 but if the      
contrary happen1 the new god is rejected
 as a useless tool1 and consequently    
returns to his primitive estate4  ,we   
make and break our gods daily1 and      
consequently are the masters and        
inventors of what we sacrifice to4'     
,now1 all this was said by the #aaa     
negro1 as ,bosman himself observed1 to  
ridicule his own country gods4  ,and it 
is not surprising that it should have   
been1 or should be1 accepted as a       
trustworthy description of the earliest 

form of religion by those who in the    
highest form can find no more than this 
negro found in fetichism when he wished 
to ridicule it4  ,let us hold over for  
the moment the question whether         
fetichism is or is not a form of        
religion2 and let us enquire how far the
 account given by ,bosman's negro       
accords with the facts4  ,first1 though 
there is no doubt that animals are      
worshipped as gods1 and though there is 
no doubt that the guardian spirits of   
individuals are chosen1 or are supposed 
to manifest themselves1 for example1    
amongst the ,north ,american ,indians1  
in animal form1 and that the first      
creature that presents itself to the man
 seeking the manifestation of his       
guardian spirit may be taken to be his  
god1 even though it be the most         
contemptible creature in the world 2    
still students of the science of        
religion are fairly satisfied that such 
gods or guardian spirits are not to be  
confused with fetiches4  ,a fetich is an

 inanimate or lifeless object1 even if  
it is the feather1 claw1 bone1 eyeball1 
or any other part of an animal or even  
of a man4  ,it is as #aab ,bosman's     
negro said1 any inanimate that falls in 
our way4  ,when he goes on to say that  
it is immediately presented with an     
offering1 and1 so long as its owner     
believes in it1 is daily presented with 
a fresh offering1 he is stating a fact  
that is beyond dispute1 and which is    
fully recognised by all students4  ,a   
typical instance is given by ,professor 
,tylor 7,primitive ,culture1 ,,ii1 #aeh7
 of the owner of a stone which had been 
taken as a fetich3 ,he was once going   
out on important business1 but crossing 
the threshold he trod on this stone and 
hurt himself4  ,ha6 ha6 thought he1 art 
thou there8  ,so he took the stone1 and 
it helped him through his undertaking   
for days4  ,when ,bosman's negro further
 goes on to state that if the fetich is 
discovered by its owner not to prosper  
his undertakings1 as he expected it to  

do1 it is rejected as a useless tool1 he
 makes a statement which is admitted to 
be true and which1 in its truth1 may be 
understood to mean that when the owner  
finds that the object is not a fetich1  
he casts it aside as being nothing but  
the inanimate which it is4  ,bosman's   
negro1 however1 says not that the       
inanimate but that the new god is       
rejected as a useless tool4  ,that we   
must take as being but a carelessness of
 expression2 the evidence of ,colonel   
#aac ,ellis1 an observer whose          
competence is undoubted1 is3 ,every     
native with whom ,i have conversed on   
the subject has laughed at the          
possibility of it being supposed that he
 could worship or offer sacrifice to    
some such object as a stone1 which of   
itself would be perfectly obvious to his
 senses was a stone only and nothing    
more 7,the ,tshi-speaking ,peoples1 p4  
#aib74  ,from these words it follows    
that the object worshipped as a fetich  
is a stone 7or whatever it is7 and      

something more1 and that the object     
rejected as a useless tool is a stone   
7or whatever it is7 and nothing more4   
,when1 then1 ,bosman's negro goes on to 
say1 we make and break our gods daily1  
he is not describing accurately the     
processes as they are conceived by those
 who perform them4  ,the fetich         
worshipper believes that the object     
which arrests his attention has already 
the powers which he ascribes to it2 and 
it is in consequence of that belief that
 he takes it as his fetich4  ,and it is 
only when he is convinced that it is not
 a fetich that he rejects it as a       
useless tool4  ,but what ,bosman's negro
 suggests1 and apparently intended to   
suggest1 is that the fetich worshipper  
makes1 say1 a stone his god1 knowing    
that it is a stone and nothing more2 and
 that he breaks his fetich believing it 
to be a god4  #aad ,thus the worshipper 
knows that the object is no god when he 
is worshipping it2 but believes it to be
 a god when he rejects it as a useless  

tool4  ,now that is1 consciously or     
unconsciously1 deliberately or not1 a   
misrepresentation of fetichism2 and it  
is precisely on that misconception of   
what fetichism is that they base        
themselves who identify religion with   
fetichism1 and then argue that1 as      
fetichism has no value1 religious or    
reasonable1 neither has religion itself4
  ,returning now to the question what   
fetichism is--a question which must be  
answered before we can enquire what     
religious value it possesses1 and       
whether it can be of any use for the    
practical purposes of the missionary in 
his work--we have now seen that a fetich
 is not merely an inanimate1 but        
something more2 and that an object to   
become regarded as a fetich must attract
 the attention of the man who is to     
adopt it1 and must attract the attention
 of the man when he has business on     
hand1 that is to say when he has some   
end in view which he desires to attain1 
or generally when he is in a state of   

expectancy4  ,the process of choice is  
one of natural selection4  ,professor   
,hffding sees in it the simplest        
conceivable construction of religious   
ideas4  ,the choice is entirely         
elementary #aae and involuntary1 as     
elementary and involuntary as the       
exclamation which is the simplest form  
of a judgment of worth4  ,the object    
chosen must be something or other which 
is closely bound up with whatever       
engrosses the mind4  ,it perhaps awakens
 memories of earlier events in which it 
was present or coperative1 or else it   
presents a certain--perhaps a very      
distant--similarity to objects which    
helped in previous times of need4  ,or  
it may be merely the first object which 
presents itself in a moment of strained 
expectation4  ,it attracts attention1   
and is therefore involuntarily          
associated with what is about to happen1
 with the possibility of attaining the  
desired end 7,philosophy of ,religion1  
,e4 ,t41 p4 #aci74 ,and then ,professor 

,hffding goes on to say1 ,in such       
phenomena as these we encounter religion
 under the guise of desire4  ,now1      
without denying that there are such     
things as religious desires--and holding
 as we do that religion is the search   
after ,god and the yearning of the human
 heart after ,him1 the desire of all    
nations1 we shall have no temptation to 
deny that there are such things as      
religious desires--yet we must for the  
moment reserve our decision on the      
question whether it is in such phenomena
 #aaf as these that we encounter        
religious desires1 and we must bear in  
mind that there are desires which are   
not religious1 and that we want to know 
whether it is in the phenomena of       
fetichism that we encounter religious   
desires4  ,that in the phenomena of     
fetichism we encounter desires other    
than religious is beyond dispute3 the   
use of a fetich is1 as ,dr4 ,nassau     
says1 to aid the possessor in the       
accomplishment of some specific wish    

7,fetichism in ,west ,africa1 p4 #hb72  
that is1 of any specific wish4  ,now1 a 
fetich is1 as we have seen1 an inanimate
 object and something more4  ,what more8
  ,in actual truth1 nothing more than   
the fact that it is involuntarily       
associated with what is about to happen1
 with the possibility of attaining the  
desired end4  ,but to the possessor the 
something more1 it may be said1 is the  
fact that it is not merely an inanimate 
but also a spirit1 or the habitation of 
a spiritual being4  ,when1 however1 we  
reflect that fetichism goes back to the 
animistic stage of human thought1 in    
which all the things that we term       
inanimate are believed to be animated by
 spirits1 it is obvious that we require 
some differentia to mark off those      
things 7animated by spirits7 which are  
fetiches from those things 7animated by 
spirits7 #aag which are not4  ,and the  
differentia is1 of course1 that fetiches
 are spirits1 or objects animated by    
spirits1 which will aid the possessor in

 the accomplishment of some specific    
wish1 and are thought to be willing so  
to aid1 owing to the fact that by an    
involuntary association of ideas they   
become connected in the worshipper's    
mind with the possibility of attaining  
the end he has in view at the moment4   
,to recognise fetichism1 then1 in its   
simplest if not in its most primitive   
form1 all we need postulate is          
animism--the belief that all things are 
animated by spirits--and the process of 
very natural selection which has already
 been described4  ,at this stage in the 
history of fetichism it is especially   
difficult to judge whether the fetich is
 the spirit or the object animated by   
the spirit4  ,as ,dr4 ,haddon says 7p4  
#hc71 ,just as the human body and soul  
form one individual1 so the material    
object and its occupying spirit or power
 form one individual1 more vague1       
perhaps1 but still with many attributes 
distinctively human4  ,it possesses     
personality and will 444 it possesses   

most of the human passions1--anger1     
revenge1 also generosity and gratitude2 
it is within reach of influence and may 
be benevolent1 hence to be deprecated   
and placated1 and its aid enlisted4     
#aah  ,a more advanced stage in the     
history of fetichism is that which is   
reached by reflection on the fact that a
 fetich not unfrequently ceases to      
prosper the undertakings of its         
possessor in the way he expected it to  
do4  ,on the principles of animism1     
everything that is--whether animate1 or 
inanimate according to our notions--is  
made up of spirit1 or soul1 and body4   
,in the case of man1 when he dies1 the  
spirit leaves the body4  ,when1         
therefore1 a fetich ceases to act1 the  
explanation by analogy is that the      
spirit has left the body1 the inanimate1
 with which it was originally           
associated2 and when that is the case1  
then1 as we learn from ,miss ,kingsley  
7,travels in ,west ,africa1 pp4         
#cjd-cje71 the little thing you kept the

 spirit in is no more use now1 and only 
fit to sell to a white man as 'a big    
curio4'  ,the fact that1 in native      
belief1 what we call an inanimate thing 
may lose its soul and become really dead
 is shown by ,miss ,kingsley in a       
passage quoted by ,dr4 ,haddon3         
,everything that he1 the native1 knows  
by means of his senses he regards as a  
twofold entity--part spirit1 part not   
spirit1 or1 as we should say1 matter2   
the connection of a certain spirit with 
a certain mass of matter1 he holds1 is  
not permanent4  ,he will point out to   
you a lightning-struck tree1 and tell   
#aai you its spirit has been broken2 he 
will tell you when the cooking-pot has  
been broken1 that it has lost its spirit
 7,folk-,lore1 ,,viii1 #ada74  ,we might
 safely infer then that as any object   
may lose its spirit1 so too may an      
object which has been chosen as a       
fetich2 even if we had not1 as we have1 
direct testimony to the belief4  ,next1 
when it is believed that an object may  

lose its spirit and become dead indeed1 
there is room and opportunity for the   
belief to grow that its spirit may pass 
into some other object3 that there may  
be a transmigration of spirits4  ,and   
when this belief arises1 a fresh stage  
in the history of fetichism is evolved4 
,and the fresh stage is evolved in      
accordance with the law that governs the
 whole evolution of fetichism4  ,that   
law is that a fetich is an object       
believed to aid its possessor in        
attaining the end he desires4  ,in the  
earliest stage of its history anything  
which happens to arrest a man's         
attention when he is in a state of      
expectancy is involuntarily associated  
with what is about to happen1 and so    
becomes a fetich4  ,in the most         
developed stage of fetichism1 men are   
not content to wait until they stumble  
across a fetich1 and when they do so to 
say1 ,ha6 ha6 art thou there8  ,their   
mental attitude becomes #abj            
interrogative3 ,ha6 ha6 where art thou8 

,they no longer wait to stumble across a
 fetich1 they proceed to make one2 and  
for that procedure a belief in the      
transmigration of spirits is essential4 
,an object1 a habitation for the spirit1
 is prepared2 and he is invited1        
conjred1 or cnjured1 into it4  ,if he is
 conjred into it1 the attitude of the   
man who invites him is submissive2 if   
cnjured1 the mental attitude of the     
performer is one of superiority4        
,colonel ,ellis throughout all his      
careful enquiries found that so great is
 the fear of giving possible offence to 
any superhuman agent that 7in the region
 of his observation7 we may well believe
 that even the makers of fetiches did   
not assume to command the spirits4  ,but
 elsewhere1 in other regions1 it is     
impossible to doubt but that the owners 
of fetiches not only conjre the spirits 
into the objects1 but also apply        
coercion to them when they fail to aid  
their possessor in the accomplishment of
 his wishes4  ,that1 ,i take it1 is the 

ultimate stage in the evolution1 the    
fine flower1 of fetichism4  ,and it is  
not religion1 it has no value as        
religion1 or rather its value is        
anti-religious4  ,even if we were to    
accept as a definition of religion that 
it is the conciliation of beings        
conceived to be superior1 we should be  
compelled by #aba the definition to say 
that fetichism in its eventual outcome  
is not religion1 for the attitude of the
 owner towards his fetich is then one of
 superiority1 and his method is1 when   
conciliation fails1 to apply coercion4  
,but it may perhaps be argued that      
fetichism1 except in what ,i have termed
 its ultimate evolution1 is religion and
 has religious value2 or1 to put it     
otherwise1 that what ,i have represented
 as the eventual outcome is really a    
perversion or the decline of fetichism4 
,then1 in the fetichism which is or     
represents the primitive religion of    
mankind we meet1 according to ,professor
 ,hffding1 religion under the guise of  

desire4  ,now1 not all desires are      
religious2 and the question1 which is   
purely a question of fact1 arises       
whether the desires which fetichism     
subserves are religious4  ,and in using 
the word religious ,i will not here     
place any extravagant meaning on the    
word2 ,i will take it in the meaning    
which would be understood by the        
community in which the owner of a fetich
 dwells himself4  ,in the tribes        
described by ,colonel ,ellis1 for       
instance1 there are worshipped personal 
gods having proper names2 and the       
worship is served by duly appointed     
priests2 and the worshippers consist of 
a body of #abb persons whose welfare the
 god has at heart4  ,such are some of   
the salient features of what all        
students of the science of religion     
would include under the head of the     
religion of those tribes4  ,now amongst 
those same tribes the fetich1 or suhman1
 as it is termed by them1 is found2 and 
there are several features which make a 

fetich quite distinguishable from any of
 the gods which are worshipped there4   
,thus1 the fetich has no body of        
worshippers3 it is the private property1
 of its owner1 who alone makes offerings
 to it4  ,its raison d'tre1 its special 
and only function1 is to subserve the   
private wishes of its owner4  ,in so far
 as he makes offerings to it he may be  
called its priest2 but he is not1 as in 
the case of the priests of the gods who 
are worshipped there1 the representative
 of the community or congregation1 for a
 fetich has no plurality of worshippers2
 and none of the priests of the gods    
will have anything to do with it4       
,next1 though offerings are made to the 
suhman by its owner1 they are made in   
private 7,jevons1 ,history of ,religion1
 p4 #afe7--there is no public           
worship--and public opinion does not    
approve of them4  ,the interests and the
 desires which the fetich exists to     
promote are not those of the community3 
they are antisocial1 for1 as ,colonel   

,ellis #abc tells us1 one of the special
 attributes of a suhman is to procure   
the death of any person whom its        
worshipper may wish to have             
removed--indeed the most important      
function of the suhman appears to be to 
work evil against those who have injured
 or offended its worshipper4  ,thus1 a  
very clear distinction exists between   
the worship of a fetich and the worship 
of the gods4  ,it is not merely that the
 fetich is invoked occasionally in aid  
of antisocial desires3 nothing can      
prevent the worshipper of a god1 if the 
worshipper be bad enough1 from praying  
for that which he ought not to pray for4
  ,it is that the gods of the community 
are there to sanction and further all   
desires which are for the good of the   
community1 and that the fetich is there 
to further desires which are not for the
 good of the community1--hence it is    
that public opinion does not approve of 
them4  ,at another stage of religious   
evolution1 it becomes apparent and is   

openly pronounced that neither does the 
god of the community approve of them2   
and then fetichism1 like the sin of     
witchcraft1 is stamped out more or less4
 ,but amongst the tribes who have only  
reached the point of religious progress 
attained by the natives of ,west        
,africa1 public opinion has #abd only   
gone so far as to express disapproval1  
not to declare war4  ,if1 then1 we are  
to hold to the view of ,professor       
,hffding and of ,dr4 ,haddon1 that      
fetichism is in its essence1 or was at  
the beginning1 religious in its nature1 
though it may be perverted into         
something non-religious or              
anti-religious1 we must at any rate     
admit that it has become non-religious  
not only in the case of those fetichists
 who assume an attitude of superiority  
and command to their fetiches1 but also 
in the earlier stage of evolution when  
the fetichist preserves an attitude of  
submission and conciliation towards his 
fetich1 but assumes the attitude only   

for the purpose of realising desires    
which are anti-social and recognised to 
be anti-religious4  ,but1 if we take--as
 ,i think we must take--that line of    
argument1 the conclusion to which it    
will bring us is fairly clear and is not
 far off4  ,the differentia or rather   
that differentia which                  
characteristically marks off the fetich 
from the god is the nature of the       
desires which each exists to promote2   
the function which each exists to       
fulfil1 the end which is there for each 
to subserve4  ,but the ends are         
different4  ,not only are they          
different1 they are antagonistic4  ,and 
the process of evolution does #abe but  
bring out the antagonism1 it does not   
create it4  ,it was there from the      
beginning4  ,from the moment there was  
society1 there were desires which could 
only be realised at the cost and to the 
loss of society1 as well as desires in  
the realisation of which the good of    
society was realised4  ,the assistance  

of powers other than human might be     
sought2 and the nature of the power     
which was sought was determined by the  
end or purpose for which its aid was    
employed or invoked--if for the good of 
society1 it was approved by society2 if 
not1 not4  ,its function1 the end it    
subserved1 determined its value for     
society--determined whether public      
opinion should approve or disapprove of 
it1 whether it was a god of the         
community or the fetich of an           
individual4  ,society can only exist    
where there is a certain community of   
purpose among its members2 and can only 
continue to exist where anti-social     
tendencies are to some extent suppressed
 or checked by force of public opinion4 
,fetichism1 then1 in its tendency and in
 its purpose1 in the function which it  
performs and the end at which it aims is
 not only distinguishable from religion1
 it is antagonistic to it1 from the     
earliest period of its history to the   
latest4  ,religion is social1 an #abf   

affair of the community2 fetichism is   
anti-social1 condemned by the community4
  ,public opinion1 expressing the moral 
sentiments of the community as well as  
its religious feeling1 pronounces both  
moral and religious disapproval of the  
man who uses a suhman for its special   
purpose of causing death--committing    
murder4  ,fetichism is offensive to the 
morality as well as to the religion even
 of the native4  ,to seek the origin of 
religion in fetichism is as vain as to  
seek the origin of morality in the      
selfish and self-seeking tendencies of  
man4  ,there is no need to enquire      
whether fetichism is historically prior 
to religion1 or whether religion is     
historically prior to fetichism4  ,man1 
as long as he has lived in societies1   
must have had desires which were        
incompatible with the welfare of the    
community as well as desires which      
promoted its welfare4  ,the powers which
 are supposed to care whether the       
community fares well are the gods of the

 community2 and their worship is the    
religion of the community4  ,the powers 
which have no such care are not gods1   
nor is their worship--if coercion or    
cajolery can be called                  
worship--religion4  ,the essence of     
fetichism on its external side is that  
the owner of the fetich alone has access
 #abg to it1 alone can pray to it1 alone
 can offer sacrifices to it4  ,it is    
therefore in its inward essence directly
 destructive of the unity of interests  
and purposes that society demands and   
religion promotes4 ,perhaps it would be 
going too far to say that the practice  
of making prayers and offerings to a    
fetich is borrowed from religious       
worship3 they are the natural and       
instinctive method of approaching any   
power which is capable of granting or   
refusing what we desire4  ,it is the    
quarter to which they are addressed1 and
 the end for which they are employed1   
that makes the difference between them4 
,it is the fact that in the one case    

they are1 and in the other are not1     
addressed to the quarter to which they  
ought to be addressed1 and employed for 
the end for which they ought to be      
employed1 that makes the difference in  
religious value between them4  ,if we   
bear in mind the simple fact that       
fetichism is condemned by the religious 
and moral feelings of the communities in
 which it exists1 we shall not fall into
 the mistake of regarding fetichism     
either as the primitive religion of     
mankind or as a stage of religious      
development or as a basis from which    
many other modes of religious thought   
have been developed4  #abh  ,professor  
,hffding1 holding that fetichism is the 
primitive religion1 out of which        
polytheism was developed1 adopts        
,usener's theory as to the mode of its  
evolution4  ,the fetich1 ,professor     
,hffding says 7p4 #adj71 is only the    
provisional and momentary dwelling-place
 of a spirit4  ,as ,hermann ,usener has 
strikingly called it1 it is 'the god of 

a moment4' ,but though ,professor       
,hffding adopts this definition of a    
fetich1 it is obvious that the course of
 his argument requires us to understand 
it as subject to a certain limitation4  
,his argument in effect is that         
fetichism is not polytheism1 but        
something different1 something out of   
which polytheism was evolved4  ,and the 
difference is that polytheism means a   
plurality of gods1 whereas fetichism    
knows no gods1 but only spirits4        
,inasmuch then as1 on the               
theory--whether it is held by ,hffding  
or by anybody else--that the spirits of 
fetichism become the gods of polytheism1
 there must be differences between the  
spirits of the one and the gods of the  
other1 let us enquire what the          
differences are supposed to be4  ,first1
 there is the statement that a fetich is
 the god of a moment1 by which must be  
meant that the spirits which1 so long as
 they are momentary and #abi temporary1 
are fetiches1 must come to be permanent 

if they are to attain to the rank of    
gods4  ,but on this point ,dr4 ,haddon  
differs4  ,he is quite clear that a     
fetich may be worshipped permanently    
without ceasing to be a fetich4  ,and it
 is indeed abundantly clear that an     
object only ceases to be worshipped when
 its owner is convinced that it is not  
really a fetich2 as long as he is       
satisfied that it is a fetich1 he       
continues its cult--and he continues it 
because it is his personal property1    
because he1 and not the rest of the     
community1 has access to it4  ,next1    
,hffding argues that it is from these   
momentary fetiches that special or      
specialised deities--departmental gods1 
as ,mr4 ,andrew ,lang has termed        
them--arise4  ,and these specialised    
divinities constitute an advance on gods
 of the moment 7p4 #adb74  ,now1 what is
 implied in this argument1 what is      
postulated but not expressed1 is that a 
fetich has only one particular thing    
which it can do4  ,a departmental god   

can only do one particular sort of      
thing1 has one specialised function4  ,a
 departmental god is but a fetich       
advanced one stage in the hierarchy of  
divine beings4  ,therefore the function 
of the fetich in the first instance was 
specialised #acj and limited4  ,but     
there it is that the  priori argument   
comes into collision with the actual    
facts4  ,a fetich1 when it presents     
itself to a man1 assists him in the     
particular business on which he is at   
the moment engaged4  ,but it only       
continues to act as a fetich1 provided  
that it assists him afterwards and in   
other matters also4  ,the desires of the
 owner are not limited1 and consequently
 neither are his expectations2 the      
business of the fetich is to procure him
 general prosperity 7,haddon1 p4 #hc74  
,as far as fetiches are concerned1 it is
 simply reversing the facts to suppose  
that it is because one fetich can only  
do one thing1 that many fetiches are    
picked up4  ,many objects are picked up 

on the chance of their proving fetiches1
 because if the object turns out really 
to be a fetich it will bring its owner  
good luck and prosperity                
generally--there is no knowing what it  
may do4  ,but it is only to its owner   
that it brings prosperity--not to other 
people1 not to the community1 for the   
community is debarred access to it4     
,the next difference between fetichism  
and polytheism1 according to ,hffding1  
is that the gods of polytheism have     
developed that personality which is not 
indeed absolutely wanting in the spirits
 of fetichism but can hardly be said to 
be properly #aca there4  ,the           
transition1 he says1 from momentary and 
special gods to gods which can properly 
be called personal is one of the most   
important transitions in the history of 
religion4  ,it denotes the transition   
from animism to polytheism 7p4 #ade74   
,and one of the outward signs that the  
transition has been effected is1 as     
,usener points out with special         

emphasis1 that only at a certain stage  
of evolution1 i4e41 on the appearance of
 polytheism1 do the gods acquire proper 
names 7ib4 #adg74  ,now1 this argument1 
,i suggest1 seeks to make1 or to make   
much of1 a difference between fetichism 
and polytheism which scarcely exists1   
and so far as it does exist is not the  
real difference between them4  ,it seeks
 to minimise1 if not to deny1 the       
personality of the fetich1 in order to  
exalt that of the gods of polytheism4   
,and then this difference in degree of  
personality1 this transition from the   
one degree to the other1 is exhibited as
 one of the most important transitions  
in the history of religion4  ,the       
question therefore is first whether the 
difference is so great1 and next whether
 it is the real difference between      
fetichism and religion in the           
polytheistic stage4  ,the difference in 
point of personality between the spirits
 of fetichism and the gods of polytheism
 is not #acb absolute4  ,the fetich1    

according to ,dr4 ,haddon1 possesses    
personality and will1 it has also many  
human characters4  ,it possesses most of
 the human passions1 anger1 revenge1    
also generosity and gratitude2 it is    
within reach of influence and may be    
benevolent1 is hence to be deprecated   
and placated1 and its aid to be enlisted
 7p4 #hc72 the fetich is worshipped1    
prayed to1 sacrificed to1 and talked    
with 7p4 #hi74  ,but1 perhaps it may be 
said that1 though the fetich does       
possess personality1 it is only when it 
has acquired sufficient personality to  
enjoy a proper name that it becomes a   
god1 or fetichism passes into           
polytheism4  ,to this the reply is that 
polytheism does not wait thus           
deferentially on the evolution of proper
 names4  ,there was a period in the     
evolution of the human race when men    
neither had proper names of their own   
nor knew their fellows by proper names2 
and yet they doubted not their          
personality4  ,the simple fact is that  

he who is to receive a name--whether he 
be a human being or a spiritual         
being--must be there in order to be     
named4  ,when he is there he may receive
 a name which has lost all meaning1 as  
proper names at the present day have    
generally done2 or one which has a      
meaning4  #acc ,a mother may address her
 child as ,john or as boy1 but1         
whichever form of address she uses1 she 
has no doubt that the child has a       
personality4  ,the fact that a fetich   
has not acquired a proper name is not a 
proof that it has acquired no           
personality2 if it can1 as ,dr4 ,haddon 
says it can1 be petted or ill-treated   
with regard to its past or future       
behaviour 7p4 #ij71 its personality is  
undeniable4  ,if it can be worshipped1  
prayed to1 sacrificed to1 talked with1  
it is as personal as any deity in a     
pantheon4  ,if it has no proper name1   
neither at one time had men themselves4 
,and ,hffding himself seems disinclined 
to follow ,usener on this point3 no     

important period1 he says 7p4 #adg71 in 
the history of religion can begin with  
an empty word4  ,the word can neither be
 the beginning nor exist at the         
beginning4  ,finally ,hffding1 to       
enforce the conclusion that polytheism  
is evolved from fetichism1 says3 ,the   
influence exerted by worship on the life
 of religious ideas can find no more    
striking exemplification than in the    
word 'god' itself3 when we study those  
etymologies of this word which1 from the
 philological point of view1 appear most
 likely to be correct1 we find the word 
really means 'he to whom sacrifice is   
made1' or 'he who is worshipped' 7p4    
#adh74  #acd ,professor ,wilhelm        
,thomsen considers the first explanation
 the more probable3 ,in that case there 
would be a relationship between the root
 of the word 'gott' and 'giessen' 7to   
pour71 as also between the ,greek chein1
 whose root chu  the ,sanskrit hu1 from 
which comes huta1 which means           
'sacrificed1' as well as 'he to whom    

sacrifices are made' 7p4 #cif74  ,now1  
if god means either he to whom sacrifice
 is made or he who is worshipped1 we    
have only to enquire by whom the        
sacrifice is made or the worship paid1  
according to ,professor ,hffding1 in    
order to see the value of this          
philological argument4  ,a leading      
difference between a fetich and a god is
 that sacrifice is made and worship paid
 to the fetich by its owner1 to the god 
by the community4  ,now this            
philological derivation of god throws no
 light whatever on the question by whom 
the god is worshipped2 but the content  
of the passage which ,i have quoted     
shows that ,professor ,hffding himself  
here understands the worship of a god to
 be the worship paid by the community4  
,if that is so1 and if the function or a
 function of the being worshipped is to 
grant the desires of his worshippers1   
then the function of the being          
worshipped by the community is to grant 
the desires of the community4  #ace ,and

 if that is the distinguishing mark or a
 distinguishing mark of a god1 then the 
worship of a god differs toto caelo from
 the worship paid to a fetich1 whose    
distinguishing mark is that it is       
subservient to the anti-social wishes of
 its owner1 and is not worshipped by the
 community4  ,and it is just as         
impossible to maintain that a god is    
evolved out of a fetich as it would be  
to argue--indeed it is arguing--that    
practices destructive of society or     
social welfare have only to be pushed   
far enough and they will prove the      
salvation of society4  ,if in the       
animistic stage1 when everything that is
 is worked by spirits1 it is possible   
and desirable for the individual to gain
 his individual ends by the coperation  
of some spirit1 it is equally possible  
and more desirable for the community to 
gain the aid of a spirit which will     
further the ends for the sake of which  
the community exists4  ,but those ends  
are not transient or momentary1 neither 

therefore can the spirit who promotes   
them be a momentary god4  ,and if we    
accept ,hffding's description of the    
simplest and earliest manifestation of  
the religious spirit as being belief in 
a power which cares whether he man has  
or has not experiences which he values1 
we must be careful to make it clear that
 the #acf power worshipped by a         
community is worshipped because he is   
believed to care that the community     
should have the experiences which the   
community values4 ,having made that     
stipulation1 we may accept ,hffding's   
further statement 7p4 #adg7 that even   
the momentary and special gods implied  
the existence of a personifying tendency
 and faculty2 for1 although from our    
point of view a momentary god is a      
self-contradictory notion1 we are quite 
willing to agree that this tendency to  
personification may be taken as primary 
and primitive3 religion from the        
beginning has been the search after a   
power essentially personal4  ,but that  

way of conceiving spiritual powers is   
not in itself distinctive of or confined
 to religion3 it is an intellectual     
conception2 it is the essence of        
animism1 and animism is not religion4   
,to say that an emotional element also  
must be present is true2 but neither    
will that serve to mark off fetichism   
from religion4  ,fetichism also is      
emotional in tone3 it is in hope that   
the savage picks up the thing that may  
prove to have the fetich power2 and it  
is with fear that he recognises his     
neighbour's suhman4  ,a god is not      
merely a power conceived of             
intellectually and felt emotionally to  
be a personal power from whom things may
 #acg be hoped or feared2 he must indeed
 be a personal power and be regarded    
with hope and fear1 but it is by a      
community that he must be so regarded4  
,and the community1 in turning to such a
 power1 worships him with sacrifice3 a  
god is indeed he to whom sacrifice is   
made and worship paid by the community1 

with whose interests and whose          
morality--with whose good1 in a word1 he
 is from the beginning identified4  ,in 
the absence of experience of good as one
 of the realities of life1 no one1      
,hffding says1 would ever have believed 
in the goodness of the gods2 and1 we may
 add1 it is as interested in and caring 
for the good of the community that the  
god of the community is worshipped4  ,it
 is in the conviction that he does so   
care1 that religious feeling is rooted2 
or1 as ,hffding puts it 7p4 #afb71 it is
 rooted in the need to collect and      
concentrate ourselves1 to resign        
ourselves1 to feel ourselves supported  
and carried by a power raised above all 
struggle and opposition and beyond all  
change4  ,there we have1 implicit from  
the beginning1 that communion with god1 
or striving thereafter1 which is        
essential to worship4  ,it is faith4    
,it is rest4 ,it is the heart's desire4 
,and it is not fetichism1 nor is        
fetichism it4     #ach  ,,prayer  ,the  

physician1 if he is to do his work1 must
 know both a healthy and a diseased     
body1 or organ1 when he sees it4  ,he   
must know the difference between the two
 and the symptoms both of health and    
disease4  ,otherwise he is in danger of 
trying to cure an organ which is healthy
 already--in which case his remedies    
will simply aggravate the disease4      
,that is obviously true of the physician
 who seeks to heal the body1 and it is  
equally1 if not so obviously1 true of   
the physician who seeks to minister to a
 mind1 or a soul1 diseased4  ,now1 the  
missionary will find that the heathen1  
to whom he is to minister1 have the     
habit of prayer2 and the question       
arises1 ,what is to be his attitude     
towards it8  ,he cannot take up the     
position that prayer is in itself a     
habit to be condemned2 he is not there  
to eradicate the habit1 or to uproot the
 tendency4  ,neither is he there to     
create the habit2 it already exists1 and
 the wise missionary will acknowledge   

its existence with thankfulness4  ,his  
business is not to teach his flock to   
#aci pray1 but how to pray1 that is to  
say1 for what and to whom4  ,but even if
 he thus wisely recognises that prayer  
is a habit not to be created1 but to be 
trained by him1 it is still possible for
 him to assume rashly that it is simply 
impossible for a heathen ever to pray   
for anything that is right1 and         
therefore1 that it is a missionary's    
duty first to insist that everything for
 which a savage or barbarian prays must 
be condemned as essentially irreligious 
and wicked4  ,in that case1 what will   
such a missionary1 if sent to the       
,khonds of ,orissa1 say1 when he finds  
them praying thus3 ,we are ignorant of  
what it is good to ask for4  ,you know  
what is good for us4  ,give it to us68  
,can he possibly say to his flock1 ,all 
your prayers1 all the things that you   
pray for now1 are wicked2 and your only 
hope of salvation lies in ceasing to    
pray for them8  ,if not1 then he must   

recognise the fact that it is possible  
for the heathen to pray1 and to pray for
 some things that it is right to pray   
for4  ,and he must not only recognise   
the fact1 but he must utilise it4  ,nay6
 more1 he must not only recognise the   
fact if it chances to force itself upon 
him1 he must go out of his way with the 
deliberate purpose of finding out what  
things are prayed for4  ,he will then   
find himself in #adj more intimate      
contact with the soul of the man than he
 can ever attain to in any other way2   
and he may then find that there are     
other things for which petitions are put
 up which could not be prayed for save  
by a man who had a defective or         
erroneous conception of ,him who alone  
can answer prayer4  ,but it is a        
blundering1 unbusinesslike way of       
managing things if the missionary has to
 go out to his work unprepared in this  
essential matter1 and has to find out   
these things for himself--and perhaps   
not find them out at all4  ,the applied 

science of religion should equip him in 
this respect2 it should be able to take 
the facts and truths established by the 
science of religion and apply them to   
the purposes of the missionary4  ,but it
 is a striking example of the youth and 
immaturity of the science of religion   
that no attempt has yet been made by it 
to collect the facts1 much less to      
cordinate and state them scientifically4
  ,if a thing is clear1 when we come to 
think of it1 in the history of religion1
 it is that the gods are there to be    
prayed to3 man worships them because it 
is on their knees that all things lie4  
,it is from them that man hopes all     
things2 it is in prayer that man        
expresses his hopes and desires4  ,it is
 from his prayers that we should be able
 to find out #ada what the gods really  
are to whom man prays4 ,what is said    
about them in mythology--or even in     
theology--is the product of reflection1 
and is in many cases demonstrably       
different from what is given in         

consciousness at the moment when man is 
striving after communion with the       
,highest4  ,yet it is from mythology1 or
 from the still more reflective and     
deliberative expression of ritual1 of   
rites and ceremonies1 that the science  
of religion has sought to infer the     
nature of the gods man worships4  ,the  
whole apparatus of religion1 rites and  
ceremonies1 sacrifice and altars1       
nature-worship and polytheism1 has been 
investigated2 the one thing overlooked  
has been the one thing for the sake of  
which all the others exist1 the prayer  
in which man's soul rises1 or seeks to  
rise1 to ,god4  ,the reason given by    
,professor ,tylor 7,primitive ,culture1 
,,ii1 #cfd7 for this is not that the    
subject is unimportant1 but that it is  
so simple2 so simple and familiar1 he   
says1 is the nature of prayer that its  
study does not demand that detail of    
fact and argument which must be given to
 rites in comparison practically        
insignificant4  ,now1 it is indeed the  

case that things which are familiar may 
appear to be simple2 but it is also the 
case that sometimes things #adb are     
considered simple merely because they   
are familiar1 and not because they are  
simple4  ,the fact that they are not so 
simple as every one has assumed comes to
 be suspected when it is discovered that
 people take slightly different views of
 them4  ,such slightly different views  
may be detected in this case4           
,professor ,hffding holds that1 in the  
lowest form in which religion manifests 
itself1 religion appears under the guise
 of desire1 thus ranging himself on the 
side of an opinion mentioned by         
,professor ,tylor 7op4 cit41 ,,ii1 #dfd7
 that1 as regards the religion of the   
lower culture1 in prayer the            
accomplishment of desire is asked for1  
but desire is as yet limited to personal
 advantage4  ,now1 starting from this   
position that prayer is the expression  
of desire1 we have only to ask1 whose   
desire8 that of the individual or that  

of the community8 and we shall see that 
under the simple and familiar phrase of 
the accomplishment of desire there lurks
 a difference of view which may possibly
 widen out into a very wide difference  
of opinion4  ,if we appeal to the facts1
 we may take as an instance a prayer    
uttered in loud uncouth voice of        
plaintive1 piteous tone by one of the   
,osages to ,wohkonda1 #adc the ,master  
of ,life3 ,wohkonda1 pity me1 ,i am very
 poor2 give me what ,i need2 give me    
success against mine enemies1 that ,i   
may avenge the death of my friends4     
,may ,i be able to take scalps1 to take 
horses6 etc4  7,tylor1 ,,ii1 #cfe74  ,so
 on the ,gold ,coast a negro in the     
morning will pray1 ,heaven6 grant that  
,i may have something to eat this day   
7ib41 #cfh71 not give us this day our   
daily bread2 or1 raising his eyes to    
heaven1 he will thus address the god of 
heaven3 ,god1 give me to-day rice and   
yams1 gold and agries1 give me slaves1  
riches and health1 and that ,i may be   

brisk and swift6 7ib474  ,on the other  
hand1 ,john ,tanner 7,narrative1 p4 #df7
 relates that when ,algonquin ,indians  
were setting out in a fleet of frail    
bark canoes across ,lake ,superior1 the 
chief addressed a prayer to the ,great  
,spirit3 ,you have made this lake2 and  
you have made us1 your children2 you can
 now cause that the water shall remain  
smooth while we pass over in safety4    
,the chief1 it will be observed1 did not
 expressly call the ,great ,spirit our  
,father1 but he did speak of himself and
 his men as your children4  ,if we cross
 over to ,africa1 again1 we find the    
,masai women praying thus2 and be it    
observed that though the first person   
singular is used1 #add it is used by the
 chorus of women1 and is plural in      
effect3--    ,i    ,my ,god1 to thee    
alone ,i pray   ,that offspring may to  
me be given4   ,thee only ,i invoke each
 day1   ,o morning star in highest      
heaven4   ,god of the thunder and the   
rain1   ,give ear unto my suppliant     

strain4   ,lord of the powers of the    
air1   ,to thee ,i raise my daily       
prayer4    ,,ii    ,my ,god1 to thee    
alone ,i pray1   ,whose savour is as    
passing sweet   ,as only choicest herbs 
display1   ,thy blessing daily ,i       
entreat4   ,thou hearest when ,i pray to
 thee1   ,and listenest in thy clemency4
   ,lord of the powers of the air1   ,to
 thee ,i raise my daily prayer4         
--,,hollis1 ,the ,masai1 p4 #cdf4       
,when ,professor ,tylor says that by the
 savage the accomplishment of desire is 
asked for1 but desire is as yet limited 
to personal advantage1 we must be       
careful not to infer that the only      
advantage a savage is capable of praying
 for is his own selfish advantage4      
,professor ,tylor himself quotes 7,,ii1 
#ade #cff7 the following prayer from the
 war-song of a ,delaware3--    ,o ,great
 ,spirit there above1   ,have pity on my
 children   ,and my wife6   ,prevent    
that they shall mourn for me6   ,let me 
succeed in this undertaking1   ,that ,i 

may slay my enemy   ,and bring home the 
tokens of victory   ,to my dear family  
and my friends   ,that we may rejoice   
together4444   ,have pity on me and     
protect my life1   ,and ,i will bring   
thee an offering4  ,nor is it           
exclusively for their own personal      
advantage that the ,masai women are     
concerned when they pray for the safe   
return of their sons from the wars3--   
,o thou who gavest1 thou to whom we pray
   ,for offspring1 take not now thy gift
 away4   ,o morning star1 that shinest  
from afar1   ,bring back our sons in    
safety from the war4         --,,hollis1
 p4 #cea4  ,nor is it in a purely       
selfish spirit that the ,masai women    
pray that their warriors may have the   
advantage over all their enemies3--     
,i    ,o ,god of battles1 break   ,the  
power of the foe4  #adf    ,their cattle
 may we take1   ,their mightiest lay    
low4    ,,ii    ,sing1 ,o ye maidens    
fair1   ,for triumph o'er the foe4      
,this is the time for prayer   ,success 

our arms may know4    ,,iii    ,morning 
and evening stars   ,that in the heavens
 glow1   ,break1 as in other wars1      
,the power of the foe4    ,,iv    ,o    
dweller1 where on high   ,flushes at    
dawn the snow1   ,o ,cloud ,god1 break1 
we cry1   ,the power of the foe4        
--,ib41 p4  #ceb4  ,again1 the rain that
 is prayed for by the ,manganja of ,lake
 ,nyassa is an advantage indeed1 but one
 enjoyed by the community and prayed for
 by the community4  ,they made offerings
 to the ,supreme ,deity that he might   
give them rain1 and the priestess       
dropped the meal handful by handful on  
the ground1 each time calling in a      
high-pitched voice1 #adg ',hear thou1 ,o
 ,god1 and send rain6' and the assembled
 people responded1 clapping their hands 
softly and intoning 7they always intone 
their prayers71 ',hear thou1 ,o ,god'   
7,tylor1 p4 #cfh74  ,the appeal then to 
facts shows that it is with the desires 
of the community that the god of the    
community is concerned1 and that it is  

by a representative of the community    
that those desires are offered up in    
prayer1 and that the community may join 
in4  ,the appeal to facts shows1 also1  
that an individual may put up individual
 petitions1 as when a ,yebu will pray3  
,god in heaven protect me from sickness 
and death4  ,god give me happiness and  
wisdom4  ,but we may safely infer that  
the only prayers that the god of the    
community is expected to harken to are  
prayers that are consistent with the    
interests and welfare of the community4 
,from that point of view we must refuse 
to give more than a guarded assent to   
the opinion that prayer appeared in the 
religion of the lower culture1 but that 
in this its earlier stage it was        
unethical 7,tylor1 #cfd74  ,prayer      
obviously does appear in the religion of
 the lower culture1 but to say that it  
there is unethical is to make a         
statement which requires defining4  ,the
 statement means what #adh ,professor   
,tylor expresses later on in the words3 

,it scarcely appears as though any      
savage prayer1 authentically native in  
its origin1 were ever directed to obtain
 moral goodness or to ask pardon for    
moral sin 7p4 #cgc74  ,but it might be  
misunderstood to mean that among savages
 it was customary or possible to pray   
for things recognised by the savage     
himself as wrong1 and condemned by the  
community at large4  ,in the first      
place1 however1 the god of the community
 simply as being the god of the         
community would not tolerate such       
prayers4  ,next1 the range and extent of
 savage morality is less extensive than 
it is--or at any rate than it ought to  
be--in our day2 and though we must      
recognise and at the right time insist  
upon the difference1 that ought not to  
make us close our eyes to the fact that 
the savage does pray to do the things   
which savage morality holds it incumbent
 on him to do1 for instance to fight    
bravely for the good of his wife1 his   
children1 and his tribe1 to carry out   

the duty of avenging murder4  ,and if he
 prays for wealth he also prays for     
wisdom2 if he prays that his god may    
deliver him from sickness1 that shows he
 is human rather than that he is a low  
type of humanity4  ,it would seem1 then1
 that though in religions of low #adi   
culture we meet religion under the guise
 of desire1 we also find that religion  
makes a distinction between desires2    
there are desires which may be expressed
 to the god of the community1 and       
desires which may not4 ,further1 though 
it is in the heart of a person and an   
individual that desire must originate1  
it does not follow that prayer          
originates in individual desire4  ,to   
say so1 we must assume that the same    
desire cannot possibly originate        
simultaneously in different persons4    
,but that is a patently erroneous       
assumption3 in time of war1 the desire  
for victory will spring up              
simultaneously in the hearts of all the 
tribe2 in time of drought1 the prayer   

for rain will ascend from the hearts of 
all the people2 at the time of the      
sowing of seed a prayer for the kindly  
fruits of the earth may be uttered by   
every member of the community4  ,now it 
is precisely these desires1 which being 
desires must originate in individual    
souls1 yet being desires of every       
individual in the community are the     
desires of the community1 that are the  
desires which take the form of prayer   
offered by the community or its         
representative to the god of the        
community4  ,anti-social desires cannot 
be expressed by the community or        
sanctioned by religion4  ,prayer is the 
essential #aej expression of true       
socialism2 and the spirit which prompts 
it is and has always been the moving    
spirit of social progress4  ,professor  
,tylor1 noticing the extreme development
 of mechanical religion1 the prayer-mill
 of the ,tibetan ,buddhists1 suggests   
that it may perhaps lead us to form an  
opinion of large application in the     

study of religion and superstition2     
namely1 that the theory of prayers may  
explain the origin of charms4           
,charm-formul1 he says1 are in very many
 cases actual prayers1 and as such are  
intelligible4  ,where they are mere     
verbal forms1 producing their effect on 
nature and man by some unexplained      
process1 may not they or the types they 
have been modelled on have been         
originally prayers1 since dwindled into 
mystic sentences8 7,p4 ,c4 ,,ii1        
#cgb-cgc74  ,now1 if this suggestion of 
,professor ,tylor's be correct1 it will 
follow that as charms and spells are    
degraded survivals of prayer1 so magic  
generally--of which charms and spells   
are but one department--is a degradation
 of religion4  ,that in many cases      
charms and spells are survivals of      
prayer--formul from which all spirit of 
religion has entirely evaporated--all   
students of the science of religion     
would now admit4  ,that prayers may #aea
 stiffen into traditional formul1 and   

then become vain repetitions which may  
actually be unintelligible to those who 
utter them1 and so be conceived to have 
a force which is purely magical and a   
nature practically assimilated more or  
less to that of charms 7l4c471 is a fact
 which cannot be denied4  ,but when once
 the truth has been admitted that       
prayers may pass into spells1 the       
possibility is suggested that it is out 
of spells that prayer has originated4   
,mercury raised to a high temperature   
becomes red precipitate2 and red        
precipitate exposed to a still greater  
heat becomes mercury again4  ,spells may
 be the origin of prayers1 if prayers   
show a tendency to relapse into spells4 
,that possibility fits in either with   
the theory that magic preceded religion 
or still more exactly with the theory   
that religion simply is magic raised1 so
 to speak1 to a higher moral            
temperature4  ,we have therefore to     
consider the possibility that the       
process of evolution has been from spell

 to prayer 7,r4 ,r4 ,marett1 ,folk-,lore
 ,,xv1 #b1 pp4 #acb-aff72 and let us    
begin the consideration by observing    
that the reverse passage--from prayer to
 spell--is only possible on the         
condition that religion evaporates      
entirely in the process4  ,the prayer   
does not become a charm until the #aeb  
religion has disappeared entirely from  
it3 a charm therefore is that in which  
no religion is1 and out of which        
consequently no religion can be         
extracted4  ,if then1 per impossibile1  
it could be demonstrated that there was 
a period in the history of mankind1 when
 charms and magic existed1 and religion 
was utterly unknown2 if it be argued    
that the spirit of religion1 when at    
length it breathed upon mankind1        
transformed spells into prayers--still  
all that would then be maintained is    
that spoken formul which were spells    
were followed by other formul which are 
the very opposite of spells4  ,must we  
not1 however1 go one step further and   

admit that one and the same form of     
words may be prayer and religion when   
breathed in one spirit1 and vain        
repetition and mere magic when uttered  
in another8  ,let us admit that the     
difference between prayer and spell lies
 in the difference of the spirit        
inspiring them2 and then we shall see   
that the difference is essential1       
fundamental1 as little to be ignored as 
it is impossible to bridge4  ,the       
formula used by the person employing it 
to express his desire may or may not in 
itself suffice to show whether it is    
religious in intent and value4  ,thus in
 ,west ,africa the women of ,framin     
dance #aec and sing1 ,our husbands have 
gone to ,ashantee land2 may they sweep  
their enemies off the face of the earth 
7,frazer1 ,golden ,bough1#b ,i1 #cd74   
,we may compare the song sung in time of
 war by the ,masai women3 ,o ,god1 to   
whom ,i pray for offspring1 may our     
children return hither 7,hollis1 p4     
#cea72 and there seems no reason why1   

since the ,masai song is religious1 the 
,framin song may not be regarded as     
religious also4  ,but we have to        
remember that both prayers and spells   
have a setting of their own3 the desires
 which they express manifest themselves 
not only in what is said but in what is 
done2 and1 when we enquire what the     
,framin women do whilst they sing the   
words quoted above1 we find that they   
dance with brushes in their hands4  ,the
 brushes are quite as essential as the  
words4  ,it is therefore suggested that 
the whole ceremony is magical1 that the 
sweeping is sympathetic magic and the   
song is a spell4  ,the words explain    
what the action is intended to effect1  
just as in ,new ,caledonia when a man   
has kindled a smoky fire and has        
performed certain acts1 he invokes his  
ancestors and says1 ',sun6  ,i do this  
that you may be burning hot1 and eat up 
all the clouds in the sky' 7,frazer1    
ib41 #aaf74  ,again1 amongst the ,masai 
in time of #aed drought a charm called  

ol-kora is thrown into a fire2 the old  
men encircle the fire and sing3--       
,god of the rain-cloud1 slake our       
thirst1   ,we know thy far-extending    
powers1   ,as herdsmen lead their kine  
to drink1   ,refresh us with thy cooling
 showers4         --,,hollis1 p4 #cdh4  
,if the ol-kora which is thrown into the
 fire makes it rise in clouds of smoke1 
resembling the rain-clouds which are    
desired1 then here too the ceremony     
taken as a whole presents the appearance
 of a magical rite accompanied by a     
spoken spell4  ,it is true that in this 
case the ceremony is renforced by an    
appeal to a god1 just as in the ,new    
,caledonian case it is renforced by an  
appeal to ancestor worship4  ,but this  
may be explained as showing that here we
 have magic and charms being gradually  
superseded by religion and prayer2 the  
old formula and the old rite are in     
process of being suffused by a new      
spirit1 the spirit of religion1 which is
 the very negation and ultimately the   

destruction of the old spirit of magic4 
,before accepting this interpretation1  
however1 which is intended to show the  
priority of magic to religion1 we may   
notice that it is not the only          
interpretation of which the facts are   
susceptible4  ,it is #aee based on the  
assumption that the words uttered are   
intended as an explanation of the       
meaning of the acts performed4  ,if that
 assumption is correct1 then the        
performer of the ceremony is explaining 
its meaning and intention to somebody4  
,to whom8  ,in the case of the ,new     
,caledonian ceremony1 to the ancestral  
spirits2 in the case of the ,masai old  
men1 to the god4  ,thus1 the religious  
aspect of the ceremony appears after all
 to be an essential part of the         
ceremony1 and not a new element in an   
old rite4 ,and1 then1 we may            
consistently argue that the ,framin     
women who sing1 ,our husbands have gone 
to ,ashantee land2 may they sweep their 
enemies off the face of the earth1 are  

either still conscious that they are    
addressing a prayer to their native god2
 or that1 if they are no longer         
conscious of the fact1 they once were1  
and what was originally prayer has      
become by vain repetition a mere spell4 
,all this is on the assumption that in  
these ceremonies1 the words are intended
 to explain the meaning of the acts     
performed1 and therefore to explain it  
to somebody1 peradventure he will       
understand and grant the performer of   
the ceremony his heart's desire4  ,but1 
as the consequences of the assumption do
 not favour the theory that prayer must 
be #aef preceded by spell1 let us       
discard the assumption that the words   
explain the meaning of the acts         
performed4  ,let us consider the        
possibility that perhaps the actions    
which are gone through are meant to     
explain the words and make them more    
forcible4  ,it is undeniable that in    
moments of emotion we express ourselves 
by gesture and the play of our features 

as well as by our words2 indeed1 in     
reading a play we are apt to miss the   
full meaning of the words simply because
 they are not assisted and interpreted  
by the actor's gestures and features4   
,if we take up this position1 that the  
things done are explanatory of the words
 uttered and renforce them1 then the    
sweeping which is acted by the ,framin  
women again is not magical2 it simply   
emphasises the words1 may they sweep    
their enemies off the face of the earth1
 and shows to the power appealed to what
 it is that is desired4  ,the smoke sent
 up by the ,new ,caledonian ancestor    
worshipper or the ,masai old men is a   
way of indicating the clouds which they 
wish to attract or avert respectively4  
,an equally clear case comes from the   
,kei ,islands3 ,when the warriors have  
departed1 the women return indoors and  
bring out certain baskets containing    
fruits and stones4  ,these fruits and   
stones they anoint and place on a board1
 #aeg murmuring as they do so1 ',o lord 

sun1 moon1 let the bullets rebound from 
our husbands1 brothers1 betrothed1 and  
other relations1 just as raindrops      
rebound from these objects which are    
smeared with oil' 7,frazer1 op4 cit41 p4
 #cc74  ,it is1 ,i think1 perfectly     
reasonable to regard the act performed  
as explanatory of the words uttered and 
of the thing desired2 the women         
themselves explain to their lords1 the  
sun and moon1--with the precision       
natural to women when explaining what   
they want1--exactly how they want the   
bullets to bounce off1 just like        
raindrops4  ,dr4 ,frazer1 however1 from 
whom ,i have quoted this illustration1  
not having perhaps considered the       
possibility that the acts performed may 
be explanatory of the words1 is         
compelled to explain the action as      
magical3 in this custom the ceremony of 
anointing stones in order that the      
bullets may recoil from the men like    
raindrops from the stones is a piece of 
pure sympathetic or imitative magic4    

,he is therefore compelled to suggest   
that the prayer to the sun is a prayer  
that he will give effect to the charm1  
and is perhaps a later addition4  ,but  
independently of the possibility that   
the actions performed are explanatory of
 the words1 or rather that words and    
actions both are intended to make clear 
to the sun precisely #aeh what the      
petition is1 what tells against ,dr4    
,frazer's suggestion is that the women  
want the bullets to bounce off1 and it  
is the power of the god to which they   
appeal and on which they rely for the   
fulfilment of their prayer4  ,there is1 
however1 a further consideration which  
we should perhaps take into account4    
,man1 when he has a desire which he     
wishes to realise1--and the whole of our
 life is spent in trying to realise what
 we wish1--takes all the steps which    
experience shows to be necessary or     
reason suggests2 and1 when he has done  
everything that he can do1 he may still 
feel that nothing is certain in this    

life1 and the thing may not come off4   
,under those circumstances he may1 and  
often does1 pray that success may attend
 his efforts4  ,now ,dr4 ,frazer1 in the
 second edition of his ,golden ,bough1  
wishing to show that the period of      
religion was preceded by a non-religious
 period in the history of mankind1      
suggests that at first man had no idea  
that his attempts to realise his desires
 could fail1 and that it was his tardy  
recognition of the fact that led him to 
religion4  ,this tardy recognition1 he  
says1 probably proceeded very slowly1   
and required long ages for its more or  
less perfect accomplishment4  ,for the  
recognition of man's powerlessness to   
influence the course of #aei nature on a
 grand scale must have been gradual 7,i1
 #gh74  ,i would suggest1 however1 that 
it cannot have taken long ages for      
savage man to discover that his wishes  
and his plans did not always come off4  
,it is1 ,i think1 going too far to      
imagine that for long ages man had no   

idea that his attempts to realise his   
desires could fail4  ,if religion       
arises1 as ,dr4 ,frazer suggests1 when  
man recognises his own weakness and his 
own powerlessness1 often1 to effect what
 he most desires1 then man in his most  
primitive and most helpless condition   
must have been most ready to recognise  
that there were powers other than       
himself1 and to desire1 that is to pray 
for1 their assistance4  ,doubtless it   
would be at the greater crises1 times of
 pestilence1 drought1 famine and war1   
that his prayers would be most          
insistent2 but it is in the period of   
savagery that famine is most frequent   
and drought most to be feared4  ,against
 them he takes all the measures known to
 him1 all the practical steps which     
natural science1 as understood by him1  
can suggest4  ,now his theory and       
practice include many things which1     
though they are in later days regarded  
as uncanny and magical1 are to him the  
ordinary natural means of producing the 

effects which he desires4  ,but when he 
has taken all #afj the steps which      
practical reason suggests1 and          
experience of the past approves1 savage 
man1 harassed by the dread of           
approaching drought or famine1 may still
 breathe out the ,manganja prayer1 ,hear
 thou1 ,o ,god1 and send rain4  ,when1  
however1 he does so1 it is1 ,i suggest1 
doubly erroneous to infer that this     
prayer takes the place of a spell or    
that apart from the prayer the acts     
performed are1 and originally were1     
magical4  ,these acts may be based on   
the principle that like produces like   
and may be performed as the ordinary1   
natural means for producing the effect1 
which have nothing magical about them4  
,and they are accompanied by a prayer   
which is not a mere explanation or      
statement of the purpose with which the 
acts are performed1 but is the          
expression of the heart's desire4  ,no  
priori proofs of any cogency1 therefore1
 have been adduced by ,dr4 ,frazer1 and 

none therefore are likely to be produced
 by any one else1 to show that there was
 ever a period in the history of man    
when prayers and religion were unknown  
to him4  ,the question remains whether  
any actual instances are known to the   
science of religion4 ,unfortunately1 as 
,i pointed out at the beginning of this 
lecture1 so neglected by the science of 
religion has been the subject of prayer 
that even now we are scarcely #afa able 
to go beyond the statement made more    
than a quarter of a century ago by      
,professor ,tylor that1 at low levels of
 civilisation there are many races who  
distinctly admit the existence of       
spirits1 but are not certainly known to 
pray to them even in thought 7,p4 ,c4   
,,ii1 #cfd74  ,professor ,tylor's       
statement is properly guarded3 there are
 races not certainly known to pray4     
,the possibility that they may yet be   
discovered to make prayers is not       
excluded4  ,now1 if we turn to one of   
the lowest levels of culture1 that of   

the ,australian black fellows1 we shall 
find that there is much doubt amongst   
students whether the aborigines have    
consciously any form of religion        
whatever 7,howitt1 ,native ,tribes of   
,s4 ,e4 ,australia71 and in southeast   
,australia ,mr4 ,howitt thinks it cannot
 be alleged that they have1 though their
 beliefs are such that they might easily
 have developed into an actual religion 
7p4 #ejg74  ,now one of the tribes of   
southeast ,australia is that of the     
,dieri4  ,with them rain is very        
important1 for periods of drought are   
frequent2 and rain-making ceremonies are
 considered of much consequence 7p4     
#cid74  ,the ceremonies are symbolic3   
there is blood to symbolise the rain and
 two large stones representing gathering
 #afb clouds presaging rain1 just as the
 ,new ,caledonian sends up clouds of    
smoke to symbolise rain-clouds1 and the 
,masai1 we have conjectured1 throw      
ol-kora into the fire for the same      
purpose4  ,but the ,new ,caledonian not 

only performs the actions prescribed for
 the rite1 he also invokes the spirits  
of his ancestors2 and the ,masai not    
only go through the proper dance1 but   
call upon the god of the rain-cloud4    
,the ,dieri1 however1 ought to be       
content with their symbolic or          
sympathetic magic and not offer up any  
prayer4  ,but1 being unaware of this    
fact1 they do pray3 they call upon the  
rain-making ,mura-muras to give them    
power to make a heavy rainfall1 crying  
out in loud voices the impoverished     
state of the country1 and the           
half-starved condition of the tribe1 in 
consequence of the difficulty in        
procuring food in sufficient quantity to
 preserve life 7p4 #cid74  ,the         
,mura-muras seem to be ancestral        
spirits1 like those invoked by the ,new 
,caledonian4  ,if we turn to the        
,euahlayi tribe of northwestern ,new    
,south ,wales1 we find that at the      
,boorah rites a prayer is offered to    
,byamee1 asking him to let the blacks   

live long1 for they have been faithful  
to his charge as shown by the observance
 of the ,boorah ceremony 7,l4 ,parker1  
,the ,euahlayi #afc ,tribe1 p4 #gi74    
,that is the prayer of the community to 
,byamee1 and is in conformity with what 
we have noted before1 viz4 that it is   
with the desires of the community that  
the god of the community is concerned4  
,another prayer1 the nature of which is 
not stated by ,mrs4 ,parker1 by whom the
 information is given us1 is put up at  
funerals1 presumably to ,byamee by the  
community or its representative4  ,mrs4 
,parker adds3 ,though we say that       
actually these people have but two      
attempts at prayers1 one at the grave   
and one at the inner ,boorah ring1 ,i   
think perhaps we are wrong4 ,when a man 
invokes aid on the eve of battle1 or in 
his hour of danger and need2 when a     
woman croons over her baby an           
incantation to keep him honest and true1
 and that he shall be spared in         
danger1--surely these croonings are of  

the nature of prayers born of the same  
elementary frame of mind as our more    
elaborate litanies4  ,as an instance of 
the croonings ,mrs4 ,parker gives the   
mother's song over her baby as soon as  
it begins to crawl3---    ,kind be1     
,do not steal1   ,do not touch what to  
another belongs1   ,leave all such      
alone1   ,kind be4  #afd  ,these        
instances may suffice to show that it   
would not have been safe to infer1 a    
year or two ago1 from the fact that the 
,australians were not known to pray1    
that therefore prayer was unknown to    
them4  ,indeed1 we may safely go farther
 and surmise that other instances       
besides those noted really exist1 though
 they have not been observed or if      
observed have not been understood4      
,among the northern tribes of central   
,australia rites are performed to secure
 food1 just as they are performed by the
 ,dieri to avert drought4  ,the ,dieri  
rites are accompanied by a prayer1 as we
 have seen4  ,the ,kaitish rites to     

promote the growth of grass are         
accompanied by the singing of words1    
which have no meaning known to the      
natives of the present day 7,spencer and
 ,gillen1 ,northern ,tribes1 p4 #bib74  
,amongst the ,mara tribe the rain-making
 rite consists simply in singing the    
water1 drinking it and spitting it out  
in all directions4  ,in the ,anula tribe
 dugongs are a favourite article of     
food1 and if the natives desire to bring
 them out from the rocks1 they can do so
 by 'singing' and throwing sticks at the
 rocks 7ib41 pp4 #cac1 #cad74  ,it is   
reasonable to suppose that in all these 
cases the singing is now merely a charm4
  ,but if we remember that prayers1 when
 #afe their meaning is forgotten1 pass  
by vain repetitions into mere charms1 we
 may also reasonably suppose that these 
,australian charms are degraded prayers2
 and we shall be confirmed in this      
supposition to some extent by the fact  
that in the ,kaitish tribes the words   
sung have no meaning known to the       

natives of the present day4  ,if the    
meaning has evaporated1 the religion may
 have evaporated with it4  ,that the    
rites1 of which the singing is an       
essential part1 have now become magical 
and are used and understood to be       
practised purely to promote the supply  
of dugongs and other articles of food1  
may be freely admitted2 but it is unsafe
 to infer that the purpose with which   
the rites continue to be practised is   
the whole of the purpose with which they
 were originally performed4  ,if the    
meaning of the singing has passed       
entirely away1 the meaning of the rites 
may have suffered a change4  ,at the    
present day the rite is understood to   
increase the supply of dugongs or other 
articles of food4  ,but it may have been
 used originally for other purposes4    
,presumably rites of a similar kind1    
certainly of some kind1 are practised by
 the ,australians who have for their    
totem the blow-fly1 the water-beetle1 or
 the evening star4  ,but they do not    

#aff eat flies or beetles4  ,their      
original purpose in choosing the evening
 star cannot have been to increase its  
number4  ,nor can that have been the    
object of choosing the mosquito for a   
totem4  ,but if the object of the rites 
is not to increase the number of        
mosquitoes1 flies1 and beetles1 it need 
not in the first instance have been the 
object with which the rites were        
celebrated in the case of other totems4 
,let us now return to ,professor        
,tylor's statement that at low levels of
 civilisation there are many races who  
distinctly admit the existence of       
spirits1 but are not certainly known to 
pray to them even in thought4 ,the      
number of those races who are not known 
to pray is being reduced1 as we have    
seen4  ,and ,i think we may go even     
farther than that and say that where the
 existence of spirits is not merely     
believed in1 but is utilised for the    
purpose of establishing permanent       
relations between a community and a     

spirit1 we may safely infer that the    
community offers prayer to the spirit1  
even though the fact may have escaped   
the notice of travellers4  ,the reason  
why we may infer it is that at the lower
 levels of civilisation we meet with    
religion1 in ,hffding's words1 in the   
guise of desire4  ,we may put the same  
truth in other words and say that       
religion is #afg from the beginning     
practical4  ,such prayers as are known  
to us to be put up by the lowest races  
are always practical3 they may be       
definite petitions for definite goods   
such as harvest or rain or victory in   
time of war2 or they may be general     
petitions such as that of the ,khonds3  
,we are ignorant of what it is good for 
us to ask for4  ,you know what is good  
for us4  ,give it us4  ,but in any case 
what the god of a community is there for
 is to promote the good of the          
community4  ,it is because the savage   
has petitions to put up that he believes
 there are powers who can grant his     

petitions4  ,prayer is the very root of 
religion4  ,when the savage has taken   
every measure he knows of to produce the
 result he desires1 he then goes on to  
pray for the rainfall he desires1 crying
 out in a loud voice the impoverished   
state of the country and the            
half-starved condition of the tribe4    
,it is true that it is in moments of    
stress particularly1 if not solely1 that
 the savage turns to his god--and the   
same may be said of many of us--but it  
is with confidence and hope that he     
turns to him4  ,if he had no confidence 
and no hope1 he would offer no prayers4 
,but he has hope1 he has faith2 and     
every time he prays his heart says1 if  
his words do not1 in ,thee1 ,lord1 do we
 put our trust4  #afh  ,that prayer is  
the essence1 the very breath1 of        
religion1 without which it dies1 is     
shown by the fact that amongst the very 
lowest races of mankind we find frequent
 traditions of the existence of a high  
god or supreme being1 the creator of the

 world and the father of mankind4  ,the 
numerous traces of this dying tradition 
have been collected by the untiring     
energy and the unrivalled knowledge of  
,mr4 ,andrew ,lang in his book1 ,the    
,making of ,religion4  ,in ,west ,africa
 ,dr4 ,nassau 7,fetichism in ,west      
,africa1 pp4 #cf ff47 hundreds of times 
7p4 #cg7 has found that they know of a  
,being superior to themselves1 of whom  
they themselves1 he says1 inform me that
 he is the ,maker and the ,father4      
,what is characteristic of the belief of
 the savages in this god is that1 in    
,dr4 ,nassau's words1 it is an accepted 
belief1 but it does not often influence 
their life4  ',god is not in all their  
thought4'  ,in practice they give ,him  
no worship4  ,the belief is in fact a   
dying tradition2 and it is dying because
 prayer is not offered to this remote   
and traditional god4  ,i say that the   
belief is a dying tradition1 and ,i say 
so because its elements1 which are all  
found present and active where a        

community believes in1 prays to1 and    
worships the god of the community1 #afi 
are found partially1 but only partially1
 present where the belief survives but  
as a tradition4  ,thus1 for instance1   
where the belief is fully operative1 the
 god of the community sanctions the     
morality of the community2 but sometimes
 where the belief has become merely     
traditional1 this traditional god is    
supposed to take no interest in the     
community and exercises no ethical      
influence over the community4 ,thus1 in 
,west ,africa1 ,nyankupon is ignored    
rather than worshipped4 ,in the ,andaman
 ,islands1 on the other hand1 where the 
god ,puluga is still angered by sin or  
wrong-doing1 he is pitiful to those in  
pain or distress and sometimes deigns to
 afford relief 7,lang p4 #bab quoting   
,man1 ,j4 ,a4 ,i41 ,,xii1 #aeh74        
,again1 where the belief in the god of  
the community is fully operative1 the   
occasions on which the prayers of the   
community are offered are also the      

occasions on which sacrifice is made4   
,where sacrifice and prayers are not    
offered1 the belief may still for a time
 survive1 at it does among the          
,fuegians4  ,they make no sacrifice and1
 as far as is known1 offer no prayers2  
but to kill a man brings down the wrath 
of their god1 the big man in the woods3 
,rain come down1 snow come down1 hail   
come down1 wind blow1 blow1 very much   
blow4  #agj ,very bad to kill man4  ,big
 man in woods no like it1 he very angry 
7,lang1 p4 #ahh1 quoting ,fitzroy1 ,,ii1
 #ahj74  ,but when sacrifice and prayer 
cease1 the ultimate outcome is that     
which is found amongst the ,west        
,african natives1 who1 as ,dr4 ,nassau  
tells us 7p4 #ch71 say with regard to   
,anzam1 whom they admit to be their     
,creator and ,father1 ,why should we    
care for him8  ,he does not help nor    
harm us4  ,it is the spirits who can    
harm us whom we fear and worship1 and   
for whom we care4  ,who the spirits are 
,dr4 ,nassau does not say1 but they must

 be either the other gods of the place  
or the fetich spirits4  ,and the reason 
why ,anzam is no longer believed to help
 or harm the natives is obviously that1 
from some cause or other1 there is now  
no longer any established form of       
worship of him4  ,the community of which
 he was originally the god may have     
broken up1 or more probably may have    
been broken up1 with the result that the
 congregation which met to offer prayer 
and sacrifice to ,anzam was scattered2  
and the memory of him alone survives4   
,nothing would be more natural1 then1   
than that the natives1 when asked by    
,dr4 ,nassau1 ,why do you not worship   
him8 7p4 #ch71 should invent a reason1  
viz4 that it is no use worshipping #aga 
him now--the truth being that the form  
of worship has perished for reasons now 
no longer present to the natives' mind4 
,in any case1 when prayers cease to be  
offered--whether because the community  
is broken up or because some new quarter
 is discovered to which prayers can be  

offered with greater hope of            
success--when prayers1 for any reason1  
do cease to be offered to a god1 the    
worship of him begins to cease also1 for
 the breath of life has departed from   
it4  ,in this lecture1 as my subject is 
primitive religion1 ,i have made no     
attempt to trace the history of prayer  
farther than the highest point which it 
reaches in the lower levels of religion4
  ,that is the point reached by the     
,khond prayer3 ,we are ignorant of what 
it is good to ask for4  ,you know what  
is good for us4  ,give it us4  ,that is 
also the highest point reached by the   
most religious mind amongst the ancient 
,greeks3 ,socrates prayed the gods      
simply for things good1 because the gods
 knew best what is good 7,xen41 ,mem41  
,i1 iii1 #b74  ,the general impression  
left on one's mind by the prayers       
offered in this stage of religious      
development is that man is here and the 
gods are--there4  ,but there is such a  
long way off4  ,and yet1 far off as it  

is1 man #agb never came to think it was 
so far off that the gods could not hear4
 ,the possibility of man's entering into
 some sort of communication with them   
was always present4  ,nay6 more1 a      
community of interests between him and  
them was postulated3 the gods were to   
promote the interests of the community1 
and man was to serve the gods4  ,on     
occasions when sacrifice was made and   
prayer was offered1 the worshippers     
entered into the presence of ,god1 and  
communion with ,him was sought2 but     
stress was laid rather on the sacrifice 
offered than on the prayers sent up4    
,the communion at which animal sacrifice
 aimed may have been gross at times1 and
 at others mystic2 but it was the       
sacrifice rather than the prayer which  
accompanied it that was regarded as     
essential to the communion desired1 as  
the means of bridging the gap between   
man here and the gods there4  ,if1      
however1 the gap was to be bridged1 a   
new revelation was necessary1 one       

revealing the real nature of the        
sacrifice required by ,god1 and of the  
communion desired by man4  ,and that    
revelation is made in ,our ,lord's      
,prayer4  ,with the most earnest and    
unfeigned desire to use the theory of   
evolution as a means of ordering the    
facts of the history of religion and of 
enabling #agc us--so far as it can      
enable us--to understand them1 one is   
bound to notice as a fact that the      
theory of evolution is unable to account
 for or explain the revelation1 made in 
,our ,lord's ,prayer1 of the spirit     
which is both human and divine4  ,it is 
the beam of light which1 when turned on 
the darkness of the past1 enables us to 
see whither man with his prayers and his
 sacrifices had been blindly striving1  
the place where he fain would be4 ,it is
 the surest beacon the missionary can   
hold out to those who are still in      
darkness and who show by the fact that  
they pray--if only for rain1 for        
harvest1 and victory over all their     

enemies--that they are battling with the
 darkness and that they have not turned 
entirely away from the light of ,his    
countenance who is never at any time far
 from any one of us4  ,their heart      
within them is ready to bear witness4   
,religion is present in them1 if only   
under the guise of desire2 but it is the
 desire of all nations for which they   
yearn4  ,there are1 ,hffding says1 two  
tendencies in the nature of religious   
feeling3 on the one hand there is the   
need to collect and concentrate         
ourselves1 to resign ourselves1 to feel 
ourselves supported and carried by a    
power raised above all #agd struggle and
 opposition and beyond all change4  ,but
 within the religious consciousness     
another need makes itself felt1 the need
 of feeling that in the midst of the    
struggle we have a fellow-struggler at  
our side1 a fellow-struggler who knows  
from his own experience what it is to   
suffer and meet resistance 7,the        
,philosophy of ,religion1  #ed74        

,between these two tendencies ,hffding  
discovers an opposition or              
contradiction1 an antinomy of religious 
feeling4  ,but it is precisely because  
,christianity alone of all religions    
recognises both needs that it transcends
 the antinomy4  ,the antinomy is indeed 
purely intellectual4  ,hffding himself  
says1 only when recollection1 collation1
 and comparison are possible do we      
discover the opposition or the          
contradiction between the two           
tendencies4  ,and in saying that1       
inasmuch as recollection1 collation1 and
 comparison are intellectual processes1 
he admits that the antinomy is          
intellectual4  ,that it is not an       
antinomy of religious feeling is shown  
by the fact that the two needs exist1   
that is to say1 are both felt4  ,to say 
priori that both cannot be satisfied is 
useless in face of the fact that those  
who feel them find that ,christianity   
satisfies them4     #age  ,,sacrifice   
,in my last lecture ,i called attention 

to the fact that the subject of prayer  
has been strangely neglected by the     
science of religion4 ,religion1 in      
whatever form it manifests itself1 is   
essentially practical2 man desires to   
enter into communication or into        
communion with his god1 and in so doing 
he has a practical purpose in view4     
,that purpose may be to secure a        
material blessing of a particular kind1 
such as victory in war or the enjoyment 
of the fruits of the earth in their due 
season1 or the purpose may be to offer  
thanks for a harvest and to pray for a  
continuance of prosperity generally4    
,or the purpose of prayer may be to ask 
for deliverance from material evils1    
such as famine or plague4  ,or it may be
 to ask for deliverance from moral evils
 and for power to do ,god's will4  ,in a
 word1 if man had no prayer to make1 the
 most powerful1 if not the only1 motive 
inciting him to seek communion would be 
wanting4  ,now1 to some of us it may    
seem  priori that there is no reason why

 the communion thus sought in #agf      
prayer should require any external rite 
to sanction or condition it4  ,if that  
is our  priori view1 we shall be the    
more surprised to find that in actual   
fact an external rite has always been   
felt to be essential2 and that rite has 
always been and still is sacrifice1 in  
one or other of its forms4  ,or1 to put 
the same fact in another way1 public    
worship has been from the beginning the 
condition without which private worship 
could not begin and without which       
private worship cannot continue4  ,to   
any form of religion1 whatever it be1 it
 is essential1 if it is to be religion1 
that there shall be a community of      
worshippers and a god worshipped4  ,the 
bond which unites the worshippers with  
one another and with their god is       
religion4  ,from the beginning the      
public worship in which the worshippers 
have united has expressed itself in     
rites--rites of sacrifice--and in the   
prayers of the community4  ,to the end1 

the prayers offered are prayers to ,our 
,father2 and if the worshipper is       
spatially separated from1 he is         
spiritually united to1 his              
fellow-worshippers even in private      
prayer4  ,we may then recognise that    
prayer logically and ultimately implies 
sacrifice in one or other of its senses2
 and that sacrifice as a rite is        
meaningless and impossible without      
prayer4  ,but if we recognise #agg that 
sacrifice wherever it occurs implies    
prayer1 then the fact that the observers
 of savage or barbarous rites have      
described the ritual acts of sacrifice1 
but have not observed or have neglected 
to report the prayers implied1 will not 
lead us into the error of imagining that
 sacrifice is a rite which can          
exist--that it can have a religious     
existence--without prayer4  ,we may     
attend to either1 the sacrifice or to   
the prayer1 as we may attend either to  
the concavity or the convexity of a     
curve1 but we may not deny the existence

 and presence of the one because our    
attention happens to be concentrated on 
the other4  ,the relation in primitive  
religion of the one to the other we may 
express by saying that prayer states the
 motive with which the sacrifice is     
made1 and that sacrifice is essential to
 the prayer1 which would not be         
efficacious without the sacrifice4  ,the
 reason why a community can address the 
god which it worships is that the god is
 felt to be identified in some way with 
the community and to have its interests 
in his charge and care4  ,and the rite  
of sacrifice is felt to make the        
identification more real4  ,prayer1     
again1 is possible only to the god to   
whom the community is known2 with whom  
it is identified1 more or less2 and with
 whom1 when his help is required1 the   
#agh community seeks to identify itself 
more effectually4  ,the means of that   
identification without which the prayers
 of the community would be ineffectual  
is sacrifice4  ,the earliest form of    

sacrifice may probably be taken to be   
the sacrifice of an animal1 followed by 
a sacrificial meal4  ,later1 when the   
god has a stated place in which he is   
believed to manifest himself1--tree or  
temple1--then the identification may be 
effected by attaching offerings to the  
tree or temple4  ,but in either case    
what is sought by the offering dedicated
 or the meal of sacrifice is in a word  
incorporation4  ,the worshippers desire 
to feel that they are at one with the   
spirit whom they worship4  ,and the     
desire to experience this sense of union
 is particularly strong when plague or  
famine makes it evident that some       
estrangement has taken place between the
 god and the community which is normally
 in his care and under his protection4  
,the sacrifices and prayers that are    
offered in such a case obviously do not 
open up communication for the first time
 between the god and his tribe3 they    
revive and renforce a communion which is
 felt to exist already1 even though     

temporal misfortunes1 such as drought or
 famine1 testify that it has been       
allowed by the tribe to become less     
close than it ought to be1 or that #agi 
it has been strained by transgressions  
on the part of individual members of the
 community4  ,but it is not only in     
times of public distress that the       
community approaches its god with       
sacrifice and prayer4  ,it so happens   
that the prayers offered for victory in 
war or for rain or for deliverance from 
famine are instances of prayer of so    
marked a character that they have forced
 themselves on the notice of travellers 
in all parts of the world1 from the     
,eskimo to the ,australian black fellows
 or the negroes of ,africa4  ,and it was
 to this class of prayers that ,i called
 your attention principally in the last 
lecture4  ,but they are1 when we come to
 think of it1 essentially occasional    
prayers1 prayers that are offered at the
 great crises of tribal life1 when the  
very existence of the tribe is at stake4

  ,such crises1 however1 by their very  
nature are not regular or normal2 and it
 would be an error to suppose that it is
 only on these occasions that prayers   
are made by savage or barbarous peoples4
  ,if we wish to discover the earliest  
form of regularly recurring public      
worship1 we must look for some regularly
 recurring occasion for it4  ,one such  
regularly recurring occasion is harvest 
time1 another is seed time1 another is  
the annual ceremonial at which the boys 
who #ahj attain in the course of the    
year to the age of manhood are initiated
 into the secrets or mysteries of the   
tribe4 ,these are the chief and perhaps 
the only regularly recurring occasions  
of public worship as distinguished from 
the irregular crises of war1 pestilence1
 drought1 and famine which affect the   
community as a whole1 and from the      
irregular occasions when the individual 
member of the community prays for       
offspring or for delivery from sickness 
or for success in the private           

undertaking in which he happens to be   
engaged4  ,of the regularly recurring   
occasions of public worship ,i will     
select1 to begin with1 the rites which  
are associated with harvest time4  ,and 
,i will do so partly because the science
 of religion provides us with very      
definite particulars both as to the     
sacrifices and as to the prayers which  
are usually made on these occasions2 and
 partly because the prayers that are    
made are of a special kind and throw a  
fresh light on the nature of the        
communion that the tribe seeks to effect
 by means of the sacrificial offering4  
,at ,saa1 in the ,solomon ,islands1 yams
 are offered1 and the person offering   
them cries in a loud voice1 ,this is    
yours to eat 7,frazer1 ,g4 ,b4#b1 ,,ii1 
#dfe74  ,in #aha the ,society ,islands  
the formula is1 ,here1 ,tari1 ,i have   
brought you something to eat 7ib41      
#dfi74  ,in ,indo-,china1 the invitation
 is the same3 ,taste1 ,o goddess1 these 
first-fruits which have just been reaped

 7ib41 #cbe74  ,there are no actually   
expressed words of thanks in these      
instances2 but we may safely conjecture 
that the offerings are thank-offerings  
and that the feeling with which the     
offerings are made is one of gratitude  
and thankfulness4  ,thus in ,ceram we   
are told that first-fruits are offered  
as a token of gratitude 7ib41 #dfc74    
,on the ,niger the ,onitsha formula is  
explicit3 ,i thank ,god for being       
permitted to eat the new yam 7ib41      
#cbe74  ,at ,tjumba in the ,east        
,indies1 vessels filled with rice are   
presented as a thank-offering to the    
gods 7ib41 #dfb74  ,the people of ,nias 
on these occasions offer thanks for the 
blessings bestowed on them 7ib41 #dfc74 
,by a very natural transition of thought
 and feeling1 thankfulness for past     
favours leads to prayer for the         
continuance of favour in the future4    
,thus in ,tana1 in the ,new ,hebrides1  
the formula is3 ,compassionate father6  
here is some food for you2 eat it2 be   

kind to us on account of it 7ib41 #dfd72
 while the ,basutos say3 ,thank you1    
gods2 give us bread to-morrow also 7ib41
 #dei72 and in ,tonga the prayers #ahb  
made at the offering of first-fruits    
implore the protection of the gods1 and 
beseech them for welfare generally1     
though in especial for the fruits of the
 earth 7ib41 #dff74  ,the prayers of    
primitive man which ,i quoted in my last
 lecture were in the nature of petitions
 or requests1 as was natural and indeed 
inevitable in view of the fact that they
 were preferred on occasions when the   
tribe was in exceptional distress and   
required the aid of the gods on whose   
protection the community relied4  ,but  
the prayers which ,i have just quoted   
are not in their essence petitions or   
requests1 even though in some cases they
 tend to become so4  ,they are          
essentially prayers of thanksgiving and 
the offerings made are thank-offerings4 
,thus our conception of primitive prayer
 must be extended to include both mental

 attitudes--that of thankfulness for    
past or present blessings as well as the
 hope of blessings yet to come4  ,and   
inasmuch as sacrifice is the concomitant
 of prayer1 we must recognise that      
sacrificial offerings also serve as the 
expression of both mental attitudes4    
,and we must note that in the regularly 
recurring form of public or tribal      
worship with which we are now dealing   
the dominant feeling to which expression
 is given is #ahc that of thankfulness4 
,the tribe seeks for communion with its 
god for the purpose of expressing its   
thanks4  ,even the savage who simply    
says1 ,here1 ,tari1 ,i have brought you 
something to eat1 or1 still more curtly1
 ,this is yours to eat1 is expressing   
thanks1 albeit in savage fashion4  ,and 
the means which the savage adopts for   
securing that communion which he seeks  
to renew regularly with the tribal god  
is a sacrificial meal1 of which the god 
and his worshippers partake4            
,throughout the whole ceremony1 whether 

we regard the spoken words or the acts  
performed1 there is no suggestion of    
magic and no possibility of twisting the
 ceremony into a piece of magic intended
 to produce some desired result or to   
exercise any constraint over the powers 
to which the ceremony is addressed4     
,the mental attitude is that of         
thankfulness4  ,now1 it is1 ,i venture  
to suggest1 impossible to dissociate    
from the first-fruits ceremonials which 
,i have described the ceremonies        
observed by ,australian black fellows on
 similar occasions4  ,and it is also    
impossible to overlook the differences  
between the ceremony in ,australia and  
the ceremony elsewhere4  ,in ,australia1
 as elsewhere1 when the time of year    
arrives at which the food becomes fit   
for eating1 #ahd a ceremony has to be   
performed before custom permits the food
 to be eaten freely4  ,in ,australia1 as
 elsewhere1 a ceremonial eating1 a      
sacramental meal1 has to take place4    
,but whereas elsewhere the god of the   

community is expressly invited to       
partake of the sacramental meal1 even   
though he be not mentioned by name and  
though the invitation take the curt form
 of ,this is yours to eat1 in ,australia
 no words whatever are spoken2 the      
person who performs the ceremony        
performs it indeed with every indication
 of reverential feeling1 he eats        
solemnly and sparingly1 that is to say  
formally and because the eating is a    
matter of ritual1 but no reference is   
made by him so far as we know1 to any   
god4  ,how then are we to explain the   
absence of any such reference8 ,there   
seems to me to be only one explanation  
which is reasonably possible4  ,it is   
that in the ,australian ceremony1 which 
would be perfectly intelligible and     
perfectly in line with the ceremony as  
it occurs everywhere else1 the reference
 to the god who is or was invited to    
partake of the first-fruits has in the  
process of time and1 we must add1 in the
 course of religious decay1 gradually   

dropped out4  ,the invitation may never 
have been more ample than the curt form1
 ,this is yours to eat4  ,even in the   
#ahe absence of any verbal invitation   
whatever1 a gesture may long have       
sufficed to indicate what was in the    
mind and was implied by the act of the  
savage performing the ceremony4 ,words  
may not have been felt necessary to     
explain what every person present at the
 ceremony knew to be the purpose of the 
rite4  ,but in the absence of any verbal
 formula whatever the purpose and       
meaning of the rite would be apt to pass
 out of mind1 to evaporate1 even though 
custom maintained1 as it does in        
,australia to this day maintain1 the    
punctual and punctilious performance of 
the outward ceremony4  ,i suggest1      
therefore1 that in ,australia1 as       
elsewhere1 the solemn eating of the     
first-fruits has been a sacramental meal
 of which both the god and his          
worshippers were partakers4  ,the       
alternative is to my mind much less     

probable3 it is to use the ,australian  
ceremony as it now exists to explain the
 origin of the ceremony as we find it   
elsewhere4  ,in ,australia it is not now
 apparently associated with the worship 
of any god2 therefore it may be argued  
in other countries also it was not      
originally part of the worship of any   
god either4  ,if1 then1 it was not an   
act of public worship originally1 how   
are we to understand it8  ,the          
suggestion is that the fruits of the    
earth or the animals which become the   
food of #ahf man are1 until they become 
fit for eating1 regarded as sacred or   
taboo1 and therefore may not be eaten4  
,that suggestion derives some support   
from the fact that in ,australia        
anything that is eaten may be a totem   
and being a totem is taboo4  ,but if it 
is thus sacred1 then in order to be     
eaten it must be desacralised1 the taboo
 must be taken off4  ,and it is         
suggested that that precisely is what is
 effected by the ceremonial eating of   

the totem by the headman of the totem   
clan3 the totem is desacralised by the  
mere fact that it is formally and       
ceremonially eaten by the headman1 after
 which it may be consumed by others as  
an ordinary article of food4  ,but this 
explanation of the first-fruits ceremony
 is based upon an assumption which is   
contrary to the facts of the case as it 
occurs in ,australia4 ,it assumes that  
the plant or the animal until           
desacralised is taboo to all members of 
the tribe1 and that none of them can eat
 it until it has been desacralised by   
the ceremonial eating4  ,but the        
assumption is false2 the plant or animal
 is sacred and taboo only to members of 
the clan whose totem it is4  ,it is not 
sacred to the vast majority of the      
tribe1 for they have totems of their    
own2 to them it is not sacred or taboo1 
they may kill it--and they do--without  
breaking any taboo4  ,the ceremonial    
#ahg eating of the first-fruits raises  
no taboo as far as the tribe generally  

is concerned1 for the plant or animal is
 not taboo to them4  ,as far as the     
tribe generally is concerned1 no process
 of desacralisation takes place and none
 is effected by the ceremonial eating4  
,it is the particular totem group alone 
which is affected by the ceremony2 and  
the inference which it seems to me      
preferable to draw is that the          
ceremonial eating of the first-fruits   
is1 or rather has been1 in ,australia   
what it is elsewhere1 viz4 an instance  
of prayer and sacrifice in which the    
worshippers of a god are brought into   
periodic--in this case annual--communion
 with their god4  ,the difference       
between the ,australian case and others 
seems to be that in the other cases the 
god who partakes of the first-fruits is 
the god of the whole community1 while in
 ,australia he is the god of the        
particular totem group and is analogous 
to the family gods who are worshipped   
elsewhere1 even where there is a tribal 
or national god to be worshipped as     

well4  ,we are then inclined1 for these 
and other reasons1 to explain the       
ceremonial eating of the totem plant or 
animal in ,australia by the analogy of  
the ceremonial eating of first-fruits   
elsewhere1 and to regard the ceremony as
 being in all cases an act of worship1  
#ahh in which at harvest time the       
worshippers of a god seek communion with
 him by means of sacrifice and prayers  
of thanksgiving4  ,but if we take this  
view of the sacrifice and prayers       
offered at harvest time1 we shall be    
inclined to regard the rites which are  
performed at seed time1 or the period   
analogous to it1 as being also possibly1
 in part1 of a religious character4  ,in
 the case of agricultural peoples it is 
beyond doubt that some of the ceremonies
 are religious in character3 where the  
food plant is itself regarded as a deity
 or the mode in which a deity is        
manifested1 not only may there be at    
harvest time a sacramental meal in      
which1 as amongst the ,aztecs1 the deity

 is formally communicated to his        
worshippers1 but at seed time sacrifice 
and prayer may be made to the deity4    
,such a religious ceremony1 whatever be 
the degree of civilisation or           
semicivilisation which has been reached 
by those who observe the ceremony1 does 
not of course take the place of the     
agricultural operations which are       
necessary if the fruits are to be       
produced in due season4  ,and the       
combination of the religious rites and  
the agricultural operations does not    
convert the agricultural operations into
 magical operations1 or prove that the  
religious rites are merely pieces of    
magic #ahi intended to constrain the    
superior power of the deity concerned4  
,indeed1 if among the operations        
performed at seed time we find some that
 from the point of view of modern       
science are perfectly ineffectual1 as   
vain as eating tiger to make you bold1  
we shall be justified in regarding them 
as pieces of primitive science1         

eventually discarded indeed in the      
progress of advancing knowledge1 but    
originally practised 7on the principle  
that like produces like7 as the natural 
means of producing the effect desired4  
,if we so regard them1 we shall escape  
the error of considering them to be     
magical2 and we shall have no difficulty
 in distinguishing them from the        
religious rites which may be combined   
with them4  ,further1 where harvest time
 is marked by the offering of sacrifice 
and prayers of thanksgiving1 we may not 
unreasonably take it that the religious 
rites observed at seed time or the      
period analogous to it are in the nature
 of sacrifice and prayers addressed to  
the appropriate deity to beseech him to 
favour the growth of the plant or animal
 in question4  ,in a word1 the practice 
of giving thanks to a god at harvest    
time for the harvest creates a          
reasonable presumption that prayer is   
offered to him at seed time2 and if     
thanks are given at a period analogous  

to #aij harvest time by a people like   
the ,australian black fellows1 who have 
no domesticated plants or animals1      
prayers of the nature of petitions may  
be offered by them at the period        
analogous to seed time4  ,the deity to  
whom prayers are offered at the one     
period and thanksgiving is made at the  
other may be1 as in the case of the     
,aztec ,xilonen1 or the ,hindoo         
,maize-mother1 the spirit of the plant  
envisaged as a deity2 or may be1 not a  
departmental deity of this kind1 but a  
supreme deity having power over all     
things4  ,but when we turn from the     
regularly recurring acts of public      
worship connected with seed time and    
harvest to the regularly recurring      
ceremonies at which the boys of a tribe 
are initiated into the duties and rights
 of manhood1 it is obvious that the     
deity concerned in them1 even if we     
assume 7as is by no means necessary7    
that he was originally departmental and 
at first connected merely with the      

growth of a plant or animal1 must be    
regarded at the initiation ceremonies as
 a god having in his care all the       
interests of that tribe of which the    
boys to be initiated are about to become
 full members4  ,unmistakable traces of 
such a deity are found amongst the      
,australian black fellows in the father 
of all1 the all-father described by ,mr4
 ,howitt4  ,the #aia worship of the     
all-father is indeed now of a           
fragmentary kind2 but it fortunately    
happens that in the case of one tribe1  
the ,euahlayi1 we have evidence1 rescued
 by ,mrs4 ,langloh ,parker1 to show that
 prayer is offered to ,byamee2 the      
,euahlayi pray to him for long life1    
because they have kept his law4  ,the   
nature of ,byamee's law may safely be   
inferred from the fact that at this     
festival1 both amongst the ,euahlayi and
 other ,australians1 the boys who are   
being initiated are taught the moral    
laws or the customary morality of the   
tribe4  ,but though prayers are still   

offered by the ,euahlayi and may have at
 one time been offered by all the       
,australian tribes1 there is no evidence
 at present to show that the prayer is  
accompanied by a sacrifice1 as is       
customary amongst tribes whose worship  
has not disintegrated so much as is the 
case amongst the ,australians4  ,the    
ceremonies by which boys are admitted to
 the status of manhood are1 probably    
amongst all the peoples of the earth who
 observe them1 of a religious character1
 for the simple reason that the         
community to which the boy is admitted  
when he attains the age of manhood is a 
community1 united together by religious 
bonds as a community worshipping the    
same god or gods2 and it is to the #aib 
worship and the service of these gods   
that he is admitted4  ,but the          
ceremonies themselves vary too much to  
allow of our drawing from them any      
valuable or important conclusion as to  
the nature and import of sacrifice as a 
religious institution4 ,on the other    

hand1 the ceremonies observed at harvest
 time1 or the analogous period1 have1   
wherever they occur1 such marked        
similarity among themselves1 and the    
institution of prayer and sacrifice is  
such a prominent feature in them1 that  
the evidence they afford must be        
decisive for us in attempting to form a 
theory of sacrifice4  ,nor can we       
dissociate the ceremonies observed in   
spring from the harvest ceremonies2 as  
,dr4 ,frazer remarks 7,g4 ,b41 ,,ii1    
#aij71 ,plainly these spring and harvest
 customs are based on the same ancient  
modes of thought and form parts of the  
same primitive heathendom4  ,what1 then1
 are these ancient modes of thought and 
what the primitive customs based upon   
them8  ,we may1 ,i think1 classify them 
in four groups4  ,if we are to take     
first those instances in which the      
ancient mode of thought is most clearly 
expressed--whether because they are the 
most fully developed or because they    
retain the ancient mode most faithfully 

and with the least disintegration--we   
must #aic turn to ancient ,mexico and   
,peru4  ,in ,mexico a paste idol or     
dough image of the god was made2 the    
priest hurled a dart into its breast2   
and this was called the killing of the  
god1 so that his body might be eaten4   
,the dough image was broken and the     
pieces were given in the manner of a    
communion to the people1 who received it
 with such tears1 fear1 and reverence1  
as it was an admirable thing1 says      
,father ,acosta1 saying that they did   
eat the flesh and bones of ,god4  ,or1  
again1 an image of the goddess          
,chicomecoatl was made of dough and     
exhibited by the priest1 saying1 ,this  
is your god4  ,all kinds of maize1      
beans1 etc41 were offered to it and then
 were eaten in the temple in a general  
scramble1 take who could4  ,in ,peru    
ears of maize were dressed in rich      
garments and worshipped as the ,mother  
of the ,maize2 or little loaves of maize
 mingled with the blood of sheep were   

made2 the priest gave to each of the    
people a morsel of these loaves1 and all
 did receive and eat these pieces1 and  
prayed that the god would show them     
favour1 granting them children and happy
 years and abundance and all that they  
required4  ,in this1 the first group of 
instances1 it is plain beyond all       
possibility of gainsaying that the      
spring and harvest customs consist #aid 
of the worship of a god1 of sacrifice   
and prayers to him1 and of a communion  
which bound the worshippers to one      
another and to him4  ,our second group  
of instances consists of cases in which 
the corn or dough or paste is not indeed
 made into the form or image of a god1  
but1 as ,dr4 ,frazer says 7,g4 ,b4 ,,ii1
 #cah71 the new corn is itself eaten    
sacramentally1 that is1 as the body of  
the corn spirit4  ,the spirit thus      
worshipped may not yet have acquired a  
proper name2 the only designation used  
may have been such a one as the ,hindoo 
,bhogaldai1 meaning simply              

,cotton-mother4  ,indeed1 even amongst  
the ,peruvians1 the goddess had not yet 
acquired a proper name1 but was known   
only as the ,mother of the ,maize4  ,but
 precisely because the stage illustrated
 in our second group of instances is not
 so highly developed as in ,mexico or   
,peru it is much more widely spread4    
,it is found in the ,east ,indian island
 of ,euro1 amongst the ,alfoors of      
,minahassa1 in the ,celebes1 in the     
,neilgherry ,hills of ,south ,india1 in 
the ,hindoo ,koosh1 in ,indo-,china1 on 
the ,niger1 amongst the ,zulus and the  
,pondos1 and amongst the ,creek1        
,seminole1 and ,natchez ,indians 7ib4   
#cba-cdb74  ,in this1 the second group  
of instances1 then1 though the god #aie 
may have no special1 proper1 name1 and  
though no image of him is made out of   
the dough or paste1 still the new corn  
is itself eaten sacramentally1 that is  
as the body of the corn spirit2 by means
 of the sacramental eating1 of sacrifice
 and prayer1 communion between the god  

and his worshippers is renewed and      
maintained4  ,the third group of        
instances consists of the harvest       
customs of northern ,europe--the harvest
 supper and the rites of the            
,corn-mother or the ,corn-maiden or the 
,kern ,baby4  ,it can scarcely be       
contended that these rites and customs1 
so far as they survive at the present   
day1 retain1 if they ever had1 any      
religious value2 they are performed as a
 matter of tradition and custom and not 
because any one knows why they are      
performed4  ,but that they originally   
had a meaning--even though now it has   
evaporated--cannot be doubted4  ,nor can
 it be doubted that the meaning1 if it  
is to be recovered1 must be recovered by
 means of the comparative method4  ,and1
 if the comparative method is to be     
applied1 the ,corn-mother of northern   
,europe cannot be dissociated from the  
,maize-mother of ancient ,peru4  ,but if
 we go thus far1 then we must1 with ,dr4
 ,frazer 7ib4 #bhh71 recognise clearly  

the #aif sacramental character of the   
harvest-supper1 in which1 as a          
substitute for the real flesh of the    
divine being1 bread and dumplings are   
made and eaten sacramentally4  ,thus1   
once more1 harvest customs testify in   
northern ,europe1 as elsewhere1 to the  
fact that there was once a stated1      
annual1 period at which communion       
between the god and his worshipper was  
sought by prayer and sacrifice4  ,the   
,north-,european harvest customs are    
further interesting and important       
because1 if they are clearly connected  
on the one hand with the groups of      
instances already given1 they are also  
connected on the other with the group to
 which we have yet to call attention4   
,thus far the wheat or maize1 if not    
eaten in the form of little loaves or   
cakes1 has been made into a dough image1
 or else the ears of maize have been    
dressed in rich garments to indicate    
that they represent the ,mother of the  
,maize2 and in ,europe also both forms  

of symbolism are found4  ,but in        
northern ,europe1 the corn spirit is    
also believed to be manifested1 ,dr4    
,frazer says1 in the animal which is    
present in the corn and is caught or    
killed in the last sheaf4  ,the animal  
may be a wolf1 dog1 cock1 hare1 cat1    
goat1 bull1 cow1 horse1 or pig4  ,the   
animal is slain and its flesh and blood 
are partaken #aig of by the harvesters1 
and1 ,dr4 ,frazer says1 these customs   
bring out clearly the sacramental       
character of the harvest supper4  ,now1 
this manifestation of the corn spirit in
 animal form is not confined to ,europe2
 it occurs for instance in ,guinea and  
in all the provinces and districts of   
,china4  ,and it is important as forming
 a link between the agricultural and the
 pre-agricultural periods2 in ,dr4      
,frazer's words1 hunting and pastoral   
tribes1 as well as agricultural peoples1
 have been in the habit of killing their
 gods 7ib4 #cff74  ,in the pastoral     
period1 as well as in agricultural      

times1 the god who is worshipped by the 
tribe and with whom the tribe seeks     
communion by means of prayer and        
sacrifice1 may manifest himself in      
animal form1 and the animal is slain and
 its flesh and blood are partaken of4   
,we now come to the fourth and the last 
of our groups of instances4  ,it        
consists of the rites observed by       
,australian tribes4  ,amongst these     
tribes too there is what ,dr4 ,frazer   
terms a sacramental eating of the totem 
plant or animal4  ,thus ,central        
,australian black men of the kangaroo   
totem eat a little kangaroo flesh1 as a 
sacrament 7,spencer and ,gillen1 p4 #bjd
 ff474  ,now1 it is impossible1 ,i      
think1 to #aih dissociate the           
,australian rite1 to separate this      
fourth group1 from the three groups     
already described4  ,in ,australia1 as  
in the other cases1 the customs are     
observed in spring and harvest time1 and
 in harvest time1 in ,australia as well 
as elsewhere1 there is a solemn and     

sparing eating of the plant or animal2  
and1 in ,dr4 ,frazer's words1 plainly   
these spring and harvest customs are    
based on the same ancient modes of      
thought1 and form part of the same      
primitive heathendom4  ,what1 then1 is  
this ancient and primitive mode of      
thought8  ,in all the cases except the  
,australian1 the thought manifestly     
implied and expressed is that by the    
solemn eating of the plant or the       
animal1 or the dough image or paste     
idol1 or the little loaves1 the         
community enters into communion with its
 god1 or renews communion with him4  ,on
 this occasion the ,peruvians prayed for
 children1 happy years and abundance4   
,on this occasion1 even among the       
,australians1 the ,euahlayi tribe pray  
for long life1 because they have kept   
,byamee's law4  ,it would not1          
therefore1 be unreasonable to interpret 
the ,australian custom by the same      
ancient mode of thought which explains  
the custom wherever else--and that is   

all over the world--it is found4  ,but  
perhaps1 if we can find some other      
interpretation #aii of the ,australian  
custom1 we should do better to reverse  
the process and explain the spring and  
harvest customs which are found         
elsewhere by means of1 and in accordance
 with1 the ,australian custom4  ,now    
another interpretation of the           
,australian custom has been put forward 
by ,dr4 ,frazer4  ,he treats the        
,australian ceremony as being a piece of
 pure magic1 the purpose of which is to 
promote the growth and increase of the  
plants and animals which provide the    
black fellows with food4  ,but if we    
start from this point of view1 we must  
go further and say that amongst other   
peoples than the ,australian the killing
 of the representative animal of the    
spirit of vegetation is1 in ,dr4        
,frazer's words1 a magical rite intended
 to assure the revival of nature in     
spring4  ,and if that is the nature of  
the rite which appears in northern      

,europe as the harvest supper1 it will  
also be the nature of the rite as it    
appears both in our second group of     
instances1 where the corn is eaten as   
the body of the corn-spirit1 and in the 
first group1 where the dough image or   
paste idol was eaten in ,mexico as the  
flesh and bones of the god4  ,that this 
line of thought runs through ,dr4       
,frazer's ,golden ,bough1 in its second 
edition1 is indicated by the fact that  
the rite is spoken of throughout as a   
#bjj sacrament4  ,that the ,mexican rite
 as described in our first group is     
sacramental1 is clear4  ,of the rites   
which form our second group of          
instances1 ,dr4 ,frazer says that the   
corn-spirit1 or god1 is killed in the   
person of his representative and eaten  
sacramentally1 and that the new corn is 
itself eaten sacramentally2 that is1 as 
the body of the corn-spirit 7p4 #cah74  
,of the ,north ,european rites1 again1  
he says1 the animal is slain and its    
flesh and blood are partaken of by the  

harvesters--these customs bring out     
clearly the sacramental character of the
 harvest supper--as a substitute for the
 real flesh of the divine being1 bread  
or dumplings are made in his image and  
eaten sacramentally4  ,finally1 even    
when speaking of the ,australians as men
 who have no gods to worship1 and with  
whom the rite is pure and unadulterated 
magic1 he yet describes the rite as a   
sacrament4  ,now if1 on the one hand1   
from its beginning amongst the          
,australians to the form which it       
finally took amongst the ,mexicans the  
rite is1 as ,dr4 ,frazer systematically 
calls it1 a sacrament2 and if1 on the   
other1 it is1 in ,dr4 ,frazer's words1 a
 magical rite intended to assure the    
revival of nature in spring1 then the   
conclusion which the reader cannot help 
#bja drawing is that a sacrament1 or    
this sacrament at least1 is in its      
origin1 and in its nature throughout1 a 
piece of magic4  ,religion is but magic 
written in different characters2 and for

 those who can interpret them it spells 
the same thing4  ,but though this is the
 conclusion to which ,dr4 ,frazer's     
argument leads1 and to which in the     
first edition of his ,golden ,bough it  
clearly seemed to point2 in the preface 
to the second edition he formally       
disavows it4  ,he recognises that       
religion does not spring from magic1 but
 is fundamentally opposed to it4  ,a    
sacrament1 therefore1 we may infer1     
cannot be a piece of magic4  ,the       
,australian sacrament1 therefore1 as    
,dr4 ,frazer calls it1 cannot1 we should
 be inclined to say1 be a piece of      
magic4  ,but ,dr4 ,frazer still holds   
that the ,australian rite or sacrament  
is pure magic--religious it cannot be1  
for in ,dr4 ,frazer's view the          
,australians know no religion and have  
no gods4  ,now if the rite as it occurs 
in ,australia is pure magic1 and if     
religion is not a variety of magic but  
fundamentally different from it1 then   
the rite which1 as it occurs everywhere 

else1 is religious1 cannot be derived   
from1 or a variety of1 the ,australian  
piece of magic2 and the spring and      
harvest customs which are found in      
,australia cannot be based on the #bjb  
same ancient modes of thought or form   
part of the same primitive heathendom as
 the sacramental rites which are found  
everywhere else in the world4  ,the     
solemn annual eating of the totem plant 
or animal in ,australia must have a     
totally different basis from that on    
which the sacrament and communion stands
 in every other part of the globe3 in   
,australia it is based on magic1        
elsewhere on that which is1 according to
 ,dr4 ,frazer1 fundamentally different  
and opposed to magic1 viz4 religion4    
,before1 however1 we commit ourselves to
 this conclusion1 we may be allowed to  
ask1 ,what is it that compels us thus to
 sever the ,australian from the other   
forms of the rite8  ,the reply would    
seem to be that1 whereas the other forms
 are admittedly religious1 the          

,australian is a magical rite intended  
to assure the revival of nature in      
spring4  ,now1 if that were really the  
nature of the ,australian rite1 we might
 have to accept the conclusion to which 
we hesitate to commit ourselves4  ,but1 
as a matter of fact1 the ,australian    
rite is not intended to assure the      
revival of nature in spring1 and has    
nothing magical about it4  ,it is       
perfectly true that in spring in        
,australia certain proceedings are      
performed which are based upon the      
principle that like produces like2 and  
#bjc that these proceedings are1 by     
students of the science of religion1    
termed--perhaps incorrectly--magical4   
,but these spring customs are quite     
different from the harvest customs2 and 
it is the harvest customs which         
constitute the link between the rite in 
,australia and the rite in the rest of  
the world4  ,the crucial question1      
therefore1 is whether the ,australian   
harvest rite is magical1 or is even     

based on the principle that like        
produces like4  ,and the answer is that 
it is plainly not4 ,the harvest rite in 
,australia consists1 as we know it now1 
simply in the fact that at the appointed
 time a little of the totem plant or    
animal is solemnly and sparingly eaten  
by the headman of the totem4 ,the       
solemnity with which the rite is        
performed is unmistakable1 and may well 
be termed religious4  ,and no attempt   
even1 so far as ,i am aware1 has been   
made to show that this solemn eating is 
regarded as magic by the performers of  
the rite1 or how it can be so regarded  
by students of the science of religion4 
,until the attempt is made and made     
successfully1 we are more than justified
 in refusing to regard the rite as      
magical2 we are bound to refuse to      
regard it as such4  ,but if the rite is 
not magical--and  fortiori if it is1 as 
,dr4 ,frazer terms it1 sacramental--then
 it is #bjd religious2 and the ancient  
mode of thought1 forming part of        

primitive heathendom1 which is at the   
base of the rite1 is the conviction that
 manifests itself wherever the rite     
continues to live1 viz4 that by prayer  
and sacrifice the worshippers in any    
community are brought into communion    
with the god they worship4 ,the rite is1
 in truth1 what ,dr4 ,frazer terms it as
 it occurs in ,australia--a sacrament4  
,but not even in ,australia is a        
sacrament a piece of magic4  ,in the    
animistic stage of the evolution of     
humanity1 the only causes man can       
conceive of are animated things2 and1 in
 the presence of any occurrence         
sufficiently striking to arrest his     
attention1 the questions which present  
themselves to his mind are1 ,who did    
this thing1 and why8 ,occurrences which 
arrest the attention of the community   
are occurrences which affect the        
community2 and in a low stage of        
evolution1 when the most pressing of all
 practical questions is how to live1 the
 occurrences which most effectually     

arrest attention are those which affect 
the food supply of the community4  ,if1 
then1 the food supply fails1 the        
occurrence is due to some of the        
personal1 or quasi-personal1 powers by  
whom the community is surrounded2 and   
the reason why such power so acted is   
found in the wrath which #bje must have 
actuated him4  ,the situation is        
abnormal1 for famine is abnormal2 and it
 indicates anger and wrath on the part  
of the power who brought it about4  ,but
 it also implies that when things go on 
in the normal way1--when the relations  
between the spirit and the community are
 normal1--the attitude of the spirit to 
the community is peaceable and friendly4
  ,not only1 however1 does the community
 desire to renew peaceable and friendly 
relations1 where pestilence or famine   
show that they have been disturbed3 the 
community also desires to benefit by    
them when they are in their normal      
condition4  ,the spirits that can       
disturb the normal conditions by sending

 pestilence or famine can also assist   
the community in undertakings1 the      
success of which is indispensable if the
 community is to maintain its existence2
 for instance1 those undertakings on    
which the food supply of the community  
depends4  ,hence the petitions which are
 put up at seed time1 or1 in the        
pre-agricultural period1 at seasons     
analogous to seed time4  ,hence1 also1  
the rites at harvest time or the        
analogous season1 rites which are       
instituted and developed for the purpose
 of maintaining friendly relation and   
communion between the community1 and the
 spirit whose favour #bjf is sought and 
whose anger is dreaded by the community4
 ,such sacrificial rites may indeed be  
interpreted as the making of gifts to   
the gods2 and they do1 as a matter of   
fact1 often come so to be regarded by   
those who perform them4  ,from this     
undeniable fact the inference may then  
be drawn1 and by many students of the   
science of religion it is inferred1 that

 from the beginning there was in such   
sacrificial rites no other intention    
than to bribe the god or to purchase his
 favour and the good things he had to   
give4  ,but the inference1 which1 when  
properly limited1 has some truth in it1 
becomes misleading when put forward as  
being the whole truth4  ,unless there   
were some truth in it1 the rite of      
sacrifice could never have developed    
into the form which was denounced by the
 ,hebrew prophets and mercilessly       
exposed by ,plato4  ,but had that been  
the whole truth1 the rite would have    
been incapable of discharging the really
 religious function which it has in its 
history fulfilled4  ,that function has  
been to place and maintain the society  
which practises it in communion with its
 god4  ,doubtless in the earliest stages
 of the history of the rite1 the        
communion thus felt to be established   
was prized and was mainly sought for the
 external blessings which were believed 
#bjg to follow from it1 or1 as a means  

to avert the public disasters which a   
breach of communion entailed4           
,doubtless it was only by degrees1 and  
by slow degrees1 that the communion thus
 established came to be regarded as     
being in itself the end which the rite  
of sacrifice was truly intended to      
attain4  ,but the communion of the      
worshippers with their god was not a    
purpose originally foreign to the rite1 
and which1 when introduced1 transformed 
the rite from what it at first was into 
something radically different4  ,on the 
contrary1 it was present1 even though   
not prominent or predominant1 from the  
beginning2 and the rite1 as a religious 
institution1 followed different lines of
 evolution1 according as the one aspect 
or the other was developed4  ,where the 
aspect under which the sacrificial rite 
was regarded was that the offering was a
 gift made to the deity in order to     
secure some specified temporal          
advantage1 the religious value of the   
rite diminished to the vanishing point  

in the eyes both of those who1 like     
,plato1 could see the intrinsic         
absurdity of pretending to make gifts to
 ,him from whom alone all good things   
come1 and of those who felt that the    
sacrificial rite so conceived did not   
afford the spiritual communion for which
 they yearned4  ,where even the #bjh    
sacrificial rite was regarded as a means
 whereby communion between the          
worshipper and his god was attained or  
maintained1 the emphasis might be thrown
 on the rite and its due performance    
rather than on the spiritual communion  
of which it was the condition4  ,that is
 to say1 with the growth of formalism   
attention was concentrated on the ritual
 and correspondingly withdrawn from the 
prayer which1 from the beginning1 had   
been of the essence of the rite4  ,by   
the rite of sacrifice the community had 
always been brought into the presence of
 the god it worshipped2 and1 in the     
prayers then offered on behalf of the   
society1 the society had been brought   

into communion with its god4 ,from that 
communion it was possible to fall away1 
even though the performance of the rite 
was maintained4  ,the very object of    
that communion might be misinterpreted  
and mistaken to be a means merely to    
temporal blessings for the community1 or
 even to personal advantages for the    
individual4  ,or the punctilious        
performance of each and every detail of 
the rite might tend to become an end in 
itself and displace the spiritual       
communion1 the attainment of which had  
been from the beginning the highest1    
even if not the only or the most        
prominent1 #bji end which the rite might
 subserve4  ,the difference between the 
possibilities which the rite might have 
realised and the actual purposes for    
which it had come to be used before the 
birth of ,christ is a difference patent 
to the most casual observer of the      
facts4  ,the dissatisfaction felt alike 
by ,plato and the ,hebrew prophets with 
the rite as it had come to be practised 

may be regarded1 if we choose so to     
regard it1 as the necessary consequence 
of pre-existing facts1 and as           
necessarily entailing the rejection or  
the reconstitution of the rite4 ,as a   
matter of history1 the rite was         
reconstituted and not rejected2 and as  
reconstituted it became the central fact
 of the ,christian religion4  ,it became
 the means whereby1 through ,christ1 all
 men might be brought to ,god4  ,we may 
say1 if we will1 that a new meaning was 
put into the rite1 or that its true     
meaning was now made manifest4  ,the    
facts themselves clearly indicate that  
from the beginning the rite was the     
means whereby a society sought or might 
seek communion with its god4  ,they also
 indicate that the rite of animal       
sacrifice came to be found insufficient 
as a means4  ,it was through our ,lord  
that mankind learned what sacrifice was 
needed--learned to offer and present    
unto thee1 ,o ,lord1 ourselves1 our #baj
 souls and bodies1 to be a reasonable1  

holy and lively sacrifice unto thee4    
,that is the sacrifice ,christ showed us
 the example of2 that is the example    
which the missionary devotes himself to 
follow and to teach4     #baa           
,,morality  ,in this lecture ,i propose 
to consider the question whether        
morality is based on religion or        
religion on morality4  ,it is a question
 which may be approached from the point 
of view either of philosophy or of      
history4  ,quite recently it has been   
treated from the former point of view by
 ,professor ,hffding in ,the ,philosophy
 of ,religion 7translated into ,english1
 #aijf72 and from the point of view of  
the history of morality by ,mr4         
,hobhouse in his ,morals in ,evolution  
7#aijf74  ,it may1 of course1 also be   
quite properly approached from the point
 of view of the history of religion2 and
 from whatever standpoint it is treated1
 the question is one of importance for  
the missionary1 both because of its     
intrinsic interest for the philosophy of

 religion1 and because its discussion is
 apt to proceed on a mistaken view of   
facts in the history of religion4       
,about those facts and their meaning1   
the missionary1 who is to be properly   
equipped for his work1 should be in no  
doubt3 a right view and a proper        
estimate of the facts are essential both
 for #bab his practical work and for the
 theoretical justification of his       
position4  ,one answer to the question  
before us is that morality is the basal 
fact--the bottom fact3 if we regard the 
question historically1 we shall find    
that morality came first and religion   
afterwards2 and1 even if that were not  
so1 we should find that as a matter of  
logic and philosophy religion           
presupposes morality--religion may1 for 
a time1 be the lever that moves the     
world1 but it would be powerless if it  
had not a fulcrum1 and that fulcrum is  
morality4  ,so long and so far as       
religion operates beneficially on the   
world1 it does so simply because it     

supports and renforces morality4  ,but  
the time is not far distant1 and may    
even now be come1 when morality no      
longer requires any support from        
religion--and then religion becomes     
useless1 nay6 an encumbrance which must 
either fall off or be lopped off4  ,if1 
therefore1 morality can stand by itself1
 and all along has not merely stood by  
itself1 but has really upheld religion1 
in what is morality rooted8  ,the answer
 is that morality has its roots1 not in 
the command that thou shalt love the    
,lord thy ,god with all thy heart and   
all thy soul1 but in human solidarity1  
in humanity regarded as a spiritual     
whole4  ,to #bac this conclusion1 it is 
said1 the history of recent philosophy  
has steadily been moving4  ,if the      
movement had taken place in only one    
school of philosophic thought1 it might 
have been a movement running into a     
side-track4  ,but it is the direction   
taken by schools so different in their  
presuppositions and their methods as    

that of ,hegel and that of ,comte2 and  
it is the undesigned coincidence of     
their tendency1 which at first could    
never have been surmised1 that carries  
with it a conviction of its correctness4
  ,human solidarity1 humanity regarded  
as a spiritual whole1 may be called1 as 
,hegel calls it1 self-conscious spirit2 
or you may call it1 as ,comte calls it1 
the ,mind of ,humanity--it is but the   
collective wisdom of a common humanity  
with a common aim2 and1 that being so1  
morality is rooted1 not in the will and 
the love of a beneficent and omnipotent 
,providence1 but in the self-realising  
spirit in man setting up its common aim 
at morality4  ,the very conception of a 
beneficent and omnipotent ,god--having  
now done its work as an aid to          
morality--must now be put aside1 because
 it stands in the way of our recognising
 what is the real spiritual whole1      
besides which there is none other       
spirit1 viz4 the self-realising spirit  
in man4  ,that spirit is only realising2

 it is not yet #bad realised4  ,it is in
 process of realisation2 and the        
conception of it1 as in process of      
realisation1 enables it to be brought   
into harmony1 or rather reveals its     
inner harmony1 with the notion of       
evolution4  ,there is nothing outside   
evolution1 no being to whom evolution is
 presented as a spectacle or by whom1 as
 a process1 it is directed4  ,being     
itself1 as ,hffding says 7,problems of  
,philosophy1 p4 #acf71 is to be         
conceived as in process of becoming1 of 
evolution4  ,the spirit in man1 as we   
have just said1 is the real spiritual   
whole1 and it is self-realising2 it is  
evolving and progressing both morally   
and rationally4  ,in ,hffding's words   
,being itself becomes more rational than
 before 7ib41 p4 #acg74 ,being itself is
 not ready-made but still incomplete1   
and rather to be conceived as a         
continual becoming1 like the individual 
personality and like knowledge 7ib41 p4 
#abj74  ,we may say1 then1 that being is

 becoming rationalised and moralised as 
and because the spirit in man realises  
itself4  ,for a time the process of     
moralisation and self-realisation was   
worked by and through the conception of 
a beneficent and omnipotent god4  ,that 
conception was1 it would seem1 a        
hypothesis1 valuable as long it was a   
working hypothesis1 but to be cast aside
 now that humanitarianism is found #bae 
more adequate to the facts and more in  
harmony with the consistent application 
of the theory of evolution4  ,we have1  
then1 to consider whether it is adequate
 to the facts1 whether1 when we regard  
the facts of the history of religion1 we
 do find that morality comes first and  
religion later4  ,what1 ,mr4 ,hobhouse  
enquires in his ,morals in ,evolution   
7,,ii1 #gd71 ,what is the ethical       
character of early religion8 and his    
reply is that in the first stage we find
 that spirits1 as such1 are not         
concerned with morality4  ,that was also
 the answer which had previously been   

given by ,professor ,hffding1 who says  
in his ,philosophy of ,religion3 in the 
lowest forms of it 444 religion cannot  
be said to have any ethical significance
 7p4 #cbc74  ,originally1 the gods were 
purely natural forces which could be    
defied or evaded1 though eventually they
 became ethical powers whom men neither 
could nor wished to defy 7p4 #cbd74     
,this first stage of early religion     
seems on the terms of the hypothesis to 
be supposed to be found in the period of
 animism and fetichism2 and the         
primitive conception of spirit is1 ,mr4 
,hobhouse says 7,,ii1 #af71 of something
 feeling and thinking like a rather     
stupid man1 and open like him to        
supplication1 exhortation1 or           
intimidation4  ,if #baf that is so1 then
 ,professor ,hffding may be justified in
 saying that in the lowest forms of     
religion the gods appear as powers on   
which man is dependent1 but not as      
patterns of conduct or administrators of
 an ethical world order 7p4 #cbd74      

,now1 in the period termed animistic    
because inanimate things are supposed to
 be animated and actuated by spirits1 it
 may be that many or most of such       
spirits are supposed to feel and think  
like a rather stupid man1 and therefore 
to be capable of being cajoled1 deluded1
 intimidated1 and castigated by the     
human being who desires to make use of  
them4  ,but it is not all such spirits  
that are worshipped then4  ,indeed1 it  
is impossible1 ,mr4 ,hobhouse says      
7,,ii1 #ae71 that any such spirit could 
be an object of worship in our sense of 
the term4  ,worship implies the         
superiority of the object worshipped to 
the person worshipping4  ,but1 though   
not an object of worship in our sense of
 the term1 the spirit that could be     
deluded1 intimidated1 and castigated    
was1 according to ,mr4 ,hobhouse1 the   
object of a religious cult on the part  
of the man who believed that he could   
and did intimidate and castigate the    
spirit4 ,probably1 however1 most        

students of the science of religion     
would agree that a cult which included  
or #bag allowed intimidation and        
castigation of the object of the cult   
was as little entitled to be termed     
religious as it is to be called worship4
  ,in the period of animism1 then1      
either there was no religious cult1 no  
worship in our sense of the term2 or1 if
 there was religion1 then the spirit    
worshipped was worshipped as a being    
higher than man4  ,whether man has at   
any time been without religion is a     
question on which there is here no need 
to enter4  ,the allegation we are now   
considering is that whenever religion   
does appear1 then in its first and      
earliest stage it is not concerned with 
morality2 and the ground for that       
allegation is that the spirits of the   
animistic period have nothing to do with
 morality or conduct4  ,now1 it may be  
that these spirits which animate        
inanimate things are not concerned with 
morality2 but then neither are they     

worshipped1 nor is the relation between 
them and man religious4 ,religion       
implies a god2 and a spirit to be a god 
must have worshippers1 a community of   
worshippers--whether that community be a
 nation1 a tribe1 or a family4          
,further1 it is as the protector of the 
interests of that community--however    
small--that the god is worshipped by the
 community4  ,the indispensable         
condition of religion is the existence  
of a community2 #bah and from the       
beginning man must have lived in some   
sort of community1--whether a family or 
a horde1--for the period of helpless    
infancy is so long in the case of human 
beings that without some sort of        
permanent community the race could not  
be perpetuated4 ,the indispensable      
condition of religion1 therefore1 has   
always existed from the time when man   
was man4  ,further1 whatever the form of
 community in which man originally      
dwelt1 it was only in the community and 
by means of the community that the      

individual could exist--that is to say1 
if the interest of any one individual   
conflicted or was supposed to conflict  
with the interests of the community1    
then the interests of the community must
 prevail1 if the community was to exist4
 ,here1 then1 from the beginning we have
 the second condition indispensable for 
the existence of religion1 viz4 the     
possibility that the conduct of some    
member of the community might not be the
 conduct required by the interests or   
supposed interests of the community1 and
 prescribed by the custom of the        
community4  ,in the case of such        
divergence of interests and conduct1 the
 being worshipped by the community was  
necessarily1 as being the god of the    
community1 and receiving the worship of 
the community1 on the side #bai of the  
community and against the member who    
violated the custom of the community4   
,but1 at this period in the history of  
humanity1 the morality of the community 
was the custom of the community2 and the

 god of the community from the first    
necessarily upheld the custom1 that is1 
the morality of the community4  ,spirits
 as such1 that is to say1 spirits which 
animated inanimate things but which were
 not the protectors of any human        
community1 were1 for the very reason    
that they were not the gods of any      
community1 not concerned with morality4 
,spirits1 however1 which were the       
protectors of a community necessarily   
upheld the customs and therefore the    
morality of the community2 they were not
 without ethical significance4  ,it was 
an essential part of the very conception
 of such spirits--of spirits standing in
 this relation to the community--that   
they were ethical powers4  ,hffding's   
dictum that the gods appear as powers on
 which man is dependent1 but not as     
patterns of conduct or administrators of
 an ethical world order 7p4 #cbc71      
overlooks the fact that in the earliest 
times not only are gods powers on which 
man is dependent1 but powers which      

enforce the conduct required by the     
custom of the community and sanction the
 ethical order as #bbj far as it has    
then been revealed4  ,the fact that the 
worship of the family1 of the clan1 or  
of the nation is shared in by all1 not  
merely helps to nourish a feeling of    
solidarity which may acquire ethical    
significance1 as ,hffding says 7p4      
#cbe71 it creates a solidarity which    
otherwise would not exist4  ,if there   
were no worship shared in by all1 there 
would be no religious solidarity2 and1  
judging from the very general1 if not   
universal1 occurrence of religion in the
 lowest races as well as the highest1 we
 may conjecture that without religious  
solidarity a tribe found it hard or     
impossible to survive in the struggle   
for existence4  ,that religious         
solidarity however is not1 as ,hffding  
suggests1 something which may eventually
 acquire ethical significance2 it is in 
its essence and from the beginning the  
worship of a god who punishes the       

community for the ethical transgression 
of its members1 because they are not    
merely violations of the custom of the  
community1 but offences against him4    
,when ,hffding says 7p4 #cbh7 religious 
faith 444 assumes an independent human  
ethic1 which has1 as a matter of fact1  
developed historically under the        
practical influence of the ethical      
feeling of man1 he seems to overlook the
 fact that as a matter of history human 
#bba ethics have always been            
based--rightly or wrongly--on religious 
faith1 that moral transgressions have   
always been regarded as not merely      
wrongs done to a man's neighbour1 but   
also as offences against the god or gods
 of the community1 that the person      
suffering from foul wrong for which he  
can get no human redress has always     
appealed from man to ,god1 and that the 
remorse of the wrong-doer who has evaded
 human punishment has always taken shape
 in the fear of what ,god may yet do4   
,those who desire to prove that at the  

present day morality can exist apart    
from religion1 and that in the future it
 will do so1 finding its basis in       
humanitarianism and not in religion1 are
 moved to show that as a matter of      
historic fact religion and morality have
 been things apart4 ,we have examined   
the assertion that religion in its      
lowest forms is not concerned with      
morality2 and we have attempted to show 
that the god of a community1 or the     
spirit worshipped by a community1 is    
necessarily a being conceived as        
concerned with the interests of the     
community and as hostile to those who   
violate the customs--which is to        
transgress the morality--of the         
community4  ,but even if this be        
admitted1 it may still be said that it  
does not in the least disprove the      
assertion that #bbb morality existed    
before religion did4  ,the theory we are
 examining freely admits that religion  
is supposed1 in certain stages of the   
history of humanity1 to renforce        

morality and to be necessary in the     
interest of morals1 though eventually it
 is found that morality needs no such   
support2 and not only needs now no such 
support but never did need it2 and the  
fact that it did not need it is shown by
 demonstrating the existence of morality
 before religion existed4  ,if1 then1 it
 be admitted that religion from the     
moment it first appeared renforced      
morality1 and did not pass through a    
non-moral period first1 still morality  
may have existed before religion was    
evolved1 and must have so existed if    
morality and religion are things        
essentially apart4  ,what evidence then 
is there on the point8  ,we find ,mr4   
,hobhouse saying 7,i1 #hj7 that at      
almost1 if not quite1 the lowest stages 
of human development there are certain  
actions which are resented as involving 
the community as a whole in misfortune  
and danger4  ,these include1 besides    
actual treason1 conduct which brings    
upon the people the wrath of ,god1 or of

 certain spirits1 or which violates some
 mighty and mysterious taboo4  ,the     
actions most frequently regarded in this
 light are certain breaches of the      
marriage law and witchcraft4 #bbc ,these
 offences1 we are told 7ib41 #hb71      
endanger the community itself1 and the  
punishment is prompted by the sense of a
 danger to the whole community4  ,here1 
then1 from the beginning we find that   
offences against the common good are    
punished1 not simply as such1 but as    
misconduct bringing on the community1   
and not merely on the offender1 the     
wrath of gods or spirits4  ,in other    
words--,mr4 ,hobhouse's words1 p4       
#aai--;in the evolution of public       
justice1 we find that at the outset the 
community interferes mainly on what we  
may call supernatural grounds only with 
actions which are regarded as           
endangering its own existence4  ,we may 
then fairly say that if the community   
inflicts punishments mainly on          
supernatural grounds from the time when 

the evolution of public justice first   
begins1 then morality from its very     
beginning was renforced--indeed         
prompted--by religion4  ,the morality   
was indeed only the custom of the       
community2 but violation of the custom  
was from the beginning regarded as a    
religious offence and was punished on   
supernatural grounds4  ,the view that   
morality and religion are essentially   
distinct1 that morality not only can    
stand alone1 without support from       
religion1 but has in reality always     
stood without such support--however much
 #bbd the fact has been obscured by     
religious prepossessions--this view     
receives striking confirmation from the 
current and generally accepted theory of
 the origin and nature of justice4      
,that theory traces the origin of       
justice back to the feeling of          
resentment experienced by the individual
 against the particular cause of his    
pain 7,westermarck1 ,origin and         
,development of the ,moral ,ideas1 ,i1  

#bb74  ,resentment leads to retaliation 
and takes the form of revenge4          
,vengeance1 at first executed by the    
person injured 7or by his kin1 if he be 
killed71 comes eventually1 if slowly1 to
 be taken out of the hands of the person
 injured or his avengers1 and to be     
exercised by the ,state in the interests
 of the community and in furtherance1   
not of revenge1 but of justice and the  
good of society4  ,thus not only the    
origin of justice1 but the whole course 
of its growth and development1 is       
entirely independent of religion and    
religious considerations4  ,throughout1 
the individual and society are the only 
parties involved2 the gods do not       
appear--or1 if they do appear1 they are 
intrusive and superfluous4  ,if this be 
the true view of the history and nature 
of justice1 it may--and probably        
must--be the truth about the whole of   
morality and not only about justice4    
,we have but #bbe to follow ,dr4        
,westermarck 7ib41 p4 #ba7 in grouping  

the moral emotions under the two heads  
of emotions of approval and emotions of 
disapproval1 we have but to note with   
him that both groups belong to the class
 of retributive emotions1 and we see    
that the origin and history of justice  
are typical of the origin and history of
 morals3 morality in general1 just as   
much as justice in particular1 both     
originates independently of religion and
 developes--where moral progress is     
made--independently of religion4  ,let  
us now proceed to examine this view of  
the relation of religion and morality   
and to consider whether their absolute  
independence of each other is historic  
fact4  ,it traces back justice to the   
feeling of resentment experienced by the
 individual2 but if the individual ever 
existed by himself and apart from       
society1 there could neither then be    
justice nor anything analogous to       
justice1 for justice implies1 not merely
 a plurality of individuals1 but a      
society2 it is a social virtue4  ,the   

individual existing by himself and apart
 from society is not a historic fact but
 an impossible abstraction--a conception
 essentially false because it expresses 
something which neither exists nor has  
existed nor could possibly #bbf exist4  
,the origin of justice--or of any       
virtue--cannot be found in the          
impossible and self-contradictory       
conception of the individual existing   
apart from society2 it cannot be found  
in a mere plurality of such individuals3
 it can only be found in a              
society--whether that society have the  
organisation of a family1 a tribe1 or a 
nation4  ,justice in particular and     
morality in general1 like religion1     
imply the existence of a society2       
neither is a merely individual affair4  
,justice is1 as ,mr4 ,hobhouse states1  
public action taken for the sake of     
public safety 7,i1 #hc73 it is1 from the
 outset of its history1 public action2  
and back of that we cannot go1 for the  
individual did not1 as a matter of      

history1 exist before society1 and could
 not so have existed4  ,in the next     
place1 justice is not the resentment of 
any individual1 it is the sentiment of  
the community expressing itself in      
public action1 taken not for the sake of
 any individual1 but for the sake of    
public safety4  ,its object from the    
beginning is not the gratification of   
individual resentment1 but the safety   
and welfare of the community which takes
 common action4  ,proof of this1 if     
proof were needed1 would be found in the
 fact that the existence of the         
individual1 as such1 is not recognised4 
,not only does #bbg the community which 
has suffered in the wrong done to any of
 its members take action as a community2
 it proceeds1 not against the individual
 who has inflicted the wrong1 but       
against the community to which he       
belongs4  ,the wrong done1 is1 as ,mr4  
,hobhouse says 7,i1 #ia71 the act of the
 family or clan and may be avenged on   
any member of that family or clan4      

,there is collective responsibility for 
the wrong done1 just as there is        
collective responsibility for righting  
it4  ,if1 now1 we enquire1 ,what are the
 earliest offences against which public 
action is taken8 and why8 we may        
remember that ,mr4 ,hobhouse has stated 
them to be witchcraft and breaches of   
the marriage law2 and that the          
punishment of those offences            
corresponds1 as he has said1 roughly to 
our own administration of justice 7,i1  
#ha74  ,now1 in the case of breaches of 
the marriage laws--mating with a cousin 
on the mother's side instead of with a  
cousin on the father's side1 marrying   
into a forbidden class--it is obvious   
that there is no individual who has     
suffered injury and that there is no    
individual to experience resentment4    
,it is the community that suffers or is 
expected to suffer2 and it expects to   
suffer1 because it1 in the person of one
 of its #bbh members1 has offended4     
,collectively it is responsible for the 

misdeeds of its members4  ,whom1 then1  
has it offended8  ,to whom is it        
responsible8  ,who will visit it with   
punishment1 unless it makes haste to set
 itself right8  ,the answer given by a  
certain tribe of the ,sea ,dyaks makes  
the matter clear3 they1 ,mr4 ,st4 ,john 
tells us in his ,life in the ,forests of
 the ,far ,east 7,i1 #fc1 quoted by     
,westermarck1 ,i1 #di71 are of opinion  
that an unmarried girl proving with     
child must be offensive to the superior 
powers1 who1 instead of always          
chastising the individual1 punish the   
tribe by misfortunes happening to its   
members4 ,they therefore on the         
discovery of the pregnancy fine the     
lovers1 and sacrifice a pig to          
propitiate offended heaven1 and to avert
 that sickness or those misfortunes that
 might otherwise follow4  ,that is1 of  
course1 only one instance4  ,but we may 
safely say that the marriage law is     
generally ascribed to the ordinance of  
the gods1 even in the lowest tribes1 and

 that breaches of it are offences       
against heaven4  ,it is unnecessary to  
prove1 it need only be mentioned1 that  
witchcraft is conspicuously offensive to
 the religious sentiment1 and is        
punished as an offence against the god  
or gods4  ,when1 then1 we consider the  
origin and nature of justice1 not from  
#bbi an abstract and  priori point of   
view1 but in the light of historic fact1
 so far from finding that it originates 
and operates in complete independence of
 religion1 we discover that from the    
beginning the offences with which the   
justice of the primitive community deals
 are offences1 not against the          
community1 but against heaven4  ,in the 
evolution of public justice1 as ,mr4    
,hobhouse says1 at the outset the       
community interferes mainly on what we  
may call supernatural grounds4  ,from   
the beginning misdeeds are punished1 not
 merely as wrongs done to society1 but  
as wrong done to the gods and as        
wrong-doing for which the community     

collectively is responsible to the gods4
  ,justice from the beginning is not    
individual resentment1 but public action
 taken for the public safety4  ,it is   
not1 as ,mr4 ,hobhouse calls it1 revenge
 guided and limited by custom4 ,it is   
the customary action of the community   
taken to avert divine vengeance4  ,the  
action taken assumes in extreme cases   
the form of the death penalty2 but its  
usual form of action is that of taboo4  
,if the origin of justice is to be      
sought in something that is not justice1
 if justice in particular and morality  
in general are to be treated as having  
been evolved out of something which was 
in a way different #bcj from them and   
yet in a way must have contained them1  
inasmuch as they came forth from it1 we 
shall do well to look for that          
something1 not in the unhistorical1     
unreal abstraction of an imaginary      
individual1 apart from society1 but in  
society itself when it is as yet not    
clearly conscious of the justice and    

morality at work within it4 ,such a     
stage in the development of society is1 
,i think1 to be discerned4  ,we have    
seen that1 at almost1 if not quite1 the 
lowest stages of human development1     
there is something which1 according to  
,mr4 ,hobhouse1 corresponds roughly to  
our own administration of justice 7,i1  
#ha74 ,but this rough justice implies   
conscious1 deliberate action on the part
 of the community4  ,it implies that the
 community as such makes some sort of   
enquiry into what can be the cause of   
the misfortunes which are befalling it2 
and that1 having found out the person   
responsible1 it deliberately takes the  
steps it deems necessary for putting    
itself right with the supernatural power
 that has sent the sickness or famine4  
,now1 such conscious1 purposive1        
deliberate action may and probably does 
take place at almost the lowest stage of
 development of society2 but not1 we may
 surmise1 at quite the lowest4  ,what   
eventually is done #bca consciously and 

deliberately is probably done in the    
first place much more summarily and     
automatically4  ,and--in quite the      
lowest stage of social development--it  
is by means of the action of taboo that 
summary and automatic punishment for    
breaches of the custom of the community 
is inflicted4  ,its action is automatic 
and immediate3 merely to come in contact
 with the forbidden thing is to become  
tabooed yourself2 and so great is the   
horror and dread of such contact1 even  
if made unwittingly1 that it is capable 
of causing1 when discovered1 death4     
,like the justice1 however1 of which it 
is the forerunner1 it does not result   
always in death1 nor does it produce    
that effect in most cases4  ,but what it
 does do is to make the offender himself
 taboo and as infectious as the thing   
that rendered him taboo4  ,here1 too1   
the action of taboo1 in excommunicating 
the offender1 anticipates1 or rather    
foreshadows1 the action of justice when 
it excludes the guilty person from the  

community and makes of him an outlaw4   
,again1 in the rough justice found at   
almost1 though not quite1 the lowest    
stages1 the earliest offences of which  
official notice1 so to speak1 is taken1 
are offences for which the              
punishment--disease or famine1          
etc4--falls on the community as a whole1
 because the #bcb community1 in the     
person of one of its members1 has       
offended as a whole against heaven4  ,in
 the earlier stage of feeling1 also1    
which survives where taboo prevails1 it 
is the community as a whole which may be
 infected1 and which must suffer if the 
offender is allowed to spread the       
infection2 it is the community1 as a    
whole1 which is concerned to thrust out 
the guilty person--every one shuns him  
because he is taboo4  ,thus1 in this the
 earliest stage1 the offender against   
the custom of the community is outlawed 
just as effectively as in later stages  
of social development4 ,but no formal   
sentence is pronounced2 no meeting of   

the men or the elders of the community  
is held to try the offender2 no reason  
is given or sought why the offence      
should thus be punished4  ,the operation
 of taboo is like that of the laws of   
nature3 the man who eats poisonous food 
dies with no reason given4  ,a reason   
may eventually be found by science1 and 
is eventually discovered1 though the    
process of discovery is slow1 and many  
mistakes are made1 and many false       
reasons are given before the true reason
 is found4  ,so1 too1 the true reason   
for the prohibition of many of the      
things1 which the community feels to be 
forbidden and pronounced to be taboo1 is
 found1 with the progress of            
society--when it does #bcc progress1    
which is not always--to be that they are
 immoral and irreligious1 though here1  
too1 many mistakes are made before true 
morality and true religion are found4   
,but at the outset no reason is given3  
the things are simply offensive to the  
community and are tabooed as such4  ,we1

 looking back at that stage in the      
evolution of society1 can see that      
amongst the things thus offensive and   
tabooed are some which1 in later stages1
 are equally offensive1 but are now     
forbidden for a reason that can be      
formulated and given1 viz4 that they are
 offences against the law of morality   
and the law of ,god4  ,that reason1 at  
the outset of society1 may scarcely have
 been consciously present to the mind of
 man3 progress1 in part at least1 has   
consisted in the discovery of the       
reasons of things4  ,but that man did   
from the beginning avoid some of the    
things which are forbidden by morality  
and religion1 and that those things were
 taboo to him1 is beyond the possibility
 of doubt4  ,nor can it be doubted that 
in the prohibition and punishment of    
them there was inchoate justice and     
inchoate religion4  ,such prohibition   
was due to the collective action and    
expressed the collective feeling of the 
community as a whole4  ,and it is from  

such social action and feeling that #bcd
 justice1 ,i suggest1 has been          
evolved--not from the feeling of        
resentment experienced by the individual
 as an individual4  ,personal resentment
 and personal revenge may have          
stimulated justice to action4  ,but1 by 
the hypothesis we have been examining1  
they were not justice4  ,neither have   
they been transformed into justice3 they
 still exist as something distinct from 
justice and capable of perverting it4   
,the form which justice takes in the    
period which is almost1 but not quite1  
the lowest stage of human evolution is  
the sense of the collective             
responsibility of the community for all 
its actions1 that is to say1 for the    
acts of all its members4  ,and that     
responsibility in its earliest shape is 
felt to be a responsibility to heaven1  
to the supernatural powers that send    
disease and famine upon the community4  
,in those days no man sins to himself   
alone1 just as1 in still earlier days1  

no man could break a taboo without      
becoming a source of danger to the whole
 community4  ,the wrong-doer has        
offended against the supernatural powers
 and has brought down calamity upon the 
community4 ,he is therefore punished1   
directly as an offender against the god 
of the community1 and indirectly for    
having involved the #bce community in   
suffering4  ,in ,dr4 ,westermarck's     
words 7,i1 #aid71 there is genuine      
indignation against the offender1 both  
because he rebels against ,god1 and     
because he thereby exposes the whole    
community to supernatural dangers4  ,but
 though society for many long centuries 
continues to punish rebellion against   
,god1 still in the long run it ceases1  
or tends to cease1 doing so4  ,its      
reason for so ceasing is interpreted    
differently by different schools of     
thought4  ,on the one hand1 it is said  
in derision1 let the gods punish        
offences against the gods--the          
implication being that there are no such

 offences to punish1 because there is no
 god4  ,on the other hand1 it is said1  
,i will repay1 saith the ,lord--the     
implication being that man may not      
assume to be the minister of divine     
vengeance4  ,if1 then1 we bear in mind  
that the fact may be interpreted in     
either of these different ways1 we shall
 not fall into the fallacy of imagining 
that the mere existence of the fact     
suffices to prove either interpretation 
to be true4  ,yet this fallacy plays its
 part in lending fictitious support to  
the doctrine that morality is in no wise
 dependent upon religion4  ,the offences
 now punished by law1 it is argued1 are 
no longer punished as offences against  
religion1 but solely as offences #bcf   
against the good of the community4  ,to 
this argument the reply is that men     
believe the good of the community to be 
the will of ,god1 and do not believe    
murder1 theft1 adultery1 etc41 to be    
merely offences against man's laws4     
,overlooking this fact1 which is fatal  

to the doctrine that morality is in no  
wise dependent on religion1 the argument
 we are discussing proceeds to maintain 
that the basis for the enforcement of   
morality by the law is recognised by    
every one who knows anything of the     
philosophy of law to be what is good for
 the community and its members3 fraud   
and violence are punished as such1 and  
not because they are offences against   
this or that religion4  ,the fact that  
the law no longer punishes them as      
offences against ,god suffices to show  
that it is only as offences against     
humanity that there is any sense1 or    
ever was any sense1 in punishing them4  
,religion may have renforced morality   
very usefully at one time1 by making out
 that moral misdeeds were offences      
against ,god1 but such arguments are not
 now required4  ,the good and the       
well-being of humanity is in itself     
sufficient argument4  ,humanitarianism  
is taking the place of religion1 and by 
so doing is demonstrating that morality 

is1 as it always has been1 #bcg         
independent of religion2 and that in    
truth religion has built upon it1 not it
 upon religion4  ,as ,hffding puts it   
7p4 #cbh73 ,religious faith 444 assumes 
an independent human ethic developed    
historically under the practical        
influence of the ethical feeling of man4
  ,that is to say1 morality is in       
,hffding's view independent of religion1
 and prior to religion1 both as a matter
 of logic and of history4  ,as a matter 
of history--of the history of           
religion--this seems to me1 for the     
reasons already given1 to be contrary to
 the facts as they are known4  ,the real
 reason for maintaining that morality is
 and must be--and must have             
been--independent of religion1 seems to 
me to be a philosophical reason4  ,i may
 give it in ,hffding's own words3 ,what 
other aims and qualities1 he asks 7p4   
#cbd71 could man attribute to his gods  
or conceive as divine1 but those which  
he has learnt from his own experience to

 recognise as the highest8  ,the answer 
expected to the question plainly is not 
merely that it is from experience that  
man learns1 but that man has no         
experience of ,god from which he could  
learn4  ,the answer given by ,mr4       
,hobhouse1 in the concluding words of   
his ,morals in ,evolution is that the   
collective wisdom of man is all that we 
directly know of the ,divine4 #bch      
,here1 too1 no direct access to ,god is 
allowed to be possible to man4  ,it is  
from his experience of other            
men--perhaps even of himself and his own
 doings--that man learns all he knows of
 ,god3 but he has himself no experience 
of ,god4  ,obviously1 then1 from this   
humanitarian point of view1 what a man  
goes through in his religious moments is
 not experience1 and we are mistaken if 
we imagine that it was experience2 it is
 only a misinterpretation of experience4
  ,it is on the supposition that we are 
mistaken1 on the assumption that we make
 a misinterpretation1 that the argument 

is built to prove that morality is and  
must be independent of religion4        
,argument to show1 or proof to          
demonstrate1 that we had not the        
experience1 or1 that we mistook         
something else for it1 is1 of course1   
not forthcoming4  ,but if we hold fast  
to our conviction1 we are told that we  
are fleeing to the bosom of faith4      
,until some better argument is produced1
 we may be well content not merely to   
flee but to rest there4     #bci        
,,christianity  ,the subject dealt with 
in this lecture will be the place of    
,christianity in the evolution of       
religion2 and ,i shall approach it by   
considering the place of religion in the
 evolution of humanity4  ,it will be    
therefore advisable1 indeed necessary1  
for me to consider what is meant by     
evolution2 and ,i wish to begin by      
explaining the point of view from which 
,i propose to approach the three ideas  
of evolution1 of the evolution of       
humanity and the evolution of religion4 

,the individual exists1 and can only    
exist1 in society4  ,society cannot     
exist without individuals as members    
thereof2 and the individual cannot exist
 save in society4  ,from this it follows
 that from one point of view the        
individual may be regarded as a means--a
 means by which society attains its end 
or purpose3 every one of us has his     
place or function in society2 and       
society thrives according as each member
 performs his function and discharges   
his duty4  ,from another point of view  
#bdj the individual may be regarded as  
an end4  ,if man is a social animal1 if 
men live in society1 it is because so   
alone can a man do what is best for     
himself3 it is by means of society that 
he realises his end4  ,it is then from  
this proposition1 viz4 that the         
individual is both a means and an end1  
that ,i wish to approach the idea of    
evolution4  ,i will begin by calling    
attention to the fact that that         
proposition is true both statically1    

that is to say1 is true of the          
individual's position in a community1   
and is also true dynamically1 that is to
 say1 is true of his place in the       
process of evolution4  ,on the former   
point1 that the proposition is true     
statically1 of the position of the      
individual in the community1 ,i need say
 but little4  ,in moral philosophy it is
 the utilitarian school which has       
particularly insisted upon this truth4  
,that school has steadily argued that1  
in the distribution of happiness or of  
the good1 every man is to count as one1 
and nobody to count as more than        
one--that is to say1 in the community   
the individual is to be regarded as the 
end4  ,the object to be aimed at is not 
happiness in general and no one's       
happiness in particular1 but the        
happiness of each and every individual4 
,it is the individual and his happiness 
which is the #bda end1 for the sake of  
which society exists and to which it is 
the means2 otherwise the individual     

might derive no benefit from society4   
,but if the truth that the individual is
 an end as well as a means is recognised
 by moral philosophy1 that truth has    
also played at least an equally         
important part in political philosophy4 
,it is the very breath of the cry for   
liberty1 equality1 and fraternity1--a   
cry wrung out from the heart of man by  
the system of oppression which denied   
that the ordinary citizen had a right to
 be anything but a means for procuring  
enjoyment to the members of the ruling  
class4  ,the truth that any one         
man--whatever his place in society1     
whatever the colour of his skin--has as 
much right as any other to be treated as
 an end and that no man was merely a    
means to the enjoyment or happiness or  
well-being of another1 was the charter  
for the emancipation of slaves4  ,it is 
still the magna charta for the freedom  
of every member of the human race4  ,no 
man is or can be a chattel--a thing     
existing for no other purpose than to   

subserve the interests of its owner and 
to be a means to his ends4  ,but though 
from the truth that the individual is in
 himself an end as well as a means1 it  
follows that all men have the right to  
#bdb freedom1 it does not follow as a   
logical inference that all men are equal
 as means--as means to the material     
happiness or to the moral improvement of
 society4  ,i need not further dwell    
upon the fact that statically as regards
 the relations of men to one another in 
society at any moment1 the truth is     
fully recognised that the individual is 
not merely a means to the happiness or  
well-being of others1 but is also in    
himself an end4  ,but when we consider  
the proposition dynamically1 when we    
wish to find out the part it has played 
as one of the forces at work in         
evolution1 we find that its truth has   
been far from fully recognised--partly  
perhaps because utilitarianism dates    
from a time when evolution1 or the      
bearing of it1 was not understood4  ,but

 the truth is at least of as great      
importance dynamically as it is         
statically4  ,and on one side1 its truth
 and the importance of its truth has    
been fully developed3 that the          
individual is a means to an end beyond  
him2 and that1 dynamically1 he has been 
and is a factor in evolution1 and as a  
factor merely a means and nothing       
else--all this has been worked out      
fully1 if not to excess4 ,the other side
 of the truth1 the fact that the        
individual is always an end1 has1       
however1 #bdc been as much neglected by 
the scientific evolutionist as it was by
 the slave-driver3 he has been liable to
 regard men as chattels1 as instruments 
by which the work of evolution is       
carried on4  ,the work has got to be    
done 7by men amongst other animals and  
things71 things have to be evolved1     
evolution must go on4 ,but1 why8 and for
 whom8 with what purpose and for whose  
benefit8 with what end8 are questions   
which science leaves to be answered by  

those people who are foolish enough to  
ask them4  ,science is concerned simply 
with the individual as a means1 as one  
of the means1 whereby evolution is      
carried on2 and doubtless science is    
justified--if only on the principle of  
the division of labour--in confining    
itself to the department of enquiry     
which it takes in hand and in refusing  
to travel beyond it4  ,any theory of    
man1 therefore1 or of the evolution of  
humanity1 which professes to base itself
 strictly on scientific fact and to     
exclude other considerations as         
unscientific and therefore as unsafe    
material to build on1 will naturally1   
and perhaps necessarily1 be dominated by
 the notion that the individual exists  
as a factor in evolution1 as one of the 
means by which1 and not as in any sense 
the end for which1 evolution is carried 
on4  #bdd  ,such seems to be the case   
with the theory of humanitarianism4  ,it
 bases itself upon science1 upon        
experience1 and rules out communion with

 ,god as not being a scientific fact or 
a fact of experience at all4  ,based    
upon science1 it is a theory which seeks
 amongst other things to assign to      
religion its place in the evolution of  
humanity4  ,according to the theory1 the
 day of religion is over1 its part      
played out1 its function in the         
evolution of humanity discharged4       
,according to this theory1 three stages 
may be discerned in the evolution of    
humanity when we regard man as a moral  
being1 as an ethical consciousness4     
,those three stages may be characterised
 first as custom1 next religion1 and    
finally humanitarianism4  ,by the       
theory1 in the first stage--that of     
custom--the spirits to whom cult is paid
 are vindictive4  ,in the second        
stage--that of religion--man1 having    
attained to a higher morality1 credits  
his gods with that higher morality4  ,in
 the third stage--that of               
humanitarianism--he finds that the gods 
are but lay figures on which the robes  

of righteousness have been displayed    
that man alone can wear--when he is     
perfect4  ,he is not yet perfect4  ,if  
he were1 the evolution of humanity #bde 
would be attained--whereas at present it
 is as yet in process4  ,the end of     
evolution is not yet attained3 it is to 
establish1 in some future generation1 a 
perfect humanity4  ,for that end we must
 work2 to it we may know that1 as a     
matter of scientific evolution1 we are  
working4  ,on it1 we may be satisfied1  
man will not enter in our generation4   
,now this theory of the evolution of    
humanity1 and of the place religion     
takes in that evolution1 is in essential
 harmony with the scientific treatment  
of the evolution theory1 inasmuch as it 
treats of the individual solely as an   
instrument to something other than      
himself1 as a means of producing a state
 of humanity to which he will not       
belong4 ,but if the assumption that the 
individual is always a means and never  
an end in himself be false1 then a      

theory of the evolution of man 7as an   
ethical consciousness7 which is based on
 that wrong assumption will itself be   
wrong4  ,if each individual is an end1  
as valuable and as important as any     
other individual2 if each counts for one
 and not less than any one other1--then 
his end and his good cannot lie in the  
perfection of some future generation4   
,in that case1 his end would be one that
 ex hypothesi he could never enjoy1 a   
rest into which he could never enter2   
#bdf and consequently it would be an    
irrational end1 and could not serve as a
 basis for a rationalist theory of      
ethics4 ,man's object 7to be a rational 
object7 must have reference to a society
 of which he may be a member4  ,the     
realisation of his object1 therefore1   
cannot be referred to a stage of society
 yet to come1 on earth1 after he is     
dead1--a society of which he1 whether   
dead or annihilated1 could not be a     
member4  ,if1 then1 the individual's    
object is to be a rational object1 as   

the humanitarian or rationalist assumes1
 then that end must be one in which he  
can share2 and therefore cannot be in   
this world4 ,nor can that end be        
attained by doing man's will--for man's 
will may be evil1 and regress as well as
 progress is a fact in the evolution of 
humanity2 its attainment1 therefore1    
must be effected by doing ,god's will4  
,the truth that the individual is an end
 as well as a means is1 ,i suggest1     
valuable in considering the dynamics as 
well as the statics of society4  ,at    
least1 it saves one from the            
self-complacency of imagining that one's
 ancestors existed with no other end and
 for no higher purpose than to          
produce--me2 and if the golden days     
anticipated by the theory of            
humanitarianism ever arrive1 it is to be
 supposed that the #bdg men of that time
 will find it just as intolerable and   
revolting as we do now1 to believe that 
past generations toiled and suffered for
 no other reason1 for no other end1 and 

to no other purpose than that their     
successors should enter into the fruits 
of their labour4  ,in a word1 the theory
 that in the evolution of man as an     
ethical consciousness1 as a moral being1
 religion is to be superseded by        
humanitarianism1 is only possible so    
long as we deny or ignore the fact that 
the individual is an end and not merely 
a means4  ,we will therefore now go on  
to consider the evolution of religion   
from the point of view that the         
individual is in himself an end as well 
as a means4  ,if1 of the world          
religions1 we take that which is the    
greatest1 as measured by the number of  
its adherents1 viz4 ,buddhism1 we shall 
see that1 tried by this test1 it is at  
once found wanting4  ,the object at     
which ,buddhism proclaims that man      
should aim is not the development1 the  
perfection1 and the realisation of the  
individual to the fullest extent3 it is1
 on the contrary1 the utter and complete
 effacement of the individual1 so that  

he is not merely absorbed1 but          
absolutely wiped out1 in nirvana4  ,in  
the atman1 with which it is the duty of 
man to seek to identify himself1 the    
individuality of man does not survive3  
#bdh it simply ceases to be4  ,now this 
obliteration of his existence may seem  
to a man in a certain mood desirable2   
and that mood may be cultivated1 as     
indeed ,buddhism seeks to cultivate it1 
systematically4 ,but here it is that the
 inner inconsistency1 the               
self-contradictoriness of ,buddhism1    
becomes patent4  ,the individual1 to do 
anything1 must exist4  ,if he is to     
desire nothing save to cease to exist1  
he must exist to do that4  ,but the     
teaching of ,buddhism is that this world
 and this life is illusion--and further1
 that the existence of the individual   
self is precisely the most mischievous  
illusion1 that illusion above all others
 from which it is incumbent on us to    
free ourselves4  ,we are here for no    
other end than to free ourselves from   

that illusion4  ,thus1 then1 by the     
teaching of ,buddhism there is an end1  
it may be said1 for the individual to   
aim at4  ,yes6 but by the same teaching 
there is no individual to aim at        
it--individual existence is the most    
pernicious of all illusions4  ,and      
further1 by the teaching1 the final end 
and object of religion is to get rid of 
an individual existence1 which does not 
exist to be got rid of1 and which it is 
an illusion to believe in4  ,in fine1   
,buddhism denies that the individual is 
either an end or a means1 for it denies 
#bdi the existence of the individual1   
and contradicts itself in that denial4  
,the individual is not an end--the      
happiness or immortality1 the continued 
existence1 of the individual is not to  
be aimed at4  ,neither is he a means1   
for his very existence is an illusion1  
and as such is an obstacle or impediment
 which has to be removed1 in order that 
he who is not may cease to do what he   
has never begun to do1 viz4 to exist4   

,in ,buddhism we have a developed       
religion--a religion which has been     
developed by a system of philosophy1 but
 scarcely1 as religion1 improved by it4 
,if1 now1 we turn to other religions    
less highly developed1 even if we turn  
to religions the development of which   
has been early arrested1 which have     
never got beyond the stage of infantile 
development1 we shall find that all     
proceed on the assumption that communion
 between man and ,god is possible and   
does occur4  ,in all1 the existence of  
the individual as well as of the god is 
assumed1 even though time and           
development may be required to realise1 
even inadequately1 what is contained in 
the assumption4  ,in all1 and from the  
beginning1 religion has been a social   
fact3 the god has been the god of the   
community2 and1 as such1 has #bej       
represented the interests of the        
community4  ,those interests have been  
regarded not merely as other1 but as    
higher1 than the interests of the       

individual1 when the two have been at   
variance1 for the simple reason 7when   
the time came for a reason to be sought 
and given7 that the interests of the    
community were the will of the          
community's god4  ,hence at all times   
the man who has postponed his own       
interests to those under the sanction of
 the god and the community--the man who 
has respected and upheld the custom of  
the community--has been regarded as the 
higher type of man1 as the better man   
from the religious as well as from the  
moral point of view2 while the man who  
has sacrificed the higher interests to  
the lower1 has been punished--whether by
 the automatic action of taboo1 or the  
deliberate sentence of outlawry--as one 
who1 by breaking custom1 has offended   
against the god and so brought suffering
 on the community4  ,now1 if the        
interests1 whether of the individual or 
the community1 are regarded as purely   
earthly1 the divergence between them    
must be utter and irreconcileable2 and  

to expect the individual to forego his  
own interests must be eventually        
discovered to be1 as it fundamentally   
is1 unreasonable4  #bea ,if1 on the     
other hand1 for the individual to forego
 them is 7as1 in a cool moment1 we all  
recognise it to be7 reasonable1 then the
 interests under the sanction of the god
 and the community--the higher          
interests--cannot be other than1 they   
must be identical with1 the real        
interests of the individual4  ,it is    
only in and through society that the    
individual can attain his highest       
interests1 and only by doing the will of
 the god that he can so attain them4    
,doubtless--despite of logic and        
feeling--in all communities all         
individuals in a greater or less degree 
have deliberately preferred the lower to
 the higher1 and in so doing have been  
actuated neither by love of ,god nor by 
love of their fellow-man4  ,but1 in so  
doing1 they have at all times1 in the   
latest as well as the earliest stages of

 society1 been felt to be breaching the 
very basis of social solidarity1 the    
maintenance of which is the will of the 
,god worshipped by society4  ,from that 
point of view the individual is regarded
 as a means4  ,but he is also in himself
 an end1 intrinsically as valuable as   
any other member of the community1 and  
therefore an end which society exists to
 further and promote4  ,it is           
impossible1 therefore1 that the end1    
viewed as that which society #beb as    
well as the individual aims at1 and     
which society must realise1 as far as it
 can realise it1 through the individual1
 should be one which can only be        
attained by some future state of society
 in which he does not exist4  ,the      
kingdom of ,heaven is within you and not
 something to which you cannot attain4  
,god is not far from us at any time4    
,that truth was implicit at all stages  
in the evolution of                     
religion--consciously recognised1       
perhaps more1 perhaps less1 but whether 

more or less consciously recognised1 it 
was there4 ,that is the conviction      
implied in the fact that man everywhere 
seeks ,god4  ,if he seeks ,him in       
plants1 in animals1 in stocks or stones1
 that only shows that man has tried in  
many wrong directions--not that there is
 not a right direction4  ,it is the     
general law of evolution3 of a thousand 
seeds thrown out1 perhaps one alone     
falls into good soil4  ,but the failure 
of the #iii avails nothing against the  
fact that the one bears fruit           
abundantly4  ,what sanctifies the       
failures is that they were attempts4    
,we indeed may1 if we are so selfish and
 blind1 regard the attempts as made in  
order that we might succeed4  ,certainly
 we profit by the work of our           
ancestors1--or rather we may profit1 if 
we will4 ,but our savage ancestors were 
themselves ends1 and #bec not merely    
means to our benefit4  ,it is monstrous 
to imagine that our salvation is bought 
at the cost of their condemnation4  ,no 

man can do more than turn to such light 
as there may be to guide him4  ,to him  
that hath1 shall be given1 it is        
true--but every man at every time had   
something2 never was there one to whom  
nothing was given4  ,to us at this day1 
in this dispensation1 much has been     
given4  ,but ten talents as well as one 
may be wrapped up3 one as well as ten   
may be put to profit4  ,it is monstrous 
to say that one could not be1 cannot    
have been1 used properly4  ,it was for  
not using the one talent he had that the
 unfaithful servant was condemned--not  
for not having ten to use4  ,throughout 
the history of religion1 then1 two facts
 have been implied1 which1 if implicit  
at the beginning1 have been rendered    
explicit in the course of its history or
 evolution4  ,they are1 first1 the      
existence of the individual as a member 
of society1 in communion or seeking     
communion with ,god2 and1 next1 that    
while the individual is a means to      
social ends1 society is also a means of 

which the individual is the end4        
,neither end--neither that of society   
nor that of the individual--can be      
forwarded at #bed the cost of the other2
 the realisation of each is to be       
attained only by the realisation of the 
other4  ,two consequences then follow   
with regard to evolution3 first1 it     
depends on us2 evolution may have helped
 to make us1 but we are helping to make 
it4  ,next1 the end of evolution is not 
wholly outside any one of us1 but in    
part is realised in us1 or may be1 if we
 so will4 ,that is to say1 the true end 
may be realised by every one of us2 for 
each of us1 as being himself an end1 is 
an object of care to ,god--and not      
merely those who are to live on earth at
 the final stage of evolution4  ,if the 
end is outside us1 it is in love of     
neighbour2 if beyond us1 it is in ,god's
 love4  ,it is just because the end is  
7or may be7 both within us and without  
us that we are bound up with our        
fellow-man and ,god4  ,it is precisely  

because we are individuals that we are  
not the be-all and the end-all--that the
 end is without us4  ,and it is because 
we are members of a community1 that the 
end is not wholly outside us4  ,in his  
,problems of ,philosophy 7p4 #afc7      
,hffding says3 ,the test of the         
perfection of a human society is3 to    
what degree is every person so placed   
and treated that he is not only a mere  
means1 but also always at the same time 
an end8 and he points #bee out that this
 is ,kant's famous dictum1 with another 
motive than that given to it by him4    
,but if it is reasonable to apply this  
test to society1 regarded from the point
 of view of statics1 it is also         
reasonable to apply it to society       
regarded dynamically4  ,if it is the    
proper test for ascertaining what degree
 of perfection society at any given     
moment has attained1 it is also the     
proper test for ascertaining what       
advance1 if any1 towards perfection has 
been made by society between any two    

periods of its growth1 any two stages in
 its evolution4  ,but the moment we     
admit the possibility of applying a test
 to the process of evolution and of     
discovering to what end the process is  
moving1 we are abandoning science and   
the scientific theory of evolution4     
,science formally refuses to consider   
whether there be any end to which the   
process of evolution is working3 end is 
a category which science declines to    
apply to its subject-matter4  ,in the   
interests of knowledge it declines to be
 influenced by any consideration of what
 the end aimed at by evolution may be1  
or whether there be any end aimed at at 
all4  ,it simply notes what does take   
place1 what is1 what has been1 and to   
some extent what may be1 the sequence of
 events--not their object or purpose4   
,and the #bef science of religion1 being
 a science1 restricts itself in the same
 way4  ,as therefore science declines to
 use the category1 end1 progress is an  
idea impossible for science--for        

progress is movement towards an end1 the
 realisation of a purpose and object4   
,and science declines to consider       
whether progress is so much as possible4
  ,but1 so far as the subject-matter of 
the science of religion is concerned1 it
 is positive 7that is to say1 it is mere
 fact of observation7 that in religion  
an end is aimed at1 for man everywhere  
seeks ,god and communion with ,him4     
,what the science of religion declines  
to do is to pronounce or even to        
consider whether that end is possible or
 not1 whether it is in any degree       
achieved or not1 whether progress is    
made or not4  ,but if we do not1 as     
science does1 merely constate the fact  
that in religion an end is aimed at1    
viz4 that communion with ,god which     
issues in doing ,his will from love of  
,him and therefore of our fellow-man2 if
 we recognise that end as the end that  
ought to be aimed at1--then our attitude
 towards the whole process of evolution 
is changed3 it is now a process with an 

end--and that end the same for the      
individual and for society4  ,but at the
 same time it is no longer a process    
determined by mechanical #beg causes    
worked by the iron hand of              
necessity--and therefore it is no longer
 evolution in the scientific sense2 it  
is no longer evolution as understood by 
science4  ,it is now a process in which 
there may or may not be progress made2  
and in which1 therefore1 it is necessary
 to have a test of progress--a test     
which is to be found in the fact that   
the individual is not merely a means1   
but an end4 ,whether progress is made   
depends in part on whether there is the 
will in man to move towards the end     
proposed2 and that will is not uniformly
 exercised1 as is shown by the fact that
 deterioration as well as advance takes 
place--regress occurs as well as        
progress2 whole nations1 and those not  
small ones1 may be arrested in their    
religious development4  ,if we look with
 the eye of the missionary over the     

globe1 everywhere we see arrested       
development1 imperfect communion with   
,god4 ,it may be that in such cases of  
imperfect communion there is an         
unconscious or hardly conscious         
recognition that the form of religion   
there and then prevalent does not       
suffice to afford the communion desired4
  ,or1 worse still1 and much more       
general1 there is the belief that such  
communion as does exist is all that can 
exist--that advance and improvement are 
impossible4  ,from #beh this state it   
has been the work of the religious      
spirit to wake us1 to reveal to us      
,god's will1 to make us understand that 
it is within us1 and that it may1 if we 
will1 work within us4  ,it is as such a 
revelation of the will of ,god and the  
love of ,god1 and as the manifestation  
of the personality of ,god1 that our    
,lord appeared on earth4  ,that         
appearance as a historic fact must take 
its place in the order of historic      
events1 and must stand in relation to   

what preceded and to what followed and  
is yet to follow4  ,in relation to what 
preceded1 ,christianity claims to be the
 fulfilment of all that is true in      
previous religion 7,illingworth1        
,personality3 ,human and ,divine1 p4    
#ge74  ,the making of that claim assumes
 that there was some truth in previous  
religion1 that so far as previous forms 
were religious1 they were true--a fact  
that must constantly be borne in mind by
 the missionary4  ,the truth and the    
good inherent in all forms of religion  
is that1 in all1 man seeks after ,god4  
,the finality of ,christianity lies in  
the fact that it reveals the ,god for   
whom man seeks4  ,what was true in other
 religions was the belief in the        
possibility of communion with ,god1 and 
the belief that only as a member of a   
society could the individual man attain 
#bei to that communion4  ,what is       
offered by ,christianity is a means of  
grace whereby that communion may be     
attained and a society in which the     

individual may attain it4  ,christianity
 offers a means whereby the end aimed at
 by all religions may be realised4  ,its
 finality1 therefore1 does not consist  
in its chronological relation to other  
religions4  ,it is not final because1 or
 in the sense that1 it supervened in the
 order of time upon previous religions1 
or that it fulfilled only their truth4  
,other religions have1 as a matter of   
chronology1 followed it1 and yet others 
may follow it hereafter4  ,but their    
chronological order is irrelevant to the
 question3 ,which of them best realises 
the end at which religion1 in all its   
forms1 aims8  ,and it is the answer to  
that question which must determine the  
finality of any form of religion4  ,no  
one would consider the fact that        
,mahommedanism dates some centuries     
after ,christ any proof of its          
superiority to ,christianity4  ,and the 
lapse of time1 however much greater1    
would constitute no greater proof4      
,that different forms of religion do    

realise the end of religion in different
 degrees is a point on which there is   
general agreement4 ,monotheism is       
pronounced higher than polytheism1      
ethical religions #bfj higher than      
non-ethical4  ,what differentiates      
,christianity from other ethical        
religions and from other forms of       
monotheism1 is that in them religion    
appears as ancillary to morality1 and   
imposes penalties and rewards with a    
view to enforce or encourage morality4  
,in them1 at their highest1 the love of 
man is for his fellow-man1 and usually  
for himself4  ,christianity alone makes 
love of ,god to be the true basis and   
the only end of society1 both that      
whereby personality exists and the end  
in which it seeks its realisation4      
,therein the ,christian theory of       
society differs from all others4  ,not  
merely does it hold that man cannot make
 himself better without making society  
better1 that development of personality 
cannot be effected without a            

corresponding development of society4   
,but it holds that such moral           
development and improvement of the      
individual and of society can find no   
rational basis and has no rational end1 
save in the love of ,god4  ,in another  
way the ,christian theory of society    
differs from all others4 ,like all      
others it holds that the unifying bond  
of every society is found in worship4   
,unlike others it recognises that the   
individual is restricted by existing    
society1 even where that society is     
based upon a common worship4  ,the #bfa 
adequate realisation of the             
potentialities of the individual        
postulates the realisation of a perfect 
society1 just as a perfect society is   
possible only provided that the         
potentialities of the individual are    
realised to the full4  ,such perfection1
 to which both society and the          
individual are means1 is neither        
attained nor possible on earth1 even    
where communion with ,god is recognised 

to be both the true end of society and  
the individual1 and the only means by   
which that end can be attained4  ,still 
less is such perfection a possible end1 
if morality is set above religion1 and  
the love of man be substituted for the  
love of ,god4  ,in that case the life of
 the individual upon earth is pronounced
 to be the only life of which he is1 or 
can be1 conscious2 and the end to which 
he is a means is the good of humanity as
 a whole4  ,now human society1 from the 
beginning of its evolution to its end1  
may be regarded as a whole1 just as the 
society existing at any given moment of 
its evolution may be regarded as a      
whole4  ,but if we are to consider human
 society from the former point of view  
and to see in it1 so regarded1 the end  
to which the individual is a means1 then
 it is clear that1 until perfection is  
attained in some remote and very        
improbable future1 the individual       
members of the #bfb human race will have
 laboured and not earned their reward1  

will have worked for an end which they  
have not attained1 and for an end which 
when1 if ever1 it is attained1 society  
as a whole will not enjoy4  ,such an end
 is an irrational and impossible object 
of pursuit4  ,perfection1 if it is to be
 attained by the individual or by       
society1 is not to be attained on earth1
 nor in man's communion with man4       
,religion from its outset has been the  
quest of man for ,god4  ,it has been the
 quest of man1 whether regarded as an   
individual or as a member of society4   
,but if that quest is to be realised1 it
 is not to be realised either by society
 or the individual1 regarded as having a
 mere earthly existence4 ,a new         
conception of the real nature of both is
 requisite4  ,not only must the         
individual be regarded as continuing to 
exist after death1 but the society of   
which he is truly a member must be      
regarded as one which1 if it manifests  
or begins to manifest itself on this    
earth1 requires for its                 

realisation--that is1 for perfect       
communion with ,god--the postulate that 
though it manifests itself in this      
world1 it is realised in the next4      
,this new conception of the real nature 
of society and the individual1 involving
 belief in the communion of the saints1 
and in the kingdom of ,heaven as that   
#bfc which may be in each individual1   
and therefore must extend beyond each   
and include all whether in this world or
 the next--this conception is one which 
,christianity alone1 of all religions1  
offers to the world4  ,religion is the  
quest of man for ,god4  ,man everywhere 
has been in search of ,god1 peradventure
 he might find ,him2 and the history of 
religion is the history of his search4  
,but the moment we regard the           
history--the evolution--of religion as a
 search1 we abandon the mechanical idea 
of evolution3 the cause at work is not  
material or mechanical1 but final4  ,the
 cause is no longer a necessary cause   
which can only have one result and      

which1 when it operates1 must produce   
that result4  ,progress is no longer    
something which must take place1 which  
is the inevitable result of antecedent  
causes4  ,it is something which may or  
may not take place and which cannot take
 place unless effort is made4  ,in a    
word1 it is dependent in part upon man's
 will--without the action of which      
neither search can be made nor progress 
in the search4 ,but though in part      
dependent upon man's will1 progress can 
only be made so far as man's will is to 
do ,god's will4  ,and that is not       
always1 and has not been always1 #bfd   
man's will4  ,hence evolution has not   
always been progress4  ,nor is it so    
now4  ,there have been lapses in        
civilisation1 dark ages1 periods when   
man's love for man has waned pari passu 
with the waning of his love for ,god4   
,such lapses there may be yet again4    
,the fall of man may be greater1 in the 
spiritual sense1 than it ever yet has   
been1 for man's will is free4  ,but     

,god's love is great1 and our faith is  
in it4  ,if ,christianity should cease  
to grow where it now grows1 and cease to
 spread where it as yet is not1 there   
would be the greater fall4  ,and on us  
would rest some1 at least1 of the       
responsibility4  ,christianity cannot be
 stationary3 if it stands1 let it       
beware2 it is in danger of falling4     
,between religions1 as well as other    
organisations1 there is a struggle for  
existence4  ,in that struggle we have to
 fight--for a religion to decline to    
fight is for that religion to die4  ,the
 missionary is not engaged in a work of 
supererogation1 something with which we 
at home have no concern4  ,we speak of  
him as in the forefront of the battle4  
,we do not usually or constantly realise
 that it is our battle he is            
fighting--that his defeat1 if he were   
defeated1 would be the beginning of the 
end for us2 that on his success our fate
 depends4  ,the metaphor of the         
missionary as an #bfe outpost sounds    

rather picturesque when heard in a      
sermon1--or did so sound the first time 
it was used1 ,i suppose1--but it is not 
a mere picture2 it is the barest truth4 
,the extent to which we push our        
outposts forward is the measure of our  
vitality1 of how much we have in us to  
do for the world4  ,six out of seven of 
,christendom's missionaries come from   
the ,united ,states of ,america4  ,until
 ,i heard that from the pulpit of       
,durham ,cathedral1 ,i had rather a     
horror of big things and a certain      
apprehension about going to a land where
 bigness1 rather than the golden mean1  
seemed to be taken as the standard of   
merit4  ,but from that sermon ,i learnt 
something1 viz4 not only that there are 
big things to be done in the world1 but 
that ,america does them1 and that       
,america does more of them than she     
talks about4     #bfg  ,,appendix       
,since the chapter on ,magic was        
written1 the publication of ,wilhelm    
,wundt's ,vlkerpsychologie1 ,vol4 ,,ii1 

,part ,,ii1 has led me to believe that  
,i ought to have laid more stress on the
 power of the magician1 which ,i mention
 on pages #gd1 #he1 #hf1 #hg1 #hh1 #hi1 
and less on the savage's recognition of 
the principle that like produces like4  
,in the stage of human evolution known  
as ,animism1 every event which calls for
 explanation is explained as the doing  
of some person or conscious agent4      
,when a savage falls ill1 his sickness  
is regarded as the work of some         
ill-disposed person1 whose power cannot 
be doubted--for it is manifest in the   
sickness it has caused--and whose power 
is as mysterious as it is indubitable4  
,that power is what a savage means by   
magic2 and the persons believed to      
possess it are magicians4  ,it is the   
business of the sick savage's friends to
 find out who is causing his sickness4  
,their suspicion may fall on any one    
whose appearance or behaviour is        
suspicious or mysterious2 and the person
 #bfh suspected comes to be regarded as 

a witch or magician1 from the very fact 
that he is suspected4  ,such persons    
have the power of witchcraft or magic1  
because they are believed to have the   
power3 possunt quia posse videntur4     
,not only are they believed to possess  
the power2 they come to believe1        
themselves1 that they possess it4  ,they
 believe that1 possessing it1 they have 
but to exercise it4  ,the ,australian   
magician has but to point his stick1    
and1 in the belief both of himself and  
of every one concerned1 the victim will 
fall4  ,all over the world the witch has
 but to stab the image she has drawn or 
made1 and the person portrayed will feel
 the wound4  ,in this proceeding1 the   
image is like the person1 and the blow  
delivered is like the blow which the    
victim is to feel4  ,it is open to us1  
therefore1 to say that1 in this typical 
case of imitative or mimetic magic1 like
 is believed to produce like4  ,and on  
pages #ge-gg1 and elsewhere1 above1 ,i  
have taken that position4  ,but ,i would

 now add two qualifications4  ,the first
 is1 as already intimated1 that1 though 
stabbing an effigy is like stabbing the 
victim1 it is only a magician or witch  
that has the power thus to inflict      
wounds1 sickness1 or death3 the services
 of the magician or witch are employed  
for no other reason than that #bfi the  
ordinary person has not the power1 even 
by the aid of the rite1 to cause the    
effect4  ,the second qualification is   
that1 whereas we distinguish between the
 categories of likeness and identity1   
the savage makes but little distinction4
  ,to us it is evident that stabbing the
 image is only like stabbing the victim2
 but to the believer in magic1 stabbing 
the image is the same thing as stabbing 
the victim2 and in his belief1 as the   
waxen image melts1 so the victim withers
 away4  ,it would1 therefore1 be more   
precise and more correct to say 7page   
#gd1 above7 that eating tiger to make   
you bold points rather to a confusion1  
in the savage's mind1 of the categories 

of likeness and identity1 than to a     
conscious recognition of the principle  
that like produces like3 as you eat     
tiger's flesh1 so you become bold with  
the tiger's boldness4 ,the spirit of the
 tiger enters you4  ,but no magic is    
necessary to enable you to make the     
meal3 any one can eat tiger4  ,the      
belief that so the tiger's spirit will  
enter you is a piece of ,animism2 but it
 is not therefore a piece of magic4     
#bga  ,,bibliography  ,,abt1 ,a4  ,die  
,apologie des ,apuleius von ,madaura und
 die antike ,zauberei4 ,giessen4  #aijh4
  ,,alviella1 ,g4  ,origin and ,growth  
of the ,conception of ,god4  ,london4   
#ahib4  ,,bastian1 ,a4  ,allerlei aus   
,volks- und ,menschenkunde4  ,berlin4   
#ahhh4  ,,bousset1 ,w4  ,what is        
,religion8  7,e4 ,t474  ,london4  #aijg4
  ,,davies1 ,t4 ,w4  ,magic1            
,divination1 and ,demonology4  ,leipzig4
  #ahih4  ,,ellis1 ,a4 ,b4  ,the        
,ewe-speaking ,peoples of the ,slave    
,coast4  ,london4 #ahij4  ,the          

,tshi-speaking ,peoples of the ,gold    
,coast4  ,london4  #ahhg4 ,the          
,yoruba-speaking ,peoples of the ,slave 
,coast4  ,london4  #ahid4  ,,fahz1 ,l4  
,de poetarum ,romanorum doctrina magica4
  ,giessen4  #aijd4  ,,farnell1 ,l4 ,r4 
,the ,place of the ,sonder-,gtter in    
,greek ,polytheism1 in ,anthropological 
,essays4  ,oxford4  #aijg4  ,,frazer1   
,j4 ,g4  ,adonis1 ,attis1 ,osiris4      
,london4  #aije4  ,the ,golden ,bough4  
,london4  #aijj4  ,lectures on the      
,early ,history of the ,kingship4       
,london4  #aije4  ,,granger1 ,f4  ,the  
,worship of the ,romans4  ,london4      
#ahie4  ,,haddon1 ,h4 ,c4  ,magic and   
,fetishism4  ,london4  #aijf4           
,,harrison1 ,j4 ,e4  ,prolegomena to the
 ,study of ,greek ,religion4 ,cambridge4
  #aijc4  ,,hartland1 ,e4 ,s4  ,the     
,legend of ,perseus4  ,london4  #ahie4  
,,hobhouse1 ,l4 ,t4  ,morals in         
,evolution4  ,london4  #aijf4           
,h,,ffding1 ,h4  ,philosophy of         
,religion 7,e4 ,t474  ,london4  #aijf4  

#bgb  ,,hollis4  ,the ,masai4  ,oxford4 
#aije4  ,,howitt1 ,a4 ,w4  ,the ,native 
,tribes of ,south ,east ,australia4     
,london4 #aijd4  ,,hubert1 ,h4  ,magia4 
,in ,daremberg ,saglio's ,dictionnaire  
des ,antiquits4 ,paris4  #aijd4         
,,hubert1 ,h4  ,,mauss1 ,m4  ,thorie    
gnrale de la magie4  ,l',anne           
,sociologique4  ,paris4  #aijd4  ,la    
,nature et la fonction du sacrifice4    
,l',anne ,sociologique4  ,paris4  #ahii4
  ,,huvelin1 ,p4  ,magie et droit       
individual4  ,l',anne ,sociologique4    
,paris4 #aijg4  ,,illingworth1 ,j4 ,r4  
,personality3 ,human and ,divine4       
,london4  #ahid4  ,,jevons1 ,f4 ,b4     
,the ,definition of ,magic4             
,sociological ,review for ,april1 #aijh4
  ,london4  ,the ,evolution of the      
,religious ,consciousness4  ,in         
,pan-,anglican ,papers4  ,london4       
#aijh4  ,introduction to the ,history of
 ,religion4  ,london4  #ahif4  ,magic4  
,in ,proceedings of the ,international  
,congress for the ,history of           

,religions4  #aijh4  ,,lang1 ,a4        
,custom and ,myth4  ,london4  #ahic4    
,magic and ,religion4 ,london4  #aija4  
,the ,making of ,religion4  ,london4    
#ahih4  ,modern ,mythology4  ,london4   
#ahig4  ,myth1 ,ritual1 and ,religion4  
,london4  #ahhg4  ,,lenormant1 ,f4      
,chaldean ,magic 7,e4 ,t474  ,london4   
#ahgg4  ,,maccullough1 ,j4 ,a4          
,comparative ,theology4  ,london4       
#aijb4  ,,marett1 ,r4 ,r4  ,is ,taboo a 
,negative ,magic8  ,in ,anthropological 
,essays4 ,oxford4  #aijg4  ,,mauss1 ,m4 
,des ,socits ,eskimos4  ,l',anne        
,sociologique4  ,paris4  #aijf4         
,m,,ller1 ,j4 ,g4  ,geschichte der      
amerikanischen ,urreligionen4  ,basel4  
#ahee4  ,,nassau1 ,r4 ,h4  ,fetichism in
 ,west ,africa4  ,london4  #aijd4  #bgc 
,,parker1 ,k4 ,l4  ,the ,euahlayi       
,tribe4  ,london4  #aije4  ,,payne1 ,e4 
,j4  ,history of the ,new ,world called 
,america4  ,oxford4  #ahib4  ,,reinach1 
,s4  ,cultes1 ,mythes1 et ,religions4   
,paris4  #aije4  ,reports of the        

,cambridge ,anthropological ,expedition 
to ,torres ,straits4  ,cambridge        
7,england74  #aijh4  ,,rhys ,,davids1   
,t4 ,w4  ,origin and ,growth of         
,religion4  ,london4  #ahia4  ,,ruhl1   
,l4  ,de ,mortuorum indicio4  ,giessen4 
#aijc4  ,,schmidt1 ,h4  ,veteres        
,philosophi quomodo indicaverint de     
precibus4 ,giessen4  #aijg4  ,,schrader1
 ,o4  ,reallexikon der indogermanischen 
,altertumer4  ,strassburg4 #aija4       
,,skeat1 ,w4 ,w4  ,malay ,magic4        
,london4  #aijj4  ,,smith1 ,w4 ,r4      
,religion of the ,semites4  ,london4    
#ahid4  ,,spence1 ,l4  ,the ,mythologies
 of ,ancient ,mexico and ,peru4         
,london4  #aijg4  ,,spencer  ,,gillen4  
,the ,native ,tribes of ,central        
,australia4  ,london4 #ahii4  ,the      
,northern ,tribes of ,central           
,australia4  ,london4  #aijd4  ,,tylor1 
,e4 ,b4  ,primitive ,culture4  ,london4 
#ahgc4  ,,waitz1 ,t4  ,anthropologie der
 ,naturvlker4  ,leipzig4  #ahfd4        
,,webster1 ,h4  ,primitive ,secret      

,societies4  ,london4  #aijh4           
,,westermarck1 ,e4  ,the ,origin and    
,development of the ,moral ,ideas4      
,london4  #aijf4  ,,wundt1 ,w4          
,vlkerpsychologie4  ,leipzig4           
#aijd-aijg4     #bge  ,,index   ,acosta1
 ,father1 #aic4  ,agnostic1 #d1 #f4     
,agries1 #adc4  ,alfoors1 #aid4         
,algonquins1 #adc4  ,all-father1 #aij4  
,ancestors1 #afb4  ,ancestor worship1   
#eb1 #ec2 may be arrested by religion1  
#ec1 #ed1 #ee4  ,andaman ,islands1 #afi4
  ,animal sacrifice1 #bji2 animal meal1 
#agh4  ,animals1 worshipped1 #aaa4      
,animism1 #bjd1 #bae1 #baf1 #bag2 and   
magic1 #hi1 #ij1 #ih2 and fetichism1    
#aaf1 #aag1 #aah2 polytheism1 #aca2 not 
religion1 #acf4  ,anticipation1 of      
nature1 #gc4  ,antinomy1 the1 of        
religious feeling1 #agd4  ,anzam1 #agj4 
,applied science of religion1 #b ff42   
looks to the future1 #c2 is used by the 
missionary as a practical man1 #ae1 #af2
 its object1 #ah1 #ba4  ,ashantee ,land1
 #aec1 #aee4  ,atheist1 #d1 #f4  ,atman1

 #bdg4  ,at-one-ment1 #agh4  ,attention1
 #i1 #aj4  ,australia1 #ahc ff4         
,australian tribes1 religion of1 #bg1   
#bh4  ,aztecs1 #ahh1 #aij4   ,basutos1  
#aha4  ,becoming1 #bad4  ,being1 is in  
process of evolution1 #bad2 still       
incomplete1 #bad4  ,belief1 and desire1 
#ci1 #dj2 in immortality and ,god1 #ca1 
#cb2 erroneous1 and magic1 #gi2 in      
magic1 #he2 religious1 #acg4            
,bhogaldai1 #aid4  ,billiards1 #gh4     
,blood1 and rain1 #afa4  ,bones1 of     
animals1 hung up1 #gh4  ,boorah1 #afb   
ff4  ,bosman1 #aji ff41 #aab1 #aac4     
,bread1 prayer for daily1 #aha4         
,buddhism1 #bdg ff42 and immortality1   
#cf1 #cg1 #fa1 #fb1 #fc2 its fundamental
 illogicality1 #ff2 its strength1 #ff4  
,buro1 #aid4  ,buzzard1 #gf4  ,byamee1  
#afb ff41 #aia1 #aih4   ,cause1 and     
conditions1 #gg1 #he4  ,celebes1 #aid4  
,ceram1 #aha4  ,ceremonies1 for rain1   
#afa4  ,chain of existence1 #fe4        
,charms1 and prayers1 #aej1 #aae1 #aeb4 
,chattels1 #bda1 #bdc4  ,cherokee       

,indian1 #ej1 #gf1 #gg4  ,chicomecoatl1 
#aic4  ,childhood1 #ih4  ,china1 #aid1  
#aig4  ,christianity1 #bci ff41 #beh1   
#bei1 #bfj2 the highest form of         
religion1 #ae1 #ah1 #bb1 #bc2 and other 
forms of religion1 #bf1 #bg1 #bh1 #ce2  
alone teaches self-sacrifice as the way 
to life eternal1 #fi2 and sacrifice1    
#bji4  ,clouds1 #aec2 of smoke and rain1
 #afa1 #afb4  ,communal purposes1 and   
magic1 #ia4  ,communion1 #age2 not so   
much an intellectual belief as an object
 of desire1 #dc1 #dd2 of man with ,god  
the basis of morality1 #fb2 logically   
incompatible with ,buddhism1 #fc2       
involves personal existence1 #fg2 with  
,god1 #acg2 sought in prayer1 #agb2 and 
sacrifice1 #agb2 in ,mexico1 #aic2      
maintained by sacramental eating1 #aie2 
annually1 #aif2 renewed1 #aih2 the true 
end of sacrifice1 #bjg1 #bjh2 between   
man and ,god1 #bdi2 imperfect1 #beg4    
,community1 #bed2 and magic1 #ha1 #ig2  
and its ,god1 #ia4  ,community1 the1 and
 fetiches1 #abb2 and its gods1 #ace2 and

 prayer1 #adf1 #adg1 #adh1 #aff2 and the
 individual1 #bah1 #bci4  ,comparative  
method1 #bj1 #ba4  ,comparative         
,philology1 #bj4  ,comparison1 method   
of1 #ag2 implies similarity in the      
religions compared1 #ai2 and implies    
difference also1 #bj2 contrasted with   
comparative method1 #ba2 deals with     
differences1 #bb4  ,comte1 #bac4        
,conciliation1 and coercion1 of spirits1
 #aba4  ,congregations1 #agj4           
,contagious magic1 #he4  ,continuation  
theory1 #ee1 #ef4  ,corn1 eaten         
sacramentally1 #aid1 #aie4              
,corn-maiden1 #aie4  ,corn-mother1 #aie4
  ,corn-spirit1 #aif1 #aii1 #bjj4       
,cotton-mother1 #aid4  ,creator1 #agj4  
,creek ,indians1 #aid4  ,custom1 #bdd2  
protected by the god of the community1  
#bai4   ,dances1 #afb2 and prayer1 #aec4
  ,dead1 the1 #ch2 return1 #dg2 spirits 
of the1 #ib4  ,death1 a mistake         
according to the primitive view1 #dd1   
#de2 or else due to magic1 #de1 #df1    
#hj4  ,deer1 #gd4  ,degradation of      

religion1 #bd4  ,deification1 #ec4      
,deiphobus1 #ed4  ,delaware prayer1     
#ade4  ,departmental deities1 #aij4     
,desacralisation1 #ahf4  ,desire for    
immortality1 is the origin of the belief
 in immortality1 #dj1 #da2 is not a     
selfish desire1 #db2 the root of all    
evils1 #ff2 religious1 #aae1 #aaf1 #aba2
 and prayer1 #adb1 #adi2 and the worship
 of the gods1 #ace2 and religion1 #aeh1 
#aff2 of the community1 #afc4  ,desire  
of all nations1 #aae1 #agc4  ,dieri1    
#ej1 #afa1 #afd4  ,difference1 implies  
similarity1 #bg4  ,differences1 to be   
taken into account by method of         
comparison1 #bb2 their value1 #bc1 #bd2 
postulated by science1 #bd4             
,differentiation of the homogeneous1    
#bc1 #bd1 #be4  ,domesticated plants and
 animals1 #aij4  ,dreams1 and the soul1 
#cg2 their emotional value1 #db4        
,drought1 #afd4  ,dugongs1 #afd1 #afe4  
,dynamics1 of society1 #bdf1 #bee4      
,east ,indies1 #aha4  ,eating of the    
god1 #aic4  ,eating tiger1 #gd1 #hi4    

,ellis1 ,colonel1 #aac1 #abj1 #aba1     
#abb4  ,emotional element1 in fetichism 
and religion1 #acf4  ,end1 the1 gives   
value to what we do1 #ac2 and is a      
matter of will1 #ac2 of society1 #bea1  
#bec2 a category unknown to science1    
#bee4  ,ends1 anti-social1 #ha4  ,error1
 #be4  ,euahlayi1 #dh1 #afb1 #aia1 #aih4
  ,evolution1 #bad2 of religion1 #f1    
#bci1 #bdg1 #bec2 and progress1 #i1 #ab1
 #bd1 #bfd2 theory of1 #bc2 and the     
history of religion1 #agb1 #agc2 of     
humanity1 #bci1 #bdd1 #bdf2 law of1     
#beb2 end of1 #bed1 #bef4   ,faith1     
#acg1 #bch2 the conviction that we can  
attain our ends1 #ad2 shared by the     
religious man with all practical men1   
#ad1 #ae2 exhibited in adopting method  
of comparison in religion1 #ag2 in      
,christianity1 #ah2 banishes fear of    
comparisons1 #ah1 #ai2 in the communion 
of man with ,god manifests itself in the
 desire for immortality1 #fh4  ,family1 
and society1 #ih4  ,famine1 #bje4       
,father1 #ih4  ,feeling1 religious1     

#acg2 moral and religious1 #ha4         
,fetich1 defined1 #aaa1 #aab2 offerings 
made to it1 #aab2 not merely an         
inanimate1 #aac1 #aaf2 but a spirit1    
#aaf1 #aag2 possesses personality and   
will1 #aag2 aids in the accomplishment  
of desire1 #aag1 #aai2 may be made1     
#abj2 is feared1 #abj2 has no religious 
value1 #abj1 #aba2 distinct from a god1 
#abb2 subservient to its owner1 #abb2   
has no plurality of worshippers1 #abb2  
its principal object to work evil1 #abc2
 serves its owner only1 #abg2 permanence
 of its worship1 #abi2 has no           
specialised function1 #abi1 #acj2 is    
prayed to and talked with1 #acb2        
worshipped by an individual1 #acd2 and  
not by the community1 #ace1 #agj4       
,fetichism1 #aje ff41 #bae2 as the      
lowest form of religion1 #ajf1 #ajg2 as 
the source of religious values1 #ajg1   
#ajh2 and magic1 #ij2 and religion1     
#aad1 #abj1 #acf2 the law of its        
evolution1 #aai1 #abj2 condemned by     
public opinion1 #abb1 #abc2 offensive to

 the morality of the native1 #abf2 and  
at variance with his religion1 #abf1    
#abg2 not the basis of religion1 #abg2  
and polytheism1 #abh1 #aca1 #acb1 #acc2 
and fear1 #acf4  ,finality of           
,christianity1 #beh1 #bei4  ,first-fruit
 ceremonials1 #ahc1 #ahd2 and the gods1 
#ahe1 #ahg2 an act of worship1 #ahg1    
#ahh4  ,first-fruits1 #aha4  ,flesh of  
the divine being1 #aif4  ,fly-totem1    
#afe1 #aff4  ,folk-lore1 #he4  ,food    
supply1 #bje4  ,footprints1 #gd4  ,forms
 of religion1 #ai4  ,framin women1 #aeb1
 #aec1 #aee1 #aef4  ,frazer1 ,j4 ,g41   
#ej1 #gf1 #gh1 #gi1 #hc1 #ib1 #id1 #ajb1
 #aec1 #aeg1 #aeh1 #afj1 #ahj1 #aib1    
#aid-bjj1 #bjb1 #bje4  ,fuegians1 #afi4 
,funerals1 and prayer1 #afc4  ,future1  
knowledge of the1 #ad1 #ae4  ,future    
life1 its relation to morality and      
religion1 #cf1 #cg1 #eg4  ,future       
punishments1 and rewards1 #ea1 #fa4     
,future world1 #eb ff4   ,ghosts1 #ch1  
#db4  ,gift-theory of sacrifice1 #bjf4  
,god1 worshipped by community1 #ia1 #ih2

 a supreme being1 #afh2 etymology of the
 word1 #acc1 #acd2 a personal power1    
#acf1 #acg2 correlative to a community1 
#acg4  ,gods and worshippers1 #ec2 and  
fetichism1 #aaj2 made and broken1 #aaj2 
personal1 #aba2 departmental1 #abi2     
their personality1 #acj1 #aca2 and the  
good of the community1 #abc2 and        
fetiches1 #abd2 are the powers that care
 for the welfare of the community1 #abf1
 #agb2 and spirits1 #abh2 of a moment1  
#abh1 #acf2 their proper names1 #aca2   
worshipped by a community1 #acd2 and the
 desires of their worshippers1 #acd2 not
 evolved from fetiches1 #ace2 promote   
the community's good1 #ace1 #acg1 #afg2 
and prayer1 #adj1 #adg1 #adh2 and       
morality1 #afi2 of a community          
identified with the community1 #agg2 as 
ethical powers1 #bae2 punish            
transgression1 #bbj4  ,gold ,coast1     
prayer1 #adc4  ,golden ,age1 #be4       
,good1 the1 #adj2 and the gods1 #acg4   
,gotama1 #fd4  ,gott1 and giessen1 #acd4
  ,grace1 #bei4  ,gratitude1 #aha4      

,great ,spirit1 the1 #adc4  ,guardian   
spirits1 #aaa4  ,guinea1 #aig4          
,haddon1 ,dr41 #hc1 #ia1 #ajj1 #aja1    
#ajf1 #ajg1 #aag1 #aah1 #abd1 #abi1     
#acj1 #acb1 #acc4  ,hades1 #eh4         
,hallucinations1 #ch4  ,happiness1 #bdj4
  ,hartford ,theological ,seminary1 #a1 
#bb1 #ajf4  ,harvest1 prayers and       
sacrifice1 #ahj ff4  ,harvest communion1
 #ahh1 #ahi4  ,harvest customs1 #aib1   
#aih1 #bjc4  ,harvest supper1 #aie ff41 
#bjj2 its sacramental character1 #aig4  
,health1 and disease1 #ach4  ,heaven1   
kingdom of1 #beb1 #bfb4  ,hebrew        
prophets1 #bjg1 #bji4  ,hebrews1 #ed4   
,hegel1 #bac4  ,hindoo ,koosh1 #aid4    
,historic science1 has the historic     
order for its object1 #aa2 but does not 
therefore deny that its facts may have  
value other than truth value1 #aa4      
,history1 of art and literature1 #h2 of 
religion1 #bec1 #bfc4  ,ho dirge1 #dg4  
,hobhouse1 ,l4 ,t41 #baa1 #bad-baf1     
#bbb1 #bbc1 #bbf-bbi1 #bcj1 #bcg4       
,hffding1 ,h41 #dd1 #aff1 #agc1 #bed2 on

 fetichism1 #ajf1 #aad1 #aae1 #aba1     
#abd1 #abh-acj1 #acc-acg2 on antinomy of
 religious feeling1 #agd2 and morality1 
#baa1 #bad-baf1 #bai1 #bbj1 #bcg4       
,hollis1 ,mr41 #adc ff4  ,homer1 #af1   
#ag4  ,homoeopathic magic1 #hj1 #he1    
#ic4  ,homogeneous1 the1 #bc1 #bd4      
,howitt1 ,mr41 #aij4  ,hu1 huta1 #acd1  
,humanitarianism1 #bad1 #bae1 #bcf1     
#bdd1 #bdf1 #bdg2 and morality1 #bba4   
,humanity1 #bac2 its evolution1 #bdd4   
,husband1 #ih4   ,ideals1 a matter of   
the will1 #ac4  ,idols1 #aic4           
,illingworth1 ,j4 ,r41 #beh4  ,illusion1
 #fd1 #bdh4  ,images1 of dough1 #aic1   
#aif4  ,imitative magic1 #aeg4          
,immortality1 #cd ff4  ,incorporation1  
#agh4  ,individual1 and the community1  
#bah1 #bci2 cannot exist save in        
society1 #bbe2 both a means and an end  
for society1 #bdj ff41 #bdf1 #bdg2      
existence of1 #bdh2 interests of1 #bej1 
#bea2 end of1 #bec4  ,individuality1 not
 destroyed but strengthened by uprooting
 selfish desires1 #fg4  ,indo-,china1   

#aha1 #aid4  ,indo-,european languages1 
#bj4  ,infancy1 helpless1 #ih4          
,initiation ceremonies1 #aij1 #aia2     
admit to the worship of the gods1 #aib2 
important for theory of sacrifice1 #aib4
  ,interests1 of the community1 #bej2   
and the individual1 #bej4  ,intoning1 of
 prayer1 #adg4  ,israel1 #ei4           
,jaundice1 #hi4  ,jews1 #ec1 #ed4       
,judgments1 of value1 #aae4  ,justice1  
public1 #bbc1 #bbd ff4   ,kaitish rites1
 #afd1 #afe4  ,kangaroo totem1 #aig4    
,kant1 #bee4  ,karma1 #fd1 #fe4  ,kei   
,islands1 #aef4  ,kern ,baby1 #aie4     
,khonds of ,orissa1 and prayer1 #aci1   
#afg1 #aga4  ,killing of the god1 #aig4 
,kingsley1 ,miss1 #dh1 #di1 #aaf4       
,lake ,nyassa1 #adf4  ,lake ,superior1  
#adc4  ,lang1 ,andrew1 #abi1 #afh1 #afi1
 #agj4  ,l',anne ,sociologique1 #fj4    
,like produces like1 #gb1 #gc1 #gd1 #gf1
 #gi1 #hj1 #hd1 #he1 #hf1 #hi1 #ih1     
#ajj1 #afj1 #ahi4  ,litanies1 #afc4     
,love of neighbours1 #bed4              
,mac,cullough1 ,j4 ,a41 #dg4            

,mc,taggart1 ,dr41 #di1 #ej4  ,magic1   
#cb1 #gj ff42 and murder1 #de1 #dg2 a   
colourable imitation of science1 #ga2 a 
spurious system1 #ga1 #gb2 fraudulent1  
#ge1 #gf2 origin of belief in1 #gi2     
regarded with disapproval1 #gi2         
sympathetic or homoeopathic1 #hj2       
offensive to the god of the community1  
#ha2 not prior to religion1 #ig2        
condemned when inconsistent with the    
public good1 #ig2 and anti-social       
purposes1 #ih2 decline of1 #ajj2 and the
 impossible1 #aja2 private and public1  
#hc2 nefarious1 #hc2 beneficent1 #hg1   
#hh2 does not imply spirits1 #hi2 and   
religion1 #ib ff42 fundamentally        
different1 #ie1 #aeh1 #afj2 mimics      
science and religion1 #ajc2 and the     
degradation of religion1 #aej1 #aea1    
#aeb2 and prayer1 #aec1 #aed2 priority  
of1 to religion1 #aed1 #aeg2 and        
sacramental eating1 #aii-bjd4  ,see     
,appendix4  ,magician1 his personality1 
#hg4  ,mahommedanism1 #bei4             
,maize-mother1 #aij1 #aic1 #aid1 #aie1  

#aif4  ,maker1 the1 #afh4  ,manganja1   
#adf1 #afj4  ,mara tribe1 #afd4         
,marett1 ,r4 ,r41 #aea4  ,marriage law1 
#bbb1 #bbg4  ,masai1 and prayer1 #adc1  
#add1 #ade1 #aec-aef1 #afb4  ,master of 
,life1 #adc4  ,mauss1 ,m41 #fj4  ,my1   
#fd4  ,medical advice1 #gf4  ,mexico1   
#aic1 #aid1 #aii1 #bjj4  ,mimetic magic1
 #he4  ,minahassa1 #aid4  ,mind of      
,humanity1 #bac4  ,missionary1 #f1 #adj1
 #baj1 #baa1 #beg1 #bfe2 interested in  
the value rather than the chronological 
order of religions1 #ab2 being          
practical1 uses applied science1 #ae2   
and method of comparison1 #ag2 and notes
 resemblances1 #bb2 requires scientific 
knowledge of the material he has to work
 on1 #cd2 may use as a lever the belief 
in man's communion with spirits1 #fi2   
and magic1 #ajb1 #ajc1 #ajd2 and        
fetichism1 #aje2 and heathen prayer1    
#ach1 #agc4  ,momentary gods1 #abh1     
#acf4  ,morality1 #ha1 #hc1 #hd1 #ie1   
#baa ff41 #bfj1 #bfa2 and communion with
 ,god1 #fb2 and the mysteries1 #aia2 and

 prayer1 #adh4  ,moral transgression1   
and sin1 #bba4  ,mosquito-totem1 #aff4  
,mura-muras1 #afb4  ,mysteries1 the     
,greek1 #eh1 #fb2 and prayer1 #ahj4     
,names1 and gods1 #aba4  ,names1 of     
gods1 #aba1 #aca1 #acb2 of men1 #acb2   
and personality1 #acc4  ,nassau1 ,dr41  
#aaf1 #afh1 #agj4  ,natchez ,indians1   
#aid4  ,natural law1 #gb4  ,nature1     
uniformity of1 #ad1 #ae4  ,nefarious    
magic1 #hc-hg1 #ie4  ,neilgherry ,hills1
 #aid4  ,new ,caledonia1 #ib1 #aec1     
#aed1 #aee1 #aef1 #afb4  ,new ,hebrides1
 #aha4  ,new ,south ,wales1 #afb4       
,nias1 #aha4  ,niger1 #aha4  ,nirvana1  
#bdg4  ,north ,american ,indians1 #aaa4 
,nyankupon1 #afi4   ,offerings1 #agh2   
and their object1 #ahj2 made to         
fetiches1 #aab1 #abb4  ,old ,testament1 
#ed4  ,ol-kora1 #aed1 #afb4  ,onitsha1  
#aha4  ,order of value1 #g2 distinct    
from chronological order1 #g1 #i1 #ae1  
#af2 historic1 #h4  ,origin1 and        
validity1 #ch1 #ci4  ,osages1 #adc4     
,parker1 ,mrs4 ,l41 #afb ff41 #aia4     

,perception1 #i4  ,personality1 of      
magician1 #hg2 of gods and fetiches1    
#acj1 #aca1 #acb2 of ,god1 #beh2 and    
proper names1 #acc4  ,personification1  
#acf4  ,peru1 #aic1 #aid1 #aih4         
,pestilence1 #bje4  ,pinkerton1 #aji4   
,plato1 #bjf1 #bjg1 #bji4  ,political   
economy1 #e1 #f4  ,political philosophy1
 #bda4  ,polytheism and fetichism1 #abh1
 #acj1 #aca1 #acb1 #acc4  ,pondos1 #aid4
  ,power1 personal1 #hg1 #hh1 #ajj4     
,prayer1 #ib1 #ic1 #id1 #ach ff42 among 
the heathen1 #ach2 to fetiches1 #abg2   
and desire1 #adb2 and personal          
advantage1 #add2 and the community1     
#adf2 of individuals1 #adg2 unethical1  
#adh1 #adi2 and magic1 #aed2 and spells1
 #aee1 #aeg1 #afj2 and famine1 #aeh2 for
 rain1 #afj2 the expression of the      
heart's desire1 #afj2 never unknown to  
man1 #afj1 #afa2 in exceptional         
distress1 #ahb2 of thanksgiving1 #ahb2  
occasional and recurring1 #agi ff42 and 
communion1 #ahj2 its purpose1 #age2 and 
external rites1 #agf2 implies sacrifice1

 #agf2 not always reported by observers1
 #agg2 and sacrifice go together1 #afi2 
no worship without1 #agj2 of ,socrates1 
#aga2 and sacrifice1 #agb2 ,our ,lord's1
 #agb1 #agc2 practical1 #afg2 the root  
of religion1 #afg1 #afh2 and its        
objects1 #afc2 a mother's prayer1 #afc2 
singing1 #afd2 and charms1 #aej1 #afe2  
at seed time1 #bje4  ,prayer-mill1 #aej4
  ,priests1 #ia1 #aic2 and gods1 #aba2  
and fetiches1 #abb4  ,primitive man1    
believes in immortality1 #cg4  ,private 
property1 #e1 #f4  ,progress1 #i1 #bdf1 
#bef1 #beg1 #bfc2 and evolution1 #bd4   
,protective colouring1 #gj1 #ajc4       
,psalmist1 #ed4  ,puluga1 #afi4  ,pure  
science of religion1 is a historic      
science1 #b2 its facts may be used for  
different and contradictory purposes1   
#d4   ,rain1 prayed for1 #adf1 #afj1    
#afa4  ,rain-clouds1 #aed1 #aef1 #afa1  
#afb4  ,rain-god1 #ia1 #ib4             
,rain-making1 #hd1 #hg1 #hh1 #ia1 #afa1 
#afd4  ,rebirth1 #dh1 #di1 #ej4         
,regress1 #bdf1 #beg4  ,reincarnation1  

#ei2 in animal form1 #ej1 #ea1 #eb2 in  
new-born children1 #dh-ej2 in namesakes1
 #ej2 its relation to morality and      
religion1 #fa4  ,religion1 is a fact1   
#e2 never unknown to man1 #afj1 #afa2   
essentially practical1 #afj1 #age2 its  
evolution1 #bci2 as a survival of       
barbarism1 #bd2 lowest forms to be      
studied first1 #bf1 #bg2 is a yearning  
after and search for ,god1 #bh1 #aae1   
#acf2 a bond of community from the      
first1 #dc1 #ei1 #agf2 implies gods and 
their worship1 #aba1 #abb1 #agg1 #bag2  
implies rites and prayers1 #agf2 under  
the guise of desire1 #dd1 #aae1 #adi1   
#aeh1 #aff1 #agc2 but it is the desire  
of the community1 #dd2 and morality1    
#cg1 #ha1 #hc1 #hd1 #baa1 #bae2 and     
animism1 #acf2 and fetichism1 #ajf-aji1 
#aae1 #aca1 #acb1 #acf2 and magic1 #gj1 
#ga1 #gb1 #ib-ie1 #if1 #ig1 #ih1 #aja1  
#aej1 #aea1 #aeb1 #aed2 mechanical1     
#aej2 applied science of1 #aje2 and its 
value1 #aji4  ,religious values1 #i1    
#af4  ,resemblances1 not more important 

than differences1 for the method of     
comparison1 #bb2 their value1 #bc1 #bd4 
,resentment and justice1 #bbd4          
,responsibility1 collective1 #bbg1 #bbh1
 #bcd4  ,revelation1 #agb1 #bee2 and    
evolution1 #agc4  ,revenge and justice1 
#bbi4  ,rheumatism1 #gf4  ,rhys ,davids1
 #fd4   ,saa1 #ahj4  ,sacrament1 in     
,central ,australia1 #aig1 #bjj4        
,sacramental meals1 #ahc ff41 #aig1     
#aii1 #bjj1 #bja1 #bjc4  ,sacrifice1    
#ib1 #ic1 #id1 #age ff42 to fetiches1   
#aac2 and worship1 #acg1 #agg2 and      
prayer1 #agb1 #agg2 and the gift theory1
 #bjf2 and communion1 #bjg1 #bjh2 its   
ultimate form1 #bji1 #baj2 and the      
etymology of god1 #acc ff41 #acg4       
,saffron1 #hi4  ,science1 has truth1 not
 assignment of value1 for its object1   
#aj1 #aa1 #ajh2 and history1 #ajh2 does 
not deal with ends1 #bee2 and evolution1
 #beg2 and magic1 #gj1 #ga1 #gb1 #aja2  
of the savage1 #aei1 #ahi4  ,science of 
religion1 #bef2 pure and applied1 #b    
ff42 supposed to be incompatible with   

religious belief1 #d2 really has nothing
 to do with the truth or value of       
religion1 #e1 #aj2 and prayer1 #adj1    
#ada2 and the missionary1 #aje4  ,sea   
,dyaks1 #bbh4  ,search for ,god1 the1   
#bh1 #bi1 #cj1 #cd1 #ce1 #beb1 #beh1    
#bfb4  ,seed time1 #ahh1 #bje4          
,self-realising spirit1 #bac1 #bad4     
,seminole ,indians1 #aid4  ,shakespeare1
 #af1 #ag4  ,sheol1 #ed1 #eh4           
,similarity1 between higher and lower   
forms of religion1 #bg2 the basis for   
the missionary's work1 #bh4  ,singing1  
#afd1 #afe4  ,slavery1 #bda1 #bdc4      
,smelling out1 #hd4  ,social purpose1   
and magic1 #ia4  ,society1 a means1     
#bec2 as an end1 #bfa2 perfection of1   
#bed1 #bfa2 and the family1 #ih4        
,society ,islands1 #aha4  ,solidarity1  
#bab1 #bac1 #bea2 religious1 #bbj4      
,solomon ,islands1 #ahj4  ,soul1 the1   
#cg2 separable from the body1 #cg2 its  
continued existence1 #ch4  ,spells1 and 
prayers1 #aej1 #aea1 #aeb1 #aec1 #aee1  
#aeg1 #afj1 #afd4  ,spencer and ,gillen1

 #de1 #df1 #afd1 #aig4  ,spinning1 #gh1 
#gi4  ,spirits1 #afb1 #agj2 not         
essential to magic1 #hi1 #ij1 #ia2 and  
fetiches1 #aah1 #aai2 of fetichism and  
gods of polytheism1 #abh2 guardian1     
#aaa2 momentary1 and gods1 #ace2 and    
prayer1 #aff2 and morality1 #bae1 #bag1 
#bai2 not worshipped1 #baf4  ,spring    
customs1 #aib1 #aih1 #bjc4  ,squirrel1  
#gf1 #gh4  ,state1 the1 and justice1    
#bbd4  ,st4 ,john1 ,mr41 #bbh4  ,stones1
 #ib1 #ic1 #id4  ,struggle for          
existence1 #bfd4  ,suhman1 #abb1 #abc1  
#abf1 #acf4  ,sun1 #aec1 #aeg4          
,superstition1 #aej4  ,sympathetic      
magic1 #hj1 #he1 #ic1 #aec1 #aeg1 #afb4 
,taboo1 #ahf ff41 #bbb1 #bbi1 #bca-bcd1 
#bej4  ,talents1 #bec4  ,tana1 #aha4    
,tanner1 ,john1 #adc4  ,tari1 #aha1     
#ahc4  ,taro1 #ib1 #ic1 #id4  ,temples1 
#agh4  ,test1 of perfection in society1 
#bee4  ,thanks1 do not need words1 #aha1
 #ahe4  ,thank-offerings1 #aha4         
,thomsen1 ,professor1 #acd4  ,tibetan   
,buddhists1 #aej4  ,tiger1 #gd1 #hi4    

,tjumba1 #aha4  ,tonga1 #aha4  ,totems1 
#ea1 #afe1 #aff1 #aig1 #bjc2 eating of1 
#ahf4  ,trade wind1 #aja4               
,transmigration1 #ea1 #fa1 #aai1 #abj2  
of character1 #fd4  ,truth1 #be2 and    
value1 #aj4  ,tupinambas1 #ef1 #eh4     
,tylor1 ,professor1 #cg1 #dg1 #ef1 #aab1
 #ada-add1 #adg1 #adh1 #aej1 #afa1 #aff4
   ,unalits1 #ei1 #fj4  ,uncle ,john1   
knows his own pipe1 #di1 #ej4           
,uniformity of nature1 #ad2 matter of   
faith1 not of knowledge1 #ae4           
,unselfishness1 developes and does not  
weaken individuality1 #fg4  ,usener1    
,professor1 #abh1 #aca1 #acc4           
,utilitarianism1 #bdj1 #bdb4   ,value1  
#g2 literary and artistic1 #h1 #i2      
religious1 #h1 #i1 #aj1 #ajg1 #ajh1     
#aji2 carries a reference to the future1
 #ab2 relative to a purpose or end1 #ac1
 #ae2 of literature and art1 felt1 not  
proved1 #af1 #ag2 of fetichism1 #aad1   
#aae1 #abj2 of fetichism and religion   
for society1 #abe2 religious1 and       
fetichism1 #abg4  ,virgil1 #ed4   ,west 

,africa1 #aeb1 #aec4  ,westermarck1 ,e41
 #bbd1 #bbe1 #bbh1 #bce4  ,whistling1 to
 produce a wind1 #gc1 #gd1 #ge4  ,will1 
the1 #ac4  ,will to injure1 #ha4  ,will 
to live1 the1 #da2 involves the desire  
for immortality1 #da2 denounced by      
,buddhism1 #ff4  ,wind1 #ajj1 #aja4     
,wisdom1 collective1 of man1 #bcg4      
,witch1 and witch-doctor1 #hd4          
,witchcraft1 #bbb1 #bbg4  ,wives1 of    
hunters and warriors1 #gh4  ,wohkonda1  
#adc4  ,worship1 #aba1 #abb1 #agg1 #ahj1
 #bfj2 and the etymology of god1 #acc   
ff41 #acg2 of gods and of fetiches1     
#abc1 #acd1 #ace2 of the community1     
given to the powers that protect it1    
#abf2 may break up1 #agj4   ,xenophon1  
#aga4  ,xilonen1 #aij4   ,yams1 #ic1    
#adc1 #ahj1 #aha4  ,yebu1 #adg4         
,zulus1 #aid4     ,printed in the       
,united ,states of ,america4