Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 20.djvu/386

Rh 368 RELIGIONS all ; (2) au implicit belief in the power of magic, which accounts for the high veneration in which sorcerers and fetich-priests are held ; (3) the predomination of fear over all other feelings, and the performance of religious acts mostly for selfish ends. For a somewhat more copious exposition of the character and the development of religions under the control of animism we must refer to Outlines of the History of Religion, 7-17, and the works there cited. 'heri- 4. Purified magical religions (b) are the connecting link nthropic between the polydsemonistic magic religions (a) and the anthropomorphic polytheistic (c), and ought to be distin- guished from each. The gods, though sometimes repre- sented in a human form, more frequently in that of an animal, are really spiritual beings, embodying themselves in all kinds of things, but principally in animals. Most images of the gods are either human bodies with heads of animals or the bodies of animals with human heads. It is therefore we call these religions therianthropic. The worship of animals is one of the principal characteristics of most of them. In a subsequent stage, though surviving sporadically, it is much more restricted. The same may be said of the widespread worship paid to the souls of the departed, which is one of the most important constituent elements of the religions in this stage of development, though it survives in the next stage as well. It is frequently combined, as, e.g., in Egypt, with an elaborate eschatology. Magic and sorcery, though forbidden and even entailing prosecution if exercised by private sorcerers, are still held in high esteem when in the hands of the lawful priests. They are now organized as a traditional ritual and gradually developed into a boundless mysticism. Some of the ancient nature myths have already become legends and supposed primeval history. As might be expected, some of the religions belonging to the therian- thropic stage stand nearer to the primitive animism, whilst others draw very nigh to the anthropomorphic stage; and so it would seem that we ought to make a distinction between such therianthropic religions as belong to federations and such as belong to united empires let us say, the unorganized and the organized. In the latter there is a strong tendency to monotheism and a kind of theocracy, the king being regarded as the living representa- tive of the supreme deity, both of which characteristics are not so prominent in the former. nthro- 5. In the anthropomorphic polytheism of the highest amor- nature religions (c) there are, as in all subsequent stages, >oly " many survivals of what was common in the preceding, but so far as this could be done they have been adapted to the new system and disguised under new names or by means of new explanations. We call this polytheism anthropomorphic because the gods are now all of them superhuman but manlike beings, lords over the powers of nature and reigning over its departments, workers of good and of evil. As manlike beings they show more ethical tendencies and attributes than those of the previous periods. But, being indeed the old nature gods themselves, only remodelled and humanized, and their myths being originally fantastic and even animistic descriptions of natural phenomena, represented as wars and wooings, quarrels and revelries, robberies and tricks of the giant powers of nature, their mythology is full of disgusting narratives, and they are frequently represented as indulging the lowest passions and performing the most degrading acts. Pious poets and grave philosophers felt shocked by such myths, and either tried to mend them or boldly denied them ; but they constituted nevertheless the faith of the majority till the fall of nature religion. Only, though essentially nature myths and still felt to be so, they are now no longer considered as an explanation of ever- returning phenomena, but, in accordance with the manlike character of the gods, as a kind of divine history, nay, are worked out into what may be called an imposing epic, beginning with the origin of life and ending only with the fall of the present cosmic economy. The gods them- selves are no longer represented as animals or trees or stones; these have now become their symbols and attributes, and are only looked upon as being sacred to them. Of the power they possessed, in their old quality of spirits, to assume all shapes at will the myths of their metamorphoses still bear witness, myths now told by elegant poets for the amusement of their readers, but despised by serious philo- sophers. The real therianthropic beings of the old mytho- logy, monsters like centaurs, harpies, fauns, satyrs, and others which could not be banished from ancient lore, now represent a lower order and are suffered to act only as followers or ministers or even as enemies, of the gods. Not one of the religions in the polytheistic stage was able to elevate itself to the purely ethical standpoint ; but, as moral consciousness went on increasing, deeper and more ethical religious ideas gathered round the persons of the most humane gods, the beloved son or daughter of the supreme deity, and gave rise to purer modes of worship which seemed to be forebodings of a time to come. Ethical Religions. 1. With regard to the ethical religions the question has been mooted and a rather puzzling question it is What right have we to divide them into nomistic or nomothetic communities, founded on a law or Holy Scripture, and universal or world religions, Avhich start from principles and maxims, the latter being only three Buddhism, Christianity, and Mohammedanism? The division has been adopted, among others by Prof. Kuenen, in his Hibbert Lectures, though with the import- ant restriction that Islam, as being essentially par- ticularistic, ought to be excluded from the class of univer- salistic religions. In an interesting paper (in the Leyden Theol. Tijdschrift, 1885, No. 1) Prof. Rauwenhoff rejects the whole class and particularly disapproves of the term " world religions," for which he substitutes that of " world churches. " The question deserves to be discussed thoroughly, but for that this is not the place. Here we can only state the results to which a conscientious review of our own opinion and an impartial consideration of our opponents' arguments have led us. 2. We now think that the term " world religions " must be sacrificed, though indeed "world churches" would do no better, perhaps even worse. Without serving longer to determine the character of certain religions, the term " world religions " might still be retained for practical use, to distinguish the three religions which have found their way to different races and peoples and all of which profess the intention to conquer the world, from such communities as are generally limited to a single race or nation, and, where they have extended farther, have done so only in the train of, and in connexion with, a superior civilization. Strictly speaking, there can be no more than one universal or world religion, and if one of the existing religions is so potentially it has not yet reached its goal. This is a matter of belief which lies beyond the limits of scientific classification. 3. Still there is a real difference between two at least of the three above named, which are still contending with one another for supremacy over the nations of the globe, and the other religious communities which no longer try to make proselytes between Buddhism and Christianity on the one hand, and Confucianism, Brahmanism, Jainism, Mazdaism, and Judaism on the other. And this difference, which ought to be maintained, is indeed one of principle, not of fact only. If the latter, after having been adopted by a nation, have remained stationary for centuries and .if