f the divine being"; or an animal is slain and its
flesh and blood are partaken of. (4) Amongst the Australian tribes
there is a sacramental eating of the totem animal or plant. Now, these
four groups of customs may be all religious (and Dr. Frazer speaks of
them all as sacramental) or all magical; or it may be admitted that the
first three are religious, and maintained that the fourth is strictly
magical. But such a separation of the Australian group from the rest
does not commend itself as likely; further, 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 animal, and that at harvest time
it is too late to work magic to cause the plant or animal to grow. The
probability is, then, that both the Australian group and the others are
sacrificial rites and are religious.

Such sacrificial rites, however, though felt to be the means whereby
communion was effected and maintained between the god and his
worshippers, may come to be interpreted as the making of gifts to the
god, as the means of purchasing his favour, or as a full discharge of
their obligations. When so interpreted they will be denounced by true
religion. But though it be admitted that the sacrificial rite might be
made to bear this aspect, it does not follow, as is sometimes supposed,
that it was from the outset incapable of bearing any other. On the
contrary, it was, from the beginning, not only the rite of making
offerings to the god but, also, the rite whereby communion was
attained, whereby the society of worshippers was brought into the
presence of the god they {xxi} worshipped, even though the chief
benefits which the worshippers conceived themselves to receive were
earthly blessings. It is because the rite had from the beginning this
potentiality in it that it was possible for it to become the means
whereby, through Christ, all men might be brought to God . . . 175-210

MORALITY

The question whether morality is based on religion, or religion on
morality, is one which calls for discussion, inasmuch as it is apt to
proceed on a mistaken view of facts in the history of religion. It is
maintained that as a matter of history morality came first and religion
afterwards; and that as a matter of philosophy religion presupposes
morality. Reality, that is to say, is in the making; the spirit of man
is self-realising; being is in process of becoming rationalised and
mo