ject is dealt with, in the former case from an aministic, in the latter from an euhemeristic, point of view. And, let us add, whatever may be thought of the main thesis of either, both of them comprise valuable suggestions toward the solution of many of the problems that occupy the attention of anthropological students. Mr. Allen here, like Dr. Jevons, attempts to answer "the psychological question: 'By what successive steps did men come to frame for themselves the conception of a deity?'—or, if the reader so prefers it, 'How did we arrive at our knowledge of God?'" His answer is based chiefly upon Herbert Spencer's Ghost Theory: that is, that throughout the world there is but one religion under divers masks, namely, the Worship of the Dead. He points to Christianity as an example of the avowed worship, among historic peoples and in the midst of civilisation, of a deified man. Taking Christianity, then, as the standard of the highest religion, he proposes to trace from its very beginnings the evolution of the conception which it embodies.
At the outset he defines a God as "a supernatural being to be revered and worshipped;" and he distinguishes this being from one who is merely feared and not worshipped. Religion he defines as "Custom or Practice"—not theory, not theology, not ethics, not spiritual aspirations, but—"a certain set of more or less similar Observances: propitiation, prayer, praise, offerings; the request for divine favours, the deprecation of divine anger or other misfortunes;" in short, Ritual. Now, be it observed, we may disagree with this definition; we may prefer to define religion for theological or philosophical purposes in a different manner; but we cannot profitably argue with a scientific writer unless we are agreed upon the use of terms. Some of Mr. Allen's critics have hardly recognised this, and have consequently failed to grasp the limitation which this definition sets upon his conclusions, have failed to observe that while he may not have succeeded in accounting for the inner essence of religion as they conceive it, he may have accurately traced the evolution of ritual. Between religion on the one side and mythology and theology on the other, then, Mr. Allen draws a line, holding "that the union between them is in great part adventitious; and that, therefore, to account for or explain the one is by no means equivalent to accounting for and explaining the other."
Religion, as thus defined, commences with observances which
