neither in civilised nor savage peoples. Moreover, it has to be noted that, where it does exist, a low development of religious feeling is associated with a low development of general intelligence. The converse holds good-that the religious, like the moral, sense is a concomitant of, and is proportionate to, considerable native general intelligence and high mental or moral culture.

CHAPTER VI.

RELIGIOUS FEELING IN OTHER ANIMALS.

In order to a determination of the question whether it can be said in any proper sense that the lower animals possess religious feeling, it is desirable that we should start with some intelligible definition of what religion is in man. Remembering that the Christian religion is a very limited one compared, for instance, with Buddhism; that the religions of different peoples are obviously very different in their nature; and that in certain races, where it exists at all, religion is developed in very rudimentary forms—the standard definition which we should adopt, if one be attainable, is one that will apply to what has been so variously described as religiousness or the religious instinct, sentiment, faculty, emotion or impulse, sense or feeling, notions or ideas, in all ranks of man, in all ages, in all stages of development or civilisation, and in all conditions of health and disease. We must, therefore, at once obviously eliminate all that relates distinctively to the Bible and the God of the Bible-in other words, all the peculiar beliefs of the Christian, the definitions that would exclude all religions but his own, and all the substitutes for religion where no true religion exists. Several classes of definitions may with propriety be made use of-viz. (1) dictionary definitions, which represent or reflect current popular conceptions; (2) the definitions laid down by those anthropologists, or other authorities, who have taken a wide survey, and made a philosophical study, of the religions of the world, and especially of the germs or dawn of religion among the lower races of man; or (3) those of modern theologians, many of whom are beginning to see that

there are other religions in the world than the Christian. one, and that the definitions which apply to the latter do not necessarily apply to the others. Many of the most advanced of our clergy are showing signs of a recognition of the existence of material at least for the construction of a science of comparative theology; but I have met with none that have any conception of the broader, more important field of comparative religion. The following include specimens of the various classes of definitions. The popular, the scientific, and the theological ideas of religion are said or supposed to be

1. That which binds one back from doing something presumably wrong. This is the literal and original meaning of the word. Such a definition may very properly refer to, or include, or be synonymous with, such faculties or qualities as conscience, self-control, or self-restraint.

2. The feeling of reverence and love towards a superior being, and consequent obedience to him.

3. Piety, which again is defined partly as

a. The sense of duty.

b. Dutiful conduct.

c. Reverence for superior beings, parents, friends,

or country.

4. Systems of faith and worship, including the performance of worship, rites, or ceremonies.

5. Recognition and worship of superior embodied power. 6. An appreciation of the existence of superior beings (Houzeau).

7. The fear of more powerful beings or of superior power (Lubbock).

8. A blind sense of dependence' (Schleiermacher).

9. In the mingled fear and affection displayed towards the dead we witness the real germ of religious sentiment and the origin of theology,' is said to be the opinion of Herbert Spencer.

10. Always and everywhere a consciousness of relationship to a worshipped being' (Flint).

11. Self-renunciation constitutes the essence of all true religion' (Donaldson).

Such, according to various authorities, are the elements of

religion in lower or savage man, those elements that are common to, or form the basis of, the religions of all men.

...

In his Baird Lecture on the Philosophy of Religion,' given in St. George's Church, Edinburgh, in February 1877, Professor Flint thus defines human religion :-'The controversy as to whether religion is essentially knowing, feeling, or willing is merely verbal. . . . Religion belongs exclusively to no one disposition or faculty of the soul, but embraces the whole mind, the whole man. At its lowest it has something alike of intellect, affection, and practical obedience in it; and at its best it should include all the highest exercises of reason, all the purest and deepest emotions and affections, and the noblest kind of conduct. . . . Only a religion which presents an object of worship capable of eliciting the entire devotion of the worshipper's nature, and at the same time of ennobling, enlarging, and satisfying that nature, fully realises the idea of religion, or, in other words, can claim to be a perfect religion.' 91 This recent and public utterance of the Professor of Divinity in the University of Edinburgh is important not only as showing the breadth and liberality of view that characterise such Scottish theologians as Principal Tulloch and Professor Knight, of St. Andrews, Principal Caird, of Glasgow, and Professor Smith, of Aberdeen, but as bringing out the fact that religion is not a special or separate faculty or instinct even in man. It is, in short, merely a mode in which the action or operation of various moral or intellectual faculties, or both, may be combined, harmonised, and manifested.

Applying such a standard as Professor's Flint's to the dog, on the one hand, and to savage man on the other, to the worship by the one of man-a living, visible, intelligible power-and the idolatry by the other of his wooden or stone fetich or symbol, or his imaginary spirit, it cannot fail to strike those who have made themselves conversant with the habits equally of dog and savage how much more appropriate the description or definition of human religion is to the dog than to the man. Professor Flint tells us that the 'human heart cries out for a living, personal God to wor

1 'Courant,' February 20, 1877.

ship.' This is precisely what the dog does and the savage does not do.

Whatever be the definition adopted of religious feeling, as it is exhibited (if at all) in lower man, we must admit that the same kind of feeling, the same moral or intellectual qualities, or blending of the two, are possessed at least by certain dogs, and by them frequently in a much higher degree and in a much more real sense than by countless thousands of men, including whole races thereof.

To satisfy ourselves of this we have merely to study carefully the attitude or relation of certain dogs to their masters -to man. That man is the god of the dog,' his deity, idol, or hero, is a saying usually attributed to Robert Burns; but, whether or not such a saying really emanated from him and represented his opinion or belief, the phrase is the appropriate expression of an easily demonstrable fact and feature in the dog's character. And there can be little doubt that the same view-perhaps not in quite the same words-has been expressed by various authors, ancient as well as modern. Among others Lord Bacon long ago wrote, "Take an example of a dogy, and mark what generosity and courage he will put on when he is maintained by a man, who to him is instead of a god, or melior natura.' Both figuratively and in very truth man is frequently-certainly not always-the god or providence of the dog. That man is sometimes at least the god of the dog is true, and in a far more real sense than that the God of the Bible is the subject of genuine adoration by many so-called Christians. It may be said with the utmost propriety that to certain dogs man's will is law, man's love is heaven, man's self is god (Cobbe).

The dog's worship of man in many respects compares favourably with much at least of man's worship of superior beings, real or supposed, animate, inanimate, or spiritual. It does so, for instance, in the quality and duration of the love, which it lavishes not alone upon the person, but upon the memory and the belongings of the being it adores.

Its affection is not only pure, sincere, earnest, hearty, thorough; it is also disinterested: for it survives neglect and cruelty of all kinds. It is simple, for the animal seems