FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTIONS AND METHODS 459 



sions of the religious consciousness, "notes their similarities and differ- 

 ences, and classifies them, in so far as by this process it seems possible 

 to determine the growth of religion and the laws on which it is based. 

 The comparison may extend to entire systems of religious thought 

 and practice, or only to individual ideas, rites, institutions, or rules 

 of conduct. In comparing and classifying those historic systems 

 that have generally been called religions, much attention is given 

 to the principle of classification. It is difficult to avoid artificiality in 

 the selection of the most characteristic feature. In the course of its 

 history each great religion has undergone so many important changes 

 that what at one timo seems the most significant characteristic at 

 another time is no longer a peculiarly marked feature. There is no 

 belief or ceremony in Christendom of which the formula quod semper, 

 ubique et ab omnibus could be truthfully used. The differences be- 

 tween Denck and Luther, or between Martineau and Newman, 

 were not more radical and far-reaching than those between Jesus and 

 Paul. If Christianity were so defined as to make the leading ideas and 

 practices of a Paul, an Augustine, an Aquinas, and a Luther its true 

 "exponents, the emphasis would be placed upon thoughts and customs 

 foreign to Jesus himself. If, on the other hand, his convictions and 

 manner of life were made the norm, the definition would exclude 

 some of the most characteristic doctrines and rites of Christians 

 since the first century. Similar difficulties are encountered in the 

 case of Judaism. To make Judaism synonymous with Talmudic 

 Rabbinism would not be correct, in view of the abundant evidence 

 of strong currents in Israel's religious life setting in other directions, 

 even if the ethical and religious elements in the Talmudic literature 

 were accorded a juster and more adequate appreciation than is 

 usually the case. And the Buddhism of Buddha is quite a different 

 thing from the Buddhism of the Lama of Tibet. Yet though the 

 task of classifying the different forms of religion is delicate and 

 difficult, it is neither impossible nor unprofitable. When Brahmanism, 

 Mazdaism, and Judaism are grouped together as legal religions, and 

 Buddhism and Christianity as religions of redemption, any inadequacy 

 in the classification is more than offset by the advantage of approach- 

 ing these religions from a common point of view. 



In comparing ideas and customs that show a marked similarity, 

 though found in different nations, it is natural to suppose that one 

 people has borrowed from another. Where historic contact can be 

 proved or is likely, a considerable degree of probability often at- 

 taches to such an assumption. But in many cases, even where the 

 resemblance is striking, the theory is both improbable and unneces- 

 sary, while in other cases the limitations of our historic knowledge 

 renders a decision extremely precarious. Thus, to quote a few 

 examples, there can scarcely be any doubt that the myths in Genesis 



