Buddha, Mahomet, but all the originators of Christian sects have
been in this case;--so personal religion should still seem the
primordial thing, even to those who continue to esteem it
incomplete.

There are, it is true, other things in religion chronologically
more primordial than personal devoutness in the moral sense.
Fetishism and magic seem to have preceded inward piety
historically--at least our records of inward piety do not reach
back so far. And if fetishism and magic be regarded as stages of
religion, one may say that personal religion in the inward sense
and the genuinely spiritual ecclesiasticisms which it founds are
phenomena of secondary or even tertiary order. But, quite apart
from the fact that many anthropologists--for instance, Jevons and
Frazer --expressly oppose "religion" and "magic" to each other,
it is certain that the whole system of thought which leads to
magic, fetishism, and the lower superstitions may just as well be
called primitive science as called primitive religion. The
question thus becomes a verbal one again; and our knowledge of
all these early stages of thought and feeling is in any case so
conjectural and imperfect that farther discussion would not be
worth while.

Religion, therefore, as I now ask you arbitrarily to take it,
shall mean for us THE FEELINGS, ACTS, AND EXPERIENCES OF
INDIVIDUAL MEN IN THEIR SOLITUDE, SO FAR AS THEY APPREHEND
THEMSELVES TO STAND IN RELATION TO WHATEVER THEY MAY CONSIDER THE
DIVINE. Since the relation may be either moral, physical, or
ritual, it is evident that out of religion in the sense in which
we take it, theologies, philosophies, and ecclesiastical