Pagan and Christian Creeds: Their Origin and Meaning | Page 4

in modern times to put forward this view. A little later
the PHALLIC explanation of everything came into fashion. The deities
were all polite names for the organs and powers of procreation. R. P.
Knight (Ancient Art and Mythology, 1818) and Dr. Thomas Inman
(Ancient Faiths and Ancient Names, 1868) popularized this idea in
England; so did Nork in Germany. Then again there was a period of
what is sometimes called Euhemerism --the theory that the gods and
goddesses had actually once been men and women, historical
characters round whom a halo of romance and remoteness had gathered.
Later still, a school has arisen which thinks little of sungods, and pays
more attention to Earth and Nature spirits, to gnomes and demons and
vegetation-sprites, and to the processes of Magic by which these (so it
was supposed) could be enlisted in man's service if friendly, or
exorcised if hostile.
[1] This extraordinary book, though carelessly composed and
containing many unproven statements, was on the whole on the right
lines. But it raised a storm of opposition--the more so because its
author was a clergyman! He was ejected from the ministry, of course,
and was sent to prison twice.
It is easy to see of course that there is some truth in ALL these

explanations; but naturally each school for the time being makes the
most of its own contention. Mr. J. M. Robertson (Pagan Christs and
Christianity and Mythology), who has done such fine work in this
field,[1] relies chiefly on the solar and astronomical origins, though he
does not altogether deny the others; Dr. Frazer, on the other
hand--whose great work, The Golden Bough, is a monumental
collection of primitive customs, and will be an inexhaustible quarry for
all future students--is apparently very little concerned with theories
about the Sun and the stars, but concentrates his attention on the
collection of innumerable details[2] of rites, chiefly magical, connected
with food and vegetation. Still later writers, like S. Reinach, Jane
Harrison and E. A. Crowley, being mainly occupied with customs of
very primitive peoples, like the Pelasgian Greeks or the Australian
aborigines, have confined themselves (necessarily) even more to Magic
and Witchcraft.
[1] If only he did not waste so much time, and so needlessly, in
slaughtering opponents!
[2] To such a degree, indeed, that sometimes the connecting clue of the
argument seems to be lost.
Meanwhile the Christian Church from these speculations has kept itself
severely apart--as of course representing a unique and divine revelation
little concerned or interested in such heathenisms; and moreover (in
this country at any rate) has managed to persuade the general public of
its own divine uniqueness to such a degree that few people, even
nowadays, realize that it has sprung from just the same root as
Paganism, and that it shares by far the most part of its doctrines and
rites with the latter. Till quite lately it was thought (in Britain) that only
secularists and unfashionable people took any interest in sungods; and
while it was true that learned professors might point to a belief in
Magic as one of the first sources of Religion, it was easy in reply to say
that this obviously had nothing to do with Christianity! The Secularists,
too, rather spoilt their case by assuming, in their wrath against the
Church, that all priests since the beginning of the world have been
frauds and charlatans, and that all the rites of religion were merely
devil's devices invented by them for the purpose of preying upon the
superstitions of the ignorant, to their own enrichment. They (the
Secularists) overleaped themselves by grossly exaggerating a thing that

no doubt is partially true.
Thus the subject of religious origins is somewhat complex, and yields
many aspects for consideration. It is only, I think, by keeping a broad
course and admitting contributions to the truth from various sides, that
valuable results can be obtained. It is absurd to suppose that in this or
any other science neat systems can be found which will cover all the
facts. Nature and History do not deal in such things, or supply them for
a sop to Man's vanity.
It is clear that there have been three main lines, so far, along which
human speculation and study have run. One connecting religious rites
and observations with the movements of the Sun and the planets in the
sky, and leading to the invention of and belief in Olympian and remote
gods dwelling in heaven and ruling the Earth from a distance; the
second connecting religion with the changes of the season, on the Earth
and with such practical things as the growth of vegetation and food,
and leading to or mingled with a vague belief in earth-spirits and
magical methods of influencing such spirits; and the third connecting