bodies is its practical utility in the economic life of the people.
In a suggestive paper on “The Economic Study of Religion” Miss Margaretta Morris[1] says, “It is only natural that the idea that most vitally touches a man’s whole life, the idea of God, there should be an idealization of what is necessary to his welfare. The primitive hunter worships an animal god; the totemic tribe living by the seaside or by a river, a fish god; the agriculturist, the principle of fertility, or perhaps the very sheaves of corn themselves; pastoral tribes have their sacred cattle, or a god who is represented in the form of a bull or sheep. The idea of God tends to assume the form of whatever is useful to the community. On the practical side of religion we find a similar effect of utilitarian influence. Those customs which are in themselves beneficial are given a religious sanction. . . . In tracing the relation of religion and economics, it is well to begin our interpretation of a people’s faith by asking what is their chief dependence, and then looking to see whether an idealization of it has been taken up and incorporated into the religious ideas; and our interpretation of a custom by looking to the practical effect it has. It is easy to see why even the most religious people’s moral ideas are often inconsistent with their beliefs. They have grown up separately in different relation to economic needs, and are so often estranged that even the most ardent desire for unity of life cannot harmonize them. . . . Although we must study creeds and cults separately on account of their separate origins, we cannot ignore their close connection. . . . The relation of religion to the life of a people is by no means a simple one. And it is further complicated by the well-known power of religious conservatism, which enables both ideas and practices to survive long after there is any reason for them. Past methods and manners of life, the good
- ↑ Journ. Amer. Oriental Soc. xxiv. 1903, pp. 394-426.
