CORNELIS PETRUS
TIELE (1830-1902)
Science of Religion
Vol. II (Edinburgh and London: William Blackwood and Sons,
1899)
First AMS edition published in 1979
[Translation of Inleiding tot de
godsdienst wetenschap.]
Reprint of the 1897-1899 ed. published by
W. Blackwood, Edinburg, in series: The Gifford lectures, 1896 and 1898.
[2]
Can we discover, among religious phenomena, any that recur so invariably that
we are justified in regarding them as necessary manifestations of religious
conscious[3]ness, whatever stage of development the religion may have attained?
Or, in other words, Does religion contain any constant elements, none of which
it can lack without injuring it and rendering it imperfect, and which therefore
belong to every sound and normal religion?
[3]
In every religion, from the lowest to the highest, we find certain conceptions
regarding the supernatural powers upon which men feel their dependence, certain
sentiments they cherish towards them, and certain observances they perform in
their honour. This common and popular view, although inexact as we shall
afterwards see, corresponds fairly well with reality. It has been countenanced
by scientific authors, and adopted in various handbooks. Professor Rhys Davids,[1]
for example, has recently defined the word religion as Òa convenient
expression for a very complex set of mental conditions, including, firstly,
beliefs as to internal and external mysteries (souls and gods); secondly, the
mental attitude induced by those beliefs; and thirdly, the actions and conduct
depend[4]ent on both.Ó É Others again mention only two
constituents of religion, conceptions and ritual, with the religious community
founded upon these; but they regard both as manifestations of religious faith,
and they deem the relation between the worshipper and his god as essential in
every religion (Rauwenhoff);[2]
or, like the philosopher TeichmŸller, they resolve every imaginable form of
religion into Dogmatic, Ethic, and Cult;[3]
or lastly, according to the most recent theory, they explain this threefold
basis by saying that religion consists in a direction of the will coincident
with a conception of the deity, and that sentiment is the badge of its real
existence.[4]
É
[5]
PfleidererÕs view that the essence of religion consists in a direction of the
will coinciding with certain conceptions of the deity, and that sentiment is
merely a badge of its real existence. [6] É The true-constituents of
religion are emotions, conceptions, and sentiments, of which words and deeds
are at once the [7] offspring and the index. É
[14] Religion therefore, which is a mental
condition, manifests itself in all kinds of words and deeds. É
[15]
Religion always begins with an emotion. Strictly speaking, an emotion is simply the result of something that
moves us, the effect of some external agency. But I use the word here in the
more general sense in which it is commonly understood. And in this sense every emotion
embraces three elements: (1) a predisposition, in the form of certain longings or aspirations, as yet partly
unconscious, and certain latent and vague conceptions, differing according to
the temperament and inclination of the individual, which may be described as a
mood; (2) an impression produced
upon us from without, or the affection itself; and (3) the fact of becoming
conscious of such affection, or the
perception of such affection. É
[19] But in the sphere of region the emotion consists in the
consciousness that we are in the power of a Being whom we revere as the
highest, and to whom we feel attracted and related; it consists in the
adoration which impels us to dedicate ourselves entirely to the adored object,
yet also to possess it and to be in union with it. É
[25]
Every living religion that bears fruit in human life – that is, every
religion rooted in faith—begins with emotion, whether produced by
teaching and preaching, or by our own contemplation of nature around us, or by
our wrestling with it and with our lot in life. É
[67]
Religion beings with conceptions awakened by emotions and experiences, and
these conceptions produce definite sentiments, which were already present in
germ in the first religious emotions, but which can only be aroused to
consciousness by these conceptions; and these sentiments manifest themselves in
actionsÉ.
[194]
He [Hermann Siebeck in his Lehrbuch der Religionsphilosophie, p. 263] regards religion as a conviction that God and
a super-terrestrial world exist, and that redemption is possible—a
conviction to which heart and mind alike contribute, and which is practically
oper[195]ative. And in the determination of religious consciousness, faith is
the essential psychological moment. Faith, in this highest sense, he describes
as an act performed by the freewill of the individual. This act consists, in
the first place, in an affirmative answer being given by the believer, with
regard to the idea of the Good, to the question whether the existence of a
highest goodness and a highest worth should be admitted or denied—a
question which, in view of the doubts begotten by experience and reflection,
cannot be solved theoretically; but the act is, at the same time, a postulation
of the super-terrestrial personality of God as the profoundest guarantee and
the all-sufficient foundation of the continuous realization of goodness. É
[196] Religion is essentially a frame of mind in which
all its various elements have their source. Religion is piety, manifesting
itself in word and deed, in conceptions and observances, in doctrine and in
life. É
[197]
That religion is really piety is no new discovery. É For, unless we would rest
satisfied with using one term in place of another, we must further determine
what piety really means. We need not trouble ourselves much about etymologies;
for we must bear in mind that the German fromm, the Dutch vroom, and the Latin pius are
no longer used in their original senses, but now possess a different and deeper
significance. Fromm or vroom originally meant what is Òuseful, profitable, or
salutary,Õ and pius meant Òdutiful
or loyal.Ó We have ceased to use the word ÒpiousÓ in any of these senses. Piety
is now practically synonymous with Òdevotion, or consecration,Ó because it
involves the idea of self-dedication and personal [198] sacrifice, which is one
of the root-ideas of religionÉ.
[198]
Now, wherever I discover piety, as manifested in different stages of religious
progress, and particularly as exhibited in full in the highest stage as yet
attained, I maintain that its essence, and therefore the essence of religion
itself, is adoration. In adoration
are united those two phases of religion which are termed by the schools
ÒtranscendentÓ and ÒimmanentÓ respectively, or which, in religious language,
represent the believer as Òlooking up to God as the Most High,Ó and Òfeeling
himself akin to God as his Father.Ó For adoration necessarily involves the
elements of holy awe, humble reverence, grateful acknowledgment of every token
of love, hopeful confidence, lowly self-abasement, a deep sense of oneÕs own
unworthiness and shortcomings, total self-abnegation, and unconditional
consecration of oneÕs whole life and [199] oneÕs whole faculties. To adore is
to love Òwith all oneÕs heart and soul and mind and strength.Ó To adore is to
give oneself, with all that one has and holds dearest. But at the same
time—and herein consists its other phase—adoration includes a
desire to possess the adored object, to call it entirely oneÕs own, and
conversely a longing on the part of the adorer to feel that he belongs to the
adored one for ever, in joy and in sorrow, in life and in death.
[Submitted
by James A. Santucci]