man
believed to {xiv} be a magician. If we turn to things, such as
rain-making, which are socially beneficial, we find a similar growth in
the belief that some men have extraordinary power to work wonders on
behalf of the tribe. A further stage of development is reached when
the man who uses his personal power for nefarious purposes undertakes
by means of it to control spirits: magic then tends to pass into
fetichism. Similarly, when rain and other social benefits come to be
regarded as gifts of the gods, the power of the rainmaker comes to be
regarded as a power to procure from the gods the gifts that they have
to bestow: magic is displaced by religion. The opposition of principle
between magic and religion thus makes itself manifest. It makes itself
manifest in that the one promotes social and the other anti-social
purposes: the spirit worshipped by any community as its god is a spirit
who has the interests of the community at heart, and who _ex officio_
condemns and punishes those who by magic or otherwise work injury to
the members of the community. Finally, the decline of the belief in
magic is largely due to the discovery that it does not produce the
effects it professes to bring about. But the missionary will also
dwell on the fact that his hearers feel it to be anti-social and to be
condemned alike by their moral sentiments and their religious feeling .
. . 70-104

FETICHISM

Fetichism is regarded by some as a stage of religious development, or
as the form of religion found amongst men at the lowest stage of
development known to us. From this the conclusion is sometimes drawn
that fetichism is the source of all religion and of all religious
values; and, therefore, that (as fetichism has no value) religion
(which is an evolved form of fetichism) has no value either. This
conclusion is then believed to be proved by the science of religion.
In fact, however, students of the science of religion disclaim this
conclusion and rightly {xv} assert that the science does not undertake
to prove anything as to the truth or the value of religion.

Much confusion prevails as to what fetichism is; and the confusion is
primarily due to Bosman. He confuses, while the science of religion
distinguishes between, animal gods and fetiches. He asserts what we
now know to be false, viz., that a fetich is an inanimate object and
nothing more; and that the native rejects, or "breaks," one of these
gods, knowing it to be