CLASSIFICATION OF RELIGIONS Various attempts have been made to classify religions, but with only partial success, and there is no generally accepted scheme. Every religion is a complex of many elements, and there is no one specific feature which adequately characterizes it. One of the earlier classifications is that of Hegel into Nature-Religions, Re ligions of Spiritual Individuality, and Absolute Religion. But he arbitrarily groups together very disparate materials, and in the light of modern knowledge the scheme is unworkable. Edward Caird's revision into Objective, Subjective, and Absolute or Uni versal Religion is less open to this objection, but it is too vague and too much dependent on a particular philosophic construction of religion. Tiele adopts a very broad classification into Nature Religions and Ethical Religions, while Siebeck groups religions into Primitive Religions, Morality-Religions, and Redemptive Religions. The latter scheme is certainly suggestive, though the distinction between ethical religions and redemptive religions can hardly be carried out consistently. Even the broad distinction between natural and ethical religion would have to be applied rather arbitrarily.
In the classification of religions into Tribal, National, and Uni versal, the line of demarcation is much more distinct and can be more easily used. But it may be objected to this classification that it is based on a principle which gives no clue to the character and content of the religions. Moreover it may be said that no religion is de facto universal. And from an evolutionary stand point it is a defect in a classification that it ignores the principle of valuation.
The complexity and variety of the materials render a com plete and consistent classification impracticable. But it is always possible to apply different criteria in surveying the religious field. Religions may be grouped according to their conception of the Divine, according to the types of piety they foster, or according to the ideal after which they strive. But such classifications will be merely provisional : though suitable for the purpose on hand, they cannot claim to be comprehensive and final.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.--Monographs dealing with particular religions will be found under the respective headings. The literature on religion is vast, and only a few of the works likely to be useful are noted here.
(a) Histories of Religion.
The most compact and complete history, embodying the results of recent research, is the Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte, edited by Bertholet and Lehmann, 2 vols. 1925. G. F. Moore, History of Religions, 2 vols., 1914, 192o. A. Menzies, History of Religion (1st ed., 1895, and later editions). Toy, Introduction to the History of Religions (1913). The Religionsgeschichtliche Lesebuch (1908), ed. by Bertholet, gives a translation of extracts from the chief _religious classics. A new edition is appearing. There is also the Textbuch zur Religionsgeschichte (1912), by E. Lehmann.
(b) The General Development of Religion.
(c) Psychology and Philosophy of Religion.
For the Psychology of Religion James's Varieties of Religious Experience (1902), Stratton's Psychology of the Religious Life (i91I), Pratt's The Religious Consciousness (1923), will be found useful, and other works equally deserve mention.