Yet the religion of Jesus was far above that of Huitzilopochtli.
What I think is the essence, the principle of vitality, in religion, and in all religions, is _their supposed control over the destiny of the individual_, his weal or woe, his good or bad hap, here or hereafter, as it may be.

Rooted infinitely deep in the sense of personality, religion was recognized at the beginning, it will be recognized at the end, as the one indestructible ally in the struggle for individual existence.

At heart, all prayers are for preservation, the burden of all litanies is a begging for Life.
This end, these benefits, have been sought by the cults of the world through one of two theories.
The one, that which characterizes the earliest and the crudest religions, teaches that man escapes dangers and secures safety by the performance or avoidance of certain actions.

He may credit this or that myth, he may hold to one or many gods; this is unimportant; but he must not fail in the penance or the sacred dance, he must not touch that which is _taboo_, or he is in peril.

The life of these cults is the Deed, their expression is the Rite.
Higher religions discern the inefficacy of the mere Act.