a Mediator for his people. The worship of private families and individuals was confined to the spirits of deceased ancestors. The adorning of graves by the French on All Souls’ Day is perhaps a survival of a once more universal custom. ” To sacrifice to spirits not belonging to a man,” says Confucius, ” is mere flattery.” It has always appeared to me, in short, that the Chinese regarded and still regard the next world as being a mere repetition of this, each person in this world addressing himself to those of his own rank and kind in the next. Dr. Legge is of opinion, however, that the Lordship of Heaven was, to the Chinese fathers, exactly what the notion of God was to our fathers. Confucius, like everyone else, grew up totally ignorant of any world except that in which he found himself. His prudent attitude has led some European divines to brand him outright as a sceptic, who only veiled his disbelief out of deference for antiquity. But that is going too far. He noticed that the imaginations of his fellow men led them to express belief in much that was not evident to him, so he adopted the safe course of admitting nothing but the possible existence, in a form not quite apparent to him, of sentient beings that had already lived in this world. He did not care much about the constituent elements of emotion or intellect. What is popularly known as ” German philosophy ” had no charms for him. It cannot even be made out whether he thought man’s nature good or evil in its origin. He admits that men are naturally born different, but the effects of such initial differences are as nothing compared with the levelling effects of education and training.
Nor was Confucius inclined to split hairs upon the vexed question of sin, or even to speak of sin except in connection with the practical affairs of life. On one occasion he said that, setting aside theft and robbery, there were five capital sins, malignancy, perverseness, mendacity, and two others not very clearly defined, but which look like vindictiveness and vacillating weakness. Confucius was a believer in the three ancient forms of divination, and an ardent student of certain mystic diagrams dating from 600 years previous to his own birth. I have never been satisfied that these diagrams had any practical meaning ; or, if they had, that the meaning now given to them by curious students expresses what Confucius really had in his mind. Confucius, in short, consulted the popular oracles, as did the Greeks and the Romans. We may disapprove, but if it was foolish to consult oracles of which he knew nothing, why should it be wiser to make requests to spiritual beings of which he also knew nothing ? The
14 The Life, Labo^lrs and Doctrines of Confucius.
government of China still publishes a list of dies fasti and nefasti, and orders prayers to “save the moon” at an eclipse, although its officers are capable of foretelling the eclipse. Probably Confucius fell in with popular views. One thing is quite certain : whatever Confucius believed in a vague way as to the spiritual form which man took after death, he certainly
/ never conceived any such idea as the doctrine of rewards and punishments. His view, concisely expressed, was that “life and death are a matter of destiny : wealth and honours are disposed by Heaven.” In other words, whilst approving individual effort, he counselled patient submission. As he lived 500 years before our era, it is evident that he could not have believed any of our modern dogmas, unless the mystic Lao-ts/^be accepted as a Christian prophet, which is absurd. To this extent, therefore, it may
1 be said that Confucius had no religion, and preached no religion. Like the Persians and Chaldseans, the Chinese and the Tartars had a sort of Sabaean religion, in which worship was offered to the Sun, Moon, and Stars : at times also to other forces of nature, such as wind, the forests, and the rivers. But these beliefs, as also that in divination, may be popular excrescences which have been superadded at a later date upon the more ancient monotheism. Dr. Legge considers that even now this basis of monotheism is no more destroyed by popular additions than is our own monotheism by the worship of saints by large numbers of Christians. Of all the things which we, as Christians, profess to believe, there are only two things which it was reasonably possible for Confucius to believe. He might have believed in a Maker of Heaven and Earth, in the Resurrection of the Body, and in Life Everlasting; but that scarcely amounts to a religion, as nearly all primitive men have had beliefs of this kind. He probably did, in common with the received traditions, more or less vaguely believe in a Supreme Maker, but he did not attempt to define or dogmatise as to what that Maker was, or how he created. He preferred to discuss the practical character of things before his eyes, and was indifferent to the causes of those things. He says nothing about the future state, but holds / that man continues, after what we call death, to live on. The Chinese idea of death differs from ours : thus, a man may die and come to life again ; that is, may lose consciousness and revive : their ignorance of
physiology precludes our absolute notion of death. In the same way with
the ghost which takes its departure on death : there is always an idea that it is hovering near the body, and may give trouble at any time if not propitiated. There have been endless discussions amongst missionaries as to why Confucius preferred to speak impersonally of Heaven, avoiding the personal form God, and as to whether he believed in the efficacy of prayer. In most cases the arguments appear to me somewhat biased by the personal preconceptions of the polemic ; that is to say, he wishes to prove that, if Confucius was good, it was because he believed what the controversialist believes ; if evil, because he failed to believe what the controversialist believes ; and so on. This is, in fact, the course which the rival schools of Chinese philosophy themselves adopt. Where Confucius is silent, they claim that he expressed in general terms the sentiments expanded by themselves. In other words, they dogmatise. Thus Mencius
The Life, Labours and Doctrines of Confucius. 1 5
insists that man’s nature is rft; Cincius that it is good, in its origin. One philosophy pleads for universal love ; another for pure selfishness. As a matter of fact, Confucius steered clear of all positivism ; he said, in fact, that even his ” medium policy ‘* was a shifting medium, according to time and circumstances : in short, he was in some respects an opportunist. He objected to commit himself so far as to say the dead were conscious, lest rash sons should waste their substance in sacrifices ; he equally declined to assert that they were unconscious, lest careless sons should not sacrifice at all. At the same time he himself always sacrificed as though the spirits were present.
Some blame Confucius because he was unable to grasp the full nobility of the Taoist maxim : ” Return good for evil.” Confucius took time to consider, and finally decided that evil should be repaid by justice, and good reserved for the recompense of good. His own countrymen find fault with him for glossing over, in his history, the failings of men of rank, worth, or his own family connection ; and Dr. Legge, the distinguished Oxford professor, shows in detail that this is true. It is not for me to sit in judgment upon the judges ; but I would suggest that, however noble the precept enjoining good for evil may be when cherished in the hearts of individuals, a government which should attempt to practise it would soon put the business of state in a sorry condition. Confucius was above all things practical, and considered that confidence in the stability of the state was more important than the adequate alimentation of the people, which again was more vital than the possession of military strength or learning. He said : First enrich your people, and then instruct them. As to the concealing of historical truths, it is hopeless to get men to agree upon this point. Take the modern instances of Carlyle and Cardinal Manning : their biographers, Mr. Froude and Mr. Purcell, for telling too much truth have received as much censure as praise. Confucius’ frame of mind may be judged from his reply to a disciple, who was in doubt how to act when his master, a feudal prince, was bent on a foolish act. ” Oppose him, but deceive him not.” That is do not offend by showing your hand, but do not conceal your hand. What is the use of exposing the weak nesses of those in power ? Is it of real advantage to us that Bacon should be proved to have been the meanest as well as the wisest of mankind ? The Chinese idea that rulers are the vicegerents of God is tempered by the conviction that bad rulers may be dethroned. Perhaps Confucius thought it better not to rake up slumbering guilt unless it were possible to punish at the same time. At all events Confucius was loyal to the princely houses, and had no axe of his own to grind : the utmost that can be charged against him
