Brinton says, ’long ere man had asked himself, “Are the heavens material and God spiritual?"’—­perhaps, for all we know, before the idea of ‘spirit’ had been evolved.  Thus, if it contains nothing more august, the Chinese religion is, so far, beneath that of the Zunis, or the creed in Taa-roa, in Beings who are eternal, who were before earth was or sky was.  The Chinese religion of Heaven is also coloured by Chinese political conditions; Heaven (Tien) corresponds to the Emperor, and tends to be confounded with Shang-ti, the Emperor above.  ’Dr. Legge charges Confucius,’ says Mr. Tylor, ’with an inclination to substitute, in his religious teaching, the name of Tien, Heaven, for that known to more ancient religion, and used in more ancient books—­Shang-ti, the personal ruling deity.’  If so, China too has its ancient Supreme Being, who is not a divinised aspect of nature.

But Mr. Tylor’s reading, in harmony with his general theory, is different: 

’It seems, rather, that the sage was, in fact, upholding the tradition of the ancient faith, thus acting according to the character on which he prided himself—­that of a transmitter, not a maker, a preserver of old knowledge, not a new revealer.’[1]

This, of course, is purely a question of evidence, to be settled by Sinologists.  If the personal Supreme Being, Shang-ti, occupies in older documents the situation held by Tien (Heaven) in Confucius’s later system, why are we to say that Confucius, by putting forward Heaven in place of Shang-ti, was restoring an older conception?  Mr. Tylor’s affection for his theory leads him, perhaps, to that opinion; while my affection for my theory leads me to prefer documentary evidence in its favour.

The question can only be settled by specialists.  As matters stand, it seems to me probable that ancient China possessed a Supreme Personal Being, more remote and original than Heaven, just as the Zunis do.  On the lower plane, Chinese religion is overrun, as everyone knows, by Animism and ancestor-worship.  This is so powerful that it has given rise to a native theory of Euhemerism.  The departmental deities of Chinese polytheism are explained by the Chinese on Euhemeristic principles: 

’According to legend, the War God, or Military Sage, was once, in human life, a distinguished soldier; the Swine God was a hog-breeder who lost his pigs and died of sorrow; the God of Gamblers was un decave.’[2]

These are not statements of fact, but of Chinese Euhemeristic theory.  On that hypothesis, Confucius should now be a god; but of course he is not; his spirit is merely localised in his temple, where the Emperor worships him twice a year as ancestral spirits are worshipped.