«e/o BEL PR 
En AAS 
„ficial than the indefiniteness in which they are now left, and it may be doubted so 
„far, whether Confucius was not unfaithful to his guides. But that he suppressed or 
vadded, in order to bring in articles of belief originating with himself, is a thing 
„not to be charged against him. 
„Ll will mention two important subjects in regard to which there is a growing 
veonvietion in my mind that he came short of the faith of the older sages. The 
pfirst is the doctrine of God. This name is common in the She-king and Shoo-king. 
„Te or Shang Te appears there as a personal being, ruling in heaven and on earth, 
„the author of man’s moral nature, the governor among the nations, by whom kings 
vreign and princes decree justice, the rewarder of the good, and the punisher of the 
„bad. Confucius preferred to speak of Heaven... Not once throughout the Ana- 
pleets does he use the personal name (°). I would say that he was unreligious rather 
„than irreligious; yet by the coldness of his temperament and intellect in this matter 
„his influence is unfavorable to the development of true religious feeling among the 
„Chinese people generally, and he prepared the way for the speculations of the literati 
vof med‘aeval and modern times, which have exposed them to the charge of atheism. 
„Secondly... .there existed in China, from the earliest historical times, the 
„worship of other spiritual beings, — especially, and to every individual, the worship 
„of departed ancestors. Confucius recognized this as an institution to be devoutly 
„observed. „He sacrificed to the dead as if they were present; he sacrificed to the 
„spirits as if the spirits were present. He said: /l consider my not being present 
„at the sacrifice as if L did not sacrifice” (°)”. The custom must have originated 
„from a belief of the continued existence of the dead. We cannot suppose that they 
„who instituted it thought that with the cessation of this life on earth there was a 
„cessation also of all conscious being. But Confucius never spoke explicitly on this 
„subject. He tried to evade it. „Ke Loo asked about serving the spirits of the 
„dead, and the Master said: „While you are not able to serve men, how can you 
pserve their spirits?” The disciple added: /1 venture to ask about death’, and he 
„was answered: „7While you do not know life, how can you know about death” (%)”. 
„Still more striking is a conversation with another disciple, recorded in the „Family 
„Sayings’”’ (*). Tsze-kung asked him, saying: „Do the dead have knowledge (of 
wour services), or are they without knowledge?” The Master replied: If I were 
„to say that the dead have such knowledge, I am afraid that filial sons and 
„dutiful grandsons would injure their substance “1 paying the last offices to the de- 
(£) Dus kende ook de wijsgeer geen Godheid boven den Hemel! Indien Confucius, die toch 
zelf de Sji-hing en de Sjoe-king heeft gecompileerd en zeer zeker beter dan de hedendaagsche Wes- 
tersche schrijvers van de begrippen en denkbeelden der oude Chineezen op de hoogte was, den Ti 
of Sjang-Ti even hoog als den Hemel plaatst, is men dan wel gerechtigd om zonder deugdelijk te- 
genbewijs zijn opinie klakkeloos weg te cijferen? Zoo iemand in deze als autoriteit mag gelden, dan 
is het zeker toch Confucius. 
(©) Zoen-jus IL, 12 (@ bid; XL, 1. 
(®) Het werk, in noot 103 op bladz. 54 genoemd. 

