revelation to men. It is obvious that neither of these
opinions is susceptible of proof on a priori grounds; the question can
be settled only by a survey of the phenomena known to us. When the facts
are clearly stated, it is then allowable to deduce from them such
conclusions as may seem legitimate.

+983+. As a matter of fact, it does not appear that real monotheistic
belief exists or has existed among savage and half-civilized communities
of whose history we have any knowledge. Where a certain supernatural
being is described by observers as "the god" or "the supreme god" of a
tribe, it turns out on inquiry that he is at most, as is remarked above,
a very prominent divine figure, perhaps the most prominent, but never
standing alone and never invested with those physical, intellectual, and
moral capacities that are necessary for a complete monotheistic faith.

+984+. While, however, this conclusion is generally admitted for the
majority of cases,[1801] it has been held, and is still held, that there
are found in savage cults certain "self-existent, eternal, moral" beings
who satisfy all the conditions of a monotheistic faith. Among the
examples cited are the American gods described by Strachey and Winslow
as supreme in power and ethically good.[1802] But, even in the curt and
vague accounts of these early observers (who were not in position to get
accurate notions of Indian beliefs), it appears that there were many
gods, the supposed supreme deity being simply the most prominent in the
regions known to the first settlers. The "Great Spirit" of the Jesuit
missionaries is found, in like manner, to be one of many supernatural
patrons, locally important but not absolute in power.[1803] The Zulu
Unkulunkulu is revered by the natives as a very great being, morally
good according to the standards of the people, but he is of uncertain
origin and is valueless in the existing cult.[1804] The much-discussed
Australian figures, Baiame, Bunjil, and Daramulun, appear not to differ
essentially from those just mentioned. The reports of the natives who
have been questioned on the subject are often vague and sometimes
mutually contradictory, and exact biographical details of these divine
personages are lacking; but careful recent observers are of opinion that
they are nothing more than supernatural headmen, having such power as
tribal chiefs or headmen possess, and credited in different regions with
different moral qualities.[1805]

+