Sources of Chinese Tradition: Volume 2: From 1600 Through the Twentieth Century, Second Edition

Contacts between China and Europe (known in premodern China as the “Far West” or the “Western Ocean”) date from the time of the Silk Route link between Han China and the Roman Empire two thousand years ago. The two major forces that fostered Sino-Western contacts were trade and religion, and frequently the two would operate in tandem as the trade route would provide entry for Christian missionaries into China.

There is a tradition in the Christian church that Thomas, one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus, had first carried the faith to the East. However, the first documented presence of Christianity in China is traced to missionaries of the Assyrian church. These Nestorian Christians flourished briefly during the cosmopolitan atmosphere of the Tang dynasty (618–906) and then faded. During the Yuan dynasty (1279–1368), Franciscan monks traveled across Asia and were mentioned in the account of Marco Polo. China demonstrated its ability to mount voyages to the West in the early Ming dynasty when the expeditions under the eunuch admiral Zheng He (1371–1433) reached as far as the Arabian peninsula and east Africa, but this was a short-lived interlude in Sino-Western relations and thereafter China initiated no further expeditions to the Far West.

The first substantive contact between Europe and China began in the late sixteenth century when Portuguese ships arrived in the South China Sea and their passengers established a settlement called Macao on a tiny peninsula on the southeastern coast of China. For the most part, these Portuguese sailors were acquisitive explorers whose crude and aggressive behavior alienated the Chinese officials. However, the Christian piety of the Portuguese led them to provide passage to missionaries on each of their vessels. The Catholic Reformation had produced a new order of missionaries who were as learned as they were committed to their faith. These members of the Society of Jesus, or Jesuits, initiated one of the most notable cultural exchanges in history.

Because the history of Sino-Western relations in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was dominated by Western imperialism with its feelings of economic, cultural, and racial superiority, the significance of the earlier sixteenth-to-eighteenth-century period of Sino-Western exchange has long been obscured. With the receding of Western colonialism, however, it has become increasingly clear that the imperialist phase was an aberration from a more typical situation of greater equality between China and the West. In spite of feelings of cultural chauvinism on both sides, there was a surprising degree of openness and receptivity, which produced attempts by Chinese to blend Christianity with Confucianism as well as attempts by Europeans to emulate Confucian principles.

As an outgrowth of their exploratory voyages, Europeans in the sixteenth through the eighteenth centuries developed a tremendous interest in foreign and exotic lands, which generated a new genre of literature focused on travel. China was an object of particular fascination for Europeans, and no group was more knowledgeable about China than the Jesuit missionaries. The Jesuits became the leading disseminators of information about China to Europeans as part of an attempt to attract support for their missionary effort. Unlike other Christian missionary orders, who had contact with the merchant and lower classes of China, the highly educated Jesuits cultivated their closest intellectual and social counterparts in China—the Confucian literati.

The Jesuits were deeply impressed by what they saw in China and communicated to Europeans a highly favorable picture of the country, including its vast size, great wealth, advanced literacy, and sophisticated governmental organization. The famous European philosopher G. W. Leibniz (1646–1716), who was in direct contact with several Jesuit missionaries in China, proposed that Europe borrow practical philosophy from the Chinese. Leibniz’s understanding of China and Confucianism was remarkably deep—certainly deeper than that of his eighteenth-century successors. The cultural agenda of philosophers such as Christian Wolff (1679–1750) and Voltaire (1694–1778) exalted China as a political and ethical model of enlightened government run by literati akin to philosopher-kings.

The philosophers’ appreciation of China was grounded more on enthusiasm for promoting certain ideas than on knowledge of a more dispassionate and objective sort. Their Sinophilia (love of China and things Chinese) led to European imitation of Chinese art, including ceramics, textiles, painting, architecture, and landscape gardens. European artists blended Chinese subject motifs with the rococo style to produce a new decorative style, “chinoiserie.” However, eighteenth-century European Sinophilia was built on shallow foundations, which were vulnerable to the shifting tides of cultural fashion. Eventually it gave way to a reaction in the form of nineteenth-century Sinophobia (hatred and disdain of China and things Chinese) in a cyclical pattern that was to repeat itself in later Sino-Western relations. While the Jesuits supplied most of the information on China that was transformed by Europeans into Sinophobia, the Jesuits themselves did not participate in most Enlightenment currents, which were anti-religious and, in particular, anti-Christian.

One of the first Jesuit missionaries to set foot in China was the Italian Jesuit Matteo Ricci (Li Madou, 1552–1610), who formulated the model—often called “accommodation”—for the approach of Jesuits in blending Christianity with Chinese culture. Ricci was one of the most remarkable men in history—impressive in physical appearance with his blue eyes and voice like a bell, charming in manner with his facility in foreign languages and photographic memory, incisive in thinking with his ability to grasp the essentials of Chinese culture and to discern a means of entry into a sophisticated culture like that of China. Ricci, virtually on his own, developed the first romanization system for rendering the Chinese language into European script and translated the Four Books into Latin. For these and other extraordinary accomplishments, a leading European sinologue of the twentieth century has called Ricci “the most outstanding cultural mediator between China and the West of all times.”¹ The times were favorable to this effort because the cultural atmosphere of the late Ming dynasty was syncretic in spirit and relatively receptive to exotic teachings. Consequently, the Jesuits achieved rapid success in baptizing a number of prominent Chinese scholar-officials, including the so-called Three Pillars of the Early Christian Church—Yang Tingyun (1557–1627), Li Zhizao (d. 1630) and Xu Guangqi (1562–1633). These three became great defenders of the Christian church in China, and it is a mark of their success that Xu’s defense of this foreign teaching did not prevent him from eventually occupying one of the highest offices in the land—that of Grand Secretary.

Li Zhizao (d. 1630), together with Xu Guangqi, was a leading Christian convert of Matteo Ricci. A scholar-official of the late Ming dynasty and holder of the highest regular literary degree (jinshi), Li took an early interest in Western geography and astronomy and assisted Ricci in disseminating this knowledge in China. His conversion to Christianity came later, after he had already written the following introductory note (in 1607) to Ricci’s basic work, The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven, on the fundamentals of Christianity for the Chinese.

Note especially the attempt to identify God with the Confucian concept of Heaven as presiding over the moral order and to establish the worship of God as the culmination of the natural loyalties so much stressed in Confucian ethics. Li (and Ricci) emphasize the convergence of the Confucian moral ideal with the Christian doctrines of divine justice and self-perfection. Christ and the Cross are not in the forefront of discussion; nor, on the other hand, are the speculations of the Neo-Confucians, which Ricci found less compatible.

In ancient times when our Master [Confucius] spoke of self-cultivation, he said that one should try first to serve his parents diligently and through this come to know Heaven. Then came Mencius, who rendered the doctrine of self-cultivation and service to Heaven complete. Now to know is to serve. Serving Heaven and serving parents are one and the same thing. But Heaven is the ultimate basis of all service. In explaining Heaven, no book excels the Classic of Changes, the source of our written [Chinese] characters. It says that the primal power² that governs Heaven is the king and father of all. Furthermore, it says the Lord (Di) appears in thunder and lightning, and the master of Ziyang [Zhu Xi] identified Di as the ruler of Heaven. Thus the idea of the Lord of Heaven [God] did not begin with Mr. Li [Ricci].

The popular notion of Heaven is so unenlightened that it is not even worth discussing. The Buddhists, for their part, go too far in abandoning their homes and leaving their parents unattended; furthermore, they disregard Heaven and treat the Lord (Di) with contempt, holding only their own selves as worthy of respect. Would-be Confucians, on the other hand, are wont to discuss the Mandate of Heaven, the Principle of Heaven, the Way of Heaven, and the virtue of Heaven; but, while they are wholly immersed in these [Neo-Confucian] conceptions, the ordinary man neither knows Heaven nor holds it in awe—and it is no wonder!

The teaching of Mr. Li, which is based on serving and glorifying Heaven, explains Heaven quite clearly. Seeing that the world desecrates Heaven and venerates the Buddha, he has spoken out in repudiation of these errors. Basing his arguments on the teachings of the Master [Confucius], he has written a book in ten chapters called The True Meaning of God [lit. the Lord of Heaven], wherewith to instruct men in the good and ward off evil.

In this book he says that men know to serve their parents but do not know that the Lord of Heaven is the parent of all. Men know that a nation must have a rightful ruler but do not know that the Lord (Di), who alone “governs Heaven,” is the rightful ruler of all. A man who does not serve his parents cannot be a [true] son; a man who does not know the rightful ruler cannot be a [true] minister; a man who does not serve the Lord of Heaven cannot be a [true] man. This book gives particular attention to the question of good and evil, and of retribution in the form of blessings and calamities. Now goodness that is not yet complete cannot be called perfectly good;³ and even of the slight imperfections in human nature we speak of “rectifying evils.” To do good is like ascending, that is, ascending into Heaven; to do evil is like falling, that is, falling into hell. The general purpose of the book is to make men repent their transgressions and pursue righteousness, curb their passions and be benevolent toward all. It reminds men of their origin from above so as to make them fear lest they fall down into the place of punishment; it makes them consider the awful consequences and hasten to cleanse themselves of all sin. Thus they might not be guilty of any offense against the Great Heavenly Lord Above.

He [Ricci] crossed mountains and seas to bring precious gifts from a land that since ancient times has had no contact with China. At first he knew nothing of the teachings of [the ancient sages] Fu’xi, King Wen, the Duke of Zhou, or Confucius, and what he said was not based on the commentaries of [the Neo-Confucian philosophers] Zhou Dunyi, the Cheng brothers, Zhang Zai, and Zhu Xi. However, particularly in respect to his emphasis on the great importance of knowing and serving Heaven, what he says tallies with the classics and commentaries. As regards Heaven and hell, obstinate men still refuse to believe in them. Yet Confucians have always held that the rewarding of the good and the visiting of misfortune upon the wicked was a principle evident from the examination of Heaven-and-earth. To depart from good and pursue evil is like leaving the high road and plunging into steep mountains or heavy seas. Why is it that some people will not believe anything unless perhaps it concerns their most urgent duties to their rulers or parents, or unless it involves danger in the form of tigers, wolves, dragons, or crocodiles? They insist on having personal experience of everything themselves. Is this not being too stupid and unreasonable? They do not appreciate the deep sincerity that moved him to come among us. To preach the truth, of course, one need not raise the question of reward and punishment, but if it serves to frighten fools and alarm the lazy, then it is right and proper that the good should be praised and rewarded, while the wicked are berated and punished. Thus his deep and sole concern has been to instruct the people and preach sound doctrine.

I have read some of his books and found that they differ from recent scholars on many points but have an underlying resemblance to such ancient works as the Suwen,⁴ Zhoubi,⁵ Kaogong,⁶, and Qiyuan.⁷ So, it seems to me, what is spoken in truth does not contradict the truth. In self-examination and obedience to conscience he is most careful and strict with himself. He is what the world calls a “lofty teacher,” and none among the Confucian scholars is more worthy of credence than he.

The mind and heart of man are the same in East and West, and reason is the same. What differs is only speech and writing. When this book appeared it was written in the same language as ours, refined and civilized, and thus could serve to open the mind for instruction. Since the purpose of the book was to promote peace and well-being, to espouse sound doctrine and improve morals, it is certainly no trifling piece, nothing to be taken lightly or to be put in the same class as the works of earlier philosophers.

My friend Mr. Wang Mengbu has reprinted this book in Hangzhou, and I have presumed to write a few words for him. Not that I would dare to publicize a foreign book in order to spread unheard-of ideas, but I am mindful of the fact that we are all under the Majesty of Heaven and owe Him homage. Perhaps, too, there are things in it that we have been accustomed to hearing but have failed to act upon, and which may now prompt us to reexamine ourselves. Moreover, it may make some contribution to our study and practice of self-cultivation.

In the fifth lunar month of 1616, the scholar-official Shen Que, vice president of the Ministry of Rites in Nanjing, initiated an anti-Christian movement by submitting a memorial to the Wanli emperor. Shen, who was disturbed by the success of the Jesuit missionaries in making converts in Nanjing, voiced his criticisms of the Jesuit missionaries in this and two other memorials to the throne in 1616 and 1617. Xu Guangqi, who had just been reinstated in his post as revisor in the Historiographical Institute in Beijing, responded with a memorial defending the Jesuit missionaries. The following excerpt from Xu’s memorial demonstrates a number of salient features about Xu’s thinking. It reveals, first of all, that he was deeply committed to the new teaching and willing to risk political recrimination in defending it. Second, it shows that Xu believed Christianity to be in basic harmony with the teachings of the ancient sages of China (i.e., Confucianism). Third, it reveals an anti-Buddhist strain that was pervasive in the writings of Chinese Christians. Although the Jesuits also expressed anti-Buddhist sentiments, many (not all) Confucian literati drew from more traditional Chinese grounds in criticizing Buddhism. Finally, the excerpt reveals China’s lack of knowledge of European history. There is a naïveté in Xu’s portrayal of European history and in his exaggeration of the positive effects of Christianity in European history.

Because the teaching of the men from afar [i.e., Christian missionaries from Europe] is most correct, and because your humble servant knows from experience that it is right, he earnestly begs to memorialize the throne, to the end that blessings may last forever and peace may be handed on to all generations.

Your servant saw in the Beijing Gazette that the Ministry of Rites in Nanjing has brought charges against the Western tributary state official Pang Diwo (the Jesuit missionary Diego de Pantoja, 1571–1618) and others. The contents [of the charges] say that their doctrine has infiltrated [China] to such an extent that even among the upper classes there are those who believe it, including one, it alleges, who has dared to be an astronomer, as well as scholars who have been misled by this doctrine. The charges refer to “upper classes” and “scholars” in an anonymous manner because the ministry officials feared that they would be implicated and so named no names. However, your servant is one of these unnamed figures.

Your servant has studied principles with these tributary officials and [has aided in] printing many of their books. Thus, your servant is one of “those who believe in [this teaching].” Furthermore, I have studied calendrical methods under them and at various times have prepared memorials [on this subject] and submitted them to Your Majesty. Consequently, when the charges speak of an “astronomer,” they are referring to your servant. If the tributary officials are found guilty, how would your servant dare to hope that the ministry officials might somehow not speak [of my association with them] and so in this way escape?

In fact, your servant for many years has studied with and learned from these [Western] tributary officials, and I know that they are most honest and solid. There is nothing whatsoever about them that is dubious. Truly, they are all disciples of the sages. Their way is very correct, their discipline strict, their learning very broad, their knowledge superior, their affections true, and their views very stable. In their own countries, there is not one in a thousand who is so talented, nor one in ten thousand who is so outstanding, and for this reason they were included among those who came east tens of thousands of li.

Now in their countries, men of the church all cultivate personal virtue in order to serve the Lord of Heaven. They heard that in China [the adherents of] the teachings of the sages also all cultivate personal virtue and serve Heaven. Because of this correspondence of principles, they [braved] hardship and difficulties and toiled through dangerous and unsafe places in order to share their truth with our truth, hoping to make everyone good, to the end that they will declare that Heaven-on-High loves men.

This teaching has as its basic tenet serving the Lord on High; to save the body and soul is the most essential principle, while one’s practice should consist in loyalty, filial piety, love, and compassion. The way to begin is to choose good and repent, and the way to advance and improve is to confess and reform. True blessing in Heaven is the glorious reward of doing good, while eternal retribution in hell is the bitter recompense of doing evil. . . .

Why is it that it has been eighteen hundred years since Buddhism came east, but worldly customs and men’s hearts have not yet changed? It is because their words seem right, but they are wrong. Those who advocate the Chan Buddhist sect have amplified the thoughts of [the Daoists] Laozi and Zhuangzi, [making them] abstruse and impractical. Those who practice yoga use spells and incantations that are perverse and contrary to reason. Furthermore, they desire to place the Buddha above the Lord-on-High, which is contrary to the intent of the ancient kings and sages. It causes men not to know what to follow or what to depend on. What will cause men to be utterly good is the teaching of serving Heaven transmitted by the tributary officials. Truly it is what can benefit the civilizing influence of government, aid the arts of the Confucians, and correct the law of Buddhism.

Now there are more than thirty countries in the West, and they have accepted and practiced this teaching for a thousand and several hundred years, right up to the present time, great and small living together in harmony, superior and inferior at peace with each other. The borders are not guarded, and the rulers of the states are all of the same family. Throughout all the countries there are no swindlers and liars, and they have never had the custom of licentiousness or theft. On the roads they do not pick up things that are dropped, and at night they do not lock their gates. As for revolt and rebellion, not even once has there been such a thing or such people. Indeed, there has never even been talk or writing about it. . . .

Your Majesty has supported these [Western] tributary officials for seventeen years and displayed great kindness toward them. There has been no way for these tributary officials to repay you. They tried their best to let Your Majesty know their Way and their loyalty, but to no avail. Since your servant knows them, if I were to remain silent and not speak, I should be guilty of dissimulation. For this reason, despite my ignorance, I state the case, begging Your Majesty to graciously accept it, and issue a special memorial. . . .

Your servant dares to brave Heaven’s majesty. With great fear and trepidation I await your orders.

The seventh lunar month of the forty-fourth year of the Wanli reign [August 12–September 10, 1616]

Literati opposition to Christianity increased in the late seventeenth century. The growing opposition was only partly a reaction to the initial success of Christianity in attracting disciples. The collapse of the native Ming dynasty and the conquest of China by the Manchus in 1644 caused a slight shift in the direction of Chinese culture. The rulers of the new Qing dynasty embraced a conservative form of Confucian philosophy, while the Chinese literati recoiled from the experimental syncretism of the late Ming in a defensive return to Confucian tradition. Consequently, a foreign teaching, such as Christianity, faced greater obstacles than previously.

The growing obstacles were epitomized in writings by Yang Guangxian (1597–1669), whose intensity of feeling against Christianity stemmed as much from the sincerity and devotion of his Neo-Confucian beliefs as from xenophobic prejudice against a foreign teaching. Yang was particularly harsh in his criticism of one of the most prominent Jesuit missionaries in seventeenth-century China, Johann Adam Schall von Bell (1592–1666). Father Schall had not only been very successful in supervising calendrical work in the Chinese Bureau of Astronomy in Beijing but also had been unusually close to the youthful first Manchu ruler, the Shunzhi emperor (r. 1644–1661). Xu Guangqi was as devout a Confucian as Yang Guangxian, but while Xu believed that Confucianism and Christianity were in harmony, Yang believed that they were in irreconcilable conflict and that the adoption of Christianity by Chinese would necessarily diminish the way of the ancients (i.e., Confucianism).

Yang succeeded in having Schall and the other Jesuits dismissed from the Bureau of Astronomy and he was appointed in their place to oversee the astronomical work. He lacked the mathematical skill to lead this effort, however, and in spite of the assistance of Muslim astronomers, he could not respond effectively when the Jesuits challenged the validity of his calendar. When the Kangxi emperor disbanded the regency and assumed personal control of the government in 1668, Yang was removed form the Bureau of Astronomy and the Jesuits were reappointed in his place. Yang died in disgrace soon afterward, but the intensity of his anti-Christian views persisted among the literati.

Beginning in 1659, Yang Guangxian wrote a series of attacks on Christianity that were collected and published in 1665 under the title Budeyi (I Cannot Do Otherwise). One of the most effective charges that he made was to cast Jesus as a rebellious figure. By doing so, Yang was attempting to damage the Christians in the eyes of the throne and Chinese scholar-officials by showing them to be a subversive sect akin to other notorious and outlawed quasi-religious sects, such as the White Lotus Society. In this same light, Mary, the mother of Jesus, was criticized by Yang for being an immoral woman who conceived Jesus by having sexual relations with a man other than her husband, Joseph.

In [the Jesuit Father] Adam Schall’s own preface one can read that [the Christian scholars] Xu Guangqi and Li Zhizao both understood that they could not dare publicly to give offense to Confucian norms. Adam Schall’s work says that one man and one woman were created as the first ancestors of all humankind. He was not actually so bold as to make the contemptuous assertion that all the peoples in the world are offshoots of his teaching, but according to a book by [the Christian scholar] Li Zubo,⁸ the Qing dynasty is nothing but an offshoot of Judea; our ancient Chinese rulers, sages, and teachers were but the offshoots of a heterodox sect; and our classics and the teachings of the sages propounded generation after generation are no more than the remnants of a heterodox teaching. How can we abide these calumnies! They really aim to inveigle the people of the Qing into rebelling against the Qing and following this heterodox sect, which would lead all-under-Heaven to abandon respect for rulers and fathers. . . .

Our Confucian teaching is based on the Five Relationships (between parent and child, ruler and minister, husband and wife, older and younger brothers, and friends), whilst the Lord of Heaven Jesus was crucified because he plotted against his own country, showing that he did not recognize the relationship between ruler and subject. Mary, the mother of Jesus, had a husband named Joseph, but she said Jesus was not conceived by him.

Those who follow this teaching [Christianity] are not allowed to worship their ancestors and ancestral tablets. They do not recognize the relationship of parent and child. Their teachers oppose the Buddhists and Daoists, who do recognize the relationship between ruler and subject and father and son. Jesus did not recognize the relationship between ruler and subject and parent and child, and yet the Christians speak of him as recognizing these relationships. What arrant nonsense! . . .

[The Jesuit Father] M. Ricci wished to honor Jesus as the Lord of Heaven (Tianzhu) who leads the multitude of nations and sages from above, and he particularly honored him by citing references to the Lord-on-High (Shangdi) in the Six Classics of China, quoting passages out of context to prove that Jesus was the Lord of Heaven. He said that the Lord of Heaven was referred to in the ancient classical works as the Lord-on-High, and what we in the west call “the Lord of Heaven” is what the Chinese have spoken of as “the Lord-on-High.” [According to Ricci] the Heaven (Tian) of the blue sky functions as a servant of the Lord-on-High, which is located neither in the east nor in the west, lacks a head or stomach, has no hands or feet, and is unable to be honored. How much less would earthbound land, which a multitude of feet trample and defile, be considered something to be revered? Thus Heaven and Earth are not at all to be revered. Those who argue like this are no more than beasts able to speak a human language.

Heaven is the great origin of all events, things, and principles. When principles (li) are established, material-force (qi) comes into existence. Then, in turn, numbers are created and from these numbers, images begin to take form. Heaven is Principle within form, and Principle is Heaven without form. When shape comes in to its utmost form, then Principle appears therein; this is why Heaven is Principle. Heaven contains all events and things, while Principle also contains all events and things and, as a result, when one seeks the origin of things in the Supreme Ultimate (Taiji) it is only what we call Principle. Beyond principle there is no other principle, and beyond Heaven there is no other Heaven [i.e., Lord of Heaven].

[Budeyi, in Wu Xiangxiang, Tianzhujiao tongjuan wenxian xubian, pp. 1090–1122—DM, JDY]

Faced with growing opposition in the late seventeenth century, Christianity attracted less eminent disciples than previously. Nevertheless, outside the capital of Beijing there were regional pockets where talented literati converts in Fujian, Zhejiang, and Shandong provinces carried forward the difficult task of intellectually reconciling Confucianism and Christianity. They carried the process of accommodation to a deeper level, called “inculturation,” in which Christianity was not simply reconciled with Confucianism but assimilated into Chinese culture to become a creative force. These Confucian Christians are less well known than earlier literati adherents, such as the Three Pillars referred to above, because of the official suppression of Christianity, which began in the early years of the eighteenth century and intensified thereafter. In addition, the situation was aggravated by the Chinese Rites Controversy emanating out of Rome, over whether it was permissible [as Ricci had said] for baptized Chinese to honor their ancestors with the traditional rites. The effect of all of this was for the government to suppress writings by the Chinese Christian literati. Works continued to be written and circulated in very limited circles, but for the most part these were never published and have been preserved only in libraries and archives in China and Europe. Notable among these late seventeenth-century writings were works by a leading literatus of the Hangzhou Christian community named Zhang Xingyao (1633–1715 + ).

Earlier Chinese Christians had attempted to reconcile Confucianism and Christianity by quoting passages from the Five Classics and Four Books that appeared to confirm that the essential ideas of Christian teaching had been present in China from antiquity. Zhang was an accomplished historian, who in addition to citing passages from the classics, drew upon his knowledge of both history and Cheng-Zhu teachings in attempting to inculturate Christianity in China. He wrote several works, most of which have remained in manuscript.

This work first appeared in 1702 and was revised over the next thirteen years. The last preface was written in 1715, when Zhang Xingyao was eighty-three years old. Unlike the times nearly a century before, when Xu Guangqi wrote his memorial, the political and cultural atmosphere had turned against Christianity, and Zhang’s words are a forceful expression of personal hope and religious faith.

It is clear in the China of my day that the Lord of Heaven (Tianzhu) [of the Western missionaries] is the same as the Lord-on-High (Shangdi) [of Chinese antiquity]. Since the time of the Yellow Emperor (a legendary figure dated from 2697 B.C.), officials worked together to make sacrifices to the Lord-on-High. Thereafter the words in the classics were all there for anyone to see. Thus Xue disseminated the Five Teachings [of paternal rightness, maternal compassion, friendship of an elder brother, respect of a younger brother, and filial piety of a child], and false teachings did not develop. Sagely wisdom throve; social customs were pure and beautiful. How could things have been better?

From the time the Buddha’s books entered China, a teaching spread that was altogether deviant. The followers of Laozi promoted this teaching, and thereafter the minds of the people in China lost their ability to question anything. People all degenerated into a condition of merely acquiescing in what they were told, and the Buddha said, “In Heaven above and Earth below, I alone am worthy of honor.” The ability to discern the Lord-of-Heaven degenerated, and it became a great and arrogant demon whom mankind no longer studied, followed, and honored. Consequently, the Three Mainstays [of ruler-minister, parent-child, and husband-wife] and the Five Constants [of Humaneness, Rightness, Ritual Decorum, Wisdom, and Trustworthiness] became hated and there was no effort to urge these on mankind. These people have all gone to hell without end and the followers of Confucius are not able to save them, because Confucius can neither reward nor punish nor judge the living and the dead.

I had known nothing of Buddhist texts, but once during a period of mourning someone said to me, “If you want to understand the meaning of life and death, why don’t you take the essential Buddhist texts and meditate upon them?” Then I took up and looked through the Lankavatara Sūtra, the Vimalakirti Sūtra, and other [Buddhist] books, reading their most important passages. As a result I concluded: If these are their theories, none of them have any real meaning. I could believe what the two great Confucian scholars Cheng Yi and Zhu Xi said about the Buddhist sūtras being replete with half-truths, licentiousness, heterodoxy, and escape from the world. As to the teachings of the Two Heterodoxies (Daoism and Buddhism), how is it that they continue to last for even a day in these flourishing [enlightened] times?

The Western scholars came ninety thousand li to honor the will of the Lord of Heaven and to save the world, with many benefits to us in the Central Kingdom. Their principles are correct, their people are men of worth. How can people be inattentive to their teachings, and thus throw away the eternal life of their spiritual natures [immortal souls]. My friend, Master Zhu, styled Jinan, showed me the books of the Lord of Heaven Teaching. I had not yet finished reading them when my mind became filled with doubts about the Buddha. Then I understood that Heaven and Earth naturally possess correct principles, already present in Confucian teaching, but, with some things still not completely understood by Confucian teaching, it would not do to be without the added benefit of the teachings of the Lord of Heaven.

Therefore I have collected the books of the Lord of Heaven Teaching, explained them in the over two thousand pages of the work Clearly Distinguishing the Lord of Heaven Teaching [from Heterodoxy] (Tianzhujiao mingpian), and thus exposed the falsehoods of Buddhism and Daoism. My notes on the Comprehensive Mirror for Aid in Governance Topically Arranged (Tongjian jishi benmo),⁹ filling over 1,700 pages, are so compendious and profuse that it has not been possible to get them cut and printed. However, the [Lord of Heaven Teaching] can be understood and grasped in terms of the three aspects of (1) what harmonizes with the Confucian Teaching, (2) what supplements the Confucian Teaching and finally, (3) what transcends the Confucian Teaching. The title of this work is “An inquiry into the similarities and differences between the Heavenly Lord’s Teaching and the Teaching of the Confucian Scholars.” . . .

Anyone today who is enlightened should comprehend my words and understand that the Lord of Heaven [of the Western missionaries] is the Lord-on-High [of Chinese antiquity] and that what I have written embodies his compassion to save the world. He knows me and brings retribution upon me. Let everyone hear me out.

Explanatory note written in the fifty-fourth year of the Kangxi emperor (1715) by the eighty-three-year-old elder Zhang Xingyao, styled Master Ziren.

1. Wolfgang Franke, in Goodrich and Fang, eds., Dictionary of Ming Biography, p. 1144.

2. Qianyuan—the primal male element identified with Heaven in the opening portion of the Classic of Changes.

3. That is, though the Neo-Confucians (following Mencius) spoke of human nature as good (in opposition to the Buddhists), the goodness of human nature should not be thought of as wholly perfect.

4. One part of the Huangdi neijing (see vol. 1, ch. 9), the basic text of traditional Chinese medicine.

5. The Zhoubi suanjing was a work on mathematical astronomy traditionally ascribed to the early Zhou dynasty (c. 1000 B.C.E.).

6. The Kaogongji was the last section of the Zhouli (“Rites of Zhou“), which purported to describe how artisans were organized under the Zhou dynasty.

7. A reference to Zhuangzi, who was said to have been an official of Qiyuan.

8. Li Zubo, Tianxue quankai (A Summary of the Propagation of Christianity, 1665).

9. Based on Yuan Shu’s rearrangement of Sima Guang’s Comprehensive Mirror for Aid in Governance (see ch. 19).