The author is engaged in post-doctoral studies in Taipei. This article is based on a paper delivered in New York at the 1960 meeting of the AAS. It is part of a study, Chinese Hostility to Christianity: A Study in Intercultural Conflict, 1860–1870, which he completed for his dissertation at Harvard.

¹ Ch'en Tseng-hui and Wu Sheng-te, Chiao-an shih-liao pien-mu (A bibliography of Chinese source materials dealing with local or international cases involving Christian missions) (Peking, 1941), pp. 12–38, 199–203. An indispensable aid to the study of the impact of Christian missions in nineteenth century China.

² E.g., a Chihli Catholic missionary wrote in the mid-1860's: “More than two hundred minor local persecutions, resulting from the ill will of the pagans, and sometimes also from the imprudence of the neophytes or the catechumens, came this year to hamper the movement of conversions.” Annales de la propagation de la foi, recueil périodique (Lyon, 1842 et seq.), XXXIX (1867), 383. Father Leboucq, S.J., wrote (in a letter of Jan. 18, 1870) that in Ho-chien prefecture, Chihli, Christian subjects placed about 50 lawsuits connected with religious matters in the hands of the missionaries each year. Annales …, XLII (1870), 343. Again, Jesuit missionaries wrote in 1869 that in the area of Chiang-yin hsien, Kiangsu, a month did not pass in which some persecution did not take place. La Compagnie de Jésus en Chine: le Kiang-nan en 1869, relation historique et descriptive par les missionaires (Paris, n.d., preface dated Dec. 3, 1869), p. 160. In Kweichow, missionaries and converts were attacked almost incessantly throughout the decade of the sixties. Cf. Adrien Launay, Histoire des missions de Chine: Mission du Kouy-Tcheou, II (Paris, 1908), 74–191, 325–402, 541–89, passim.

³ See de Groot, J. J. M., Sectarianism and Religious Persecution in China: A Page in the History of Religions (Amsterdam, 1903–04).Google Scholar

⁴ From a purely semantic standpoint the resemblance is close enough, the antithesis being used in both China and the West to characterize a polarity between a norm and one or more departures from that norm. Again, etymologically, the evolution of the two sets of terms exhibits a striking parallelism. “Orthodoxy” stems from the Greek orthos signifying “right, straight” (both, primary meanings of cheng) and doxa signifying “opinion,” while “heterodoxy,” also from the Greek, has the literal meaning of “other opinion”—a close approximation to i-tuan (lit., “other [or different] strand”). See Ferm, Vergilius (ed.), An Encyclopedia of Religion (New York, 1945), pp. 334, 552.Google Scholar

⁵ In the Lun-yü, Confucius says: “The study of strange doctrines [i-tuan] is injurious indeed l” Legge, James, The Chinese Classics, I (Oxford, 1893), 150Google Scholar. Waley's rendering attempts to retain something more of the original figure: “He who sets to work upon a different strand destroys the whole fabric.” The “different strand” (i-tuan) is die opportunistic Way of the world as opposed to the moral Way. Waley, Arthur, The Analects of Confucius (London, 1949), p. 91Google Scholar. With regard to hsieh, Chinese dictionaries give as the locus classicus the Ta Yü Mu section of the Book of History. This section, however, is a later addition and is probably predated by Mencius' use of the term against Yang Chu and Mo Ti. See Legge, The Chinese Classics, II (1895), 282–84. Tso-tao appears to have been first used in the wang-chih section of the Li Chi.

⁶ Of the earlier, abortive efforts of Christianity to gain a foothold in China, we know relatively little. See Latourette, K. S., A History of Christian Missions in China (New York, 1929), pp. 46–77.Google Scholar

⁷ On early anti-Buddhist thought, see Ch'en, Kenneth, “Anti-Buddhist propaganda during the Nanch'ao,” HJAS, XV (June 1952), 166–92Google Scholar; Wright, Arthur F., “Fu I and the rejection of Buddhism,” Journal of the History of Ideas, XII (Jan. 1951), 33–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zürcher, E., The Buddhist Conquest of China: the Spread and Adaptation of Buddhism in Early Medieval China (Leiden, 1959), passim.Google Scholar

⁸ For a survey of the persecutions directed against the Catholics prior to 1800, see Willeke, Bernward H., Imperial Government and Catholic Missions in China during the Years 1784–178; (St. Bonaventure, 1948).Google Scholar

⁹ The P'o-hsieh-chi (or Sheng-ch'ao p'o-hsieh-chi) ^f was compiled by Hsü Ch'ang-chih.' The edition used here is a Japanese reprint dated 1855, consisting of 8 ts'e.

¹⁰ A step in this direction has been taken by Chang Wei-hua and Ch'en Shou-i who in their respective analyses of the late Ming-early Ch'ing opposition to Western religion and culture rely heavily on the P'ohsieh-chi. See Chang Wei-hua, “Ming-Ch'ing chien Chung-Hsi ssu-hsiang chih ch'ung-t'u yü ying-hsiang” [“The ideological conflict between China and the West during the late Ming and early Ch'ing and its effect”], Hsüeh-ssu, I, No. 1 (Jan. 1942), 19–24; Chang Wei-hua, “Ming-Ch'ing chien Fo-Yeh chih cheng-pien” [“The dispute between Buddhists and Christians during the late Ming and early Ch'ing”], Hsüeh-ssu, I, No. 2 (Jan. 1942), 12–17; Ch'en Shou-i, “Ming-mo Ch'ing-ch'u Yeh-su-hui-shih ti juchiao- kuan chi ch'i fan-ying” [“The Jesuits' conception of Confucianism in the late Ming and early Ch'ing and its repercussions”], Kuo-hsüeh chi-k'an, V, No. 2 (1935), 49–64.

¹¹ Shih Ju-shun, “T'ien-hsüeh ch'u-p'i” [“The origins of t'ien-hsüeh”], P'o-hsieh-chi, 8.26a–26b.

¹² Lin Ch'i-lu, “Chu-i lun-lüch” [“A short discourse on exterminating the barbarians”], P'o-hsieh-chi, 6.3a.

¹³ P'o-hsieh-chi, 6.3a–3b.

¹⁴ The fact that the anti-Christian writings of Buddhists form an important part of the P'o-hsieh-chi merely serves to underscore this point. See, e.g., the essay by Shih T'ung-jung, entitled “Yüan-tao p'i-hsieh shuo” [“A discussion of the original Way and its rejection of heterodoxy”], 8.3a–3b. The author, in discussing the “heterodox views” of Matteo Ricci, fastens upon Ricci's statement that God has neither beginning nor end, but is timeless, and states: “[Ricci] is quite ignorant of the fact that this object with neither beginning nor end is the very essence of our great Way and, in addition, the leading idea of our Ch'üanchen [school (a Taoist sect)].” In a later section of the same essay, Shih, in much the same fashion, defends “our Buddhism” against the “slanders” of Ricci (8.11b). (Italics inserted.)

¹⁵ Huang Wen-tao, “P'i-hsieh-chieh” [“A commentary on the refutation of heterodoxy”], P'o-hsieh-chi, 5.20b.

¹⁶ “Na-huo hsieh-tang hou kao-shih” [“The proclamation issued after the arrest of the heterodox parties”], P'o-hsieh-chi, 2.23a–23b.

¹⁷ See Yang's biography in Hummel, Arthur W. (ed.), Eminent Chinese of the Ch'ing Period (Washington, D. C., 1943), II, 889–92.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Substantial selections from the Pu-te-i were included in the following works, among others: Wei Yüan, Hai-kuo t'u-chih [An illustrated gazetteer of the maritime countries], 1st ed. (1844), 15.25a–32a, 3rd ed. (1852), 27.8a–15a; Pi-hsieh chi-shih [A record of facts to ward off heterodoxy] (1871 ed.), chüan-shang, 9a–15a; Hsia Hsieh, “Hua-Hsia chih chien” [“The gradual deterioration of China”], in Hsia Hsieh, Chung-Hsi chi-shih [A record of Sino-Western affairs], (1st preface dated 1851, 2nd preface to reved. dated 1859, last preface dated 1865, extra title page dated Oct. 1868), 2.6a–9b. The selections from Yang Kuang-hsien contained in the Hai-kuo t'u-chih and Pi-hsieh chi-shih are identical, and present most of the important elements in Yang's attack on Christianity. The edition of the Pu-te-i used here is the photolithographic one of 1929.

¹⁹ On Li's ideas, see Hummel, II, 890; Pu-te-i, shang-chiian, 8b–9b; Pi-hsieh chi-shih, chüan-shang, 9b.

²⁰ Pu-te-i, shang-chüan, 16a–16b; Pi-hsieh chi-shih, chüan-shang, IIb.

²¹ Hsūn was convinced that a dynasty which wedded itself to the foreign religion, Buddhism, was destined to be short-lived. Cf. Ch'en, K., HJAS, XV, 191Google Scholar. This view was apparently shared by Hsün's later-day fellow in arms, Han Yü. Cf. Reischauer, E. O., Ennin's Travels in Tang China (New York, 1955), pp. 221–24.Google Scholar

²² Pu-te-i, shang-chuan, 16a; Pi-hsieh chi-shih, chüan-shang, 11a–11b.

²³ See, e.g., Chang Yü-shu (1642–1711), “Wai-kuo-chi” [“A record of foreign countries”] (written, some time after 1675) in Chao-tai ts'ung-shu (1833 rev. ed.), ts'e 104, 9b–10a; Ming-shih [History of the Ming dynasty] (Chung-hua shu-chü ed. of 1933), 326.10b-11a; Tung Han, Ch'un-hsiang chui-pi [Ch'un-hsiang scribblings], in Wu Chen-fang (ed.), Shuo-ling (1702–05), hou-chi, 20.14a–15b; Chang. Po-hsing (1652–1725), memorial of 1709, Cheng-i-tang chi [A collection of writings from the Cheng-it'ang] (1876), ch. 1 (hsia), 40b–41b.

²⁴ In this year Yung-cheng reissued, along with extensive commentaries, the so-called Sacred Edict (sheng-yü) of sixteen moral maxims, originally composed in 1670 by his father and predecessor, the K'anghsi emperor. In his commentary on the seventh maxim, entitled “Ch'u i-tuan i ch'ung cheng-hsüeh” [Destroy heterodox doctrines in order to elevate orthodox studies”], the emperor lumped Christianity together with the White Lotus and other forbidden heterodox sects. Cf. Sheng-yü kfiang-hsün chih-chieh [A colloquial rendering of the Sheng-yü kuang-hsūn] (n.d., preface dated 1724), shang-chüan, 50a–52a. The Chinese text of this edict along with an English translation may also be found in de Groot, I, 244–48. For a résumé of the reasons why Christianity was to be regarded as heterodox, along with a fascinating discussion of the heterodoxy-orthodoxy antithesis in general, see the Yung-cheng emperor's edict of 1727, in Yung-cheng shang-yü [The edicts of Yung-cheng] (1741), under the date Yung-cheng 5th year, 4th month (tśe 9, 13a–15b).

²⁵ Written by two officials who served successively on Macao, Yin Kuang-jen and Chang Ju-fin (1709–1769), and first printed in 1751, fully one half of the Ao-men chi-lüeh is devoted to a description of the maritime trading countries of the southeast (e.g. Portugal and Holland) and a detailed account of the way of life, religion, calendar, and language of the Portuguese at Macao. The edition used here is an 1800 reprint put out by the Chiang-ning fan-shu in Kiangsu. The same work was again issued in the Chao-tai tśung-shu, tśe 145.

²⁶ Ao-men chi-lüeh, hsia-chüan, 51a–51b. Another author who criticized Christianity on the basis of his experiences at Macao was the Fukien literatus, Chang Chen-t'ao (1713–1780). Several of Chang's essays may be found in Hsiao-fang-hu-chai yuuml;-ti tś ung-ch'ao (1877–97), tśe 48.

²⁷ Wei seems to have believed that both Mohammedanism and Christianity were derived from the ancient Indian religion of the Brahmins. Cf. Hai-kuo tu-chih, 1st ed., 15.44a–45a; 3rd ed., 27.29a–30a. Wang T'ao's similar views may be found in his essay, “Ko-kuo chiao-men shuo” [“A discussion of the religious sects of various countries”], in T'ao, Wang, T'ao-yüan wen-lu wai-pien [Supplement to Tao-yüan wen-lu] (Hong Kong, 1882), 7.220–243Google Scholar; the same essay was reissued in Huang-ch'ao ching-shih-wen hsüpien (1888), 112.12b–13a.

²⁸ Cf. ch. 15 of the 1st ed. of the Hai-kjuo fu-chih and ch. 26–27 of the 3rd ed. I have not seen the 2nd ed. of 1847.

²⁹ Hsü, describing the writings of the Christians as vulgar and lacking in smoothness, felt that the spread of Christianity into China was superfluous in view of the fact that China had Confucianism. Yinghuan chih-lüch (1850 ed.), 6.39a. Whatever claims the religion might hold to a separate identity, moreover, were belittled by his assertions that it was an offshoot of Buddhism (Ying-huan chih-lüeh, 6.39a), that some of its most important doctrines had been established by Moses long before Jesus (Ying-huan chih-lüeh, 3.37b, 40b–41a; 6.39a), and that the only difference between Christianity and Mohammedanism was that the followers of the latter did not eat pork (Ying-huan chih-lüeh, 3.41a)! I have been unable to examine the work of another Chinese scholar who attacked Christianity during the 1840's, Liang T'ing-nan (1796–1861). Liang's essay, Yeh-su-chiao nan ju Chung-kuo shuo [A discussion of the obstacles confronting the entry of Christianity into China] (1844), has, however, been summarized in article form. Cf. Yüch'ing, Hsien, “Liang Ting-nsn chu-shu k'ao” [“An examination of the writings of Liang Ting-nan”], Ling-nan hsüeh-pao, IV, No. 1 (Canton, 1935), 142–43.Google Scholar

³⁰ The edition of the Harvard-Yenching collection is an 1871 reprint. The first preface is dated 1861, the second and another section, 1862.

³¹ One clear derivative of the Pi-hsieh chi-shih was widely circulated in Shantung and was translated by a group of Tengchow missionaries under the title, Death Blow to Corrupt Doctrines: a Plain Statement of Facts (Shanghai, 1870). In Sept. 1870 an anti-Christian riot in Wu-ch'eng, Kiangsi was apparently inspired by the Pi-hsieh shih-lu (“Pi-hsieh-shi-lu”), which was described as a “farrago of obscene calumnies against Christians of all denominations … similar to one published in 1861 or 1862, copies of which were sent to the various district magistrates in Hoopeh [Hupeh] for gratuitous circulation.… ” Consul P. J. Hughes to T. F. Wade, Kiukiang, Sept. 29, 1870, Parliamentary Papers, China. No. 1 (1871), Papers relating to the Massacre of Europeans at Tien-tsin on the 21st June, 1870, pp. 160–62. In 1873, the French representative at Peking wrote that the anti-missionary disturbances in Honan province were entirely the result of the distribution of the Pi-hsieh chi-shih there. Communication of July 25, 1873, as summarized in Ch'ing-chi ko-kuo chao-hui mu-lu [A catalogue of the communications sent by the various nations during the late Ch'ing] (Peiping, 1935), Fa-kuo, No. 287. Finally, in the early 1890's the English Protestant missionary Griffith John learned from a Chinese official that the “Death Blow to Corrupt Doctrines” was to be found in every city, village, family, monastery, and bookshop in Hunan. Letter of Jan. 27, 1892, in The Anti-Foreign Riots in China in 1891 (Shanghai, 1892), p. 220.

³² Parliamentary Papers, China. No. 1 (1871), pp. 162, 198–99. See also Timothy Richard, “Relation of Christian missions to the Chinese government” (speech), Records of the General Conference of the Protestant Missionaries of China, Held at Shanghai, May 7–20, 1890 (Shanghai, 1890), p. 411; and Gilbert Reid's comment, p. 584.

³³ Fang Hao,^m “Ch'ing-tai chin-i T'ien-chu-chiao so shou Jih-pen chih ying-hsiang” [“Japanese influence on the persecution of Catholicism during the Ch'ing dynasty”], in Fang Hao wen-lu [Essays of Fang Hao] (Shanghai, 1948), p. 50. If Fang Hao's assertion—made, incidentally, with no apparent hesitancy—should prove true, it would provide a very interesting commentary both on the relationship of the Taipings to anti-Christian activity and on the ideological program instituted by Tseng Kuo-fan to combat the rebels. Although this is the only source I have seen which connects the authorship of the Pi-hsieh chi-shih eithef directly or indirectly with Tseng, there is ample textual evidence suggesting that the pamphlet was composed by a Hunanese. Given the intensely anti-foreign feeling which prevailed in Hunan during the latter decades of the nineteenth century, this circumstance, alone, would be of considerable significance.

³⁴ Pi-hsieh chi-shih, chüan-chung, 3b.

³⁵ See, e.g., Hsia Hsieh, Chung-Hsi chi-shih, ch. 2; Sung Yü-jen, “T'ai-hsi ko-kuo ts'ai-feng chi” [“An account of some of the customs of the Occidental countries”], in Hsiao-fang-hu-chai yü-ti ts'ung-ch'ao, tsai-pu-pien, tśe 79; Chin-tsun sheng-yü pi-hsieh ch'üan-t'u (Heresy Exposed in Respectful Obedience to The Sacred Edict. A Complete Picture Gallery), as reproduced in The Cause of the Riots in the Yangtse Valley. A “Complete Picture Gallery” (Hankow, 1891). Lao Nai-hsïan's survey of Christianity in China, “Hsi-chiao yüan-liu” [“The origins and history of the Western religion”], summarizes the reasons why Christianity has been regarded as heterodox. See Chiao-wu chi-yao [Selected documents on Church affairs] (Hupeh, 1898), ch. 4 (tsa-lu), 68b–69b.

³⁶ Yang Hsiang-chi, “Yang-chiao so yen to pu-ho Hsi-jcn ko-chih hsin-li lun” [“A discussion of the discrepancies between the statements of the Western religion and the new principles of Western science”], in Huang-ch'ao ching-shih-wen hsü-pien, 112.11b–12a. Yang was branded by the English missionary, Joseph Edkins, as “a full blown materialist.” It was Edkins who wrote the synopsis of Paradise Lost on which Yang based his information. See his discussion and partial translation of Yang's essay in Records … 1890, pp. 561–65.

³⁷ See his biography in Hummel, II, 836–39.

³⁸ See his essay on the propagation of Christianity (“Ch'uan-chiao”) in T'ao-yüan wen-lu wai-pien, 3.2b–6b. See also McAleavy, H., Wang T'ao, the Life and Writings of a Displaced Person (London, 1953), P. 21.Google Scholar

³⁹ “Chi Pu-ssu-tieh-ni-chiao” [“A note on Positivism”], T'ao-yüan wen-lu wai-pien, 6.9b–10b.

⁴⁰ A. Michie, Missionaries in China (Tientsin, 1891), translated by Yen Fu under the title Chih-na chiao-an lun [A discussion of Church cases in China]. I have been unable to see this translation. A further example of the use of Western literature to attack Christianity is found in Chang Tzu-mu's Ying-hai lun [A discussion of the circuit of the seas], in Hsiao-fang-hu-chai yü'-ti ts'ung-ch'ao, ts'e 60, 483a–495a. From the Protestant missionary weekly, Wan-kuo kung-pao (Review of the times) (started by Young J. Allen in 1868), Chang cites certain passages describing the anti-Cadiolic measures taken by Bismarck in Germany and by Giovanni Lanza and Quintino Sella in Italy. He also mentions a book by English Prime Minister Gladstone which takes the Catholics to task (see pp. 485b–486a, 494a).

⁴¹ See Wen-han, Kiang, The Chinese Student Movement (New York, 1948), Ch. ii.Google Scholar

⁴² See, e.g., Ting Tse-liang, Li-t'i-mo-t'ai: i-kp tien-hsing ti wei ti-kuo-chu-i fu-wu ti ch'uan-chiao-shih [Timothy Richard: a typical missionary in the service of imperialism] (Peiping, 1951); Li Shih-yüeh, “Chia-wu chan-cheng ch'ien san-shih-nien chien fan yang-chiao yün-tung” [“The movement against Christianity during the thirty years prior to the war of 1894”], Li-shih yen-chiu, 1958, No. 6, pp. 1–15; and Hsieh Hsing-yao, “How did imperialism use religion for aggression on China,” Jen-min jih-pao (Peking), Apr. 13, 1951, as trans, in Current Background (Hong Kong), No. 68, Apr. 18, 1951.