教程分析文件湉ry lion

WhenConfucianOrthodoxyencounteredthePapacy:acontrastinpoliticalthoughtbetweenConfucianismandChristianityinthelateMingDynastyHUANGThefirstculturalencounterofConfucianismwithChristianitybeganin1583whentheItalianJesuitpriestMatteoRicciwaspermittedtosettledownin.However,aftervigorouchangeinbothsidesoveracentury,withmorethan200thousandsconverters,itwenttoahaltin1721,whentheKangxiEmperorofQingDynastyissuedanorderandbannedChristianmissionsin ,astheresultofyearsofquarrelbetweenBeijingandVaticanabout ThestrategyofJesuit Missions,knownasof modation,wastocomple de-westernizethemselves,tomakeaConfucianadaptationoftheirstyleoflife,patternsofthought,preachingandworship,touseexistingconceptstoexhristianityand“provethattheChristiandoctrineswerealreadylaiddownintheclassicalworksofthepeople”,soastoconvertthepeacefully,graduallyandstably.①Itwasveryunusualin16thcentury,ifweconsiderthefactthatduring1567~1583,missionariesandecclesiasticsinthePhilippines,suchasFranciscansTordesillas,AlfaroandMartinIgnociodeLoyola,theDominicanDomingodeSalazar,thebishopofManila,aswellasSpanishJesuitsJuanBautistaRibeira,MelchiorNunesBarreto,andSanchez,advocatedto“thesovereignof togranttothemissionariestherighttopreachandtothenativestherighttohearthetruth.”② y,therehadbeenseveralanti-Christianitycasesevenbeforethebreakingoutof RitesControversy:1607-1608inNanchang;1608inNanjing;1616–1617inNanjing;1621–1622againinNanjing;1634–1635inFu’anCounty,Fujianprov e;1637–1638inFujianProv e.Fourofthemresultedinpersecution.Exceptfortheselegalactions,therewere8anti-Christianbooksandpamphletspublishedbytheyear1644whentheMing①GeorgeH.Dunne,1962,GenerationofGiants:TheStoryoftheJesuits hinaintheLastDecadesoftheMingDynasty,NoteDameUniversityPress,pp.123–124.②Ibid,pp.15–17,233–Alongwithotherallegations,themissionarieswereaccusedofsedition.AccordingtoZHANGGuangtian(湉),thewesterncustomthattheemperorernsonlyonecountrywhilethepopeisthecommanderofallnationsis patiblewiththeConfucianteachingthattherecanbeonlyonelordinacountry,thusthespreadofChristianitymaycause XUDashou( ),sonofafamousneo-ConfucianscholarXUFuyuan( ),saysthatsomeparagraphshristianwritingsaredisrespectfulandoffensivetotheemperor:Thepopularexnationtotheanti-Christianmovement,putforthbyJacquesGe ,holdsthatthechurch,t,leadingbyaforeignpope,waspotentiallydestructivetothesocialandpoliticalorder,whichwasformedbyConfucianthoughts;becausetheConfucians,knowingnothingaboutthedisttbetweenthethingsofGodandthethingsofCaesar,thespiritualandtheflesh,thesacredandthesecular,religionandpolitics,churchandstate,andprivateandpublicsphere,tookreligionsasasectionofpoliticalaffairsandevaluatedthembytheirsocial-politicalutility,thereforehadnoideaoftolerationandreligious.④Yetinmyopinion,thisexnationisbasedonaover-simplifieddistortedunderstandingofthecomplexitiesofbothConfucianismandThePatternsofReligion-StatePeopleusuallythinktherearetwokindsofreligion-staterelationships,eithercompleteidentificationofreligionandstate,withnoreligious,orstrictlyseparation,withtotalreligious.However,thisopinionisbothoversimplifiedandmisleading.W.Cole①HUANGYun（ ）,2012,“TheAnti-ChristianCaseofNanchang:theSproutofSuitsChristianityin②ZHANGGuangtian( 湉),PiXieZhaiYaoLueYi(《辟邪 略議》)，inShengChaoPoXieJi(《聖朝破邪集》卷五),editedbyXIAGui-Qi（ ）,:AllianceBibleSeminary,1996,p.276.③XUDashou( ShengChaoZuoPi(《圣朝佐辟》inShengChaoPoXieJi(《圣朝破邪集》卷四p.④JacquesGe ,2003, andtheChristianImpact:AofCultures(《與——中西文化的首次撞擊》)，trans.GengSheng（耿昇）,Shanghai:ShanghaiGujiPress，pp.89-123,252-260.Durham,Jr.discernstentypesofreligion-staterelationships:(1)absolutetheocracy;(2)establishedchurches;(3)religiousstatussystems;(4)historicallyfavoredandendorsedchurches;(5)preferredsetofreligions;(6)cooperationistregimes;(7) regimes;(8)Separationistregimes;(9)secularcontrolregimes;(10)abolitioniststates.Mostofthemhavebothpoliticalandreligiousinstitutions,exceptforabsolutetheocracyandabolitioniststates,butonlyypeseparatesreligionandstatestrictly,i.e.,theseparationistFigure1.PopularOpinionaboutReligion-stateRelationsandReligious①W.ColeDurham,Jr.&BrettG.Scharffs,2010,LawandReligion:National,International,andComparatives,NY:AspenPublishes,pp.114–121.②Ibid,p.Figure2seemsovercomplicated.Besides,accordingtoUnitedNationsHumanRightsCommittee(UNHRC),Article18oftheUniversalDeclarationofHumanRights“protectstheistic,non-theisticandatheisticbeliefs,aswellastherightnottoprofessanyreligionorbelief”,andtheterms“belief”and“religion”aretobebroadlyconstruedsothat“Article18isnotlimitedinitsapplicationtotraditionalreligionsortoreligionsandbeliefswithinstitutionalcharacteristicsorpracticesogoustothoseoftraditionalreligions.”②Durham’sclassificationfollowsamuchnarrowerunderstandingofreligion,andtakesasasecularcontrolregime.However,bothConfuciansintraditionalandMarxistsincontemporaryassertmonopolisticpositions,thoughtheeffortsofConfuciansfailed,andresultedinaregimewithConfucianismastheestablishedreligion.Therefore,IsuggestthatwefollowtheunderstandingofUNHRC,andsimplifyfigure2fromtheoftherelationshipsbetweenpoliticalandreligious,thatis,aretheyidenticalordifferent?Iftheyaredifferent,thenwhatistheirrelation?Aretheyttoeachother,oristhereasuperiorsubordinaterelationshipbetweenthem?Inthisway,wegetfourIdentification:thetwoareChurchprimacy:politicalauthorityissubordinatetoreligiousRoyalprimacy:religiousauthorityissubordinatetopoliticalce:thetwoaret(thoughmightnotnecessarilybestrictlyseparate)toeachother.RelationshipsbetweenpoliticalandreligiousChurchRoyalAbsoluteAbolitionistPopeInnocentEstablishedPreferredsetofSeparationistmodationistMosttypesinDurham’sclassificationfitwelltotheneweasily,whilesomenot.However,fromthiswecandistinguishsomeregimesfromtheocracy,suchasthewesternEuropeancountriesduringthepontificateofPopeInnocentIIIandGenevaundertheministryofCalvin,whichDurhamdoesnot.Allthefourpatternsareelastic,applicabletovariousregimes.Forexample,bothabsolutetheocracyandabolitioniststatesareidentical;bothPopeInnocentIIIandCalvinmanagedto①Ibid,p.②Unite sCommittee,GeneralComment22,Article18(para.2),Forty-eighthsession, maintahurchprimacy;emperorsofboththeRomanEmpireandheldfirmcontroloverreligions,theymightsetestablishedchurchesornot,preferonereligionorbeliefornot;bothseparationistand modationistregimesaret.Besides,boththeidentificationandtheceofreligiousandpoliticalinstitutionsmaybeamatterofThedegreeoftolerationgrowsinturn.Thereisnoreligiousinthefirstpattern,whilecitizensinthelastpatternenjoyfullreligious.Thedegreesofreligiousinthesecondandthirdpatternsliweenthetwoextremes.Whenthereligiousauthorityisthesupremacyofthetwo,theregimetendstobemoreintolerantthanversevisa,forreligiousleadersusuallytakeitastheirobligationtomaintaintheuniformityandpurityoffaith,whilepoliticalrulersingeneralconcernmoreaboutsocialstabilitythanreligiousinterest.However,whenarigorist esthedictatorialmonarch,cruelmeasuresotherreligionsanddissentersfromthedominantreligionareverylikelytobeadopted.Inthiscase,themajorityreligionmayalsoexperienceaconsiderablediminutionofitsliberty,foritmayeacaptiveofstateTheevolutionofchurch-staterelationshipsinEuropefromMedievaltoearlymodernagesAllthefourpatternscanbefoundinEuropeanChristianhistorysetheMiddleAgestoearlymoderntime.DuringmosttimeoftheMiddleAges,andfromtheeasttothewestofEurope,ChristianemperorsoftheRomanImperial,Byzeemperors,Frankishemperors,GermanemperorsaswellasFrench,English,Spanish,Norse,Danish,Polish,Bohemian,Hungariankingsandotherrulers,aftertheexampleofConstetheGreat,patronizedandcontrolledChristianityoutofpoliticalintegration,ernedbishopseveninmattersofreligiousdoctrine.Theemperors,consideringthemselvesas"VicarofJesusChrist",responsibletoGodforthespiritualhealthoftheirsubjects,appointedchurchofficials,convenedecumenicalcouncils,andenddoctrine,rootedoutheresyinordertoupholdecclesiasticalunity;whiletheBishopofRome,as“VicarofPeter”,wasnomorethantheprimate(firstamongequals)bishop.Priorto1059,therewerealltogether25popes,21ofthemdirectlyappointedbyemperors,and5dismissedbyemperors.②Ontheotherhand,popesofthe11-13thcenturyfoughtnotonlyforthe“ ofthechurch”,whichinfactmeanttheoftheclergy,underthepope,fromemperor,kings,andfeudallords,butalsoforthetitleof“VicarofChrist”.PopeGregoryVIIproclaimedthatitwastheRomanbishopalhatmightdeposeandreinstatebishops,makenewlaws,callgeneralsynods;theemperorwasseenasfirstamongkings,whoseelectionasemperorwassubjecttoconfirmationbythepope,thereforecouldbedeposedforinsubordination,andthe①Durham,2010,p.②HaroldBerman,1983,LawandRevolutionI:theFormationoftheWesternLegalTradition,HarvardUniversityPress,pp.87–92.oathoffealtyoftheirsubjectsbeabsolvedbythepope.①Exceptforindirectcontroloversecularrulers,thepapacyalsohelddirectsovereignruleinthePapalStates.TheideaofseparationofchurchandstateappearedduringthewarsbetweentheCatholics ants,andwaspursuedbytheAmericanPuritansandEvangelicals.Theycalledfora“wallbetweenchurchandstate”,whieanttoprohibitalllegalestablishmentsofreligionandalladmixturesofreligionandpolitics,sothatbothchurchandstatewouldnotsufferfromtheinvasionoftheother.JohnLeland,aBaptistpreacher,proposedthat“noreligioustestshalleverberequestedasaqualificationofanyofficer,inanydepartmentofthisernment;neithershallthelegislature,underthisconstitution,everestablishanyreligionbylaw,giveanyonesectapreferencetoanother,or anymaninthecommonwealthtopartwithhispropertyforthesupportofreligiousworship,orthemaintenanceofministersofthe”,andannouncedthat“thenotionofaChristiancommonwealthshouldbeexplodedforever.”②Onthecontrary,thereweremillenarianswhoexpectedtheKingdomofGodonearth,whichwouldbeaworldofperfectpeace,emergeafnimminentand?nalofgoodandevil,ledbythereturningChrist.Thoughpushedintothebackgroundbymostofthelargerchurches,thismovementturnedintosecularmillenarianismin19-20thcenturies,andledtothetotalitarianruleofthe“LeaderandGuideoftheRevolution”.③ChristianRelationshipswiththeStatefromMedievaltoEarlyModernChurchRoyalPapalFromPopeGregoryVIItoBonifaceChristianemperorsoftheRomanImperial;Byzeemperors;Frankishemperors;Germanemperors;secularrulersduringtheReformationThedist tionbetweensacredandsecular,thoughoriginatedintheearlyagesofChristianity,doesnotnecessarilyleadtotheideaofseparationofchurchandstate,northeideaofreligious.Modernideaoftolerationismadeupoftwodecisiveelements:theseparationofreligiousandsecularauthorityontheonehand,andthedist tionbetweenchurchauthorityandindividualreligiousconscienceontheother.④Sowhyisthedist tionofreligiousandsecularauthorityinsufficientforreligious?Whydoesthedist tionbetweenchurchauthorityandindividualreligiousconsciencematter?①Ibid,pp.93–②JohnWitte,Jr.,2000,ReligionandtheAmericanConstitutionalExperiment,Boulder:WestviewPress,pp.25–③MarthaLee&HerbertSimms,2008,“AmericanMillenarianism :OriginsandJournalfortheStudyofRadicalism,Volume1,Number2,pp.107-④“Toleration”,inStanfordEncyclopediaofPhilosophy,editedbyEdwardN.Zalta,May4,.AsRawlspointsout,“ThehistoryoftheChurchludesastoryofitslonghistoricaltiestothestateanditsuseofpoliticalpowertoestablishitsandtooppressotherreligions.”①Theco-existenceoftwodifferentandinstitutionsdoesnotnecessarilymeantoleration.DuringthepontificateofPopeInnocentIII(1198-1216)andhissuccessors,insistenceontheprimacyofpriesthoodandtheultimateunitaryspiritualgoalofbothstateandchurchwassostrongthatthesuggestionthatthepopuluschristianushadtwoheads(popeandemperor)wouldseemmonstrous.Theideaofpapalprimacywaswidelyacceptedbypapalcanonists.ThecontroversywithPhilipIVofFranceevokedoneofthemostextremestatementsofhierocratictheory,claimingthatthepopestoodaloneattheapexoftheuniversalchurchandthatevenworldlypowerandauthorityowedtheirinstitutiontothechurchalone.Finally,theconceptofpapalinfallibilityemergedinthelate13thcentury.PeterOliviasserted:‘ItisimpossibleforGodtogivetoany hefullauthoritytodecideaboutdoubtsconcerningthefaithanddivinelawwiththiscondition,thatHewouldpermithimtoerr…’Thisdoctrinebecamepartofmedievaltradition,andreachedmajorityintheeraofCounterReformation.②WilliamofOckham(1288–1348)believesthatanysinglememberofthechurch ludingthepopemayfail,thusrejectsnotmerelytheinfallibilityofthepope,butalsothatofthecouncil.③AccordingtoSkinner,Ockhamwasamajorpioneerofanttheologyandecclesiology.However,hewas municatedashereticalbyPopeJohnXXII,andhadtotakerefugeatLouis’sCourt.④AsRawlspointsout,theInquisitionwasnotanaccidentinthesocietyoftheMiddleAges,butanecessitytopreservethatsharedreligiousbelief.⑤AsChristianitybelievesinoneruth,andonechurch,theRomanCuriatriedtosuppressdissentsinordertomaintaintheunificationoftheChristianChurch.ItwasbecauseofthecontestamongthePopes,theEmperors,thekings,andotherlordsthatm,thoughcondemnedbytheRoman heresy,survivedandgrewandblossomed,andsplinteredintovariousdenominations.However,neitherLuthernorCalvinwastoleranteither.Kandescribesofreligiouswars(roughlyfrom1550to1650)assuch:‘Black-cladPuritansestablishedtheocraticregimes,banningthepleasuresofthefleshandhuntingreputedwitches.Catholicinquisitorsorderedhereticsburnedatthestake,whiletheirkingsstroveforabsolutepower.MobscommittedatrocitiesinGod’sname,andaseriesofreligiouswarspitted antandCatholicarmiesoneanotheronacontinentalscale.’⑥Theideaoftolerationbecamepopularonlywhenbothdenominationsgottoknowthatnonewasabletowipeouttheothercompley.Hencethefirstpripleofconstitutionthatindividualconsciencemustbe,neitherthestatenorthechurch,neitherthepopenorthemajority,shouldintervene.①JohnRawls,2009,“OnMyReligion”,inABriefInquiryintotheMeaningofSinandFaith,editedbyThomasNagel,HarvardUniversityPress,p.264.②BrianGogan,1982,TheCommonCorpsofChristendom:EcclesiologicalThemesintheWritingsofSirThomasMore,Brill,pp.29-34.③BrianGogan,1982,pp.35-④QuentinSkinner,1978,TheFoundationsofModernPoliticalThoughtvolume2:ofReformation,Cambridge,pp.23–25,37-47.⑤JohnRawls,1996,PoliticalLiberalism,ColumbiaUniversityPress,p.⑥B.J.Kan,2007,DividedbyFaith:ReligiousandthePracticeofTolerationinEarlyModernEurope,Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,p.2.ArgumentsforreligiousThefactofpluralismandthesubsequentreligiouswarsandsuppressionsledtothenecessityoftoleration.However,peoplemaywonder:Whyshouldwetolerateseeminglywrongfaiths?Iftolerationismerelyapoliticalexpedienceinordertoendcurrentcrises,inthiscasetolerationmeansendurance,thenitmaybenolongernecessaryoncethesituationschange.Thisquestionisreallychallenging.Amongthosewhotriedtoanswerthatchallengewecanfindmanybignames:Abailard,NicholasofCusa,Erasmus,SebastianCaslio, nBodin,Spinoza,PierreBayle,JohnLocke,Hume,JohnStuartMill,…ButitseemstomethatitisJohnRawlsthatoffersthemostsystematicalargumentsforreligious.Rawlsrealizesthatthediversityofreasonablecomprehensivedoctrinesisnotamerehistoricalconditionthatmaysoonpassaway,butapermanentfeatureofthepubliccultureofdemocracy.Thisdiversitycanbe eonlybytheoppressiveuseofstatepower.①Rawlsowesthefactofreasonablepluralismandthefactofoppressiontothefactthat‘manyofourmostimportantpoliticaljudgmentsinvolvingthebasicpoliticalvaluesaremadesubjecttoconditionssuchthatitishighlyunlikelythatconscientiousandfullyreasonables,evenafter andopendiscussion,canexercisetheirpowersofreasonsothatallarriveatthesameconclusion.’Rawlscallthisfact‘theburdensofjudgment’②,yetforpresentpurpose,Ireceitwithternative:thefinitudeofhumaninlect.Therefore,awell-ordereddemocraticsocietyisnotacommunitythatallcitizensareunitedbyasharedcomprehensivedoctrine,butapluralisticsociety.③Giventhesefacts,Rawlsarguesforthepriorityofthebasicliberties,maintainingthatitwouldnothavepriorityunlesseachofthebasicliberties,especiallyequallibertyofconscience,wereoffundamentalimportanceandcouldnotbecompromisedunlessngsoisunavoidable.④Rawlsacknowledgesthatnoneofthebasiclibertiesisabsolute,becausetheymaywithoneanother,thereforeneedtobelimited.Therefore,acriterionofsignificanceofaparticularrightorlibertyisnecessaryinordertoworkoutwhichlibertiesaretobecountedasbasic.Rawlsproposesthat‘a(chǎn)libertyismoreorlesssignificantdependingonwhetheritismoreorlessessentiallyinvolvedin,orismoreorlessnecessaryinstitutionalmeanstoprotect,thefullandinformedexerciseofthemoralpowersinone(orboth)ofthetwofundamentalcases.’Accordingtothiscriterion,therearetwofundamentalcases:theequalpoliticallibertiesandofthoughtarefundamentalforensuringtheopportunityfortheandinformedapplicationofthepr iplesofjusticebymeansofthefullandeffectiveexerciseofcitizens'senseofjustice,whilelibertyofconscienceandofassociationarefundamentalforensuringtheopportunityforthe andinformedexerciseofthecapacityfora(complete)conceptionofthegoodanditscompanionpowersofpracticalreasonandjudgmentinforming,revising,andrationallypursuingsuchaconceptionovera ife.Otherliberties,suchasthelibertyandintegrity(physicalandpsychological)of andtherightsandlibertiescoveredbytheruleoflaw,arealsonecessaryforthe①Rawls,1996,pp.36–②Rawls,2001,JusticeasFainess:ARestatement,HarvardUniversityPress,pp.35–③Rawls,1996,pp.40–④Rawls,2001,pp.104–twofundamentalcases,ifthesebasiclibertiesaretobeproperlyAstothetwofundamentalcases,Rawlsholdsthat‘Justiceasfairnessagreeswiththestrandoftheliberaltradition(representedbyConstantandBerlin)thatregardstheequalpoliticalliberties(thelibertiesoftheancients)ashavingingenerallessintrinsicvaluethan,say,ofthoughtandlibertyofconscience(thelibertiesofthemoderns).’②Rawlsarguesthatthepriorityofequallibertyofconscienceisconnectedwiththefactthatreligiousbeliefs,orphilosophicalormoralconvictionsareregardedasnonnegotiableforthosewhoaffirmthem,aswellasthefactofreasonablepluralismthatreligious,philosophical,andmoralsareoftenintractable.③AsJoshuaCohenandThomasNagelhavenoticed,Rawlsian‘theoryofjusticeisinpartaresponsetotheproblemofhowpoliticallegitimacycanbeachieveddespitereligious,andhow,amongcitizensofdifferentreligiousconfessions,politicaljustificationcanproceedwithoutreferencetoreligiousconviction.…TheseconcernslieattheheartofRawls’saccountofpoliticalliberalism.’④Iti actlytoanswerthechallengeofpluralismthatRawlsrestateshistheoryofjustice.⑤Inordertoensurethestabilityofapluralisticsociety,Rawlsnotonlylimitshisconceptionofjusticetothe‘ofthepolitical’,butalsocallsfor‘reasonablecomprehensivedoctrines’thatrecognizethefactofreasonablepluralismandthefactofoppression,andsotheburdensofjudgmentandthatoflibertyofconscience,sothatan‘overlapconsensus’insteadofamodusvivendiamongcitizenswhoaffirmreasonablebutopposingreligious,philosophical,andmoraldoctrinesmaybebothrealisticandstable.Rawlstalksabouthowameremodusvivendiwasdevelopedintoanoverlapconsensus:‘Itmayseemmorenaturaltobelieve,ascenturies-longacceptanceofintoleranceappearedtoconfirm,thatsocialunityandconcordrequireagreementonageneralandcomprehensivereligious,philosophical,ormoraldoctrine.Intolerancewasseenasaconditionofsocialorderandstability.Theweakeningofthatbeliefhelpstoclearthewayforinstitutions.’⑥TheNeo-ConfucianConceptofDao-MatteoRicciandhisJesuitfellowshipweremembersoftheSocietyofJesus,which,foundedin1540andcalledthepapal“elitetroops”,wasthemostinfluential,inlectualCounterReformationbytheCatholicChurch.TheJesuit missionstoldtheiraudiencethatthepopeheldlegalsupremacyoverallChristiansandthatwesternemperorsandkingswillinglysubordinatedthemselvestothepope.IthadneverbeentherealsituationofEuropeanchurch,butwhattheSocietyofJesusthoughtitshouldbe.However,itbecamethe“imaginedother”forsomeidealistConfucians.①Ibid,pp.111–②Ibid,p.③Ibid,pp.104–④Rawls,2009,ABriefInquiryintotheMeaningofSinandFaith:with“OnMyReligion”,editedbyThomasNagel,HarvardUniversityPress,pp.5–6.⑤Rawls,2001,p.⑥Ibid,pp.189–TheidealistConfucians,unliketherealistConfucianswhotookhierarchicalorderandpoliticalstabilityastheirprimaryconcernandthustendedtomaintainthesovereignoftheemperor,devotedthemselvestotherectificationofpolitics,especiallytherestraintoftheemperor’sarbitrarywill.Forthatpurpose,theidealistConfuciansinSongandMingDynastiesdevelopedtheconceptofDao-tong（道統(tǒng)）,whichisusuallytranslatedas“ConfucianOrthodox”,yetlillymeansthesuccessionofDao.Justasthetranslationsuggests,theneo-Confuciansbelievethattheultimatetruth,Dao,discoveredbyConfuciusandwrittendownlassicsowingtohim,hasbeenmisunderstoodforoverathousandyears,andonlyrecentlyrediscoveredbythetwoCHENGs（二程）andZHUXi（）,whichtheycallthe‘correctlearning’（正學(xué)）.OtherinterpretationstotheConfucianclassicsarecalled‘learning’（偽學(xué)）.Non-ConfuciandoctrinessuchasBuddhismandTaoismaretakenasstrangedoctrines（異端）orviciousteaching（）.Theneo-ConfucianstakeittheobligationofbothscholarsandofficialstoespousethecorrectlearninganddiminishdoctrinessoastokeepthemindsofthepeoplestraightandthecustomofthemassinBeijingin1601,anofficialoftheMinistryofRites,FengQi（）,wroteamemorialtothethrone,advisingthatanyonewhocitedBuddhistworksintheimperialexaminationshouldnotberecruited.AfamouswriterLIZhi（）,who,onceanofficial,hadhishaircutandbecameamonk,wasputintoprisonandthencommittedsuicide.ThiseventmadeitanecessityforRiccito modateChristianityandConfucianism.Anotherconcept paniedwithitiszhi-tong（治統(tǒng)）,translatedas‘politicalorthodox’.Thoughtheneo-Confuciansdonotmakecleardemarcationbetweenthesacredandthesecular,theydohavetheideaofpoliticallegitimacy,andarguethatarulercannot legalpoliticalauthoritysimplybecauseofthefactthathemanagestotakecontroloftheland ,butbecausehehasgottheendorsementofDao-tong,thatis,thesupportofaConfucianleader.①DifferentfromtheChristianopinionthatthetwokingdomsco-existperpetuallyinthisworldandwillre-uniteonlywhenChristcamebackatthedoomsday,theneo-Confucians,taketheparallelofConfucianOrthodoxandPoliticalOrthodoxasdegradation,duetothemoraldefectionofthekings.LIUZongzhou（）believesthataslongasthekingsfollowtheexampleoftheancientsage-kingsinthe“threedynasties”,thetwoorthodoxieswillre-unitedagain.②ThoughmanyrealistConfucianssawthemissionariesasseditionariesandsomeidealistConfucianssuchasLIUZongzhoudislikedthemeither,HUANGZongxi（，1610－1695）,adiscipleofLIU,learnedmuchfromtheJesuits.Hedoesnottakethetraditional“sage-king”modelasidealpattern;instead,hethinkstheancientkingsinthe“threedynasties”acknowledgedthesupremeauthorityoftheschoolinjudgingrightandwrong.Certaindetailsofhisconsiderationoftheschoolsuggesttheinfluenceofwesternuniversities.However,asHUANGZongxihadnevergotaccesstotheideaoftolerationdevelopedinEuropes e12thcenturyandflourishingduring15-17thcenturies,heproposesverystrictmeasuresofcontrolonthought,conscience,andreligion:confiscatingtemplesofBuddhism①YUYingshi（ 時(shí)）,2004,TheHistoricalWorldofZhuXi:thePoliticalCultureofOfficial-ScholarsinSongDynasty《 世界——宋代士大夫文化的研究》）,Beijing:SanlianPress,pp.7–35.②Chin-shingHuang（ ）,2010,EssaysonConfuci hicsandtheConfucianTemple:PowerFaithandLegitimacy《優(yōu)入圣域：權(quán)力、信仰與正當(dāng)性》），Beijing：ZhonghuaBook，pp.75-105.andTaoismandturnthemintoConfucianschools;burningbooksthatwereuselessforpracticality;pre-publicationofbooks,whichwasexactlywhattheSacredCongregationoftheIndexoftheRomanCatholicChurchdidse1571.①Ironically,thoughHUANGlearnedmuchfromtheJesuits,hecallsChristianity‘viciousdoctrine’(邪說(shuō)),②whichsuggeststhatHUANG’sattitudetowardthewesternlearning(西學(xué))issimilartowhatZHANGZhidong張之洞)holds200yearslater,i.e.,acceptingwesternscienceandtechnologywhilerejectingwestehicalandpoliticalthoughts(中學(xué)為體，西學(xué)為用).Aswehavementionedabove,Confucianismisconstruedasabelieforreligion.SoitisobviousthattheConfucianmodelofsage-kingfitsinthefirstpatternofreligion-staterelationships,LIUZongzhou’sconceptionofDao-tongfitsinthethirdpattern,andHUANGZongxi’sconceptionoftheschoolfitsthesecond.However,despitethedifference,allthethreebelievethathumancangetperfecteitherindividuallyorcollectivelybytheirownefforts,whichpresetsmonismandcognosciblism:monismtodefineperfectionandvirtuebyaConfucianmetaphysics;cognosciblismtoensurethepossibilityofappreciatingthesituationsanddegreesofperfectionsothatwecangettoknowwhetherone orasocietyisperfect,aswellasthewaystoindividualandcolle