(1) The first source of the anti-foreign disturbances, as found existing in the Chinese people, is the hereditary and inherent quality of proud exclusiveness. While making this charge, it is also a part of justice to point out the facts, which seem to deny the charge. So far as roligions are concerned, China certainly seems to bear the palm for religious toleration. Before the Christian era, in the reign of Ch'in-sz Huangti, expeditions were despatched to find the islands of the immortals, an idea which developed with the hopes of the Taoists for immortality. Then came the journeys of messengers of the Chinese Emperor to find in the West some grest Sage or Saviour, resulting in the cordial invitation of Buddhist priests to preach their doctrines to the Chinese people. Afterwards in the T'ang dynasty came the invitation of another Emperor to the teachers of Mohammedanism, while about the same time was the favour of the highest classes extended to Nestorianism, and churches were built by Imperial patronage, In the Yuan dynasty the Mongol rulers broadened the scope of their toleration, until Christianity as represented by the envoys of the Pope received a cordial welcome and full protection. The later agents of Rome in the clove of the Ming dynasty and the beginning of the present Manchu dynasty likewise secured favour and influence with the very highest of the empire, and built their churches on Imperial ground by Imperial aid. But it is equally evident aS a matter of history that not miny years Romanista was prohibited, and this exclu-in the present dynasty before
sive policy continued to prevail, till Foreign Powers by the outcome of wars compelled the adoption again, but by treaty-law, of the principle of toleration, to be applied equally to Romanism and' Protestantism, Why the exclusive spirit was aroused is a matter of dispute, but the fact shat such a spirit has existed cannot be disputed.
Non-exclusiveness also existed in China for many centuries in its attitude to foreign, people as well as other faiths. Traders came freely from Persia, Arabia and Turkey, from India and Japan, even until the buccaneering days of the Dutch, Spanish and Portugese. It would seem, then, that the exclusive spirit was not natural tachina, but the fruitage of certain exterior conditions, and it devolves upon us to note what they were.
That Buddhism and Mohammedanism have been allowed, while the Roman and Protestant branches of the Christian Church have been forbidden or checked, would seem to*indicate that other than the quality of religion has entered into the relationship, or that something peculiar to these latter religions has. conflicted with the interests of China, Whether blame is to be attached to them we are to consider in the later sections, but here we merely notice the Chinese side of the perplexing quostion.
Whether any blame in bringing about exclusive spirit belongs to foreign peoples, and especially to traders, we will also notice later on, but now we merely examine the Chinese aspect.
'What, then, is the Chinese phase of the revolving causes which produced this proud exclusiveness We believe that the root was the extravagant assumption of superiority' of the literati. If nothing should arise to thwart this assumption, no exclusiveness would appear, but once let another religion.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.