A Century of Jesuit Persistence in China
When Ferdinand Verbiest died in 1688 after serving as Kangxi Emperor’s trusted advisor for nearly two decades, he left unfinished the Jesuit mission’s central ambition – obtaining official recognition for Catholicism in China. For over a century since Matteo Ricci first entered Beijing in 1601, generations of Jesuit missionaries had worked patiently through imperial institutions, combining scientific expertise with cultural adaptation to gain a foothold in the Middle Kingdom.
The Jesuits’ strategy of cultural accommodation, initiated by Ricci, involved mastering Confucian classics, adopting Chinese dress and customs, and presenting Christianity as compatible with traditional Chinese values. This approach yielded gradual success – missionaries were permitted to reside in Beijing, serve in the Imperial Astronomical Bureau, and even instruct the young Kangxi Emperor in mathematics and astronomy. Yet despite these personal connections with emperors, Catholicism remained technically illegal, subject to periodic persecutions like the 1664 Calendar Case when Verbiest himself was imprisoned.
The Political Maneuvering Behind the 1692 Edict
The breakthrough came through an elaborate political performance orchestrated by Kangxi and his officials. According to French Jesuit Jean de Fontaney’s account, after missionaries helped negotiate the Treaty of Nerchinsk with Russia in 1689, Kangxi privately instructed Portuguese Jesuits Tomás Pereira and Antoine Thomas to formally submit a memorial requesting tolerance for Catholicism. In a carefully staged scene at court, Kangxi pretended unfamiliarity with the memorial when it was presented, mixing it with routine documents sent to the Grand Secretariat for standard processing.
When the Ministry of Rites initially rejected the petition – as Kangxi likely anticipated – the emperor remained publicly silent to maintain bureaucratic decorum. The critical backchannel negotiations then fell to Songgotu, the powerful Manchu statesman who had promised Jesuit assistance during the Russian negotiations. Though the exact mechanisms remain unclear, Songgotu’s influence persuaded Minister of Rites Gubadai to reverse the ministry’s position.
Gubadai’s memorial justifying tolerance presented three key arguments: the Jesuits’ valuable services in calendar reform, weapons manufacturing, and diplomacy; their law-abiding behavior compared to tolerated religions like Buddhism; and the logical inconsistency of prohibiting Catholicism while permitting other foreign faiths. This reasoning reflected the Jesuits’ long-standing strategy of demonstrating their utility to the state.
The Edict’s Text and Its Strategic Foundations
The resulting Edict of Toleration, issued by Kangxi on March 22, 1692, stated:
“After deliberation, we find that Westerners, admiring our imperial virtue, have come across vast oceans. They currently assist in calendar reform, manufacture firearms during military campaigns, and have sincerely served in negotiations with Russia, achieving much merit. Westerners residing in various provinces have committed no crimes or disturbances. They promote no heterodox teachings or seditious doctrines. Since we permit incense burning in Buddhist and Daoist temples, prohibiting Westerners despite their lawful conduct seems inappropriate. Accordingly, all Catholic churches shall remain as before, allowing devotees to worship normally without prohibition. Upon approval, this shall be communicated to all provinces directly under the capital.”
The edict’s emphasis on Jesuit contributions highlighted three pillars of their strategy: astronomical expertise (primarily Verbiest’s calendar reforms), military technology (Verbiest’s cannon designs), and diplomatic service (preparations for Russian negotiations). These concrete services to the Qing state overcame traditional Confucian suspicions of foreign influence.
Immediate Impacts and European Responses
The edict’s effects were immediate and profound. Within a decade, the number of missionaries in China doubled from about 100 to over 200, while Chinese Catholic converts increased from approximately 200,000 to 300,000. News spread rapidly through Jesuit networks, reinvigorating European missionary enthusiasm. French Jesuit Charles Le Gobien’s 1698 account described the edict as “the most glorious victory the Church has achieved in the East,” sparking new waves of missionary volunteers.
This official tolerance enabled expanded church construction, public worship, and provincial missionary work. Jesuit institutions like the French-established Beitang in Beijing flourished, becoming centers of cultural exchange where Kangxi frequently visited to discuss science, philosophy and art with missionaries.
The Manchu Context: Understanding Jesuit Status Through the Bondservant System
The Jesuits’ unique position in Kangxi’s court becomes clear when examined through the Manchu bondservant (booi) system. Unlike traditional Chinese “master-slave” relationships denoting low status, Manchu bondservants maintained complex, privileged relationships with their masters. High-ranking officials often proudly identified as imperial bondservants, as the relationship implied direct access to the emperor.
Missionaries like Verbiest, Pereira and Thomas operated within this framework. Their initial connection came through bondservant ties between Jesuits Lodovico Buglio and Gabriel de Magalhães with Kangxi’s maternal relatives. When the Tong family was elevated to the Upper Three Banners in 1669, the Jesuits’ status rose accordingly. Later missionaries inherited these institutional relationships, much like hereditary bondservant positions.
Kangxi formalized this arrangement in 1706 by requiring all missionaries to register with the Imperial Household Department (Neiwufu) rather than the Ministry of Rites, which managed Buddhist and Daoist clergy. This unprecedented move placed Jesuits administratively within the emperor’s personal staff. The special “dragon tickets” issued functioned like diplomatic passports, exempting holders from local jurisdiction – a privilege Jesuit Kilian Stumpf proudly contrasted with Buddhist monks’ subordination to regular bureaucracy.
Kangxi’s Personal Protection and Its Limits
The emperor’s personal attachment to his Jesuit advisors manifested in extraordinary ways. When minor legal disputes involving missionaries reached his attention, Kangxi routinely intervened, as in a 1716 case where he admonished Zhili Governor Zhao Hongxie to treat a trivial property dispute involving “ticket-holding Westerners” leniently. Such interventions signaled to provincial officials that missionaries enjoyed imperial protection.
Kangxi supported his Jesuits materially as well – funding church repairs from his privy purse, providing medical care, and allocating construction materials through the Imperial Household Department. His famous remark defending them during disputes with papal legates – “We wouldn’t allow anyone to bully even a dog we raised, let alone these men who have served me faithfully for forty-five years since my childhood” – reveals the paternalistic bondservant relationship’s emotional dimensions.
The Edict’s Historical Significance and Legacy
The 1692 Edict marked the culmination of the Jesuit accommodation strategy and represented the high point of Catholic influence in imperial China. It established important precedents for state-religion relations and cross-cultural exchange. However, its protections proved fragile when the Chinese Rites Controversy later led Kangxi to restrict missionary activities in 1721.
Historically, the edict demonstrates how non-Chinese dynasties like the Qing could adopt more flexible approaches to foreign religions compared to Ming Confucian orthodoxy. The Manchu bondservant system provided an institutional framework for incorporating useful foreigners that had no parallel in Chinese bureaucratic tradition.
Modern scholarship views the edict as emblematic of early globalization, showing how scientific knowledge, military technology, and religious movements circulated through imperial networks. The Jesuit experience remains relevant today as China navigates relationships with foreign institutions and ideologies, with the Kangxi-era balancing act between tolerance and control echoing in contemporary religious policies.
The 1692 Edict of Toleration thus represents more than a temporary policy shift – it encapsulates a pivotal moment when China’s engagement with the West, mediated through the unique institutions of Manchu rule, created possibilities for cultural exchange that would influence both civilizations for centuries to come.