Juan Cobo’s Thoughts on the Chinese–Occidental Cultural Integration

Abstract

Juan Cobo, a Spanish Dominican, preached to the Chinese in the Philippines between 1588 and 1592. During this time, he translated Ming Xin Bao Jian 《明心寶鑒》, which was the first Chinese classic translated into a Western language. In addition, he also authored an evangelical work: Bian Zheng Jiao Zhen Chuan Shilu 《辯正教真傳實錄》. His approach was notably different from his contemporary Dominicans’ orthodox inclinations. Juan Cobo’s works show his enthusiastic admiration for the Chinese culture, which is demonstrated in his open attitude towards the Confucian and Daoist doctrines, as well as in his recorded egalitarian discussion with a Mandarin scholar. In this article, based on Juan Cobo’s works, an analysis is undertaken regarding how this missionary adopted Neo-Confucian concepts and ideas, which then occupied a mainstream position in the local academic world, in his evangelical work with the Chinese people. Furthermore, this analysis also investigates how Juan Cobo intended to integrate the Oriental and Western philosophies, despite their theoretical and methodological divergences, in order to achieve the quick acceptance and diffusion of Christianity among the Sangleys. The historical background, the causes, and the results of such practices are also discussed in the present article.

1. Introduction

The early contact, combination, and conflict between the oriental and occidental cultures were reflected in Christian missionary attitudes towards Chinese doctrines when these missionaries arrived in East Asia at the end of the sixteenth century. These attitudes were directed to such oriental doctrines as found in Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism. The missionaries of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries dedicated many efforts into learning Chinese culture in order to diffuse Christianity with more ease. They looked to mostly assimilate the parts of Chinese culture that could be useful for the purposes of their evangelical missions. It was in this way that the Chinese–Occidental cultural communication was intensified.

In this area of study there has been quite a lot of attention and discussion on the Jesuits who worked in China, while there are still only a handful of studies on the texts of the Dominicans who preached among the Philippine Chinese immigrants in the same period. The Dutch sinologist, Piet Van Der Loon (1969), paid close attention to the various Incunabula that were published in Chinese within the Philippines; moreover, he also conducted historical, bibliographical, and linguistic studies on them. Specifically, he studied Juan Cobo’s Bian Zheng Jiao Zhen Chuan Shilu 《辯正教真傳實錄》 (hereafter referred to as the Shilu). Fr. Fang Hao was the first to discover this text in the modern period; additionally, he also wrote many reports on its content and bibliographic aspects (Fang 1969a, 1969b, 1974a, 1974b). Carlos Quirino also presented it to the public early in the 1960s (Quirino 1963). Fidel Villarroel, a Philippine Sinologist, published a modern edition of the Shilu with photocopies and translations of the full text in Spanish and English. This edition also included some investigators’ studies on the author, linguistic features, and on certain historical and bibliographical matters (Villarroel 1986). Albert Chan (1989) also managed to add a number of innovative insights to the study of the Shilu in his article. He carefully investigated the content of the Shilu, comparing it with contemporary missionary works. Moreover, he discussed the process of its composition and publication in both the Eastern and Western traditions of thought. José Antonio Cervera (2013, 2015) has published certain other very interesting works on Juan Cobo, including the historical context of the sixteenth century and the Dominican missions in the Philippines. The studies of Carlos Sanz (1958), Jinghe Chen (1963), and Knauth (1970) have also provided a sharp historical analysis on the context of the Dominican’s works. Limei Liu’s (2002) and Li Yan’s (2019) respective studies of Juan Cobo’s translation of Ming Xin Bao Jian are also of note. In Liu’s Ph.D. dissertation on this theme, she also presented the details of Neo-Confucian influence within Cobo’s Shilu. In addition, Eugenio Borao’s (2012) article focused mainly on the Dominican translation works in the Philippines. Presently there is not yet a specific and in-depth study on how Juan Cobo integrated Christianity with local Chinese doctrines. On the one hand, this may be because the Shilu was only found in the middle of the twentieth century. On the other hand, the earlier investigators have noticed that a Chinese scholar had likely participated in the composition of the text. This fact may had resulted in many authors denying that the text was a fair representation of Juan Cobo’s own thoughts. Due to these reasons, the true intercultural communication between the Friar and the Chinese literate was, thus, neglected.

Juan Cobo preached among the Chinese in Manila between 1588 and 1592. During this period, he kept in touch with several literate Chinese people, who taught him their language and instructed him in the Chinese classics (Blair and Robertson 1903–1909, vol. 7, p. 83). In collaboration with them, Cobo wrote an evangelical work in Mandarin and translated a Chinese educational classic into Spanish. He also cooperated intensively with the Chinese assistants in his diplomatic mission to Japan in 1592 (Villarroel 1986, p. 24). In this process, he showed trust and affection for the Chinese people, as well as admiration and respect for the Chinese culture. The later Dominicans insisted on conveying the orthodox doctrines to the neophytes and rejected Chinese culture by opposing the use of local concepts and ideas in order to interpret Christianity. This, therefore, led to negative consequences. On the one hand, the evangelical missions for the Chinese nation in the Philippines lost the purity of cultural dissemination and instead served as a support for Spanish political domination. In order to consolidate the Spanish government, the later Dominicans enforced a cultural assimilation toward the Chinese immigrants, instead of attempting to conduct cultural fusion or exchanges with them. Such practices entailed oppression and provoked rebellions, even violent conflicts. On the other hand, the Dominican orthodox tendency that denied Chinese doctrines lasted throughout the seventeenth century and caused the Chinese Rites controversy between the Order of Preachers and the Society of Jesus, which, in turn, harmed the development of the Catholic enterprise in China. Therefore, in respect to this context, Juan Cobo’s positive attitude towards Chinese culture, which promoted the primitive Chinese–Spanish cultural communication in the Philippines, is even worthier of attention and studies.

This article, which is based on Juan Cobo’s works (especially the Shilu, which has been transcribed and paragraphed for the preparation of this study), is aimed at clarifying how this missionary adopted Neo-Confucian concepts and ideas, which then occupied a mainstream position in the local academic world, when he introduced Western theology to the Chinese people. Further, there will be an investigation into how he intended to integrate the Oriental and the Western philosophies, despite their theoretical and methodological divergences, in order to achieve a quick acceptance and diffusion of Christianity among the Sangleys. Juan Cobo’s works show his enthusiastic admiration for Chinese culture, his open attitude toward the Confucian and Daoist doctrines, as well as the egalitarian discussion that he undertook with a Mandarin scholar. His evangelical strategy did not last in the works of the later Dominicans’ evangelical efforts. However, it appears to have had a more constant value, for today’s time, for the purposes of studies on intercultural communication.

2. The Spatial and Temporal Background of Juan Cobo’s Mission in the Philippines

The Dominicans founded the Holy Rosary Province with the main objective of evangelizing China. Diego Aduarte, historian of the Province and a contemporary of Cobo, stated: “… They were always much more moved by the desire that they had of the conversion of the great Kingdom of China, which as it is without comparison much greater in number, and quality of its people, of greater understanding, and greater police, it is a greater pity to see them so blind… the desire for their conversion was the greatest and most important reason that the first Founders of this Province had, to come here, and on arriving they truly began to learn its language…” (Sanz 1958, p. 331) The first Philippine bishop, Domingo de Salazar, also a Dominican, said in a letter written in 1590: “… and as I long ago had a great desire for the conversion of that Kingdom, and with it I came to these islands, because one of the reasons that moved me to accept this bishopric was knowing that these islands were very close to China and that there were in them many natives of that Kingdom who had come to live here…” (Cervera 2015, p. 103).

Almost at the same time when the first Dominican mission departed for the Philippines, a group of Dominicans headed by Antonio de Arcediano sailed to Macao in order to establish a mission in China. This project was obstructed by the Portuguese and the Jesuit fathers there. These Dominican missionaries were sent onto Goa before long. Since then, the Order of Preachers realized that the major hindrance to their entry into China was none other than their European rivals. From 1590, the Dominicans abandoned the hope of collaborating with the Portuguese and the Jesuits in Macao and began to seek for the help of their Sangley1 friends in order to carry out their dreamed entry into China. Salazar mentioned in his letter that two Chinese merchants: Francisco Zanco and Thomas Syguan, told father Juan Cobo (who was in charge of the administration of the Chinese in Parian2) that they were willing to take some Dominican friars to China. This voluntary proposal was so well received by the Governor Santiago de Vera, the Bishop Salazar, and the Dominican friars that the first of whom exempted the taxes of a ship for each of the two Sangleys for six years hence.

Santiago de Vera governed the Philippines (1584–1590) during the initial period of the Dominicans’ provincial history on these islands. This governor treated the Sangleys amicably and supported, in many respects, the Dominicans’ evangelical works to convert the Chinese. As he saw the indispensability of the supplies brought by the Sangleys for the survival of the Spanish colony in the Philippines, this governor attached great importance to trade with the Chinese and made some adjustments in favor of the Sangleys, where, for example, he relieved taxes on food, cattle, and ammunition (Chen 1963, pp. 63–64). In addition, he supported the construction of the San Gabriel Church (for the Chinese near Parian), the Our Lady of Purification Church (for the Chinese of Tondo3) and the San Gabriel Hospital (Cervera 2015, p. 143). The fire of 1588 burned Parian and “with the good diligence of Dr. Vera, president and governor, they became much better, and covered with tiles, for safety from the fire: this Parian has ennobled this city so much.” (Cervera 2015, p. 110) The governor told Salazar in 1589 that he was trying to confer with the Mandarins of Quanzhou 泉州 in order to provide them with an island near that coast, where the Castilians could settle and deal there. In respect of this wish, they did not find the Sangleys very indifferent to this matter. However, this proposal did not borne a result (Cervera 2015, pp. 105–6). In a word, during Vera’s government, the Castilians and the Sangleys lived together in a certain harmony. However, such an atmosphere hardly appeared during any other Philippine governors’ ruling periods.

During this time, the Castilian authority favored the Chinese due to the fact that the Dominicans and the Spanish governor hoped that their friendly fame would spread to Fujian in order to counteract the effect of the slander that was declared by the Portuguese against the Castilians. The Castilian authority also devised a plan to open the Chinese gate by establishing a mission point and a treaty port in this country, one that is similar to Macao for the Portuguese and the Jesuits. In this kind of atmosphere between the two nations in the Philippines, the Dominicans believed that Divine Providence would open the gate to the Eastern Empire for them. Therefore, in 1590 they sent two Dominicans to China, Fr. Miguel Benavides and Fr. Juan Castro, both of whom were members of the first Dominican mission in the Philippines. Fr. Benavides had worked among the Chinese since he arrived in Manila and knew the Chinese language. The two Dominicans traveled on the ships of the Sangleys, but they had no better luck than the previous Spanish missionaries who before had made the same attempt: they were imprisoned for months before being expelled from the country.

Juan Cobo (1546–1592) was a member of the second Dominican mission in the Philippines and he landed in Manila in 1588. At that time, the Italian Jesuits, including Michele Ruggieri (1543–1607) and Matteo Ricci (1552–1610), were already working in mainland China. As has been mentioned before, ever since the arrival of the first Dominican mission to these islands in 1587, this Order had always planned to go onto preach in China. During the years Juan Cobo was working among the Philippine Sangleys, the Dominicans were confident that they could realize their ambition to evangelize China. This is the reason why they paid close attention to the activities that the Jesuits were conducting on the continent. In a letter, Cobo mentioned that the Philippine Church generally criticized the Jesuits’ practices in China. In particular, the adoption of Chinese costumes and the priority that was given to nobles in the conversion, but Cobo understood that the Jesuits in their spatial and political position were pressured by the Chinese authorities and felt compassion for them, as Cobo himself wrote in a letter:

Of the fruit that they make is not known, it is understood that it is little. God knows why. Some think that acting like them is not evangelic steps: with their (of the Chinese) costumes hiding among them keeping human prudence. Because the common people do not dare to receive the Faith, for fear that they should be thrown out of the land, and everything would be lost. After all the good news of the gospel were Pauperes Euangelizatur. And so there is much concern here of this approach.

(Cervera 2015, pp. 91–92)

In fact, Juan Cobo imitated the measures that the Jesuits applied in their evangelical mission. For example, he used a lot of phrases taken from the Chinese classics in his work, the Shilu, in his attempts to interpret Christian doctrine with the use of local Chinese metaphysical concepts. He had read Tianzhu Shengjiao Shilu 《天主聖教實錄》 (published in 1584) by Michele Ruggieri. Further, he applied some terms that were translated or created by the Jesuits in his own work (for example, Tianzhu 天主: God; seng 僧: priest; si 寺: church, etc.), and even adopted certain anecdotes and metaphors from Ruggieri’s book. Juan Cobo recognized the evangelical achievements of the Jesuits in said letter, highlighting Ruggieri’s book that was published in China. Through his words it was seen that he was not jealous of the Jesuit fathers, but rather he had an attitude of understanding toward them and, in fact, tried to learn from them. Thus, on this basis, he formed his own evangelical method that integrated both Chinese and European ideas.

As soon as Juan Cobo arrived in the Philippines in 1588, he was assigned the ministry of the Chinese in Manila. In his opinion, the Spanish missionaries who had tried to enter China had failed to stay there because they did not know the local language. He said: “… and it would be more foolish to receive them (the Spanish missionaries) if they did not know what it (the Christianity) was, or to put it better, it could be a serious sin to receive another Law without knowing what law it was. What we have seen is that they have received the father of the Society, and his confreres, who know the language and its letters.” (Cervera 2015, p. 91). After intensive study, Juan Cobo’s level of Chinese increased rapidly and he soon mastered both the Minnan dialect (Hokkien) and the Chinese written language. Then, he began to read numerous Chinese books of various disciplines: the sciences, philosophy, literature, history, geography, government laws and decrees, music, medicine, etc., of which he provided comprehensive and objective information in his letters (Cervera 2015, pp. 94–99). Through his reports, which affirm the height and breadth of the Chinese civilization, one can feel his great interest in this culture.

3. Special Features of Juan Cobo’s Works

Juan Cobo left several works apart from Ming Xin Bao Jian (1592). He was the first to translate a Chinese classic into a Western language. Further, he wrote the Shilu (1593), an apologetic text in Chinese, as well as several letters. According to certain historical data, he was one of the Dominican coauthors of the Christian Doctrine in Chinese language and letters (1604?); in addition, he wrote a Sino–Spanish vocabulary text and a treatise on astronomy, which, unfortunately, has not been found today (Villarroel 1986, p. 12). All of his writings that we see today show that he held Chinese culture in high esteem.

The text of the Shilu is composed in classical Chinese and has an elegant linguistic style—it has evidently been polished by a Chinese coauthor. Juan Cobo used the Hokkien in his preaching to the Philippine Sangleys, which can be verified by the fact that he transcribed the proper names in Ming Xin Bao Jian according to the phonetics of this dialect (Van Der Loon 1969, p. 19). Furthermore, he had only been learning the Chinese language for three years when he wrote the Shilu, so it was unlikely that he could quote the foreign classics with such agility. In this process, the Chinese scribe (who could also be the very interlocutor who discussed the questions recorded in the text with Cobo) played a big part. The Governor Santiago de Vera said in his letter to Philip II in 1589:

Since coming to this country, I have insisted that the religious should try to learn the Chinese language, in order to convert and teach the Chinese in this land, who are ordinarily about as many as I before stated. As it is so difficult and the religious are so busily engaged with the natives of the Islands, they have not done this. When the Dominicans came here, I entrusted to them the instruction of the Chinese, and supplied them with interpreters to teach them the language.

(Blair and Robertson 1903–1909, vol. 7, p. 83)

These words show that some Chinese who understood a little Spanish taught the Castilian missionaries Chinese in Manila, due to the fact that the governor called them “interpreters”. In addition, some Chinese interpreters participated in Juan Cobo’s embassy to Japan in 1592, one of whom was called Juan Sami. The governor of that time, Gómez Pérez Dasmariñas (in charge 1590–1593) wrote to the king on 11 June, 1592, advising that Juan Sami was a Chinese language teacher who also went to Japan as Father Cobo’s interpreter (Villarroel 1986, p. 24). It is seen that some Christian Chinese who could speak Spanish served Juan Cobo as his language teacher. The Dominican collaborated with them in various activities: writing, translation, and diplomatic missions. In this process, they established trust and mutual friendship with each other. The Chinese masters greatly influenced the Dominican’s attitude toward Chinese thought and his opinion on the Chinese nation’s civilization.

Juan Cobo’s Shilu is quite special when compared with the other missionary texts in Chinese that were published later in the Philippines. This is because it is written in classical Chinese and argues the righteousness of the Catholic faith on the basis of the discussion of philosophical and scientific questions. It is a catechism for the Sangleys (in particular for the unfaithful scholars).4 However, it must be noted that this was not because, at the end of the sixteenth century, that the Chinese who frequented these islands were mostly opulent or literate people, as Juan Cobo recognized in his own letter: “About the people who come here to treat, they are merchants, these are not many. There are many seafarers, countless fishermen: many workers.” (Cervera 2015, p. 92). In addition, he affirmed that in comparison with the Jesuits of the continent: “Our way is more human: because there comes more poor people to the Gospel. Some who are not poor have come, but we do not take it as a bad sign if the Gospel begins with the poor.” (Cervera 2015, p. 91) However, in Juan Cobo’s opinion, the Chinese were very intelligent, most of them highly literate, and China was also a country with an advanced civilization. He praised it with admiration in his letter:

The people we know here, and who come here, are the scum of the earth, and the maritime and sea people, fishermen, and workers, who come to earn their living. With these being the people, who, according to the people of Castile, have their understandings full of cabbage and bacon, they are so sharp and skillful that among a thousand there is not one with whom we cannot reason, not of fisheries, but of letters, movements of the heavens, of moral things, breeding, courtesy, and justice. Because in matters of moral philosophy, although without science, they are extremely well inculcated.

(Cervera 2015, p. 94)

…

The people who come here, as I said, are the scum of the earth. Among a thousand there will be ten who do not know letters and many (other things), but in Castile, of a thousand village farmers, there are barely ten who know them. The reason why they know how to write is that they dedicated all their hours in learning to be judges and bosses, though they are not, they become to know more letters: and in this there is no exception, but whoever is proficient in letters can have advantages, and it’s actually a lot of advantages, and that’s why everyone learns letters.

(Cervera 2015, p. 99)

Juan Cobo finished the translation of Ming Xin Bao Jian before 1592. This book was a very popular manual that was used in primary and private schools. Naturally, the Sangleys used it to teach the Chinese language to the Spanish in Manila. Juan Cobo would have been attracted by the elegant style and the deep thoughts of this book, as such it would have been for this reason that he decided to translate it into Spanish. The manuscript of this specific version has the original Chinese and the translated Spanish texts juxtaposed, such that it could serve as a Chinese language learning manual for later missionaries (Zhou 2013, p. 153; Liu 2002, p. 110). In addition, this translated book made it possible for the Europeans to learn more about the advanced Eastern civilization and Chinese thought. Therefore, it gave them the foundations to elaborate their diplomatic policies and evangelical strategies. This contribution was highlighted by the Bishop Salazar in his letter dated 24 June, 1590 to Philip II:

It is a work worthy of Your Majesty, and may it be received as such by Your Majesty, not for what it is, but for being so pilgrim and never seen in Parian and outside of China. It contains, in my opinion, things worthy of consideration and in it the strength of human reason is seen; because without the light of Faith, something so in accordance with what the Christian Law teaches us is achieved; and thus Your Majesty will see how mistaken is he who plans to enter into war with force of arms with such a Kingdom as China, where such things are taught, to preach our Law to them; for it is clear that with such people as these, the force of reason must be more powerful than that of arms.

(Villarroel 1986, p. 15)

Fr. Miguel Benavides brought the manuscript to Spain and presented it to the then Crown Prince Philip (later Philip III) in 1595. In his dedication, Benavides expressed his desire for evangelizing China peacefully (Van Der Loon 1969, p. 20; Zhou 2013, pp. 151–52). As the first Chinese book translated into Spanish, Ming Xin Bao Jian played a transcendental role in the history of Sino–Western cultural communication.

Several scholars claim that Juan Cobo’s version of Ming Xin Bao Jian is more faithful to the original text, despite the fact that the fluency of the Spanish text is somewhat interrupted (Borao 2012, p. 47). Seventy years later, another Dominican, Fernández Navarrete, who worked in mainland China, made another version of Ming Xin Bao Jian, without knowing the existence of the previous one.5 Comparing the two versions, it can be seen that Juan Cobo’s translation is not so charged with interpretations from the Catholic perspective as Navarrete’s, but rather he made a literal translation that was closer to the original text. Borao comments that Juan Cobo’s version gives an “scientific, archaeological and Renaissance” image of translation (Borao 2012, pp. 47–49). It also shows that Cobo did not scrutinize this classic, which contains many representative ideas of Chinese doctrines, with points of view that were centered on Western scholastic theology, but rather objectively presented it to Europe leaving behind the Christian ideology so as to not color the translation.

Overall, in order to better conduct his mission of converting the Sangleys, Juan Cobo learned the Chinese language and culture, collaborated intimately, and dialogued as an equal with them. He faithfully translated the Chinese educational classic for children, Ming Xin Bao Jian, which had a wide influence in East Asia. All these facts reflect his acknowledgement of the Sangleys’ civilization, as well as his respect and appreciation for Chinese culture. This open and tolerant attitude allowed him to achieve considerable fruits in the history of Sino–Western cultural communication.

4. Interpretations of Christian Doctrine Using Chinese Metaphysical Concepts

Juan Cobo frequently refers to the Chinese classics in the Shilu. It contains more than thirty references to the Chinese classics in its 120 pages, which possesses less than thirty thousand characters in total. The four books: Daxue 《大學》 (Great Learning), Lunyu 《論語》 (Analects of Confucius), Mengzi 《孟子》 (Mencius), and Zhong Yong 《中庸》 (Doctrine of the Mean) compiled and commented by Zhu Xi are the most cited (i.e., thirteen times). There are also references to other Confucian classics such as Shijing 《詩經》 (Classic of Poetry), Xiaojing 《孝經》 (Classic of Filial Piety), Yijing 《易經》 (Classic of Changes), etc., as well as to certain compilations for children’s education. On the one hand, this book adopts an elegant linguistic style that belonged to the mainstream upper-class Chinese culture, with the sentences of these classics interspersed throughout the text. The dense citation and reference to the Chinese classics provides this text with a quality that is typical of the academic works composed by Chinese scholars. In this way, the author intended to attract the attention and excite the admiration of the Chinese literates toward Western theological thought. On the other hand, this text was also intended to be a faithful memorial6 of the dialogue between a Chinese scholar and Juan Cobo, who discussed the philosophical ideas in both the Chinese and the European classics in a catechetical manner. As Cobo considered the fact that the Chinese doctrines had reached almost the same height as Western theology, he could, therefore, use some of the ideas that were similar to Catholicism, omitting the differences between the two cultures, in order to inculcate the Christian faith to more Sangleys. Therefore, he tried to answer the questions that his interlocutor asked him about the Chinese classics with interpretations based on Western philosophies, sciences, and Christian doctrines.

In the Shilu, Juan Cobo clearly expresses that the Catholic belief in God coincides in principle with the concepts of xing 性 (nature) and dao 道 (principle or method), which were discussed by the Chinese saints. Likewise the doctrines are similar. Therefore, the Christian doctrine should not be seen differently:

大明之謂道，修道之謂教。性道無二致也，教其有二術乎哉？知此，則天主付與一本之理性同也，教亦同也，何以差殊觀乎？

Great wisdom is called dao, practicing dao is called instruction.7 Xing and dao are in accord with each other. Could there be two methods of instruction? Knowing this, it must be taken into account that God gave an original doctrine equal in nature, equal in method, equal in instruction. Why should we see a difference in it?

(Cobo 1593, 1a)

Many Daoist and Neo-Confucian concepts have been adopted in the Shilu, such as taiji 太極 (supreme ultimate), wuji 無極 (infinite), li 理 (reason or principle), qi 氣 (ethereal substance of which all things in the universe are composed), dao 道 (way, method), etc. Juan Cobo used the terms with a strong Neo-Confucian tone, such as taiji (62 times) and wuji (27 times), to interpret the superiority, the greatness, and the perpetuity of God.

The concept of taiji first appeared in Zhuangzi 《莊子》, then in Yizhuan 《易傳》. Zhou Dunyi 周敦頤, on the basis of this last text, interpreted the concept in his Taiji Tushuo 《太極圖說》 (Diagram Explaining the Supreme Ultimate) from a cosmogenic perspective:

The infinity (wuji) is taiji. The taiji moves and the positiveness is generated; when it reaches the end of its movement, it stops, thus the negativeness is generated. When the stillness comes to an end, it moves again. Movement and tranquility are roots for each other. The two extremes are established when the negativeness and the positiveness are differentiated. The positiveness changes and the negativeness cooperates, in this way the elements are generated: water, fire, wood, metal and earth. The five qi (materials) are distributed in order and the four seasons begin to alternate. The five elements originate from the two extremes and these two, from taiji, which is the same as wuji.8

(Feng 2013, p. 281)

Zhu Xi 朱熹 interprets taiji with li 理, which means principle or order of things. Further, he defines taiji as the definitive and superior principle of the entire universe. According to him, taiji is not only the sum of all the principles of beings, but also exists in the individuals of all species. Each being inherits the principle of the species from it and the particular li shares the li of taiji (the integral li). Zhu Xi said: “Speaking of heaven and earth, there is a taiji in them; with respect to all the other beings, in each one there is also a taiji.”9 (Li 1986, p. 1) However, Zhu Xi does not deny the unity of taiji, as he also said: “In the beginning there was only one taiji and every being receives it in its nature, while each being has its own taiji in itself. It is like the moon in the sky: there is only one and it is seen all around the world, but we should not say that the moon is divided.”10 (Li 1986, p. 2409). In regard to the wuji Zhu Xi explains:

The essence of wuji encompasses both movement and stillness, before the start of movement, it is only considered as something still. The wuji is simply an end of all movements. It is something superior and perfect, it is more spiritual than all other beings. Zhou Dunyi, fearing that taiji should be considered physical, says that “the ultimate of nonbeing (wuji) is also called the supreme ultimate (taiji)”. He means that in the ultimate of nonbeing there is a superior li.11

(Li 1986, p. 2369; Feng 2013, p. 281)

From this it is seen that the Confucian interpretations of taiji and wuji in the Song (960–1279) and Ming (1368–1644) dynasties resemble the God of the scholastic philosophy in a certain sense. This can be seen in the fact that both emphasize the qualities of formlessness, superiority, magnitude, omnipresence, unity, extreme intelligence, the driving force for the generation, and the movement of the universe, etc. It is for this reason why Juan Cobo had the audacity to use the term wuji to refer to God. As an example of this usage, the title of the second chapter of Shilu reads as follows: “On the existence of an infinite being (wuji), origin of all things” (论真有一位无极，为万物之始也. Cobo 1593, p. 12a). In his opinion, the so-called wuji of Neo-Confucianism is the same as the God of Christianity, and the only difference lies in the distinction of languages:

獨一位之尊大，一理之中正，無以異也。世人以異而疑之，亦未知同以理，而不同以語者乎！是以佛郎機者，同聲稱之，一則曰“寮氏”12，一則曰“禮乎氏”13，一則曰“遙目”14，稱揚於世。雖異其名也，著明於予：實不異其理也。即大明國所稱述之名曰“無極而太極”者，其兼形體、理氣、象數之始乎？非止蕩蕩蒼蒼之謂也。

There is only one supreme God and one righteous; There’s no difference. It is doubted that they are different because the theoretical coincidence between them is ignored and there are only linguistic differences. It’s like the Europeans call him sometimes God, sometimes Deus, at other times Jehovah. Everyone in the world knows it, even if the name is different. I clarify that in reality his doctrine is the same. As for the Chinese names, wuji or taichi, doesn’t it refer to the origin of the physical things, reason, and the laws of the entire universe? So they are not limited to the meaning of the visible sky.

(Cobo 1593, 22a-b)

It can be observed that Juan Cobo had an open attitude in his appreciation of Neo-Confucianism. He endeavored to use this doctrine in order to interpret the Christian theology, noting that the only difference was in the expression that represents it—that is to say in other words, despite the variety of the names of God, they refer to the same God. Therefore, Juan Cobo applied a translation methodology that was oriented to the target language, such as in translating God with wuji and taiji. However, these Chinese concepts differ from the one God of Christianity, since they have a Daoist background that emphasizes the nonbeing, instead of indicating a divinity with a personal dimension. Actually wuji and taiji refer to the primitive state of the universe, which was formless, chaotic and without limitations. Zhang Zai 張載 (1020–1077) held that taiji is nothing but a material force (qi). In Cheng-Zhu School, taiji was equaled to li (principle). (Zhang 1989, pp. 47–54) In China, the gods are considered to be precisely what cannot be predicted or known, unlike the creator God, who possesses certain divine attributes according to the Western scholastic theology. In Yijing it is said: “The so-called divinity is something unpredictable that is not affected by the change and the alternation of yin 阴 and yang 阳.”15 (Guo 2012, p. 361). So Juan Cobo talked about Christian theology on the basis of Chinese philosophical ideas.

In addition to interpreting God using Neo-Confucian concepts, Juan Cobo usually referred to the Chinese classics in order to support his arguments. For example, when presenting the theory of providence, he quoted a phrase from Xiaojing: “Of all the natures in the universe, that of the human being is the most precious”.16 (Dai and Zengzi 2012, p. 248) This reference is used to argue one of the fundamental ideas of the Stoic theology: God has special providence for humans and that only humankind has the part beyond the physical (that is, reason and virtue) that allows them to know the origin of the physical world, which is God. The scholastic theology, based on these Stoic ideas, also maintains that God created the world specifically for men and that is why we should adore and thank Him:

況天地性，人為貴，知所報本，而致敬致祭，精白一心，以呈天主無極之尊。

Of all the natures of the universe, that of the human being is the most precious, because he knows how to thank the one who gave him his origin, honor him and sacrifice for him. With a pure heart, he acknowledges the infinite adorable God.

(Cobo 1593, p. 19b)

The original phrase for this quotation, in the Chinese classic, has a humanistic background, while what Juan Cobo wanted to reveal was completely different: the special providence that God has for the human beings.

Juan Cobo adopted a method in his preaching that was very well suited to the Chinese cultural context. The Chinese scholar who was conversing with him quoted a phrase from Mengzi (Mengzi 2007, pp. 177–78): “The stream of water flows day and night without ceasing. By filling a pond, it spills over to other parts of the world. It is like this because it has origin… (源泉混混，不舍晝夜。盈科而後進，放乎四海。有本者如是……)” (Cobo 1593, p. 39a) He asked the Father how to interpret the “origin” of this phrase. Juan Cobo answered that it was qi 氣, which means air in this missionary text, that is, one of the four basic elements (air, water, fire, and earth) that constitute the universe according to the ancient Greek philosophy. However, in Neo-Confucian philosophy this term is the opposite concept to li and it refers to the material force that produce all things in the universe through its condensation and dispersion. In Mengzi’s metaphor, the origin not only indicates the source of the watercourse, but also symbolizes nature’s virtue of tolerance and selflessness. While Juan Cobo explained the meteorological knowledge of how the air transports the water to the top of the mountain and when it meets the earth, it turns into water. He then uttered this exclamation: “Therefore, the water on the earth is the physical actuality (ti 體) of water. The air travels through the water and the earth. That is about its function (yong 用). The physical actuality and the function are mutually dependent, from that many great merits and benefits originate.” (故地之與水也，言其體也。氣之行地水也，言其用也。體用之相須，其功大乎！ Cobo 1593, p. 39b). Here, Juan Cobo incorporated the Chinese dualistic thought of ti and yong in his interpretation of this natural, scientific phenomenon. Through these words it can be understood that what the author, in reality, desired to express was a Western philosophical idea. An idea that was originally articulated by Aristotle and later iterated upon by Thomas Aquinas: the potentiality and the actuality in the movement. The water that runs on the earth is already in its realized phase and Juan Cobo translated it with the concept of ti (body); further, the steam in the air is still in the potential phase of water, as such the father associated it with yong (function). Here, it can be seen that he was eager to integrate the Chinese and the Western metaphysical studies together, as well as gain recognition from the Chinese scholars. Ti and yong are a pair of concepts in Chinese philosophy that have multiple meanings in different contexts or interpreted by different philosophers. Juan Cobo applied them in a materialistic sense, that is, ti refers to the physical form (or body) and yong, to the function or applicability of body. This pair of terms had been developed intensively since Song dynasty. Ti in other contexts of different philosophical schools can mean spiritual substance, supreme origin of the world, attributes and nature of a particular thing. That is why it has the connotation of being primary, basic and permanent. While yong can mean phenomenon, representation and function, which is secondary (Zhang 1989, pp. 62–69).

The Jesuits of that time noticed that, similar to the religious emotion of the Europeans, the Chinese worshiped the sky (heaven). Moreover, just like Christianity in the West, this belief also had the function of instilling moral values in the people. In this way, they applied the term tian 天 (sky or heaven) to the translation of God: tianzhu 天主. They also used another term from the Chinese ancient classics: Shangdi 上帝 (superior emperor) to attribute to the sky a personal aspect and, at the same time, to adapt the idea of God back to the Mandarin cultural context. However, before the Dominicans came to preach in mainland China, the Jesuits and the Dominicans began to disagree on the questions of whether one should dress in the garb of the Chinese literates and whether the worship of the sky should be allowed. Juan Cobo, as a Dominican Father, of course chose to oppose the practice of worshipping the sky. In the Shilu, this author expressed that the sky worshiped by the Chinese was merely something physical, that is, it was the celestial bodies in the firmament that they worshiped:

《明心寶鑒》天理篇有曰：“天雖高矣，而聽則卑非高也；天雖遠矣，而視則近非遠也。”《太誓》有雲：“天視自我民視；天聽自我民聽。天之視聽，皆從於民之視聽。”如此，則天真非高遠也，都營在人心方寸中矣。僧感此為之辯曰：“若以天體為尊之至乎，無二上也；以天體為大之至乎，莫可逾也，則何不以高且遠處之哉？使高遠之象，可以擬有形之天，何人心之小，能包夫無外之天者乎？”

In the chapter of “Tianli (Heavenly Principle)” of Ming Xin Bao Jian it is said: “Although the sky is high, it hears what’s happening down here, not what’s high above. Although the sky is far away, it watches close to the people, not far away.” The T’ai Shih said: “The vision of the sky is that of the people; the hearing of the sky is that of the crowd; the sky sees and hears the same as the people does.” So the sky is neither high nor far, but it’s in the heart of man which only measures one square inch. Such an idea moved the father and he discussed it saying: “If the sky is taken as the highest and greatest being without anything else surpassing it, why don’t they consider it to be neither high nor far? If the sky is characterized by its high and distant form, why can so small a human heart contain the infinite sky?

(Cobo 1593, 21b)

Although Cobo disagreed with the worship of the physical sky, he used the concept tiandao 天道 (heavenly principle) from the Chinese classics in order to denote the creativity of God, indicating that the term tiandao (or shengdao 圣道, the holy principle or method) in Chinese, practically, referred to God:

蓋惟天道運而無所積，故萬物生；聖道運而無所私，故天地位。明於天道、通於聖道者曰：天地無全功也，聖道有全能也！17

Since the tiandao acts without keeping anything for itself and all beings are generated; the shengdao works selflessly, that’s why the heaven and the earth have their own position. The person who understands the tiandao and well knows the shengdao says: the sky and the earth do not have all the merits, but it is the shengdao that is omnipotent!

(Cobo 1593, 28b)

The term tian 天 (heaven or sky) in the Chinese classics does not simply refer to the physical firmament or the celestial bodies. However, it is undeniable that this concept encompasses the sense of the visible sky. Lou Yulie believes that in Chinese culture the concept of the sky originated from the worship of nature and the meaning of tianming 天命 (heavenly providence or natural destiny) related to the tian was evolved from it (Lou 2015, pp. 52–58). According to the Neo-Confucian philosophers, there is order and regulation in all beings in the universe. The dao 道 (method or way) of the human life should be in imitating the virtues of nature, that is, to follow the natural order and adjust the spirit according to one’s specific position and situation in the world. Each person can be perfected to have a holy spirit and a noble temperament. In this way, the state and the society will be harmonious, orderly, and civilized. It is an idea of conforming actively to the destiny that heaven bestows upon oneself. In this sense, the sky in Chinese culture symbolizes the origin of the natural order, the rules of the universe, and the laws of human society. It represents supreme justice and is often used to express the most fundamental matters. The tendency to combine human life with the virtues of the sky (or nature) was always the basis of Chinese civilization for thousands of years and it possessed a function in the spiritual world of the Chinese people that is similar to the transcendental God in the religion of the European Christians. What Juan Cobo’s quotations of the classics in the previous text expressed originally was that the recognition and support of the people determine the fate of a monarch, not the providence of God. It conveys the idea of the union between heaven and people; further, it represents the traditional Chinese humanistic thought.

In fact, the concept of the tian (heaven or sky) worshiped by the Chinese encompasses both the material and the spiritual sense. Chinese culture, which is based to a great extent on Confucian and Daoist doctrines, originated from Yijing. Nan Huaijin believes that the Yijing philosophy unites the mental with the physical (Nan 2002, p. 217). That is to say, it is neither materialistic, nor idealistic, but rather a synthesis of the two. That is why the sky refers both to the visible firmament, the universe, or the nature, and to the divine virtue that it represents. However, Juan Cobo, as a European missionary who possessed an analytical thinking habit, distinguished the physical tian (heaven) from the tiandao (heavenly principle) and from the tianming (heavenly providence). On the one hand, he criticized the practice of worshiping a physical being; on the other hand, he used those related concepts that specify the reference to the abstract and spiritual part of the tian:

徹上徹下，無所不包；成大成小，無所不及。皆無極之至德，所包而所及也已。故謂“蒼蒼”者然乎？謂“顥顥”者然乎？曰：非也！“蒼蒼”者，形耳；“顥顥”者，氣耳。實天主妙無形氣之精，亙萬古而不息、不遺者。故曰：“維天之命，於穆不已。”夫言“天”而曰“命”，言“天命”而曰“不已”，茲所以為天主乎？茲所以為無極乎？是故世人仰睹無極，丕顯至德。舉光天之下，孰不稱揚而神靈之哉？

Up and down there is nothing that it does not encompass; whether they are big, whether they are small, there is nothing where it does not reach. All this is what it encompasses and where the exalted virtue of infinity (wuji) reaches. Therefore it is said that it is not that blue, or that great mass. Blue is a form; that great mass is the atmosphere. But the wonderful God is spirit without form. From the remotest time he does not rest, nor can he be found lacking of anything. That is why it is said: “The heavenly providence is majestic without end.”18 When speaking of the heaven (tian), one speaks of its providence (tianming). When speaking of the heavenly providence, it is said that it does not end. Isn’t that what is said about God? Isn’t that what is said about infinity? That is why men admire the infinity that displays its superior virtue. Under the illuminating sky, who does not glorify him and take him as a divine being?

(Cobo 1593, 35b)

Given that the Chinese had no belief in a personal God, Juan Cobo chose a flexible evangelical approach that modifies and supplements the local traditional belief, paying close attention to the classics of the target culture. For example, in Yijing it is said: “First there were sky and earth. Then, various beings of the universe appeared. Then, there were men and women who formed couples. After that, the ethical relationship of father and son appeared, and later, that of lord and courtier, from which the hierarchy was generated, and in it order and justice are established.”19 (Guo 2012, p. 416). Cobo, trained as he was in the tradition of scholastic theology, corrected this fragment of the Chinese classic according to Biblical doctrine and Thomistic arguments for the existence of God20: “First there was God who created heaven and earth. Then, various beings from the universe appeared. Then, there were men and women. (有天主而後有天地，有天地而後有萬物，有萬物而後有男女也。)” (Cobo 1593, 32b). It is known that traditional Chinese thought is an atheistic philosophy oriented to the human spirit and social ethics that are based on natural principles and orders. With Cobo’s modification of the original idea, the object of gratitude shifts from nature, which sustains and tolerates all beings, to God; thus, the worship of nature becomes that of God.

As Juan Cobo was a Catholic missionary, it is not surprising that he criticized other local religions. The vast majority of the Sangleys in the Philippines at that time were sailors, artisans, and merchants. They brought Chinese folk beliefs to those islands. Among these were certain pragmatic beliefs, for example, it did not matter if the object of the adoration was a Buddha or a Daoist immortal: as long as the deity worshiped could give one what they asked for, they would worship and believe in it. Therefore, such a belief was distant, in a certain sense, from the Buddhist and the Daoist doctrines, due to the fact that the believers did not necessarily understand the religious doctrines, but it was enough for them only to have firm devotion. When Cobo criticized the folk custom of worshiping multiple idols, he referred to the words of Confucius:

惑邪說而尚淫詞，紛紛四出，是以禮三界之說者（有）之，祀鬼神之說者有之。又如臧文仲有藏龜之祀，王孫賈有奧灶之媚。噫！習俗移人，雖賢者不能自免矣。

Because people is so stupid and without understanding of the superstitions. They’re stumbled by the superstitious theories, and make sacrifices improperly, without order or concert. Hence there are those who worship the theory of the three worlds21 and those who worship the spirits and the demons: for example, Zang Wenzhong worshiped the tortoise in his home and Wang Sungu idolatrized the gods of house and kitchen. Ah, these kinds of customs change a man. And even the wise men cannot help it.22

(Cobo 1593, 18a)

Criticizing the beliefs of the local popular culture (lower social class) with the culture of the Chinese scholars (higher social class) was also one of Juan Cobo’s evangelical strategies to adapt his work to the local context. However, Juan Cobo was opposed to any type of local Chinese religion, including Buddhism, Daoism, and nature worship:

不可以三界之名虛之，不可以山川社稷之靈處之，況於宗廟春秋之祭雲乎哉？況於真君媽祖之祭雲乎哉？又況於靈龜奧灶雲乎哉？

He (the infinite being) cannot be called the “three worlds”, neither can he be placed among the spirits of the mountains and rivers; even less among the autumn or spring sacrifices of the ancestral temple; nor among the sacrifices of the immortal Mazu or the sacrifices of the tortoise or of the great kitchen god.

(Cobo 1593, 18a-b)

When asked by the Chinese literate whether one should worship heaven, Juan Cobo (different from Matteo Ricci and his fellow Jesuits who held a positive attitude on this question) denied it with such grave words:

故僧師以天可祀乎？謬之甚矣！曷言乎其謬也？以神也者，土木而衣冠之，邪也！而非正也，祀神也者，隆衣冠以奉土木，從邪也！而非從正也。非其祭而祭之，諂也！吾不取也！不若祭一位無極之正矣！

Therefore on the question of the cult to heaven and earth the Father says that they should not be given cult, they must not be worshipped. And it is a great error to worship the spirits. How is this error explained? It is superstitious to make spirits out of lime or wood and adorn them with clothes; this is wrong. To worship these spirits dressed in clothes is to serve the lime and the wood, to follow superstition and not follow what is right. They should not be offered sacrifices; to sacrifice to them is to adulate them. I cannot admit that. It is much better and more righteous to sacrifice only to the One Infinite Being.

(Cobo 1593, 18b)

However, when he presented Chinese culture to European society, he seemed to hide the idolatrous aspect of the Sangleys on purpose. The fantastic stories about immortals, divinities, and devils was one of the most popular themes of novels and comedies at that time. However, Juan Cobo described the plays he had seen by detailing almost all of the other subject matter except for that of the divinities: “Many books of Comedies, which are usually stories of wars, letters, and claims of honor, and offices of Judges, and Viceroys. They also have many love affairs: they have many comedies about moral things.” (Cervera 2015, pp. 94–95).

5. Conclusions

Both the Chinese and the Western civilizations have achieved considerable diversity and richness, but they are very different in a linguistic, traditional, and idealistic sense. The historical facts show that, in the process of Sino–Western cultural exchange, the attitude of mutual respect and equal treatment are essential for the communication and integration of different cultures. Any foreign culture that is imported into another place will encounter a series of interpretation, imagination, and development by the target community, based on its own civilization. Therefore, cultural contact often depends on interpretation, which is not limited to the linguistic translation, but also an interpretation rooted in the historical context and prior knowledge of the target culture. This process, in fact, often generates a new understanding. Although the diffusion of the foreign culture may not occur in a culture with a long history or advanced civilization, as long as there is meeting and exchange between different cultures, such an interpretation will necessarily happen.

Different from Matteo Ricci and the other Jesuits, Juan Cobo did not approve of the sky adoration by the Chinese people. He would use the terms wuji and taiji to refer to God, while the early Jesuit missionaries in China were cautious in the use of the term taiji (Chan 1989, p. 485). Juan Cobo preferred to utilize Neo-Confucian theories rather than ancient Confucian ideas in order to facilitate his missions. Another prominent feature of Juan Cobo’s evangelical method was that he undertook scientific instruction and philosophical discussion as the first steps in order to disseminate the Christian faith.

However, in much the same way as his contemporary Jesuits, Juan Cobo was aware of the importance of ameliorating Christianity toward the local culture for the purposes of a better diffusion. He respected Chinese culture and knew how to use local thoughts and concepts in order to propagate Christian doctrines. Observing the texts of Juan Cobo, both in Chinese (Shilu) and in Spanish (mainly his letters), it is seen that this supposed primitive Philippine Dominican was very literate in Chinese culture. He not only maintained an active interest in the civilization of this country, but also strove to find connections between local thought and Christianity. The Shilu records the egalitarian dialogue between this Father and the unknown Chinese man of letters, in which they exchanged the philosophical ideas of both the Western and the Chinese classics. Cobo translated Ming Xin Bao Jian in order to show, with this famous Chinese book, the intelligence of this nation to European high society. In almost all of his works in Southeast Asia (in his translations, compositions, and his embassy to Japan) he relied on collaboration with the Chinese people. These facts not only reflect his positive attitude towards Chinese culture, but have also promoted the earliest, more egalitarian, exchange between the Chinese and the Spanish cultures in history.

However, such egalitarian cultural communication between the Chinese and the Spanish did not go much further. This is due to the fact that after Juan Cobo’s apologetic work (with its intention of integrating Chinese and European metaphysics) was published, it was soon replaced by Thomas Mayor’s Symbol of Faith in Chinese Language and Letters (hereafter the Symbol). This book is understood to be a type of sequel or rewrite of the Shilu, as both are based on the same original work of a Spanish author: Fr. Luis de Granada’s Introduction of the Symbol of Faith (de Granada 1989; Cervera 2016, p. 9; Zhang 2010, p. 77). After 1593, the relationship between the Sangleys and the Castilians became more and more oppositive and tense; further, there were even a few violent conflicts that broke out. The Dominicans’ evangelical policy for the Chinese nation was tightened and the later texts in Mandarin began to show a more pronounced orthodox tendency. Due to the extensive use of the Chinese metaphysical concepts in the Shilu, this book was not widely spread by the later Dominicans. Indeed, the text almost disappeared following its first printing (Chan 1989, p. 485). In comparison, the Symbol was, in reality, more widely used in the later Dominican evangelical works and, thus, had more significance. Traces of it can be found both in some later missionary works published in China, as well as in some historical data.23 It can be safely assumed that there were, at least, some copies of the Symbol in mainland China until the end of the seventeenth century (Fernández Navarrete 1679, p. 419). All the incunabula in Chinese published in the Philippines are now found in European libraries. Among them the Symbol has three copies.24 In contrast, the Shilu only has one copy kept in the Spanish National Library in Madrid. From this fact it can be seen that the Symbol had more significance in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

In entering the twentieth century, Juan Cobo’s translation of Ming Xin Bao Jian and his Shilu have received greater attention than the Symbol. This is because, in the first case, it was the first Chinese classic introduced to the Western world; in the second, it contains abundant comparisons and discussions on Chinese and Western metaphysics. Juan Cobo did not take the Western scholastic philosophy as the only appropriate doctrine, nor did he dictate Christian theology condescendingly to the Sangleys in the Philippines. However, he instead explored the local culture and discussed it within an egalitarian approach, with the purposes of promoting cultural integration. This attempt will, therefore, be forever brilliant in the context of the history of intercultural communication, due to its open, tolerant, and pure academic spirit.