Abstract

This study examines the apologetics and counter-apologetics between Chinese Catholic literati and Buddhist thinkers in early Qing China by analyzing Pilüe Shuo Tiaobo (闢略說條駁) by Zhang Xing-yao (張星曜, 1633–1715+). The text records a written apologetic debate that began with Xu Guangqi’s anti-Buddhist writings, followed by a response from the Pure Land monk Xingce (行策), and Zhang’s subsequent counterargument. The paper addresses two main issues: “Mind-Only (唯心) vs. Lord of Heaven (天主)” and “the Cruel God vs. the Great Lord and Father (大君共父).” It demonstrates that the two traditions developed distinct and mutually exclusive epistemological and ethical positions. While Xingce, drawing on Pure Land Mind-Only thought, denied the objective existence of hell and described it as a projection of karmic consciousness, Zhang and his Catholic contemporary Hong Ji reaffirmed the absolute sovereignty and moral justice of the Creator God. The apologetics and counter-apologetics did not aim at conversion or reconciliation but instead served as internal mechanisms to reinforce each community’s doctrinal identity during the intellectual tensions of the Ming–Qing transition. Pilüe Shuo Tiaobo reveals both the continuity of late-Ming Catholic literati discourse and the changing religious and intellectual landscape of early Qing Jiangnan.