The Chinese Rites controversy, which lasted between the 17th and 18th centuries, was a topic of contention between the different orders of the Roman Catholic Church.

According to Samuel Rowbotham (1816–1884), an English scientist, inventor, and writer, “The period from 1700 to 1702, was the high watermark of the (Rites) controversy in Europe. Printing presses were kept busy with a flood of pamphlets on both sides. The Missions Etrangeres and others were pressing for an immediate and unmistakable pronouncement from the Holy See.”

The controversy eventually grew to involve major players on the global stage, including leading European universities, eight different popes, and Emperor Kang-xi himself.

The Jesuits were more accepting of Chinese folk practices; they adopted a policy of accommodation regarding the controversy of Chinese Rites.

The Jesuits defended Chinese rituals from the criticism of other Christian entities by claiming that these Chinese Rites were rooted in social rather than religious dogma — meaning their divergence from convention was not out of unfaithfulness to the Church but due to social factors. They argued that Chinese rituals — offerings to the emperor and ancestral veneration, among other things — were civil in nature and therefore not incompatible with Christianity. The Jesuits believed that flexibility was key in converting the masses and that flexibility would not be going against Christian teaching.

Indeed, Father Matteo Ricci and his followers were interested in creating a Chinese version of Christianity that would be easy for the locals to adopt, making their evangelical agenda more achievable. They believed that trying to replicate the European Church in Chinese society would be inefficient and ineffective.

The Beijing Jesuit mission was so determined to prove that the teachings of the Bible and Chinese culture were compatible that they approached Emperor Kang-xi himself — for the Mandate of Heaven (上天的使命) meant that he was the undisputed head of the religious establishment in China — for a judicial ruling on rites to the ancestors and Confucius.

On 30th November 1700, a letter was presented to the throne, outlining the Jesuit position on the rites and requesting the emperor's clarification.

The letter implied that European interest in Confucianism and Chinese rituals were for academic rather than practical purposes. The controversy regarding Chinese Rites was purposely left out of the letter. Emperor Kang-xi would therefore have no reason to suspect that his reply would be turned into a political tool by European missionaries.

Content of the reply:

This writing is very good. It accords with the great way. Respecting Heaven, serving the lord and ruler, and respecting teachers and elders are the shared precepts of the Under Heaven. So, (this memorial) is correct. There is nothing in it for emendation.

Original reply in Chinese:

這所寫甚好有合大道敬天及事君親敬師長者系天下通義就是無可改處。

The emperor’s reply was pleasing to the Jesuits.

The Jesuit Society in Rome urged its Beijing mission to contact the Jews of Kaifeng to confirm their views on the reconciliation of their Confucian rituals with their monotheistic faith.

The Jews entered China very early; they have assimilated into the local community but never lost touch with their monotheistic roots. The Jesuits would like to collect evidence that the Kaifeng Jews did not see traditional Chinese rituals as idolatrous but instead, just civil practices; and that adapting Chinese custom does not compromise purity in faith to the one true God.

Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz (1646–1716) was a German mathematician, scientist, philosopher, and diplomat. Both he and Isaac Newton independently co-discovered calculus. In the realm of philosophy and theology, Leibniz was noted for his optimism and forward-looking vision. He believed the world as it stood is the best possible world that God could have created. Leibniz wrote works in Latin, French, German, English, Italian, and Dutch.

Some Christian leaders believed that the rabbis altered the original scriptural texts during the Talmudic period.

In light of Semedo’s remarks in the letter dated 1st January 1700, Leibniz informed Father Antoine Verjus (韦尔朱思, 1632–1706) that he had recently asked Father Charles le Gobien (郭弼恩, 1653–1708), Treasurer of the Chinese Mission in Paris, to urge his Jesuit colleagues in China to arrange for a thorough examination of “the Old Testament of the Chinese Jews in order to collate its text with that of the Hebrew Scriptures employed in Europe.” The reason for this, Leibniz explained, was because he considered it “possible to come upon certain hitherto unknown details in the Chinese texts, since it would seem that for a long time the Chinese Jews had absolutely no contact with the Jews of Europe.” Leibniz shared his suspicions with Father Verjus, that the Chinese Jews “might still hold some of those books or passage which the European Jews have perhaps altered or suppressed out of hatred for Christianity.”

This issue was significant enough that Leibniz raised it again in two ensuing letters dated 1705 and 1707.

With this, several Jesuits visited Kaifeng, including Father Jean-Paul Gozani (骆保禄, 1647–1732), Father Jean Domenge (孟正气, 1666–1735), and Father Antoine Gaubil (宋君荣, 1689–1759).