本文在梳理一系列原始文獻的基礎上，考察了龍華民此文形成的歷史背景以及在歐洲的傳播與影響。從文化交流中難以避免的語言困境入手，作者接著分析了龍華民作為利瑪竇的繼承人對其前任採用的策略的反思與批判。作者提出的基本觀點是，以利瑪竇為代表的「適應派」雖然迎合了相當一批中土學人的心理需求，找到了一種能夠使中國學者在心理上接受基督宗教信仰的方式，從而也為基督宗教在中國的傳播起到了難以低估的歷史作用，但無論是從教義還是學理的角度看，通過把儒教學說簡化為「古代經典」，適應派有意忽略甚至割裂了儒教學說在中國的歷史演變。以龍華民為代表的「非適應派」從基督宗教的立場出發，雖然整體否定了儒家學理與天主教義的可通融性，但卻比較現實地把宋明理學看作是儒家傳統的發展，從而不僅把儒家學說解釋為獨立的（儘管屬於「異教的」）文化，而且關注到了基督宗教文化與中土文化之問的存在的根本性差異。儘管如此，作者認為龍華民的質問與懷疑並不是針對利瑪竇個人的。二人之問的區別在很大程度上是方法與進路上的不同。

This article examines Longobardo's writing in terms of its historical background and its distribution and influence in Europe. The author first deals with the unavoidable difficulty of communication in a cross-cultural setting, and then analyzes Longobardo both as a successor and critic of Matteo Ricci's policy. According to the author, Matteo Ricci, who represented the ”accommodationists”, has won a number of Chinese GentryLiteratus in terms of their psychological demand that enabled them to accept the way of Christianity and has caused a historic chain effects that can hardly be measured. However, the accommodationists of Ricci, whether from a doctrinal or philosophical view, have reduced the religious Confucianism into mere ”classical texts”, and have ignored or severed its historical development in China. Although ”anti-accommodationists” led by Longobardo, on the whole have denied any possible syncretism between Confucian philosophical significance and Catholic doctrine, it nonetheless more realistically viewed Sung-Ming Neo-Confucianism as a development of the Confucian tradition. It does not only see Confucianism as an independent (albeit a ”gentile”) culture, but it also bring attention to the essential differences between Christian culture and Chinese culture. At any rate, the author holds that Longobardo's criticism was not directed toward Matteo Ricci personally, but rather on the differences in methodology and approach.