導語：理學(xue)的地位(wei)分析論(lun)文一(yi)文來源于(yu)網友上傳(chuan)，不(bu)代表本站觀點，若(ruo)需要原創(chuang)文章(zhang)可咨(zi)詢客服老(lao)師，歡迎參考。

夫性理之學，為得為失，非本文所論，然戴氏既斥程朱矣，孟子以及《易系》《樂記》《中庸》之作者，又豈能免乎？如必求其“罪人斯得”，則“作俑”者孟子耳。有孟子，而后有《樂記》《中庸》之內本論，有《樂記》《中庸》之內本論，而后有李翱、有陸王、有二程，雖或青出于藍，冰寒于水，其為一線上之發展則無疑也。孟子以為“萬物皆備于我矣，反身而誠，樂莫大焉。”又以為“人之所不學而能者，其良能也，所不慮而知者，其良知也。”又以為“仁義禮智非由外鑠我也，我固有之也。”“操則存，舍則亡，凡相倍蓰而無算者，不能盡其才者也。”又以為“學問之道無他，求其放心而已矣。”又以為“存其心養其性，所以事天也。”（凡此類者不悉引）凡此皆明言仁義自內而發，天理自心而出，以染外而淪落，不以務外而進德，其純然為心學，陸王比之差近，雖高談性理之程朱猶不及此，程叔子以為孟子不可學者此也。戴氏名其書曰《孟子字義疏證》，乃無一語涉及《孟子》字義，復全將《孟子》之思想史上地位認錯，所(suo)攻擊者，正是《孟子(zi)》之傳(chuan)，猶去《孟子(zi)》之泰甚者也，不亦慎乎？

設為程朱性氣之(zhi)(zhi)論尋其本根，不可(ke)不先探(tan)漢(han)儒學之(zhi)(zhi)源(yuan)。自孟子創心學之(zhi)(zhi)宗(zong)，漢(han)儒不能不受(shou)其影(ying)響，今以(yi)書缺(que)有(you)間，蹤跡難詳，然其綱(gang)略(lve)猶可(ke)證也(ye)。《樂(le)記(ji)》云，（按《樂(le)記(ji)》為漢(han)儒之(zhi)(zhi)作，可(ke)以(yi)其抄襲《荀子》諸書為證。）

人(ren)(ren)生而(er)靜，天(tian)之(zhi)性也(ye)。感(gan)于物(wu)而(er)動，性之(zhi)欲也(ye)。物(wu)至(zhi)知知，然后好(hao)惡形焉。好(hao)惡無節(jie)于內，知誘于外，不(bu)能反躬，天(tian)理滅矣(yi)。夫物(wu)之(zhi)感(gan)人(ren)(ren)無窮，而(er)人(ren)(ren)之(zhi)好(hao)惡無節(jie)，則是物(wu)至(zhi)而(er)人(ren)(ren)化物(wu)也(ye)，人(ren)(ren)化物(wu)也(ye)者，滅天(tian)理而(er)窮人(ren)(ren)欲者也(ye)。

夫理(li)(li)者，以(yi)其本(ben)義(yi)言(yan)之(zhi)，固所謂“分理(li)(li)，肌理(li)(li)，腠(cou)理(li)(li)，文(wen)理(li)(li)，條理(li)(li)”也。（參看《孟子字(zi)義(yi)疏(shu)證》第一條）然表德之(zhi)詞皆起于(yu)表質(zhi)，抽象(xiang)之(zhi)詞皆原于(yu)具體，以(yi)語學之(zhi)則律論之(zhi)，不(bu)(bu)能因理(li)(li)字(zi)有(you)此實義(yi)遂不(bu)(bu)能更為(wei)玄(xuan)義(yi)。（玄(xuan)字(zi)之(zhi)本(ben)義(yi)亦為(wei)細(xi)微，然《老子》書中之(zhi)玄(xuan)字(zi)，則不(bu)(bu)能但以(yi)細(xi)微為(wei)訓(xun)。）既曰(yue)天(tian)理(li)(li)，且對人欲為(wei)言(yan)，則其必為(wei)抽象(xiang)之(zhi)訓(xun)，而超于(yu)分理(li)(li)條理(li)(li)之(zhi)訓(xun)矣。必為(wei)“以(yi)為(wei)如有(you)物(wu)焉”，而非但謂散(san)在(zai)萬(wan)物(wu)之(zhi)別異矣。故程朱之(zhi)用理(li)(li)字(zi)，與(yu)《樂記(ji)》相較，雖詞有(you)繁簡，義(yi)無(wu)殊(shu)也。（鄭氏(shi)注“天(tian)理(li)(li)”云(yun)，“理(li)(li)猶(you)性也”，康(kang)成(cheng)漢儒戴氏(shi)所淑，亦未以(yi)理(li)(li)為(wei)“分理(li)(li)”也）夫曰(yue)不(bu)(bu)能反(fan)躬則天(tian)理(li)(li)滅(mie)，明天(tian)理(li)(li)之(zhi)在(zai)內也。

以(yi)(yi)(yi)為人生(sheng)而靜(jing)天之性，人化物者滅天理、明(ming)義理之皆具于心，而非可散在(zai)外物中求(qiu)之者也。《樂記》所言，明(ming)明(ming)以(yi)(yi)(yi)天理屬之內，亦(yi)以(yi)(yi)(yi)修(xiu)道之功夫（所謂反躬(gong)）屬之內也。

《中(zhong)庸》云，（按《中(zhong)庸》一篇非一時所(suo)作，其(qi)首尾常(chang)為漢儒手(shou)筆，說(shuo)見前。）

喜怒(nu)哀樂之未發，謂(wei)之中(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)，發而皆中(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)節，謂(wei)之和。中(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)也(ye)者，天下(xia)之大本(ben)也(ye)，和也(ye)者，天下(xia)之達道(dao)也(ye)。致中(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)和，天地位焉，萬物育焉。

夫(fu)喜怒(nu)(nu)哀樂之(zhi)未(wei)(wei)發，是何物(wu)乎？未(wei)(wei)有物(wu)焉(yan)，何所(suo)謂中(zhong)乎？設若(ruo)《中(zhong)庸》云，“發而皆中(zhong)節謂之(zhi)中(zhong)”，乃(nai)無內學之(zhi)嫌疑，今(jin)乃(nai)高標中(zhong)義于喜怒(nu)(nu)哀樂未(wei)(wei)發之(zhi)前，其“探之(zhi)茫茫索之(zhi)冥冥”，下視宋(song)儒為(wei)何如乎？心學色彩(cai)如此濃厚，程叔子(zi)不取(qu)也，更(geng)未(wei)(wei)嘗以為(wei)天地位萬物(wu)育于此也。《遺書記》其答(da)門人云：

蘇季明問(wen)(wen)：“喜(xi)(xi)(xi)怒(nu)哀樂未(wei)發(fa)(fa)(fa)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)前(qian)(qian)求(qiu)中(zhong)(zhong)，可(ke)(ke)否？”曰(yue)，“不(bu)可(ke)(ke)，既思(si)于(yu)(yu)喜(xi)(xi)(xi)怒(nu)哀樂未(wei)發(fa)(fa)(fa)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)前(qian)(qian)求(qiu)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)，又卻是(shi)思(si)也(ye)，既思(si)即是(shi)已發(fa)(fa)(fa)。才發(fa)(fa)(fa)便謂(wei)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)和，不(bu)可(ke)(ke)謂(wei)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)中(zhong)(zhong)也(ye)。”又問(wen)(wen)，“呂學士言(yan)(yan)，當求(qiu)于(yu)(yu)喜(xi)(xi)(xi)怒(nu)哀樂未(wei)發(fa)(fa)(fa)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)前(qian)(qian)，如何？”曰(yue)，“若言(yan)(yan)存養于(yu)(yu)喜(xi)(xi)(xi)怒(nu)哀樂未(wei)發(fa)(fa)(fa)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)前(qian)(qian)則可(ke)(ke)，若言(yan)(yan)求(qiu)中(zhong)(zhong)于(yu)(yu)喜(xi)(xi)(xi)怒(nu)哀樂未(wei)發(fa)(fa)(fa)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)前(qian)(qian)，則不(bu)可(ke)(ke)。”又問(wen)(wen)，“學者于(yu)(yu)喜(xi)(xi)(xi)怒(nu)哀樂發(fa)(fa)(fa)時(shi)(shi)，固當勉強裁抑(yi)，于(yu)(yu)未(wei)發(fa)(fa)(fa)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)前(qian)(qian)，當如何用功？”曰(yue)，“于(yu)(yu)喜(xi)(xi)(xi)怒(nu)哀樂未(wei)發(fa)(fa)(fa)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)前(qian)(qian)更怎(zen)生(sheng)求(qiu)？只(zhi)平日涵(han)養便是(shi)。涵(han)養久，則喜(xi)(xi)(xi)怒(nu)哀樂發(fa)(fa)(fa)自中(zhong)(zhong)節。”曰(yue)，“當中(zhong)(zhong)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)時(shi)(shi)，耳(er)無聞(wen)目(mu)無見否？”曰(yue)，“雖耳(er)無聞(wen)目(mu)無見，然見聞(wen)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)理在始得。賢且說靜(jing)時(shi)(shi)如何？”曰(yue)，“謂(wei)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)無物(wu)則不(bu)可(ke)(ke)，然自有知(zhi)覺處(chu)。”曰(yue)，“既有知(zhi)卻覺是(shi)動也(ye)，怎(zen)生(sheng)言(yan)(yan)靜(jing)？人說‘復’其(qi)(qi)見天地之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)心，皆以為(wei)(wei)至靜(jing)能見天地之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)心，非也(ye)。‘復’之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)卦下面一畫，便是(shi)動也(ye)。安得謂(wei)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)靜(jing)？”或曰(yue)，“莫(mo)是(shi)于(yu)(yu)動上求(qiu)靜(jing)否？固是(shi)，曰(yue)，最(zui)難，釋氏多定言(yan)(yan)，圣(sheng)人便言(yan)(yan)止(zhi)(zhi)。如為(wei)(wei)人君止(zhi)(zhi)于(yu)(yu)仁，為(wei)(wei)人臣止(zhi)(zhi)于(yu)(yu)敬之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)類是(shi)也(ye)。易(yi)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)‘艮’言(yan)(yan)止(zhi)(zhi)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)義曰(yue)，艮其(qi)(qi)止(zhi)(zhi)，止(zhi)(zhi)其(qi)(qi)所(suo)也(ye)。

人多不(bu)(bu)(bu)能止(zhi)。蓋(gai)人，萬物(wu)皆備，遇事(shi)時各因其心(xin)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)所重者(zhe)，更(geng)互而出，才見得(de)這事(shi)重便有(you)這事(shi)出，若(ruo)能物(wu)各付物(wu)，便不(bu)(bu)(bu)出來也(ye)。”或曰(yue)，“先(xian)生于喜(xi)怒(nu)(nu)哀樂(le)未(wei)發之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)前，下(xia)動字，下(xia)靜字？”曰(yue)，“謂(wei)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)靜則(ze)(ze)可(ke)(ke)，然(ran)靜中須有(you)物(wu)始得(de)，這里便是難處，學者(zhe)莫(mo)若(ruo)且先(xian)理會(hui)得(de)敬，能敬則(ze)(ze)知此(ci)(ci)矣。”或曰(yue)，“敬何(he)以用(yong)(yong)功？”曰(yue)，“莫(mo)若(ruo)主(zhu)一。”季明(ming)言，“*嘗患思(si)(si)慮不(bu)(bu)(bu)定，或思(si)(si)一事(shi)未(wei)了(le)，他事(shi)如麻又(you)生，如何(he)？”曰(yue)，“不(bu)(bu)(bu)可(ke)(ke)，此(ci)(ci)不(bu)(bu)(bu)誠之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)本也(ye)。須是習(xi)，習(xi)能專(zhuan)一時便好(hao)。不(bu)(bu)(bu)拘(ju)思(si)(si)慮與(yu)應事(shi)，皆要求一。”此(ci)(ci)段最足表示程子(zi)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)立點，程子(zi)雖非專(zhuan)主(zhu)以物(wu)為(wei)(wei)學者(zhe)，然(ran)其以心(xin)為(wei)(wei)學之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)分際則(ze)(ze)遠(yuan)不(bu)(bu)(bu)如《中庸(yong)》此(ci)(ci)說為(wei)(wei)重，蓋(gai)《中庸(yong)》在(zai)心(xin)學道(dao)路上走(zou)百步(bu)，程子(zi)又(you)退回五十步(bu)也(ye)。程子(zi)此(ci)(ci)言，明(ming)明(ming)覺得(de)《中庸(yong)》之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)說不(bu)(bu)(bu)妥(tuo)，似解釋之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)，實修正之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)。彼(bi)固(gu)以為(wei)(wei)喜(xi)怒(nu)(nu)哀樂(le)未(wei)發之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)前，無(wu)中之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)可(ke)(ke)求，其用(yong)(yong)功處廣言之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)，則(ze)(ze)平(ping)日涵養，狹言之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)則(ze)(ze)主(zhu)敬致一，此(ci)(ci)與(yu)今(jin)日所謂(wei)“心(xin)理衛生”者(zhe)微(wei)相近，絕非心(xin)本之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)學，尤(you)絕非侈談喜(xi)怒(nu)(nu)哀樂(le)未(wei)發之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)前者(zhe)，所可(ke)(ke)奉為(wei)(wei)宗也(ye)。

《中庸》章(zhang)末極言誠(cheng)。所謂誠(cheng)，固《孟(meng)子》所謂反身而(er)誠(cheng)之訓(xun)，然《中庸》言之侈甚矣：

誠(cheng)者(zhe)，天之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)道(dao)也(ye)(ye)，誠(cheng)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)者(zhe)，人(ren)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)道(dao)也(ye)(ye)。誠(cheng)者(zhe)，不勉而中，不思而得，從容(rong)中道(dao)，圣人(ren)也(ye)(ye)。誠(cheng)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)者(zhe)，擇善而固執之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)者(zhe)也(ye)(ye)。……自(zi)誠(cheng)明(ming)，謂(wei)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)性，自(zi)明(ming)誠(cheng)，謂(wei)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)教(jiao)，誠(cheng)則(ze)明(ming)矣，明(ming)則(ze)誠(cheng)矣。

唯天(tian)下(xia)至誠(cheng)為能盡(jin)其性(xing)(xing)，能盡(jin)其性(xing)(xing)則(ze)能盡(jin)人之性(xing)(xing)，能盡(jin)人之性(xing)(xing)則(ze)能盡(jin)物之性(xing)(xing)，能盡(jin)物之性(xing)(xing)則(ze)可(ke)(ke)以贊天(tian)地(di)之化(hua)育，可(ke)(ke)以贊天(tian)地(di)之化(hua)育則(ze)可(ke)(ke)以與天(tian)地(di)參矣。

《中庸》成(cheng)書遠在(zai)《孟子(zi)(zi)(zi)》之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)后，其首尾大暢玄風，雖(sui)兼(jian)采外物內(nei)我(wo)兩(liang)(liang)派之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)說(shuo)，終以(yi)(yi)內(nei)我(wo)派之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)立點為上風，是蓋由(you)于孟子(zi)(zi)(zi)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)后，反對之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)說(shuo)有(you)力，而漢儒好混合兩(liang)(liang)極端以(yi)(yi)為系統也(ye)(ye)。其曰(yue)“誠(cheng)(cheng)(cheng)者(zhe)天之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)道”，猶云上乘也(ye)(ye)，曰(yue)“誠(cheng)(cheng)(cheng)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)者(zhe)人(ren)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)道”，猶云下乘也(ye)(ye)。曰(yue)“誠(cheng)(cheng)(cheng)則明明則誠(cheng)(cheng)(cheng)”，猶云殊途而同歸也(ye)(ye)，曰(yue)“自誠(cheng)(cheng)(cheng)明謂(wei)(wei)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)性(xing)，自明誠(cheng)(cheng)(cheng)謂(wei)(wei)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)教”，亦示上下床之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)別(bie)也(ye)(ye)。其曰(yue)，“天下之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)至誠(cheng)(cheng)(cheng)”也(ye)(ye)，由(you)己性(xing)以(yi)(yi)及人(ren)性(xing)，由(you)人(ren)性(xing)以(yi)(yi)及物性(xing)，其自內(nei)而外之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)涂術可知矣。故如(ru)以(yi)(yi)此(ci)(ci)言論宋(song)儒，則程叔子(zi)(zi)(zi)朱文公(gong)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)學皆“自明誠(cheng)(cheng)(cheng)謂(wei)(wei)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)教”者(zhe)也(ye)(ye)。此(ci)(ci)義可于朱子(zi)(zi)(zi)《補大學格物章》識(shi)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)。

朱(zhu)(zhu)子(zi)(zi)(zi)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)《補(bu)(bu)大(da)學(xue)格物(wu)(wu)(wu)(wu)(wu)章》，宋代以來(lai)(lai)(lai)經學(xue)中(zhong)(zhong)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)大(da)問題也(ye)。自(zi)今(jin)日思(si)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)，朱(zhu)(zhu)子(zi)(zi)(zi)所(suo)(suo)補(bu)(bu)似(si)非作《大(da)學(xue)》者之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)本心(xin)。然程(cheng)(cheng)朱(zhu)(zhu)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)言(yan)遠于(yu)(yu)(yu)心(xin)學(xue)而(er)近(jin)于(yu)(yu)(yu)物(wu)(wu)(wu)(wu)(wu)學(xue)，比(bi)《孟子(zi)(zi)(zi)》《樂記(ji)》《中(zhong)(zhong)庸》更可(ke)(ke)免于(yu)(yu)(yu)戴氏之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)譏者，轉可(ke)(ke)于(yu)(yu)(yu)錯誤中(zhong)(zhong)見(jian)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)。《大(da)學(xue)》原文云(yun)，“……欲誠(cheng)其(qi)意者先(xian)致(zhi)其(qi)知(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)，致(zhi)知(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)在(zai)(zai)格物(wu)(wu)(wu)(wu)(wu)，物(wu)(wu)(wu)(wu)(wu)格而(er)后知(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)至(zhi)，知(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)至(zhi)而(er)后意誠(cheng)……。”鄭注云(yun)，“格來(lai)(lai)(lai)也(ye)。物(wu)(wu)(wu)(wu)(wu)猶事(shi)也(ye)。其(qi)知(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)于(yu)(yu)(yu)善深，則(ze)來(lai)(lai)(lai)善物(wu)(wu)(wu)(wu)(wu)，其(qi)知(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)于(yu)(yu)(yu)想深，則(ze)來(lai)(lai)(lai)惡物(wu)(wu)(wu)(wu)(wu)，言(yan)事(shi)緣(yuan)人(ren)所(suo)(suo)好(hao)來(lai)(lai)(lai)也(ye)。”此(ci)(ci)解雖若上下文義(yi)不(bu)(bu)貫通(tong)，然實是格字(zi)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)正訓，《詩(shi)》所(suo)(suo)謂“神之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)格思(si)”，《書》所(suo)(suo)謂“格于(yu)(yu)(yu)上下”，皆(jie)此(ci)(ci)訓也(ye)。格又(you)以正為訓，《論(lun)語(yu)(yu)》所(suo)(suo)謂“有(you)恥且格”，《孟子(zi)(zi)(zi)》所(suo)(suo)謂“格其(qi)君心(xin)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)非”皆(jie)謂能正之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)也(ye)。從前一義(yi)，則(ze)格物(wu)(wu)(wu)(wu)(wu)應為致(zhi)物(wu)(wu)(wu)(wu)(wu)，從后一義(yi)，則(ze)格物(wu)(wu)(wu)(wu)(wu)應為感物(wu)(wu)(wu)(wu)(wu)（王文成所(suo)(suo)用即此(ci)(ci)說）。若朱(zhu)(zhu)子(zi)(zi)(zi)所(suo)(suo)補(bu)(bu)者，周漢(han)遺(yi)籍中(zhong)(zhong)無此(ci)(ci)一訓。上文有(you)“物(wu)(wu)(wu)(wu)(wu)有(you)本末，事(shi)有(you)終始，知(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)所(suo)(suo)先(xian)后，則(ze)近(jin)道矣(yi)”一言(yan)，似(si)朱(zhu)(zhu)子(zi)(zi)(zi)所(suo)(suo)補(bu)(bu)皆(jie)敷陳(chen)(chen)此(ci)(ci)義(yi)者，然此(ci)(ci)語(yu)(yu)與(yu)格字(zi)不(bu)(bu)相涉，《大(da)學(xue)》作者心(xin)中(zhong)(zhong)所(suo)(suo)謂格物(wu)(wu)(wu)(wu)(wu)究(jiu)竟與(yu)此(ci)(ci)語(yu)(yu)有(you)涉否，未(wei)可(ke)(ke)知(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)也(ye)。漢(han)儒著論(lun)好(hao)鋪陳(chen)(chen)，一如其(qi)作詞賦，后人(ren)以邏輯之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)嚴(yan)義(yi)格之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)，自(zi)有(you)不(bu)(bu)易(yi)解處。程(cheng)(cheng)朱(zhu)(zhu)致(zhi)誤之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)由來(lai)(lai)(lai)在(zai)(zai)于(yu)(yu)(yu)此(ci)(ci)。朱(zhu)(zhu)子(zi)(zi)(zi)將此(ci)(ci)語(yu)(yu)移之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)下方，復補(bu)(bu)其(qi)說云(yun)：

右傳之(zhi)五章，蓋釋格物致知之(zhi)義，而今亡矣。間嘗竊(qie)取程子之(zhi)意以(yi)補(bu)之(zhi)曰：

所謂致知(zhi)在(zai)格(ge)物(wu)者，言欲致吾(wu)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)知(zhi)，在(zai)即(ji)物(wu)而窮(qiong)其(qi)理(li)(li)也(ye)(ye)。蓋人心之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)靈(ling)莫不(bu)有(you)知(zhi)，而天下(xia)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)物(wu)莫不(bu)有(you)理(li)(li)，惟(wei)于(yu)理(li)(li)有(you)未窮(qiong)，故其(qi)知(zhi)有(you)不(bu)盡也(ye)(ye)。是以《大(da)(da)學》始(shi)教，必使學者即(ji)凡天下(xia)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)物(wu)莫不(bu)因(yin)其(qi)已知(zhi)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)理(li)(li)而益窮(qiong)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)，以求至乎其(qi)極。至于(yu)用(yong)(yong)力之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)久而一旦(dan)豁然貫通焉，則眾物(wu)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)表(biao)里(li)精粗無(wu)不(bu)到，而吾(wu)心之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)全體大(da)(da)用(yong)(yong)無(wu)不(bu)明(ming)矣(yi)。此謂物(wu)格(ge)，此謂知(zhi)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)至也(ye)(ye)。

試看(kan)格(ge)物(wu)(wu)致知在《大學(xue)(xue)(xue)(xue)》之(zhi)(zhi)道之(zhi)(zhi)系統(tong)中居(ju)誠意正(zheng)心(xin)之(zhi)(zhi)前(qian)，即等于(yu)謂是修道之(zhi)(zhi)發軌(gui)，朱子(zi)將此根本(ben)之(zhi)(zhi)地(di)說得如此，則(ze)準以王學(xue)(xue)(xue)(xue)稱心(xin)學(xue)(xue)(xue)(xue)之(zhi)(zhi)例，朱學(xue)(xue)(xue)(xue)稱“物(wu)(wu)學(xue)(xue)(xue)(xue)”自(zi)無不(bu)(bu)可。（朱子(zi)之(zhi)(zhi)究心(xin)訓(xun)詁(gu)，名物(wu)(wu)，禮數，一(yi)如清代(dai)樸(pu)學(xue)(xue)(xue)(xue)家(jia)，“物(wu)(wu)學(xue)(xue)(xue)(xue)”之(zhi)(zhi)采色(se)極重。朱子(zi)門人(ren)及(ji)其支(zhi)裔誠多(duo)舍(she)此但講性命者(zhe)(zhe)。然東發深寧竟為(wei)清代(dai)樸(pu)學(xue)(xue)(xue)(xue)之(zhi)(zhi)遠(yuan)祖。此不(bu)(bu)磨之(zhi)(zhi)事(shi)實也(ye)。清代(dai)樸(pu)學(xue)(xue)(xue)(xue)家(jia)之(zhi)(zhi)最大貢(gong)獻，語(yu)學(xue)(xue)(xue)(xue)耳［兼訓(xun)詁(gu)音聲］，至于(yu)經(jing)學(xue)(xue)(xue)(xue)中之(zhi)(zhi)大題，每得自(zi)宋(song)儒(ru)，偽《古(gu)文尚(shang)書》其一(yi)也(ye)，其對于(yu)《詩經(jing)》一(yi)書之(zhi)(zhi)理解乃遠(yuan)不(bu)(bu)如宋(song)人(ren)。五十年后，人(ren)之(zhi)(zhi)量衡兩大部經(jing)解者(zhe)(zhe)，或覺其可傳(chuan)者(zhe)(zhe)，未(wei)必(bi)如通志堂(tang)之(zhi)(zhi)多(duo)也(ye)。）朱子(zi)如此解格(ge)物(wu)(wu)，自(zi)非(fei)《孟(meng)子(zi)》之(zhi)(zhi)正(zheng)傳(chuan)，聰明之(zhi)(zhi)王文成豈肯將其放過？（見《傳(chuan)習錄(lu)》。）然而(er)朱子(zi)之(zhi)(zhi)誤釋古(gu)籍，正(zheng)由其樂乎“即物(wu)(wu)而(er)窮其理”，而(er)非(fei)求涂路于(yu)“喜怒哀樂未(wei)發之(zhi)(zhi)前(qian)”也(ye)。清代(dai)樸(pu)學(xue)(xue)(xue)(xue)家(jia)之(zhi)(zhi)立場，豈非(fei)去朱子(zi)為(wei)近，去孟(meng)子(zi)為(wei)遠(yuan)乎？

程朱之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)學兼受(shou)陸王及戴氏之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)正面攻擊者，為(wei)其二層性說。是說也，按之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)《孟子(zi)》之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)義，誠相去遠矣(yi)，若求其思(si)想史(shi)上之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)地位(wei)，則(ze)是絕偉大之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)貢(gong)獻，上承(cheng)孔(kong)子(zi)而詳(xiang)其說，下括(kuo)諸子(zi)而避(bi)其矛(mao)盾。蓋(gai)程朱一派之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)宗教觀(guan)及道德論皆以此點為(wei)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)基也。程伯子(zi)曰：（《遺書》卷(juan)一）

“生(sheng)(sheng)之謂性(xing)(xing)”，性(xing)(xing)即(ji)氣(qi)，氣(qi)即(ji)性(xing)(xing)，生(sheng)(sheng)之謂也(ye)。人生(sheng)(sheng)氣(qi)稟(bing)，理有善(shan)惡(e)，然不是(shi)性(xing)(xing)中元有此兩(liang)物相對(dui)而生(sheng)(sheng)也(ye)。

有(you)(you)自(zi)幼而惡，是(shi)氣稟自(zi)然也(ye)。善(shan)(shan)固性(xing)也(ye)，然惡亦不(bu)(bu)(bu)可(ke)不(bu)(bu)(bu)謂(wei)之(zhi)(zhi)性(xing)也(ye)。蓋“生之(zhi)(zhi)謂(wei)性(xing)”，“人(ren)(ren)(ren)生而靜”以上不(bu)(bu)(bu)容說，才(cai)說性(xing)時(shi)便已不(bu)(bu)(bu)是(shi)性(xing)也(ye)。凡人(ren)(ren)(ren)說性(xing)，只是(shi)說“繼之(zhi)(zhi)者善(shan)(shan)也(ye)”，孟子言人(ren)(ren)(ren)性(xing)善(shan)(shan)是(shi)也(ye)。夫所謂(wei)繼之(zhi)(zhi)者善(shan)(shan)也(ye)者，猶(you)水(shui)流(liu)而就下(xia)也(ye)皆(jie)水(shui)流(liu)也(ye)，有(you)(you)流(liu)而至(zhi)海(hai)，終無所污，此何煩人(ren)(ren)(ren)力之(zhi)(zhi)為也(ye)？有(you)(you)流(liu)而未遠(yuan)固已漸濁(zhuo)(zhuo)，有(you)(you)出(chu)而甚遠(yuan)，方有(you)(you)所濁(zhuo)(zhuo)，有(you)(you)濁(zhuo)(zhuo)之(zhi)(zhi)多(duo)者，有(you)(you)濁(zhuo)(zhuo)之(zhi)(zhi)少者，清(qing)濁(zhuo)(zhuo)雖(sui)不(bu)(bu)(bu)同，然不(bu)(bu)(bu)可(ke)以濁(zhuo)(zhuo)者不(bu)(bu)(bu)為水(shui)也(ye)。如此則人(ren)(ren)(ren)不(bu)(bu)(bu)可(ke)以不(bu)(bu)(bu)加(jia)澄治之(zhi)(zhi)功。

故用力敏勇(yong)則(ze)疾清(qing)(qing)，用力緩怠則(ze)遲清(qing)(qing)，及其清(qing)(qing)也(ye)(ye)，則(ze)卻只是元初水也(ye)(ye)。亦不(bu)是將清(qing)(qing)來(lai)換卻濁，亦不(bu)是取出濁來(lai)置(zhi)在一隅(yu)也(ye)(ye)。水之清(qing)(qing)則(ze)性善(shan)之謂也(ye)(ye)。故不(bu)是善(shan)與(yu)惡在性中為兩物相對(dui)，各(ge)自出來(lai)。此(ci)理，天命也(ye)(ye)。順而循之，則(ze)道也(ye)(ye)。循此(ci)而修之，各(ge)得其分(fen)，則(ze)教也(ye)(ye)。自天命以至于教，我無加損(sun)焉(yan)，此(ci)舜有天下而不(bu)與(yu)焉(yan)者也(ye)(ye)。

性(xing)出(chu)于天，才(cai)出(chu)于氣(qi)。氣(qi)清則(ze)才(cai)清，氣(qi)濁則(ze)才(cai)濁。才(cai)則(ze)有(you)善有(you)不(bu)(bu)善，性(xing)則(ze)無(wu)不(bu)(bu)善。

朱子于(yu)此義復發明之云：（《語類(lei)》四）

孟子(zi)言性。只說得本然(ran)(ran)底，論才(cai)亦(yi)然(ran)(ran)。荀子(zi)只見得不(bu)好底，楊子(zi)又見得半上半下底。

韓子所言(yan)卻是說得稍近(jin)。蓋(gai)荀楊說既(ji)不是，韓子看來，端的見有如此(ci)不同，故有三品之說，然惜其言(yan)之不盡，少得一(yi)個氣字(zi)耳(er)。程子曰，“論(lun)性不論(lun)氣，不備(bei)，論(lun)氣不論(lun)性，不明”，蓋(gai)謂此(ci)也。

孟子(zi)未(wei)嘗說氣質(zhi)之(zhi)(zhi)性(xing)(xing)(xing)，程子(zi)論性(xing)(xing)(xing)，所以用功于名教(jiao)者(zhe)，以其(qi)發明氣質(zhi)之(zhi)(zhi)性(xing)(xing)(xing)也。以氣質(zhi)論，則凡言(yan)性(xing)(xing)(xing)不同者(zhe)，皆冰釋矣。退(tui)之(zhi)(zhi)言(yan)性(xing)(xing)(xing)亦(yi)好，亦(yi)不知氣質(zhi)之(zhi)(zhi)性(xing)(xing)(xing)耳。

道夫(fu)問，氣(qi)質(zhi)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)說(shuo)(shuo)(shuo)始于何人(ren)？曰(yue)，此(ci)起于張(zhang)(zhang)程(cheng)。某以為(wei)極有(you)功于圣門，有(you)補于后(hou)學，讀之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)使(shi)人(ren)深有(you)感于張(zhang)(zhang)程(cheng)，前此(ci)未(wei)曾有(you)人(ren)說(shuo)(shuo)(shuo)到此(ci)。如韓(han)退之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)原性(xing)(xing)(xing)中說(shuo)(shuo)(shuo)三品，說(shuo)(shuo)(shuo)得(de)也是(shi)(shi)(shi)，但(dan)不(bu)(bu)曾分(fen)明(ming)說(shuo)(shuo)(shuo)是(shi)(shi)(shi)氣(qi)質(zhi)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)性(xing)(xing)(xing)耳，性(xing)(xing)(xing)那(nei)(nei)里有(you)三品來(lai)？孟子(zi)說(shuo)(shuo)(shuo)性(xing)(xing)(xing)善，但(dan)說(shuo)(shuo)(shuo)得(de)本源處(chu)(chu)，下面卻不(bu)(bu)曾說(shuo)(shuo)(shuo)得(de)氣(qi)質(zhi)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)性(xing)(xing)(xing)，所以亦費分(fen)疏。請(qing)子(zi)說(shuo)(shuo)(shuo)性(xing)(xing)(xing)惡，與善惡混。使(shi)張(zhang)(zhang)程(cheng)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)說(shuo)(shuo)(shuo)早出，則這許(xu)多說(shuo)(shuo)(shuo)話(hua)自不(bu)(bu)用紛爭(zheng)。故張(zhang)(zhang)程(cheng)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)說(shuo)(shuo)(shuo)立(li)，則諸子(zi)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)說(shuo)(shuo)(shuo)泯(min)矣(yi)。因舉橫渠(qu)“形(xing)而后(hou)有(you)氣(qi)質(zhi)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)性(xing)(xing)(xing)，善反(fan)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)，則天地(di)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)性(xing)(xing)(xing)存焉。故氣(qi)質(zhi)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)性(xing)(xing)(xing)，君子(zi)有(you)弗性(xing)(xing)(xing)者(zhe)焉。”又舉明(ming)道云，“論(lun)(lun)(lun)性(xing)(xing)(xing)不(bu)(bu)論(lun)(lun)(lun)氣(qi)，不(bu)(bu)備，論(lun)(lun)(lun)氣(qi)不(bu)(bu)論(lun)(lun)(lun)性(xing)(xing)(xing)，不(bu)(bu)明(ming)”，二之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)則不(bu)(bu)是(shi)(shi)(shi)。且如只說(shuo)(shuo)(shuo)個仁義(yi)禮智是(shi)(shi)(shi)性(xing)(xing)(xing)，世間卻有(you)生(sheng)出來(lai)便無狀底是(shi)(shi)(shi)如何？只是(shi)(shi)(shi)氣(qi)稟(bing)如此(ci)。若(ruo)不(bu)(bu)論(lun)(lun)(lun)那(nei)(nei)氣(qi)，這道理(li)(li)便不(bu)(bu)周匝，所以不(bu)(bu)備。若(ruo)只論(lun)(lun)(lun)氣(qi)稟(bing)，這個善，這個惡，卻不(bu)(bu)論(lun)(lun)(lun)那(nei)(nei)一原處(chu)(chu)只是(shi)(shi)(shi)這個道理(li)(li)，又卻不(bu)(bu)明(ming)。此(ci)自孔(kong)子(zi)曾子(zi)子(zi)思孟子(zi)理(li)(li)會(hui)得(de)后(hou)，都無人(ren)說(shuo)(shuo)(shuo)這道理(li)(li)。

此(ci)程朱是(shi)說(shuo)也(ye)(ye)(ye)，合孟(meng)軻韓愈以(yi)(yi)為(wei)(wei)論，旁參漢晉(jin)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)性(xing)情(qing)二元說(shuo)，以(yi)(yi)求適于(yu)孔子(zi)(zi)(zi)所謂(wei)“性(xing)相(xiang)近習相(xiang)遠也(ye)(ye)(ye)”，唯“上智與(yu)下(xia)愚不(bu)移(yi)”者也(ye)(ye)(ye)。孟(meng)子(zi)(zi)(zi)者，宗(zong)教(jiao)的(de)意(yi)氣甚(shen)強(qiang)(qiang)大(da)，宗(zong)教(jiao)的(de)形(xing)跡(ji)至微(wei)弱之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)思想家也(ye)(ye)(ye)。惟其(qi)(qi)宗(zong)教(jiao)的(de)意(yi)氣甚(shen)強(qiang)(qiang)大(da)，故(gu)抹(mo)殺(sha)一切功利論，凡(fan)事盡以(yi)(yi)其(qi)(qi)所信為(wei)(wei)是(shi)非善(shan)惡者為(wei)(wei)斷。惟其(qi)(qi)宗(zong)教(jiao)家形(xing)跡(ji)至微(wei)弱，故(gu)不(bu)明(ming)明(ming)以(yi)(yi)善(shan)歸之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)天，而明(ming)明(ming)以(yi)(yi)善(shan)歸之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)人，義內之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)辨，所以(yi)(yi)異于(yu)墨(mo)子(zi)(zi)(zi)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)“義自(zi)天性(xing)”者也(ye)(ye)(ye)。故(gu)孟(meng)子(zi)(zi)(zi)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)性(xing)善(shan)說(shuo)，謂(wei)人之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)生(sheng)質本(ben)善(shan)也(ye)(ye)(ye)，孟(meng)子(zi)(zi)(zi)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)所謂(wei)才（例(li)如“非才之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)罪也(ye)(ye)(ye)”之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)才字），亦可(ke)謂(wei)情(qing)（例(li)如“乃若其(qi)(qi)情(qing)則可(ke)以(yi)(yi)為(wei)(wei)善(shan)矣”之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)情(qing)字），皆(jie)性(xing)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)別稱也(ye)(ye)(ye)。當時生(sheng)性(xing)二詞未全(quan)然分劃，孟(meng)子(zi)(zi)(zi)偶用(yong)比性(xing)（生(sheng)）字更(geng)具(ju)(ju)體之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)各詞以(yi)(yi)喻(yu)其(qi)(qi)說(shuo)，故(gu)或曰才，或曰情(qing)，其(qi)(qi)實(shi)皆(jie)性(xing)（生(sheng)）之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)一面而互立也(ye)(ye)(ye)。以(yi)(yi)為(wei)(wei)兼具(ju)(ju)善(shan)惡，與(yu)“性(xing)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)本(ben)”“皆(jie)善(shan)”者不(bu)同，誠不(bu)可(ke)以(yi)(yi)為(wei)(wei)即是(shi)孟(meng)子(zi)(zi)(zi)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)正傳，朱子(zi)(zi)(zi)于(yu)此(ci)點亦未嘗諱言之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)。然則程朱之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)“性(xing)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)本(ben)”果何物(wu)乎？

程(cheng)(cheng)朱(zhu)(zhu)(zhu)(zhu)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)“性(xing)(xing)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)本(ben)”，蓋所謂“天(tian)(tian)(tian)(tian)命(ming)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)謂性(xing)(xing)”也(ye)。程(cheng)(cheng)朱(zhu)(zhu)(zhu)(zhu)學之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)宗(zong)教的色彩雖與(yu)古儒(ru)家大(da)致相同，即屬(shu)于全(quan)(quan)神論(lun)的宗(zong)教觀，而(er)非活靈活現(xian)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)鬼神論(lun)，然(ran)比之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)孟(meng)(meng)子，宗(zong)教之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)氣息(xi)為(wei)(wei)重矣。（程(cheng)(cheng)朱(zhu)(zhu)(zhu)(zhu)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)主敬即為(wei)(wei)其(qi)(qi)宗(zong)教的工夫。）故程(cheng)(cheng)朱(zhu)(zhu)(zhu)(zhu)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)天(tian)(tian)(tian)(tian)亦有(you)頗異于孟(meng)(meng)子之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)天(tian)(tian)(tian)(tian)者(zhe)也(ye)。孟(meng)(meng)子之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)天(tian)(tian)(tian)(tian)，孟(meng)(meng)子未(wei)嘗質言其(qi)(qi)為(wei)(wei)全(quan)(quan)仁也(ye)。且明言其(qi)(qi)“未(wei)欲平治天(tian)(tian)(tian)(tian)下(xia)”，而(er)使其(qi)(qi)不(bu)遇魯侯也(ye)，程(cheng)(cheng)朱(zhu)(zhu)(zhu)(zhu)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)天(tian)(tian)(tian)(tian)則(ze)全(quan)(quan)仁也(ye)，全(quan)(quan)理也(ye)，故天(tian)(tian)(tian)(tian)命(ming)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)性(xing)(xing)，必為(wei)(wei)全(quan)(quan)善者(zhe)也(ye)。（詳見《語(yu)類(lei)》卷(juan)四(si)。）然(ran)則(ze)程(cheng)(cheng)朱(zhu)(zhu)(zhu)(zhu)復為(wei)(wei)善之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)一物立其(qi)(qi)大(da)本(ben)于天(tian)(tian)(tian)(tian)，而(er)名之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)曰“本(ben)性(xing)(xing)”，又曰，“性(xing)(xing)即理也(ye)”。在(zai)此點(dian)上，程(cheng)(cheng)朱(zhu)(zhu)(zhu)(zhu)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)立場恰當墨(mo)孟(meng)(meng)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)中途(tu)，不(bu)過墨(mo)子言之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)極具體，程(cheng)(cheng)子言之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)極抽象耳(er)。且墨(mo)子未(wei)嘗以(yi)義(yi)字連貫天(tian)(tian)(tian)(tian)人，程(cheng)(cheng)朱(zhu)(zhu)(zhu)(zhu)則(ze)以(yi)理字連貫天(tian)(tian)(tian)(tian)人物。（墨(mo)子雖言義(yi)自天(tian)(tian)(tian)(tian)出，人應以(yi)天(tian)(tian)(tian)(tian)志為(wei)(wei)志，然(ran)其(qi)(qi)口氣是命(ming)令的，所指示為(wei)(wei)應然(ran)的，未(wei)嘗言天(tian)(tian)(tian)(tian)人一貫之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)理，如程(cheng)(cheng)朱(zhu)(zhu)(zhu)(zhu)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)說理字也(ye)。）故程(cheng)(cheng)朱(zhu)(zhu)(zhu)(zhu)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)言“理”，性(xing)(xing)與(yu)天(tian)(tian)(tian)(tian)道(dao)皆在(zai)其(qi)(qi)中，而(er)為(wei)(wei)“天(tian)(tian)(tian)(tian)命(ming)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)謂性(xing)(xing)”一語(yu)作一抽象名詞以(yi)代(dai)表之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)也(ye)。

既連貫天人于(yu)一(yi)(yi)(yi)義之中(zhong)矣，則(ze)道(dao)德之本(ben)基當立于(yu)是，故程(cheng)朱以為本(ben)性(xing)善。此一(yi)(yi)(yi)本(ben)性(xing)雖與孟子所言性(xing)不盡為一(yi)(yi)(yi)物，其為道(dao)德立本(ben)則(ze)一(yi)(yi)(yi)，其自別于(yu)釋道(dao)者亦在(zai)此也（參看程(cheng)朱辟(pi)佛諸說(shuo)）。

然(ran)而性(xing)(xing)善(shan)(shan)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)說(shuo)(shuo)(shuo)，如孟(meng)子(zi)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)兼括才質而言者(zhe)(zhe)，究竟不易說(shuo)(shuo)(shuo)通。孟(meng)子(zi)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)性(xing)(xing)善(shan)(shan)說(shuo)(shuo)(shuo)恰似(si)盧梭之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)生民自由(you)論，事實上絕不如此(ci)(ci)，惟一經(jing)有(you)大才氣(qi)者(zhe)(zhe)說(shuo)(shuo)(shuo)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)，遂為(wei)思(si)想史上絕大之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)動蕩(dang)力，教(jiao)育之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)基礎(chu)觀點受(shou)其影響，后人雖以為(wei)不妥者(zhe)(zhe)，有(you)時亦(yi)不能(neng)不遷就之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)也。韓文公即不安于性(xing)(xing)善(shan)(shan)說(shuo)(shuo)(shuo)者(zhe)(zhe)最(zui)有(you)力之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)一人，其三品說(shuo)(shuo)(shuo)實等于說(shuo)(shuo)(shuo)性(xing)(xing)不同耳。此(ci)(ci)所謂性(xing)(xing)，絕無天道(dao)論在其中，而是(shi)專(zhuan)以才質為(wei)討論對象者(zhe)(zhe)也。揚(yang)雄之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)“善(shan)(shan)惡混”說(shuo)(shuo)(shuo)，亦(yi)自有(you)其道(dao)理，蓋善(shan)(shan)惡多不易斷言，而人之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)一生發展恒不定也。程(cheng)朱綜合諸(zhu)(zhu)說(shuo)(shuo)(shuo)，作為(wei)氣(qi)質之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)性(xing)(xing)，于是(shi)孟(meng)子(zi)性(xing)(xing)善(shan)(shan)說(shuo)(shuo)(shuo)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)不易說(shuo)(shuo)(shuo)圓(yuan)處(chu)，揚(yang)韓諸(zhu)(zhu)子(zi)說(shuo)(shuo)(shuo)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)錯綜處(chu)，皆得其條理。朱子(zi)以為(wei)張程(cheng)此(ci)(ci)說(shuo)(shuo)(shuo)出則“諸(zhu)(zhu)子(zi)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)說(shuo)(shuo)(shuo)泯”，此(ci)(ci)之(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)謂也。

戴震(zhen)以(yi)為(wei)(wei)氣質(zhi)之(zhi)(zhi)性(xing)說(shuo)(shuo)(shuo)與孟(meng)子(zi)(zi)不合(he)，是固然(ran)矣，然(ran)孟(meng)子(zi)(zi)固已與孔(kong)(kong)子(zi)(zi)大相(xiang)違異(yi)，而(er)張程(cheng)(cheng)此(ci)說(shuo)(shuo)(shuo)，轉與孔(kong)(kong)子(zi)(zi)為(wei)(wei)近。孔(kong)(kong)子(zi)(zi)之(zhi)(zhi)詞短，張程(cheng)(cheng)之(zhi)(zhi)論詳(xiang)，故(gu)張程(cheng)(cheng)之(zhi)(zhi)論果(guo)皆合(he)于孔(kong)(kong)子(zi)(zi)相(xiang)近不移之(zhi)(zhi)用心否，今(jin)無(wu)從考(kao)知，然(ran)張程(cheng)(cheng)之(zhi)(zhi)立此(ci)說(shuo)(shuo)(shuo)，固欲綜合(he)諸子(zi)(zi)，求(qiu)其(qi)全通，調(diao)合(he)孔(kong)(kong)孟(meng)，求(qiu)無(wu)少違，移孟(meng)子(zi)(zi)之(zhi)(zhi)性(xing)說(shuo)(shuo)(shuo)，于天(tian)道上，而(er)努力為(wei)(wei)孔(kong)(kong)子(zi)(zi)之(zhi)(zhi)“性(xing)相(xiang)近習相(xiang)遠”說(shuo)(shuo)(shuo)，“上智下愚不移”說(shuo)(shuo)(shuo)尋(xun)其(qi)詳(xiang)解，斯(si)固集儒(ru)家諸子(zi)(zi)之(zhi)(zhi)大成，而(er)為(wei)(wei)儒(ru)家天(tian)人論造其(qi)最高峰矣。過(guo)(guo)此(ci)以(yi)往，逃禪(chan)纂道則有之(zhi)(zhi)矣，再(zai)有所發明則未有也。故(gu)戴氏(shi)以(yi)程(cheng)(cheng)朱(zhu)(zhu)與孟(meng)子(zi)(zi)不合(he)，誠為(wei)(wei)事實，設若此(ci)為(wei)(wei)罪過(guo)(guo)，則戴氏(shi)與程(cheng)(cheng)朱(zhu)(zhu)惟均，若其(qi)以(yi)此(ci)說(shuo)(shuo)(shuo)歸(gui)之(zhi)(zhi)儒(ru)家思(si)想直接發展之(zhi)(zhi)系(xi)統外，則全抹殺(sha)漢代儒(ru)家之(zhi)(zhi)著作(zuo)且(qie)不知程(cheng)(cheng)朱(zhu)(zhu)之(zhi)(zhi)說(shuo)(shuo)(shuo)乃(nai)努力就(jiu)孔(kong)(kong)子(zi)(zi)說(shuo)(shuo)(shuo)作(zuo)引(yin)申者也。

（按(an)程(cheng)(cheng)(cheng)朱(zhu)與孟(meng)(meng)(meng)(meng)子之(zhi)關系甚微(wei)妙。所(suo)有孟(meng)(meng)(meng)(meng)子道統(tong)之(zhi)論(lun)，利(li)義之(zhi)辨，及其“儒者氣(qi)象”，皆程(cheng)(cheng)(cheng)朱(zhu)不能不奉(feng)為正宗者。然孟(meng)(meng)(meng)(meng)子宗教氣(qi)少，程(cheng)(cheng)(cheng)朱(zhu)宗教氣(qi)較多，故(gu)其性(xing)(xing)論(lun)因而不同(tong)。此(ci)(ci)處程(cheng)(cheng)(cheng)朱(zhu)說根本與孟(meng)(meng)(meng)(meng)子不同(tong)，然程(cheng)(cheng)(cheng)朱(zhu)猶(you)力作(zuo)遷就(jiu)之(zhi)姿(zi)勢，故(gu)朱(zhu)子注(zhu)孟(meng)(meng)(meng)(meng)子，遇性(xing)(xing)善(shan)論(lun)時，便多所(suo)發揮，似推闡而實修(xiu)正，內違(wei)異而外遷就(jiu)，或(huo)問(wen)亦然。兩(liang)者治學之(zhi)方亦大不同(tong)，若程(cheng)(cheng)(cheng)朱(zhu)之(zhi)格物說，決非孟(meng)(meng)(meng)(meng)子所(suo)能許，或(huo)為荀子所(suo)樂(le)聞，此(ci)(ci)非本書所(suo)能詳(xiang)論(lun)，姑志大意(yi)于此(ci)(ci)。）

原收入《性命古訓辨(bian)證(zheng)》。