本文以陳傅良《春秋後傳》為例，分析永嘉學派和《春秋》世變的論題，包含永嘉學派《春秋》學的內容、特色，以及與其他學派的互動關係。誠如學界觀察，陳傅良將《春秋》世變作為《春秋》大義的重要基石與唯一指引，目光建構在王道存滅和伯統盛衰的脈絡，循此詮解經文書法，自覺地將「世變」織聯到各個語言現象，歸諸於麟經涵藏之深義。而朱熹反對浙學有關《春秋》、《左傳》伯業盛衰的討論，一方面認為他們切入經、史典籍的方法失當，更指出內在理路流於博雜而不能返約的弊病。陳傅良融貫「世變／伯業」於《春秋後傳》並非單純地形式答辯，背後目的是主動對抗朱學帶來的批評，是書寓有捍衛自身價值的堅定，以及延續學術命脈的決心。

Taking “Chun Qiu Hou Zhuan” (means sequel to “Chun Qiu”) written by Chen Fuliang for example, the study analyzed the topics relevant to Yongjia School and “Shi Bian” (means transition of dynasties) in “Chun Qiu”, such as the content and features of argument about “Chun Qiu” by Yongjia School and the interaction between Yongjia School and other schools. Just as the opinions of other scholars, Chen Fuliang treats “Shi Bian” in “Chun Qiu” as the basis and the only guide of implications in “Chun Qiu” and pays attention on constructing the context of rise and fall of leadership and legitimacy. He accordingly interpreted scriptures, consciously connected “Shi Bian” to every language phenomenon and contributed it to the implications within the scriptures. Zhu Xi reject the discussion on transition of leadership and legitimacy in “Chun Qiu” and “Zuo Zhuan” by Zhu Dong School: on the one hand, he thought the methods to interpret scriptures are inappropriate; on the other hand, the internal logics lack theoretical parsimony. The addition of “Shi Bian/leadership and legitimacy” to “Chun Qiu Hou Zhuan” by Chen Fuliang not only is a formal reply but also aims to resist the criticism from the Zhu School. The book contains insistence to defend its values and determination to continue its academic legacy.