本文以《公羊義疏》引述的劉逢祿之說為中心，觀察公羊禮學與常州學的共通點，在於以「家法」為核心的解經觀念。從陳立對劉逢祿經解的正反評價可知，劉逢祿有些說法違反了《公羊》與何休之意，與其宣揚之「申其條理，廣其異義，以稗何氏之未備」相扞格。因此，陳立對劉逢祿的批評多著墨於其不守家法。反而是一般印象中，公羊禮學與常州學判若鴻溝的「禮」、「例」詮釋方法問題，陳立並未觸及，甚至還援引劉逢祿歸納的例去解釋經典。由此側面考察，陳立對「例」的方法，應當也有相當程度的接納。相較於今人研究清代公羊學，多注意常州學的經解，強調「例」在解經上的重要性，本文則嘗試說明公羊禮學「以禮解經」的視域，期能提供學人重新省思清代公羊學整體面貌的空間。

This article focuses on how Chen Li responded to Liu Feng-lu’s explanations in Gongyang yi shu. In this article, I take the opinion that the commonality between Gongyang ritual and Changzhou Studies was the conception of Jiafa. In Gongyang yi shu, Chen Li criticized Liu Feng-lu for breaking Jiafa. In Gongyang yi shu, Chen does not argue against “Li.” Instead, Chen used “Li” to interpret Gongyang zhuan. From this perspective, Chen seemed to accept the way that taking “Li” to explain Gongyang zhuan. Comparing with current studies aiming to analyze Changzhou Gongyang School in the Qing dynasty and emphasizing the importance of “Li,” this article tries to demonstrate that Gongyang ritual was not only taking “ritual” to explain Gongyang zhuan, but also taking “Li.”