此文主旨在探討臺灣戰後學者戴君仁先生所著《春秋辨例》 一書中，如何辨析三傳義例解釋的方法以及其論辨主旨。透過文獻 分析，得知戴君仁本於發揚儒學的立場，欲以明辨是非、天下為公 的主旨，祛除傳統不合理的經說蔀蔽，發揮《春秋》適用於今的價 值。他並歸結出說例之學在漢代發展的狀況，指出說例不出自孔子， 乃由《公羊傳》首創，《穀梁傳》繼而添加褒貶意涵，至東漢何休 總結大備漢儒義例穿鑿之學，而《左》氏學者亦倣效說例，但較平 實合理。戴君仁並指出漢儒說例有許多穿鑿附會之處，包括於義理 有害、於理難通、前後矛盾、且於史不符，許多說例內容均表現為 漢人一隅之見，不可能是孔子編寫《春秋》的筆法。戴君仁辨證義 例之學是要破除學子對《春秋》學的誤解，並且提倡本於朱子的義 理之學，強調從史事闡明義理的詮釋方法解讀《春秋》，認為由此 可彰揚《春秋》學的價值，有助於經典之現代應用。

The main purpose of this paper is to explore the methods and thoughts expressed in Dai Junren’s writing of “Chunqiu bianli” Through the analysis of the literature, it can be found that Dai Junren regards Confucianism as his basic position, and wants to use the theme of “Chun Qiu” to distinguish right from wrong and regard the world as the public. He wanted to get rid of bad traditional explanations, and play “Spring and Autumn” at a modern price. His research results pointed out that the inductive examples did not start with Confucius, and “The Story of Gongyang” was the earliest creation. “Gu Liang Biography” adds com-mendation and criticism to the explanation; He Xiu explains these induc-tive methods more completely, but they also give a far-fetched interpre-tation. On the other hand, scholars studying Zuo Zhuan have also begun to use this method to explain.Dai Junren pointed out many unreasonable aspects of scholars in the Han Dynasty: First, Dai Junren blamed them of violating Confucian principles. Second, their explanation is not in line with worldly wisdom. Third, their explanations are inconsistent. Fourth, their explanation does not conform to history. Fifth, many of their ex-planations reflect personal prejudices, so these argument cannot be the principles of Confucius’ writing methods. The purpose of Dai Junren’s discourse is to resolve the misunderstanding of “Chun Qiu”, and to ad-vocate the value of its rationale, emphasizing the interpretation of “Chun Qiu” from the perspective of historical analysis. This will help realize the application of classic modernization.