理學史中，有關朱、陸異同的論辯，始終是歷來論者難以迴避的議題；發展至清初，在方法上逐漸走向文獻考辨之途。本文的撰寫，不在於探究朱、陸義理思想的分殊，而是嘗試以李紱《朱子晚年全論》為考察對象，探究清初心學家對於「朱陸異同」的考辨情形。首先，說明身處於程朱理學興起的李紱作《朱子晚年全論》之目的在於藉朱學之名以彰揚陸學；其次，論析李紱解讀、評述朱子與陸九淵、友人論學交遊往返書信，指出幾個交往、啟釁關鍵事端，包括鵝湖會後的往來、朱子作〈曹立之墓表〉、「無極」之辯，揭示對於朱陸異同的立場；最後，指出李紱儘管在治學方法上有蛻變性的發展，但畢竟仍不失傳統理學家以學派義理為先導的原則，這樣的研治模式與乾嘉時期的考據之學，實是不同學術體系，而在方法上轉向從原始史料入手，尋求朱陸異同的過程中，朱陸學術的形上層面被消解，一方面呈顯了清初理學走向實用、實踐的特質，但也同時失去了理學思想中原有的整體意義，而李紱所揭櫫傾向形下經驗世界的治學方向，反而成為了儒者接續的治學趨勢。

In the history of Neo-Confucianism, the debate over the similarities and differences between Zhu Xi and Lu Jiuyuan has always been an unavoidable topic for Confucian scholars. By the early Qing Dynasty, it had gradually moved towards the path of text-based examination in terms of methodology. This article does not explore the differences between Zhu and Lu’s thoughts, but focuses instead on Li Fu’s Comprehensive Analysis of Master Zhu’s Late Works (Zhu Zi Wannian Quanlun) as the object of investigation, and explores this early Qing scholars’ examination of “Zhu and Lu’s similarities and differences.” First of all, it explains that Li Fu went against the rise in popularity of Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianism, and used the prestige of Zhu’s philosophy to promote Lu’s school of thought in the Comprehensive Analysis of Master Zhu’s Late Works. Second, it analyzes Li Fu’s interpretation of and comments on Master Zhu’s academic correspondence with Lu Jiuyuan and his friends, which concentrated on several key exchanges and provocations, including the exchanges after the “Goose Lake Meeting,” Master Zhu’s “Epitaph of Cao Lizhi (Cao Lizhi Mubiao)” and the debate over “non-polarity” (“wuji”), to reveal his position on Zhu and Lu’s similarities and differences. Finally, this paper points out that even though Li Fu experienced transformative developments in his research methodology, as a traditional Neo-Confucian scholar, he never deviated from the guiding principles of the school of thought to which he belonged. His research methodology differed from that of evidential studies during the Qianlong and Jiaqing reigns, the two actually belonged to different academic systems. Li’s methodology started with original historical records and removed the metaphysical significance of Zhu and Lu’s scholarship during the process of seeking the similarities and differences between Zhu and Lu. This approach highlighted the tendency towards practical and concrete learning of the early Qing Neo-Confucianism. However, the overall significance of the original meaning of the Neo-Confucianism was also lost in the process. The empirical research direction initiated by Li in turn became the dominant trend for later Confucian scholars.