《金陵梵剎志》刊刻於明萬曆三十五年（1607）。它既是一部記載南京佛寺的史志，也是葛寅亮（1570-1646）主持萬曆佛教改革的記錄。該書首二卷（卷一〈御製集〉、卷二〈《欽錄》集〉）收錄了以明太祖為主的御製佛教文獻，是研究明初佛教政策、明代佛教史的重要文本，具有極高的史料價值。本文通過文本比勘、史料互證等方法考辨卷一〈御製集〉與明太祖文集諸版本系統的承襲關係，以及卷二〈《欽錄》集〉中大量罕見文本的史料來源。經考證指出，〈御製集〉的主要參考文本是萬曆二十五年楊起元（1547-1599）所刻《高皇帝御製文集》、《訓行錄》，以及各大寺所藏碑刻材料。通過葛寅亮就地取材的做法和收錄原則可知，該書在一定程度上受到明中後期「法祖講學」、「三教合一」等思想風潮的影響。〈《欽錄》集〉則直接來源於南京各敕建寺院所藏的明初檔冊文件—《欽錄》。寺院檔冊《欽錄》的發現不僅釐清了第二卷的史源，更有助於加深對明初佛教統治的認識。葛寅亮將御製佛教文獻編排至《金陵梵剎志》卷首醒目位置之舉是在明末政治社會、思想風潮與佛教改革陷入困境的背景下，為改革尋求制度依據與合法性的有意選擇。

Jinling Fancha Zhi was published in 1607, which is not only historical records of Buddhist temples in Nanjing, but also records of the Buddhism reform in Wanli under the leadership of Ge Yinliang (1570-1646). The first two volumes (Volume 1: Yuzhi Ji, Volume 2: Qinlu Ji) of the book include emperors’ collected works, which are of great historical value for the study of Buddhist policies in the early Ming Dynasty and the history of Buddhism in the Ming Dynasty. This paper examines the inheritance relationship between Volume 1 and the Ming Taizu’s collected works and the sources of rare texts in Volume 2 by means of textual comparison and historical cross-evidence. It has been verifi ed that the main reference texts for the Ming Taizu’s collected works are the Gao huangdi Yuzhi Wenji, Xunxing Lu pubulished by Yang Qiyuan (1547-1599) in 1597 and materials from inscriptions in the collections of imperial temples. It can be deduced from his approach and principle of selection that the book was influenced by the ideological trends of the late Ming period, such as “modeling the ancestors and discoursing on learning” and “three-teaching-in-one”. Volume 2 is derived directly from the Qinlu, a document from the early Ming Dynasty in the collections of the imperial temples of Nanjing. The discovery of Qinlu not only clarifi es the sources of the volume 2, but also is helpful to deepen the understanding of the administration of Buddhism in the early Ming Dynasty. Ge Yinliang’s arrangement of emperors’ collected works at the head of the Jinling Fancha Zhi was a deliberate choice to seek institutional basis and legitimacy for the reform under the background of the political society, ideological trends and troubled Buddhism reform in the late Ming Dynasty.