清代學術史上有著名的「漢宋之爭」，本文認為此爭論產生的根本原因是學者對於「義理和訓詁是否可以相合」的意見有所分歧。本文以此問題為討論起點，以焦循之《孟子正義》為主要觀察對象，首先分析《孟子正義》中的義理思想，接著檢視書中訓詁和義理之間的關係，最後討論焦循在漢、宋學之間的抉擇。本文認為：清代漢學家與宋明理學家一樣，皆重視儒家義理，然其最大差異在於研究方法，且前者普遍相信「訓詁」可通「義理」。然而根據本文對《孟子正義》的討論，焦循有時囿於訓詁方法與漢人之說，故而透過訓詁以通義理的目標並不能很好地呈現。在漢、宋學的抉擇方面，焦循雖能客觀地評論宋學之得失，並基於以訓詁通義理的主張，故而不避博採諸說，甚至引朱子之說以為補充。然其所得義理仍與宋學之義理不同，呈現出屬於清代義理學的獨特特色。

There was a famous “Han-Song Controversy” in the academic history of the Qing Dynasty. The root cause of this controversy is that scholars disagreed with each other on the opinion of “whether the ideology and the exegetics can be matched”. This paper takes this issue as the starting point of discussion and selects Jiao Xun's “True Significance of Mencius” as the main observation object. First, we analyze the ideology in “True Significance of Mencius”, and then discuss the relationship between the ideology and the exegetics in the book. Finally, we surveys Jiao Xun’s preference between Han study and Song study. This paper believes that scholars in Qing Dynasty paid as much attention as Neo-Confucianists to the ideology of Confucian. Their biggest difference is the research methods. The former generally believed that “exegetics corresponds with ideology”. But according to the discussion of “True Significance of Mencius” in this paper, with certain limits of the methods of exegetics and the theory of Han study, Jiao Xun’s goal of “exegetics corresponds with ideology” sometimes didn’t well present. In terms of the preference between Han study and Song study, Jiao Xun objectively commented on NeoConfucian, and even quoted Zhu Xi’s researches as supplements. However, the ideology of Jiao Xun was still very different from Neo-Confucian while presented the unique characteristics of the New Confucianism of Qing Dynasty.