本文主要根據晚明三部孝經類總輯作品─朱鴻的《孝經總類》、江元祚的《孝經大全》、呂維祺的《孝經大全》探討晚明士人的《孝經》論述。我們可以將晚明士人的孝經論述簡單地區為二：（1）從政教功能的角度立論，此以朱鴻、孫本為代表；（2） 將「孝」提升到宇宙論和宗教層面以立論， 此以虞淳熙為代表。本文僅以前者為討論焦點，說明朱鴻、孫本等學者如何分析造成晚明孝經學的沒落的因素，如何藉闡述《孝經》乃與《春秋》並列、承載聖人治統大義以論證此書的經典地位，並說明朱鴻等人的論述緊密地呼應了陽明良知學。本文亦試圖比較上述三部著作在內容與體例之異同，說明江元祚《孝經大全》出版可能與崇禎皇帝1633年聖諭重視《孝經》教育有關，江書的內容主要取自《孝經總類》故無太大創見，然或可視為朱鴻等人孝經學在半個世紀後的某種延續。呂維祺個人對《孝經》虔誠信奉，並屢次上疏朝廷請落實孝冶天下，又在地方講會中提倡孝經學，是晚明重要孝經學者。呂維祺的《孝經大全》出版於康熙二年（1663），在清初朝廷重視《孝經》的文教政策下， 呂維祺的《大全》對清初孝經學有重要影響。然而，清初學界普遍批判陽明學，故每每切斷呂維祺《大全》或孝經學與陽明學的關係，則是扭曲學術發展實況的作法。

This article aims to analyze the discourse on Xiaojing during the late Ming when some scholars make efforts to re-promote the text. Based on three late Ming collected works-”Xiaojing Zonglei” by Zhu Hong, ”Xiaojing Daquan” by Jiang Yuantso, and another Xiaojing Daquan by Lu Weiqi - we can divide scholars opinions about the text into two groups: while one emphasizes the socio-political importance of the text, the other is imbued rich cosmological and religious implications. Only investigating the former dimension of the late Ming ”Xiaojing” discourse, this article first discusses what factors to which scholars attributed the decline of the contemporary studies of ”Xiaojing” and how scholars argued for the authenticity and political importance of the text as well as what kind of political proposal they offered to the court. Accordingly I will also discuss the close relationship between the scholars' arguments and the Yangming learning.Furthermore, I will compare the contents and styles of the aforementioned three collected works. I argue that the important background of the publication of Jiang Yuantso's work was the 1633 edict, which emphasized the importance of the institution of ”Xiaojing”. I also discuss Lu Weiqui's personal belief in ”Xiaojing” and his efforts to promote the text in both local society and the court. Lu's work was published in 1663, when the court highly emphasized the education of people and government of the state by filial piety, thus having great influence on the early Qing scholarship of ”Xiaojing”. During that time, however, the Yangming learning had been seriously criticized. Therefore, scholars often intended to cut off the relationship between the studies of ”Xiaojing” and the Yangming learning, hence presenting a distorted picture of intellectual history.