本文檢討〈天泉證道紀〉在考據及義理上所衍生的一些問題，認為〈天泉證道紀〉的史料價值雖不必盡如《傳習錄》與《王陽明年譜》，但仍不失為重要而珍貴的記錄。儘管有學者質疑，但畢竟記中之四無說確可成一教法，而四有之未悟本體之說亦可無病。我們也發現，王龍溪與錢緒山對四有的理解或可有異，而天泉證道中陽明、龍溪、緒山對四無、四有及四句教的態度均有不同。龍溪站在四無的立場欲以四無四有修正四句教，緒山在四有之境中承認四句教而不願強調四無四有，陽明則統一四無四有，而始終強調四句教為徹上徹下者。最後，本文對四句教如何統攝四無四有作一說明。

This essay examines some textual and philosophical problems derived from the text of "A Record of Verifying Dao at the T ianquan Bridge" of Wang Longxi (1498-1583). The author thinks that although the value of the text as a historical record is not so important as the different versions of the same record found in Instructions for Practical Living and Chronological Biography of Wang Yangming, it is still a very significant record. The author disagrees with some scholars and holds that the "Four Negatives" can be a teaching. He opines that the state of the "Four Positives" is not a state of full enlightenment is a view that can sustain theoretically. He also discovers that there may be difference between the understandings of Wang Longxi and Chien Dehong (1496-1574) on the "Four Positives", and that Wang Yang-ming (1472-1529), Wang Longxi and Chien Dehong have different opinions on the "Four Negatives", "Four Positives" and "Four Sentences Teaching". Wang Longxi, from the standpoint of the "Four Negatives", tries to correct the "Four Sentences Teaching" with the introduction of the "Four Negatives" and "Four Positives". Chien Dehong, in the state of the "Four Positives", admits the "Four Sentences Teaching" and tends not to emphasize the "Four Negatives" and "Four Positives". Wang Yang-ming tries to unify the "Four Negatives" and "Four Positives" and maintains that the "Four Sentences Teaching" is suitable for students of high or low quality. Finally, the author gives an explanation of how the "Four Negatives" and "Four Positives" can be unified in the "Four Sentences Teaching".