×××××××××××××××××××××××××××
本帖引用‘安心条款’，谢绝‘三尺士莱马赫’莅临指教！
×××××××××××××××××××××××××××
网络上找到一篇蛮有意思的文章。因为发现华人基督教的‘亚波里拿流’
主义极其嚣张，所以特别转贴过来，让大家参考。当然，也是打脸那个
事实上想要建立新的基督教正统，不知道真正的基督教正统为何物，又
宣称新教不能彼此批判非正统的谬论。:)
=====================================================
Against Apollinarius
驳斥亚波里拿流
by
Gregory of Nyssa
女撒的贵格利
Introduction
When taking into consideration the New Testament accounts of Jesus Christ,
one does not discover a developed theological account of his person. Rather,
the message or kerugma found there depicts a person who fully shares our
human characteristics: Jesus interacts with his friends, enemies and
environment yet at the same time he stands apart from them as someone
different from the rest of us. This dissimilarity results both from the
claims Jesus says with regard to his own person, his relationship with God
and most dramatically of all, his miracles. Despite the tantalizing picture
handed down to us in the Gospels, we are completely ignorant as to what we
would now designate as his awareness or mental experience. In other words,
Jesus eludes any attempt to subject his person to psychological
investigation.
当我们思考新约关于耶稣基督的记载，并不会发现任何关于祂位格、已经发展完成的神学
记述。反而，有一种描述完全有份我们人性特征位格的信息或kerugma：耶稣与祂的朋友
们、敌人们和环境互动，在同时，祂也与他们不同，也与我们不同。这种相异性乃是来自
耶稣论到祂自己的位格、祂与神的关系，并最为引人注目的，祂行的神蹟。在福音书中传
给我们的激情描述外，我们完全不知道祂的知觉或心理经验。欢聚哈说，耶稣让人们对于
将祂的位格置于心理学研究的尝试徒劳无功。
As the early Church expanded and came into contact with the larger
Hellenistic world, it was compelled to translate the message of the Gospels
to non-Judaic peoples and to make use of their philosophi c heritage. One of
the pressing issues confronting Christian apologetics at the time was the
personhood of Jesus Christ who was proclaimed as both man and God. The very
fact that such a duality could be attributed to a single person was a source
of agitation among those educated Greeks being evangelized as well as
Christians who were engaged in proclaiming the faith. Several centuries of
occasionally heated discussion in the Church were required to resolve the
difficulty of two natures in Christ, human and divine. It was not until 451
when the Council of Chalcedon settled the earlier Christological disputes.
Briefly put, Chalcedon articulated the unity of these two natures(1) though
in abstract terms.
当早期基督教扩张并与后期的希罗世界接触的时候，不得不把福音的信息翻译为非犹太人
的信息，并使用他们的哲学。在当时一个基督教护教所面临，令人印象深刻的例子是耶稣
基督的位格，祂被宣告为人和神。这种可以被归于一个位格并对于那些受过教育的希腊人
会造成了骚动的双重特性，在宣扬信仰的过程中，当作福音传给基督徒。几个世纪中偶尔
在教会中升温的讨论中，要求解决在基督里面，神与人两个性质的难题。直到451年的迦
克顿大会才解决了早期的基督论争议。简单的说，迦克顿大会透过了抽象的名词解决了那
两个性质联合的问题。
From the vantage point of Chalcedon with its clearly defined teaching on the
two natures of Christ we can look backwards, so to speak, upon the teachings
of Apollinarius of Laodecia (310-c.390). In many ways he brings to a head the
conflicting elements of the great Christological disputes of the fourth
century, controversies which can be confusing even to the trained eye. The
question of the full humanity of Jesus Christ, that is, his possession of
body and soul, have direct bearing upon the question of human freedom.
Although Christ fully assumed the human condition, a number of Christian
apologetics subtly viewed his personhood in a Docetist fashion. When the
Church Fathers sought to defend themselves against such a teaching,
especially when referring to the Incarnation, they developed two frameworks
which scholars commonly call Logos-sarx (Word-flesh) and Logos-anthropos
(Word-man). The former was developed in reaction to Origen's doctrine on the
preexistence of souls. This view failed to account for a human soul in
Christ; instead, the Incarnation was perceived as a union of the Logos with
human flesh(2). On the other hand, the latter framework had as its basic
principle the notion that the Logos united himself with a complete humanity,
including a soul and a body. In patristic scholarship these two types of
Christologies have been termed Alexandrian and Antiochene, respectively.
Although such a division runs the risk of over-simplification, it provides us
with a rule of thumb and enables us to make our way through this often
confused period of Church doctrine. What must be kept in mind is that both
the Logos-sarx and Logos-anthropos Christologies affirm that the person of
Jesus Christ entered into union with mankind. In other words, Christ was not
perceived as a divinely inspired man after the fashion of Arius and his
followers.
从迦克顿的优势地位，并它明确的关于基督二性的教义定义，我们能够回朔，也就是说，
老底嘉的亚波里拿流（Apollinarius of Laodicia, 310-c.390）的教义。他用许多方式
把四世纪重要基督论争议的元素汇集在一起，对于许多受过训练的人而言，那些争议仍然
是令人困惑的。关于耶稣基督完整人性的问题，就是，祂所拥有的身体和魂，都与人类的
自由间有着密切的关系。虽然基督完全取得了人类的境况，有些基督教的护教士隐约的用
幻影论的风格来认识祂的位格。当教会的教父们尝试抵挡那样的教义的时候，特别是当论
及道成肉身的时候，他们发展出两种学术界普遍称为道—肉（Logos-sarx/Word-flesh）
和道—人（logos-anthropos/Word-man）的架构。前者是根据针对俄列根的灵魂先存说的
反应而发展出来的。这个观点忽视了对基督人性魂的描述；反而，道成肉身被视为道（
Logos）与人类肉身的联合。在另一方面，后者的架构的基本观念是，道亲自与完整的人
性，包括魂和身体联合。在教父的学术研究中，那两种基督论也被称作亚历山大和安替阿
派的基督论。虽然那样的区分具有过分简化的危险，但向我们证明一种简要的方式，并让
我们能够让我们了解这段往往令人感觉困惑的教会教义的时期。我们必须记得，道—肉和
道—人基督论都肯定耶稣基督的位格与人类联合。换句话，基督并不被认为是如同亚流和
他的跟随者所认为的，是一位被神所启迪的人类。
Apollinarius was one of the most famous personages associated with the
Antiochene school and became bishop of Laodicea, a town about fifty miles
south of Antioch on the Syrian coast(3). He was regarded as a person of
immense literary accomplishment who together with his father sought during
the pagan revival under the emperor Julian to disguise the Christian
scriptures in classic forms. They both composed the Gospels in the form of
Platonic dialogues and some of the Old Testament books into heroic verse. The
writings of Apollinarius and his father (who had the same name) sometimes
took poetic form; they enjoyed immense popularity during this time of
persecution and enabled the faithful to maintain their Christian roots during
such difficulties. A number of famous persons had attended the lectures of
Apollinarius such as Jerome which enjoyed great renown at the time. However,
it was about this period that the Christology of Apollinarius was beginning
to be suspect as deviated from the orthodox position of the Church.
亚波里拿流是与安替阿学派有关最为有名的人士，他也成为，一个在叙利亚海边，离开安
替阿大约五十英里的一座小城—老底嘉的主教。他被认为是一位妙笔生花的人，与他的父
亲在朱利安（Julian）皇帝时期的异教复兴运动中，用古典的方式以藏基督教的经文。他
们用柏拉图式的对话编撰福音，并把某些旧约的书卷编撰为英雄式的诗歌。亚波里拿流和
他父亲（同名）的作品有时候采用诗歌体裁；他们两位在这个鄙派的时期享有盛名，并使
得忠信的信徒得以在那个艰难的时期中，维持他们基督教根基。许多出名的认识都出席过
亚波里拿流的课程，就像在当时非常有名的耶柔米。然而，也就是在这个时期，亚波里拿
流的基督论开始被华裔离开了教会的正统立场。
Despite the geographical proximity to Antioch, it is more natural to
associate Apollinarius with Alexandria (his father came from that city) and
its teaching on the sharp division between two natures in Christ which later
gave birth to Nestorianism. At a later time Cyril of Alexandria was to take
over some basic tenets of Apollinarius' thought, especially his famous mia
phusis or one nature of the incarnate Word(4). Apollinarius enjoyed a close
friendship with Athanasius, the famous bishop of Alexandria, and shared many
of his views on Trinitarian doctrines. Such a friendship makes it more
natural to affiliate Apollinarius with Alexandria rather than with Antioch.
In the eyes of Athanasius, his friend from Laodicea steadfastly held fast to
the orthodox teaching of Nikaea.
尽管亚波里拿流的地理位置距离安替阿比较近，他往往被理所当然的认为与亚历山大（他
的父亲就是来自那座城市）并其教义有关，特别是在对于在基督中二性的明确区分，随后
促发了聂斯多留主义（Nestorianism）。亚历山大的区利罗在后世去用了亚波里拿流思想
的某些长老，特别是他有名的mia phusis或成为肉身之道的一个性质（one nature of
the incarnate Word）。亚波里拿流与著名的亚历山大主教亚他那修间有亲密的友情，并
分享了他的三位一体教义的许多观点。那个友情是的亚波里拿流更容易被归为亚历山大派
而不是安替阿派。在亚他那修严重，他从老底嘉来的朋友坚定不移的捍卫了尼西亚的正统
教义。
It may be helpful to briefly state the position Athanasius maintained on the
person of Christ which serves to give a better picture of Apollinarius'
doctrine of the Savior. The bishop of Alexandria is known for his monumental
struggles against Arianism, the teaching which claimed that the Son of God
was created by the Father from nothing as an instrument for creation and
salvation. Christ was not God by nature but a noble creature who received the
title of Son of God due to his righteousness which had been foreseen by the
Father. Athanasius stressed the unity between Logos and flesh while each
retains their own characteristics in a close unity. Such an "indwelling
framework"(5) was the object of reproach and conflict with the Antiochene
school who favored the Logos-anthropos Christology. On the other hand, the
school of Alexandria, whose most famous son was Origen, seemed to treat the
flesh as a thing in which the Word made his home. In their minds it created
an unnecessary dualistic approach to the person of Christ and devalued the
role of human personhood.
简单的描述亚他那修坚持的，关于基督位格的立场可能会有帮助，这个立场能够更好的为
亚波里拿流关于救主的教义提供一副更清楚的图画。亚历山大逐渐因与亚流主义的争斗而
名扬天下，亚流宣称神的儿子是由父从虚无（nothing）中所造出来的，作为创造和救赎
的工具。基督的本质不是神，而是一个高贵的被造之物，因为他的公义为父所遇见，领受
了神儿子的称号。亚他那修强调道和肉身间的联合，两者仍然在一个紧密的联合中保留了
各自的特征。那样的‘内住架构（indwelling framework）’被倾向于道—人基督论的安
替阿学派反对，并与其产生冲突。在另一方面，亚历山大学派，最有名的学者是俄列根（
Origen），被视为把肉体当做道居住，作为家的一件东西。在他们的思想中，它造成了一
种不需要的，对于基督位格的二元处理方式，减低了基督位格的角色。
For Athanasius the Logos-sarx framework is the source of all existence and
subject of statements about Christ. The human aspect in Christ is ruled by
the Logos, a position which has lead scholars to believe that Athanasius did
not ascribe to a human soul in the Savior(6). For him, to "become man" or
flesh implies an intimate union between the divine and human to such an
extent that it may be said that the Logos is actually man. We will see later
how this position maintained by Athanasius in his struggle against Arianism
which sought to denigrate the role of Jesus Christ influenced his friend
Apollinarius. The position which Apollinarius has subsequently taken flows
from the basic principles of Athanasius' theology. It maintains that God is
the only one who can save, an insight which had been hammered out in his
controversy with the Arian opposition. For Athanasius, salvation rested upon
the incarnation of divinity in all its unchangeable glory; the changeable
human mind which is liable to sin could not conceivably be united with the
atreptos nature of divinity.
对于亚他那修而言，道—肉架构是所有关于基督的神学宣告的主题和根源。在基督里人类
的方面被道管辖，这个立场是的学者们相信亚他那修不认为救主里面有一个人类的魂。对
于他而言，‘成为人’或肉身意味着一种在神性和人性间的内在联合，到一个程度，我们
能够说道就是人。我们随后将会看见亚他那修在对抗亚流主义的过程中所坚持的立场，诋
毁了耶稣基督角色的观点影响了他的朋友亚波里拿流。亚波里拿流随后采取的立场源自于
亚他那修神学的基本原则。这个原则坚信神是唯一能够拯救的那位，这种观点乃是从他与
亚流派的反对立场中锻炼出来的。对于亚他那修而言，救赎乃是根据神在祂不改变的荣耀
中成为肉身；会改变的人类心思会犯罪，不能被认为能够与神性那个atreptos（译者：不
可被分离）的性质联合。
Due to the influence of Athanasius, Apollinarius must have had his position
in mind which implied that Christ lacked a human mind or soul; salvation for
mankind depends totally upon the immutable power of God through the
Incarnation minus any cooperation from the human sphere. For Gregory,
perfection is not immutability but a progression towards the good which
involves correct moral behavior and alteration. It is this notion of change
which enables Gregory to respond to Apollinarius, "Since the human mind is
mutable, it is unable to have knowledge of the Only-Begotten God and to speak
of its origin" (J.194). However, he accepts the premise of Apollinarius that
the human spirit is mutable (treptos)(7), "The human race and the entire man
is not saved by the assumption of mind but by assuming flesh, its natural
governing principle. The immutable mind does not require submission to the
flesh by any defect of knowledge; rather, it unites the flesh to itself
without coercion" (J.195). However, for Apollinarius this mutability belongs
to free will's ability to chose between good and evil. If the nous (mind) is
mutable by nature, the Logos clearly cannot have assumed a human mind. To
this accusation Gregory responds, "just as [Christ] was not defiled by his
birth in the flesh, neither is the mind (nous) diminished by assuming
mutability (trope," J.195). For him trope implies that the spirit does not
consist solely in alternation between good and evil. The human spirit is able
to become atreptos and be healed from the inclination towards evil without at
the same time ceasing to be a created spirit, for even the human nature of
Christ uses trope towards the good.
亚波里拿流因着亚他那修的影响，必然在心中认为基督缺少人类的心思或魂；人类的救赎
完全根据神透过道成肉身那个不可改变的能力，不需要人类方面的任何配合。对于贵格利
而言，完美（perfection）并不是不可改变的，而是一个向着良善的过程，需要正确的道
德行为和变化。这种可以改变的观念让贵格利能够回应亚波里拿流，‘因为人类的心思是
会改变的，就不能得到对于神独生子的知识，并论到其起源。’（J.194）然而，他接受
亚波里拿流的前提，人的灵是会改变的（treptos），‘人类和整个人并不会因着取得心
思，肉身的管理原则，而是因为确定了肉身得到拯救。不改变的心思不需要因着任何不完
全的知识而顺服肉身；反而，它在不被强迫的情况下与肉身联合’（J.195）。然而，对
于亚波里拿流而言，这种改变性属于自由意志选择善恶的能力。如果nous（mind/心思）
的本性是会改变的，道明显的不能取得人的心思。对于这个批判，贵格利回应说，‘就如
同[基督]在肉身中并不会因着祂的出生而变得不完全，灵就不会一直在善和恶之间变换。
人的灵能够成为atreptos，并能够从邪恶的倾向中得到医治，并在同时不再是被造的灵，
甚至基督的人性都会采用倾向良善的trope（行事风格）。
The writings of Apollinarius confront us with the problem of a dichotomy or
more specifically, a trichotomy, soul/spirit-flesh. The bishop of Laodecia
maintains that man is an enfleshed mind, a composite of spirit and flesh,
pneuma and sarx. As a source for these terms he refers to St. Paul whose
apparently trichotomist terms appeal to him. Since both man and the Logos are
enfleshed minds (nous ensarkos), to be made in man's likeness means that the
Logos has an enfleshed mind. It was the intent of Apollinarius not to pay too
much attention to such terminology; rather, his concern laid in preferring
the God enfleshed (theos ensarkos) with an inspired man (anthropos entheos),
for this latter phrase implies a created mind enlightened by wisdom(8). In
addition to this, Apollinarius is fond of St. Paul's term, a "heavenly man."
Gregory of Nyssa levels an especially strong invective against this position,
claiming that the flesh of the divine Logos preexisted in heaven right from
the beginning. As Raven has demonstrated(9), such a view was held by some of
his more extreme followers while the fragments assembled by Lietzmann do not
reveal this fact.
亚波里拿流的作品让我们看见二元人论的问题，或更明确的说，三元人论，魂/灵-肉身。
老底嘉的主教坚称人是一个肉身包裹的心思，由灵和肉身，pneum和sarx所构成。他引用
保罗的作品作为这些词汇的来源，诉诸保罗看起来采用的三元论主义的名称。因为人和道
都是被肉身包裹的心思（nous ensarkos），在人的样式（likeness，在本文中，
likeness指人类出生的方式。但为了忠于原文，仍采用样式的翻译——译者）中被造的意
思是道成为一个被肉身包裹的心思。亚波里拿流的动机并不是要过于注重那些词汇；反而
，他的关注点在于神带着一个被（圣灵）启迪的人（anthropos entheos）被肉身包裹（
theos ensarkos），因为anthropos entheos这断话暗示一个被智慧光照的被造心思。在
此之外，亚波里拿流也使用保罗的词汇，‘属天的人（heavenly man）’。女撒的贵格利
特别强烈的反对这个立场，宣称神圣之道的肉身从太初就先存于天上。就如同Raven所展
示的，某些他激进的跟随者也坚信那样的观点，但是在同时，Lietzmann所收集的残篇却
没有展现出那样的事实。
Apollinarius has taken up the teaching of Athanasius, that God must remain
immutable in order to save us. The difficulty he experiences lies in the
problem of how God can assume a middle position between his own divinity and
humanity. Gregory scoffs at this by presenting the example of a goat-stag
(tragelaphos, J.215-16). Here he mocks Apollinarius' position who calls
Christ a Man-God: "the combination of names [goat and stag] denotes the
participation of one nature in another." For the bishop of Laodicea Christ is
not an Arian demiurge standing midway between full divinity and humanity;
rather, he is a mixis or mixture of both components. Regardless of the source
of his teaching and whether or not it comes from scripture, Apollinarius
penned his thoughts out of a formidable literary and scholarly background. He
upheld the homoousion, that the Trinity is one as proclaimed by Nikaea.
Despite this noble defense of the faith and the admiration of his friend
Athanasius, Apollinarius was condemned for heresy by the Council of
Constantinople in 381, by the pope in the late 370's, and by a local synod at
Antioch.
亚波理拿流采取了亚他那修的教义，就是神必须是不可改变的才能更拯救我们。他面对的
难题乃是要解决神如何能在祂自己的神性和人性间采取一种中间的立场。贵格利用山羊鹿
（goat-stag,tragelaphos, J.215-216）的例子嘲笑这种观点。他嘲笑称基督为人神（
Man-God）的亚波里拿流：‘结合不同的名字[山羊和鹿]表明有份于彼此的性质。’对于
老底嘉的主教而言，基督不是亚流派，身处于完整的神性和人性间的造物主（demiurge）
；反而，祂是一个两种成分组成的混合者或混合物。不论他的教义从何而来，甚至是来自
圣经，亚波里拿流用难以辩驳的文字和学术性的背景写下了他的思想。他坚守同质（
homoousion）的观念，就是三位一体是如同尼西亚所宣称的，是一位。尽管他拥有捍卫信
仰的高贵动机，并尊崇他的朋友亚他那修，亚波里拿流被381年的康士坦丁大会，在370年
代后期被教会，并在安替阿的地方会议中被定罪为异端。
Despite the close affiliation with Antioch, Apollinarius perceived the
humanistic approach of this school as threat to Christ's nature by dividing
it into two elements. It thereby rendered him into something akin to a
divinely inspired man whose Arian counterpart was the belief that Christ was
a lesser god. Apollinarius undertook what was perhaps the most comprehensive
attempt to date at theologizing about the personhood of Christ. The salient
point of his teaching is the rejection of a human mind in Jesus, something
akin to Arianism. Nevertheless, as J.N.D. Kelly has pointed out(10),
Apollinarius was a powerful antagonist against the Arians regarding
Trinitarian matters, so it seems unusual that such a figure would succumb to
their Christological principles. We have also observed that the great
Athanasius tended to neglect the presence of a human soul in Christ, a
feature of the Alexandrian school in general. The sometimes rigid manner of
their Logos-sarx framework which makes the Logos the soul in Christ has an
innate tendency of treating the Logos as something secondary. Apollinarius
had understood that the Father and Son form one identical divine substance, a
position taught by his friend Athanasius. However, problems arose when he
turned his sharp mind to Christology.
尽管亚波里拿流与安替阿有密切的关系，他被认为采取了一种源自于这个学派的人文主义
方式，将基督的性质切割成为两种元素而威胁到基督的性质。因此认为基督不过是某种类
似得到神圣启迪的人，他的亚流对手则相信基督是一位次等神。亚波里拿流同意了一种可
能是当时最为能够被理解的尝试，想神学化基督的位格。他的教义显著的中的是拒绝在耶
稣里面有人类的心思，与阿亚流主义间具有某种的类似性。有鉴于此，凯利（JND Kelly
）指出，亚波里拿流在三位一体的问题上是亚流派强而有力的对手，以至于那样的认识屈
服于亚流派的基督论原则是非常不寻常的现象。我们也观察到伟大的亚他那修也倾向于忽
视在基督里里面人类魂的存在，这是亚历山大学派共有的特征。道—肉架构使得道成为在
基督里面的魂的严苛方法，具有一种内在的张力，将道视为某种次要的事物。亚波里拿流
从一个相同的神圣实质来理解父和子，这是他的朋友亚他那修教导的立场。然而，当他将
他敏锐的心思转向基督论的时候，就产生了问题。
In attempting to conceive Christ's preexistence, Apollinarius is fully
orthodox and wields this belief against the Arians who subscribed to the
position that Christ had one (human) nature and was a divine though created
being(11). However, when he treating the Incarnation, Apollinarius slips from
the orthodox perception of Christ and says that he has only one true (divine)
nature. Apollinarius arrives at such a conclusion by the application of
rational investigation(12) which is intended to bolster faith. If this
approach were not taken, Christians would fall into error for "it behooves
Christians to be inquisitive and not to imprudently be unmindful of the
opinions belonging to either the Greeks or Jews" (J.135).
为了尝试了解基督的先存，亚波里拿流是完全正统的，并使用这个信仰来对抗亚流派，他
们采取的立场是基督有一种（人类的）性质，虽然是神圣的，但是一个被造之物。然而亚
波里拿流在处理道成肉身的时候，就脱离了对于基督的正统认识，说，祂仅仅拥有一个（
神圣的）性质。亚波里拿流用理性分析做出一个结论，尝试支撑信仰。如果不采取这个方
法，基督徒就会落入‘好奇，而不会粗鲁的忽视属于希腊人或犹太人的看法’的错误中。
（J.135）
In accord with Church teaching, Apollinarius believed that Jesus Christ has
fully redeemed humanity. He is the only mediator between God and man, a fact
which led Apollinarius to maintain that if God were a unity, Christ himself
must be a unity. If the divine element were simply united with mankind, we
would have two sons, one of God by nature and the other by adoption. In this
light the flesh of Christ is not added to divinity but constitutes one nature
with the Godhead, a fact which prompted Gregory of Nyssa to write his
treatise against the bishop of Laodicea. Hence the Incarnation showed that a
physical body was joined with the immutable divine Logos. When John said "the
Word became flesh," Apollinarius interpreted this as the Logos taking on
flesh without assuming a human mind, the source of evil and unbecoming
thoughts. For Apollinarius, the Logos is the sole life of Jesus, the God-man,
even down to the physical level. He thereby constitutes one living unity in
whom the soul directs and the body follows this direction. No conflict of
wills is present in this view of Jesus, a basic of the Antiochene school we
have mentioned above and against which Apollinarius rebelled.
根据教会的教导，亚波里拿流相信耶稣基督是一个完全被拯救的人。祂仅仅是神与人间的
中保，这个事实导致亚波里拿流坚称，如果神是一个联合体，基督自己也必须是一个联合
体。如果神圣的元素仅仅与人类联合，我们就有两个儿子，一个的本质是神，另一个是认
养的儿子。基督的肉身在这个看法中，不能被加到神性中，而必须与神格构成一个性质，
这个事实造成女撒的贵格利写下了反对老底嘉主教的神学小册。所以，道成肉身表明物质
的身体与不可改变的神圣之道结合。当约翰说‘道成为肉身’的时候，亚波里拿流诠释为
道取得了肉身，但未曾取得人类的心思，就是邪恶的源头和不相称的思想。对于亚波里拿
流而言，道是耶稣—神人唯一的生命，即便是在物质的层次也是如此。故此，祂构成了一
个活的联合体，魂在其中主导，身体跟随。在这种对于耶稣的看法中，并不存在不同意念
的冲突，这里有一种我们提过的安替阿派的基本院长，亚波里拿流就是反对这种张力。
Apollinarius maintained that the body does not by itself compose a nature
because it is not the source of vivification. On the other hand, the Word
cannot be perceived as a separate nature apart from his incarnate state since
the Lord dwelt with us in the flesh. The Incarnation represents a
self-emptying of the Word in order to assume human flesh; keep in mind,
though, that Christ does not empty himself of mind but there does remain the
mind of the Savior. Nevertheless, the flesh of Christ did not descend to us
from heaven, nor is his flesh on earth consubstantial with God as Gregory of
Nyssa wrongly perceived Apollinarius as teaching; rather, his flesh is God
inasmuch as it is united with divinity to form one person.
亚波里拿流坚信身体本身不能构成一种性质，因为它不是生命的源头。在另一方面，道不
能被视为一个与其成为肉身状态分开的性质，因为主在肉身中住在我们中间。道成肉身代
表道的自我倒空，为的是取得人类的肉身；要记得，虽然如此，基督并没有倒空祂自己的
心思，仍然保留了救主的心思。有鉴于此，基督的肉身并没有从天上降到我们中间，祂在
地上的肉身也不会与神同质，如同女撒的贵格利对亚波里拿流教义的错误理解一样；反而
，祂的肉身就是神，它与神性联合构成一个位格。
Such a doctrine reminds one of Arius who viewed the Son (who was not divine)
as the soul of Christ, whereas Apollinarius denied a rational soul or human
mind to Christ so that the Son would not be open to change, a characteristic
belonging to the created realm. As a consequence, the flesh of Christ is the
very flesh of God which is to be worshipped. While remaining God, the Logos
shares the properties belonging to the flesh, and the flesh, while remaining
flesh in its union with the Godhead, shares the properties belonging to God.
This view offered by Apollinarius safeguards the unity of Word and flesh in
Jesus Christ and demonstrated his full divinity. On the other hand, it
undermined the humanity of Christ. If the divinity assumed the place of the
human mind, how does God touch the rest of mankind? Soul and flesh lacking
intellect (man's most essential component) do not constitute man. The
teaching of Chalcedon towards which the Church was moving would have been
inconceivable for Apollinarius: one person containing two natures. It would
follow that Christ lacked a human mind due to its mutability and hence, its
tendency to sin, and Apollinarius seems to excuse persons who sin with their
minds: he has already demonstrated that even God cannot heal this human mind.
这样的教育让我们想起亚流，他认为子（不是神）是基督的魂，亚波里拿流则否认基督有
理性魂或人类的魂，以至于子不会改变，改变是属于被造领域的特征。这就造成，基督的
肉身就是神的肉身，当被敬拜。在同时，道仍然是神，有份与属于肉身的属性，仍然是肉
身的肉身在于神格的联合中，有份于神的属性。亚波里拿流提供的这个观点保证了道与肉
身在耶稣基督里面的联合，并证明了祂完整的神学。在另一方面，它减低了基督的人性。
如果神性取代了人类心思的位置，神怎么接触其他的人类呢？缺少了理智（人最为不可缺
的构成部分）魂和肉身就不能构成一个人。教会制定迦克顿相关的教义对于亚波里拿流而
言是无法想像的：一个拥有两个性质的位格。这将造成基督因为祂的不可改变而缺少了一
个人类的心思，因此，亚波里拿流看起来因着罪的倾向，排除了用心思犯罪的人类：他已
经表明即便神自己，也无法医治这个人类的心思。
Despite the well-known opposition of Apollinarius to Arius, both men seem to
have possessed a similar Christology in that the Logos replaced the human
soul in Christ. One sometimes wonder whether or not Apollinarius assumed this
view held earlier by Arius and incorporated it into his own teaching(13). He
opposed any reference of human attributes to God, notably mutability, while
at the same time shunning those who may separate human components from God, a
reason for his stress upon the unity of divinity with human flesh.
Apollinarius also came into conflict with a contemporary of his, Diodore of
Tarsus, and both were noted by a tendency to shun allegorical interpretation
of scripture. The fragments of Apollinarius handed down to us reveal his
concern about the tendency of Antiochene Christology as represented by
Diodore to join a man to God. Such a view is more plausible than the one
claiming that Apollinarius borrowed some of his insights from the Arians.
Indeed, there seems to have been a common thread of presuppositions
propagated throughout the area to which Apollinarius had put his own peculiar
interpretation upon them.
即便亚波里拿流因为反对亚流而著名，两人看起来都持一种类似的基督论，就是道取代了
基督里面的人类魂。人们有时候会好奇，亚波里拿流是否采取了早期的亚流论点，并将其
融合进入自己的教义中。他反对任何将人类属性归于神的做法，特别是可改变性（
mutability），在同时，却又回避了那些能够将人类的构成部分从神分离的做法，这是他
强调神性与人类肉身联合的一个原因。亚波里拿流也与当代的Diodore of Tarsus相冲突
，两个人都被发现具有回避寓意解经的张力。流传给我们的亚波里拿流残篇揭示他担心
Diodore所代表安替阿派基督论的张力，将一个人与神联合。这样的观点会比宣称亚波里
拿流从亚流派借用了一些看法更容易让人接受。确实，在那个地区看起来似乎有一种流行
的默认立场，亚波里拿流根据那个立场建构了自己特殊的诠释。
Together with this notion of a common source to Apollinarius and Arius, we
have Muhlenberg's view(14) that Apollinarius desired to contrast Christ as
theos ensarkos, the enfleshed God, with the anthropos entheos, the inspired
man who mediated knowledge of God. Apollinarius stressed the role of the
divine mind as being enfleshed, a notion which appears to have come from his
belief that the personhood of Jesus Christ as being fully identified with God
could not be compromised with any pagan philosophy. The presence of a human
mind in Christ would therefore abolish any distinctive characteristic of
Christianity. The presentation of Apollinarius' actual teaching is extremely
difficult although the work of H. Lietzmann in 1904 have done much to clarify
the issue(15). Although we safely assume from a study of the fragments that
Apollinarius conceived of the Logos taking the place of the human mind in
Jesus Christ at the Incarnation, the real intent of Apollinarius, there
nevertheless remain difficulties as to his exact meaning.
在亚波里拿流和亚流共有的观念的起源基础上，我们就有了Muhlenberg的观点，就是，亚
波里拿流想要将基督凸显为theos ensarkos，被肉身包裹的神（the enfleshed God），
而不是anthropos entheos（在神中的人），一个被神启迪的人，拥有对于神的知识。亚
波里拿流强调被肉身包裹之神圣心思的角色，这个观念看起来是根据他所相信的，耶稣基
督的位格完全与神相等，不能与任何异教徒的哲学妥协。在基督里面的人了心思将会被除
基督教的特性。清楚的展示亚波里拿流的教义是非常的困难的挑战，虽然1904年
Lietzmann已经努力澄清了这个问题。虽然我们能够相当有把握的根据对于各种残篇的研
究，认为亚波里拿流相信道在成为肉身的时候，取代了耶稣基督的心思的位置，彻底了解
亚波里拿流真正的动机并真实的意义仍然是非常是一个难题。
×××××××××××××××××××××××××
这只是介言的第一部分。怕大家没胃口，先贴这么多。
如果有人看完觉得不过瘾，说一声，我再补上来。
再次声明：这就是要公开打那个‘从一个否定大公教会正统的教派
跑出来，没读过大公教会正统，却又打着大公教会正统招摇撞骗的
做法！
当然，欢迎‘该人士’用‘大公教会正统’打回在下！在下脖子洗
干净等著嘞！ ：）））））））
×××××××××××××××××××××××××