由于华人基督教过分强调基督的神性，而轻视，甚至否定基督的人性，
因此具有非常浓厚的‘基督一性论’色彩。(以改革宗和真耶稣教会为
代表。当然，正统改革宗不在此列。特此声明。)这种色彩，事实上跟教
会历史中，基督论的各种非正统教义具有很强的重叠性。基本上，在教
会历史中，否定/轻视基督神性的异端不多，基本上就是：犹太基督教（
伊便尼主义）嗣子说和亚流主义。但是否定/轻视基督人性的异端则一大
堆：幻影论，亚波里拿流主义，欧迪奇主义，一性论，基督一志论等等。
与其和‘后自由主义派的台版三尺士莱马赫’瞎扯，不如好好花时间搞
清楚自己的信仰为何？比较上算。
特此摘录女撒的贵格利所撰写的《驳斥亚波里拿流》的介言二，以飨版
友。
××××××××××××××××××××××××××××
本帖启动安心条款。谢绝本版之具有‘堂堂三尺之躯’的某君
莅临指教。
谢谢合作！
××××××××××××××××××××××××××××
=====================================
驳斥亚波里拿流 介言二
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。
The Treatise Against Apollinarius (also know by its Latin title,
Antirrheticus)(16)
驳斥亚波里拿流教义小册（拉丁文的标题为Antirrheticus）
was composed by Gregory of Nyssa to combat the suspicious teachings of
Apollinarius as represented by excerpts from his Apodeixis. Gregory employs
the likeness of the lost sheep(17) to illustrate his argument against what he
believed was the belief that Christ's flesh preexisted. Prefacing his remarks
to this parable with a quote from Apollinarius he says, "'The man Christ
preexisted not as another Spirit existing apart from him, that is, God;
rather, the Lord had the nature of a divine man while remaining a divine
Spirit" (J.147). The basic message of this text is that the Spirit is
identified with a preexistent man. In other words, the Lord in the nature of
the God-man was the divine Spirit. The rebuttal to this position follows in
J.148: "[Apollinarius] is convinced that Christ became manifest through flesh
from the Virgin not only according to the eternity of his divinity as we
believe, but also according to his flesh which preexisted creation." As we
have said above, this was an incorrect interpretation of Apollinarius'
teaching as fragment 140 offered by Lietzmann indicates(18).
由女撒的贵格利所撰写，以对抗被可疑的亚波里拿流教义，专家根据他的附件摘录了亚波
里拿流的教义。贵格利使用了迷失的羊的图画来描绘他反对他所相信的，基督肉身先存的
信仰。他在引言中特别提及这个引自于亚波里拿流的预表，说，‘作为人的基督并不会像
一个与祂不同的灵，就是神一样，有另一个存有；反而，主具有一个神圣之人的性质，但
仍然是一个神圣的灵’（J.147）。这段话基本的信息是，圣灵就是先存的人。换句话说
，主根据其神—人的性情之就是圣灵。对于这个立场的反驳接着出现在J.148：‘[亚波里
拿流]形象基督藉著从玛利亚而来的肉身被彰显， 不仅仅是根据我们所相信的，祂的神性
的永恒性，也是根据祂那个预先存在的被造的肉身。’就像我们已经说过的，根据
Lietzmann指出的残篇140，这是对于亚波里拿流教义错误的诠释。
Following this passage Gregory of Nyssa continues in an invective tone
against Apollinarius by employing quotations which pertain to Christ's divine
preexistence: "Before Abraham was, I am" [Jn 8.58] and "He existed before me"
[Jn 1.15] (cf. J.148.5 & 7). A bit earlier in his treatise Gregory again
quotes from Apollinarius(19), "Since Christ as God has a soul and body along
with spirit, that is the mind, one may naturally say that he is a man from
heaven" (J.143). This passage is an elaboration upon 1Cor 15.45(20), "The
first man Adam was made a living soul (psuche); the last Adam was made a
life-giving spirit (pneuma)"(21). Apollinarius elaborates upon this verse by
saying, "The second man from heaven is spiritual. This signifies that the man
united with God lacks an intelligence of his own" (J.145). In these two
passages Apollinarius sees a confirmation of his Christology, namely, that
the Logos is unable to be complete by uniting his divinity with humanity.
"What can be clearer? Opposites cannot be united, that is, perfect God with
perfect man" (J.162). Instead, the divine pneuma takes the place of reason,
man's pneuma, in the Incarnation. As Apollinarius states, "But the man
[Christ] did not come from the earth as commonly assumed; rather, God
descended from heaven and united himself to human nature" (J.182). In his
view only this kind of Incarnation is able to guarantee the unity of the
personhood of Christ as well as mankind's redemption(22). This is possible
only because Apollinarius says that Christ has a soul and body along with
spirit (cf. J.143) as a man from heaven. At this juncture we see that
Apollinarius holds that the divine pneuma or nous is man's most important
characteristic: "But he who was crucified was not divine by nature; this did
not belong to him although he is spirit" (J.172). Gregory leaves the choice
of positions up to the readers of his treatise saying "Let a person carefully
judge...whether our opinion which says that the divine glory dwelt in our
land out of love for us, as Apollinarius says, the flesh belonging to God was
not newly acquired out of his bounty but was consubstantial (sunousiomene)
and connatural (sumphutos) with him" (J.154).
女撒的贵格利在这段话后继续使用一些关于基督神圣先存的段落，以一种激烈的语调抨击
亚波里拿流：‘在亚伯拉罕以前，我是’[Jn 8.58]和‘祂存在在我之前’[Jn 1.15]（参
考J.148.5&7）贵格利在教义小册更前面的地方引用了亚波里拿流的话，‘因为基督作为
神，拥有一个魂和身体，并加上灵，就是心思，人们就可以自然的说祂是从天而来的人。
’（J.143）这段话是对于1Cor 15.45详细解说，‘第一个人亚当被造为活的魂（
soul/psuche）；末后的亚当被造为一个赐生命的灵（spirit/pnuema）’。亚波里拿流解
释这段经文说，‘第二个从天上来的人是属灵的。这代表那个与神联合的人缺少自己的的
理智’（J.145）。亚波里拿流在那两段话中肯定了他的基督论，就是，道不能因着将祂
的神性与人性联合而成为完全。‘还有什么能比这段话更清楚？相反的事物不能被联合，
就是完整的神无法与完整的人联合’（J.162）。反而，神圣的pneuma在道成肉身中取代
了理性，人的pneuma的地位。就像亚波里拿流所说的，‘但是，那个人[基督]不是从地而
来的，好像普遍所认为的意义；反而是，神从天降临，亲自与人性联合’（J.182）。在
他的观点中，唯有这种的道成肉身才能更保证基督位格的联合，以及人类的救赎。这可能
仅仅是一位亚波里拿流说基督有一个魂和身体，并一个灵（参考J.143），好像一个从天
而来的人一样。在这个关键点上面，我们看见亚波里拿流坚持神圣的pneuma或nous（理性
）是人最为重要的特征：‘被钉十字架那位的性质不是神圣的；虽然祂是灵，神性并不是
属于祂。’（J.172）贵格利在他的教义小册中让读者选择自己的立场，说，‘让人们仔
细的断定。。。我们论点神圣荣耀因着对我们的爱而住在我们的地上的说法，抑或是像亚
波里拿流所谓的，肉身属于神，并不是因为祂对我们的慷慨取得的，而是与祂同实质（
consubstantial/sunousiomene）并与祂同性质（connatural/sumphutos）’。（J.154）
Gregory of Nyssa uses Eph 1.7 ("in whom we have redemption through his blood,
the forgiveness of sins, according to the richness of his grace") to show
that the divine Logos did not have flesh from all eternity. He then proceeds
with an exquisite exegesis of the lost sheep (Lk 15.5, Mt 18.12) where Christ
is depicted as the good shepherd who becomes one with the sheep he took on
himself. This passage plays a crucial role in Gregory's interpretation of our
redemption and by implication, the Church, since it is composed of those who
have been redeemed by Christ. The essence of his exegesis directed against
Apollinarius reads in J.153, "But having imparted himself to us by his own
body and soul, Christ opened paradise for the thief by destroying the power
of corruption. And the destruction of death renders corruption powerless by
God's life-giving power, for his bounty and grace partake of our human
nature. Thus he who shares both parts [body and soul] unites through his
resurrection that which has been dispersed." This part of his treatise lies
at the close of the paragraph just preceding it where Christ "sanctified the
entire mass of our human nature by that first fruits" (aparche). This word
plays an important role in a short treatise by Gregory(23).
女撒的贵格利使用Eph 1.7（‘我们藉着祂的血得蒙救赎，赦罪，乃是根据祂的恩典’）
表明神圣的道并不是从永远就拥有肉身。他接着论到一种对于迷失的羊（Lk 15.5, Mt
18.1）细腻的解释，基督在该处被描述为好牧人，并成为祂为自己取得的那些羊中的一个
。这段经文在贵格利对于我们的救赎的诠释中占有非常重要的地位，并暗示，由于教会是
由哪些被基督所救赎的人所组成的。他在J.153的解经反对亚波里拿流，‘藉着祂自己的
身体和魂，将祂自己注入到我们里面，基督透过摧毁败坏的权能，为强盗打开了乐园的大
门。摧毁死亡就是借由神赐生命的大能摧毁无能力的人，因为祂的慷慨和恩典有份了我们
的人类性情。所以，祂有份了两个部分[身体和魂]藉著自己的复活，与那失散的人联合。
’他的论文的这个部分根据在之前的一个段落，基督‘藉著那个初熟的果子（aparche）
圣别了我们整个人类。’这个字在贵格利的一篇短篇论文中占有非常重要的地位。
Refer now to J.144 where Prov 9.1 is quoted by Gregory, "'Wisdom built a
house for herself' by forming earth into a man from the Virgin through which
he became united with humanity." This verse is intended to counter
Apollinarius' perception that Christ had human flesh preexisting in heaven as
we have seen earlier. Later on (cf. J.223-24) Gregory speaks of the Virgin as
being the one through whom the First Fruits (aparche) as New Man (Ho kainos
anthropos) must united a human body and soul to himself to redeem all
mankind: "Just as this creative power brings man into existence by a union of
body and soul, so does the power of the Most High exercise itself with regard
to the Virgin's immaculate body in an immaterial fashion through the
vivifying Spirit...He (the New Man, Christ) was formed according to God, not
man, since the divine power equally pervaded his entire constitution. As a
result, both parts of his constitution partook of divinity and had a
harmonious composition of soul and body."
贵格利在J.144引用了箴言9.1，‘智慧为自己造了一个房子，藉著与人类联合， 从童女
把尘土塑造成为一个人。’这段经文是为了反对亚波里拿流所认为的，基督具有一个先存
在天上的人类肉身，就如同我们刚才看见的。贵格利接下来（参考J.223-24）贵格利论到
初熟的果子（aparche）藉著童女成为新人（Ho kaino anthropos），必须将人类的身体
和魂与自己联合以救赎整个人类：‘就像这个创造大能藉著把身体与魂联合，赋予人类存
在，至高者的大能也透过赐生命的灵，以非物质的方式施行在童女洁净无瑕的身体上。。
。。祂（新人，基督）根据神，而不是人，被塑造，因为神圣的能力以同样的方式充满了
祂整个的构成。这就造成，他两个构成的部分都有份神性，具有魂与身体和谐的组成。
In J.151 Gregory accuses Apollinarius of holding that Christ's humanity
preexists and that his Incarnation has no meaning. Here he similarly puts the
bishop of Laodecia in the same impious category of Arius and Eunomius(24).
Against the contention which holds that the Logos had preexistent human
flesh, Gregory says that in the "last days" (ep'eschaton hemeron, implying
Heb 1.2), Christ as first fruits (aparche) bound himself with our earthly,
human nature. Such a union does not suggest that a completion was conveyed to
our human nature through the First Born; rather, it is a completion in both
body and soul. However Gregory does not subscribe to such consubstantiality;
the fact that Christ "who bears the sheep upon himself impresses no trace of
sin nor of going astray" (J.152) signifies that he by nature is separate from
humanity(25).
贵格利在J.151中，抨击亚波里拿流简称基督的人性先存，以至于祂的成为肉身毫无意义
。他在此也以类似的方式把老底嘉的主教归于亚流和Eunomius那一类。为了反抗道具有先
存的人类肉身的观点，贵格利说，在‘末日’（ep'eschaton hemeron，参考Heb 1.2），
基督作为初熟的果子，将祂自己与我们属地的人性联结在一起。那样的联合并不意味着会
完成于藉著第一次出生而结束在我们的人性中；反而，是身体和魂得到完全。然而，贵格
利并不认为那就是同质；基督‘把羊背负在自己身上并不会造成任何一丝的最或悖逆’（
J.152）的事实并不代表祂的性质与人性分离。
R. Hubner says that we should view Eph 1.7 in connection with another verse
from scripture, Heb 2.14(26). This verse lies in the background of J.153-4
where Gregory speaks of Christ as priest and lamb through his passion and
resurrection. He is called "Originator" (archegos) of our life (J.154)
through his priestly activity. Although the body and soul are separated at
the point of death, the former undergoes corruption while the latter remains
incorruptible. As the bishop of Nyssa says, "God resurrected man to union
with him after the separation of body and soul and their subsequent union,
resulting in total salvation for human nature" (J.154). This passage is
intended to counter Apollinarius' claim that the Redeemer maintains a certain
homogeneity with those he has redeemed.
R. Hubner说，我们会把Eph 1.7和Heb 2.14视为两处相关的经文。这段话是J.153-4的背
景，贵格利在该段中论到基督透过祂的受苦和复活是祭司和羔羊。祂透过祂祭司的活动被
称作我们生命的‘起源者（Originator/archegos）’（J.154）。虽然身体和魂在死亡的
时候是分开的，前者经过了败坏，而后者仍然是不败坏的。女撒的主教说，‘在身体和魂
间的联合被分开后，神复活人并与祂联合，造成人性完整的救赎’（J.154）。这段话的
目的是为了反对亚波里拿流宣称的，救赎主仍然保有某种与祂所救赎之人的同质性。