AGAINST APOLLINARIUS
驳斥亚波里拿流
BY
GREGORY OF NYSSA
女撒的贵格利
图片
At this point I wish to set forth the division of Gregory's Treatise Against
Apollinarius as divided into nine sections according to the scheme offered by
Muhlenberg(27):
我要在此根据Muhlenberg的方式，将贵格利的《驳斥亚波里拿流教义小册》分成九段。
1) Introduction: correct perception of the faith is the enlargement of
the flock (Church). J.131-2.
介言：对于信仰的正确观念，是羊群（教会）的扩大J.131-2
2) Against Apollinarius' claim that in Jesus God had suffered death,
Gregory counters with his own teaching that in Jesus, both divinity and
humanity are clearly distinguished. J.133-47.
反对亚波里拿流宣称的，神在耶稣里忍受了死亡，贵格利用他自己的教义反驳，就是在基
督里的神性和人性明显的是不同的J.133-47
3) Against the claim of the eternity of Christ's physical body, Gregory
maintains that the Incarnation occurred within space and time. Christ assumed
our humanity and raised it up. J.147-62.
为了反对宣称基督物质的身体具有永恒性，贵格利简称道成肉身发生在时空中。基督取了
我们的人性，并使其复活。J.147-62
4) Christ's humanity is essentially human nature. He did not lack reason.
J.162-84.
基督的人性比然是人类的性质。祂不缺少理性。J.162-84
5) Against Apollinarius' contention that Christ was an enfleshed mind (nous
ensarkos), Gregory teaches the distinction of two natures in the Redeemer.
J.185-94.
反对亚波里拿流相信的，基督是一个被肉身包裹的心思（nous ensarkos），贵格利教导
在救主里面两性的分离。J.185-94
6) Against the doctrine that Christ lacked reason, Gregory shows that all
capacity for virtue which Jesus shows to mankind requires reason for it to
function. J.194-9.
反对基督缺少理性的教义，贵格利表明所有基督向人类展现出的美德都需要理性作为基础
。J.194-9
7) Gregory demonstrates against Apollinarius the unity of Christ's divine
nature in the Incarnation and teaches that Christ is composed of two
different natures, not simply one. J.199-208.
贵格利向亚波里拿流证明，酒店在道成肉身中神性的联合，并教导基督是有两个不同的性
质，组成的，而不是仅仅拥有一个性质。J.199-208
8) Gregory shows that a trichotomist understanding of human nature cannot be
applied to Christ, that Christ is perfect man and perfect God, and that after
the resurrection Christ's humanity is transformed as well as ours. J.208-30.
贵格利表明三元论的理解不能被用作基督身上，基督是完整的人也是完整的神，基督的人
性在复活后就如同我们的一样被变化。J.208-30
9) Conclusion: the Apollinarist significance of Christ's passion must be
avoided. Gregory concludes with a brief passage from Apollinarius. J.230-33.
结论：亚波里拿流主义认为必须回避基督的受苦。贵格利根据亚波里拿流的一段简单的话
做出结论。J.230-33
As Muhlenberg correctly says, this outline does not bring out all the fine
points of Apollinarius' theology. Gregory has taken a thematic approach to
Apodeixis and attempts to see their inner unity that he may counter with an
orthodox position.
正如同Muhlenberg正确论到的，这个大纲并不能涵盖所有亚波里拿流神学的细微之处。贵
格利采取主题式的方式处理《Apodeixis》并尝试发觉它们的内在联合性，以至于他能够
以正统的立场对抗之。
For Apollinarius, any form of union with Christ which combines the divine
Logos with a human soul leads to submerging the human in the divine and
therefore to a loss of freedom on our part. Gregory often touches upon this
critical notion of freedom in his treatise as in J.141: "This faculty [free
choice] belongs to the mind and is not found among infants. How can a person
[referring to Apollinarius] who opposes and reduces free will to servility
lack a mind?" As Gregory later says in this same section, the freedom to
chose is what is most noble in man, and for Christ to lack such a choice, as
Apollinarius would have it in his theology, is an offensive interpretation of
scripture. Yet it is paradoxical that Apollinarius decided to oppose the
Antiochene tendency to stress this freedom of choice. Such a faculty is free
yet weak. "How, as [Apollinarius] says, can flesh be joined to God without
coercion and share in pure virtue? For who does not know that the correct
action of free choice is virtue? The flesh is a vehicle of free choice led by
the impulse of discretion, for free choice would be nothing if it were not
for mind and disposition" (J.197-8). Just below this passage (J.199), Gregory
defends this faculty in face of Apollinarius' belief that it is swallowed up
into Christ's divinity: "Not only is the mind in man but it is more noble
than everything else. The free, unconstrained inclination for the good is a
perfect witness to the mind" (J.199).
对于亚波里拿流而言，在任何基督的联合形式中把神的道与一个人类的魂联合就会导致人
被融入神之中，因而失去了我们这个部分的自由。贵格利往往在他的论文中触及这个关键
的，关于自由的观念，就像J.141所说的：‘这个官能[自由选择]属于心思，不属于婴儿
。一个人[指的是亚波里拿流]怎么能够反对并消减自由意志到缺乏心思呢？’就如同贵格
利在同一段话中接下来说的，选择的自由就是人类中最为尊贵的部分，而基督缺少了那种
选择的能力，就如同亚波里拿流在他的神学里面所认为的，是一种对于圣经侵犯性的诠释
。然而，亚波里拿流决定反对安替阿的张力，而具有强调这种自由选择的矛盾。那样的观
念是自由的，但仍然是软弱的。‘如何，能够像[亚波里拿流]所说的，肉身能够在不被强
迫并有份纯洁的美德的情况下，与神联合？因为谁不知道根据自由选择的正确行动就是美
德？肉身是由慎重选择的脉动领导的自由选择的载具，因为自由选择如果缺少了心思和倾
向，就没有意义。’（J.197-8）在这段话后面（J.199），贵格利在亚波里拿流的信念前
捍卫这个被基督的神性吞没的官能：‘那不仅仅在人里面的心思而已，而是比任何其他部
分更为尊贵的部分。自由，不受限制的向着善的倾向是心思最完美的见证。’（J.199）
The kind of union espoused by Apollinarius stems from his Platonist view of
man's soul as the principle of life which distinguishes it from the inanimate
realm. Here all sentient beings, human beings and animals, possess a soul, so
there is nothing especially distinctive in this faculty. On the other hand,
spirit (pneuma) comes directly from God, the means by which man perceives
intelligible realities, and sets him off from the beasts. Because this spirit
is divine in origin it has a natural similarity for the Holy Spirit which can
easily take the place of a man without distorting his humanity. And when this
view is shifted to the incarnate Christ, Apollinarius presents us with a
divine man incapable of mutability and therefore of choice. Granted this is
an attractive solution for a problem with which we are all familiar. Keeping
in mind Apollinarius' Platonic view, he transferred the notion of the
spirit's escape from the material realm to our resurrection in Christ. As a
result, he could depict Christ as have one (divine) will without peril to
either his divinity or humanity. Apollinarius taught that in Christ the human
spirit as distinct from soul was substituted by the indwelling Holy Spirit of
the Logos.
亚波里拿流源自于他的柏拉图主义对于人的魂和生命的原则的观点，所拥护的这种联合，
将它从无生命的领域分别出来。人类和动物，所有具有感觉的存有都拥有一个魂，所以在
这个官能里面并没有任何特别不同的事物。在另一方面，灵（pneuma）直接从神而来，人
们藉著这个功能能够理解理性的实体，让他与野兽分别出来。因为这个灵的起源是神圣的
，它的性质与圣灵类似，能够简单的在人类占据一个位置而不会干扰人的人性。当这个观
点转向成为肉身的基督的时候，亚波里拿流向我们展示一个神圣的、不会改变的人，因此
，也没有所谓的选择能力。这对于我们都熟悉的问题而言，这是一个有吸引力的解决方案
。我们要记得，亚波里拿流的柏拉图观点，他将灵逃离物质领域的观念嫁接到基督的复活
。这就造成，他能够将基督描绘为拥有（神圣的）意志而不会危及祂的神性或人性。亚波
里拿流教导在基督里面人的灵与魂不同，被道之圣灵的内住所取代。
By denying a rational soul to Christ Apollinarius came to the conclusion that
Jesus was devoid of human nature. On the other hand, he bestowed him with an
irrational soul (animal nature). It seems that the irrational body of Christ
lacks the dignity of a nature but has some form of reality. The combination
in his person of divinity and this irrational body is a mixture (mixis)
resulting in something new unlike either of the constituent parts.
Wolfson(28) believes that this belief has its roots in Greek chemistry,
especially in Aristotle's conception of predominance reflected in
Apollinarius. This means that the union of the irrational soul with the
Logos, the latter retains its nature but the irrational soul does not, just
its quality. When applied to the personhood of Jesus Christ, Apollinarius
claims that the divine nature of the Logos became incarnate in him while his
body retained its irrational soul and therefore suffer. It seems that Gregory
of Nyssa misunderstood Apollinarius on these grounds, saying that "the
Only-Begotten Son's divinity is mortal and...that his impassible, immutable
nature is subject to change and passion" (J.136).
亚波里拿流藉著否定基督拥有一个理性的魂，就造成耶稣缺乏人性的结论。在另一方面，
他赋予祂一个非理性的魂（动物的性质）。这看起来基督非理性的身体缺乏一种性质的尊
严，而仅仅只有某种实体的形式。在祂神性位格并非理性身体中的结合是一个混合物（
mixis），造成某种新的，与两个构成部分的事物。Wlfson相信这个信念根植于希腊人的
化学，特别是在亚波里拿流思想中占主导地位亚里斯多德的观念。这意味着非理性魂和道
的联合，使得后者保留它的本质但理性魂并没有，仅仅保留了其质量。当应用到耶稣基督
的位格上的时候，亚波里拿流宣称道的神性在祂里面成为肉身，在同时，祂的身体仍然保
留了非理性魂，因此受苦。女撒的贵格利看起来似乎在那些立场上误解了亚波里拿流，说
，‘低声儿子的神性是会死的。。。祂不可受苦，不可改变的性质变成能改变并能受苦的
。’（J.136）
Apollinarius shifted from a trichotomist (J.186-7) anthropology to account
for references in scripture to Christ's soul to a dichotomist position in the
face of criticism. Here he has the Logos taking the place of the human
intellect in Christ while retaining an irrational soul as Wolfson has pointed
out just above. Apollinarius' Apodeixis naturally follows into the former
stage of his development where the Logos takes the place of pneuma or nous in
Christ's humanity. Both the trichotomist and dichotomist phases of
Apollinarius have as their common feature a stress on the Logos as governing
principle and the passivity of the flesh, only the former group of writings
gives more attention to the Logos as the soul ruler of the flesh. These terms
were more popular in nature and did not belong to any particular school of
philosophy. Both phases do not lack the so-called communicatio idiomatum or
exchange of properties. As Grillmeier has noted(29), this is not merely a
logical-ontological matter for Apollinarius; rather, it acquires depth only
if one plays close attention, as did Apollinarius, to the two kinds of being.
亚波里拿流在面对批判的时候，从三元人论（J.186-7）根据圣经关于基督的魂的描述转
为二元论的立场。在此，他用道取代基督里面人类理性的位置，在同时仍然保留非理性魂
，就如同Wolfson前面刚刚指出的。亚波里拿流的《Apodeixis》很自然的就会跟随前一个
发展步骤，道取代了基督人性里面的pneuma（灵）或nous（心思）的地位。亚波里拿流的
三元论和二元论时期都强调道作为被动的肉身的主要管理原则，只有前一组的作品较为桌
子道做肉身之魂的管理者。那些名称都是通用的，不属于任何一个特定的哲学学派。两个
时期都不缺少所谓‘communiatio idiomatum’或属性相通（exchange of properties）
。就像Grillmeier所指出的，这不仅仅是亚波里拿流的逻辑—本体（
logical-ontological）的问题；反而，如果读者如同亚波里拿流一样仔细，据需要深入
了解两种的存有。
It is clear from the excerpts selected by Gregory of Nyssa in his treatise
that Apollinarius takes his anthropology from the authority of St. Paul. The
bishop of Laodicea finds the text 1Thes 5.23 especially crucial for his
trichotomous position(30) even though Paul in other places speaks of a
dichotomous soul-body relationship. In Gregory's words, "[Apollinarius]
says...that the flesh is not inanimate, for this shows the spirit to be a
third entity in addition to soul and body. 'If man consists of these three
elements, the Lord is a man. Therefore, the Lord consists of three elements,
spirit, soul, and body'" (J.209). R. Norris says that the division into
dichotomy and trichotomy may be detected in Apollinarius' special used of St.
Paul's pneuma-sarx expression. He points out references in Paul suggesting
that these two aspects are not to be taken as implying a split in the
constitution of a person(31). It seems that for Apollinarius, the Pauline
division of flesh-spirit points to a person's humanity and enables one to
describe the composition of the Logos after the Incarnation when he assumed
human nature.
对于专家而言，女撒的贵格利的论文的节录表明他的人论乃是根据保罗。老底嘉的主教发
现帖前5：23对于他的三元人论的立场非常重要，虽然保罗在其他地方提及魂—身体的二
元关系。用贵格利的话，‘[亚波里拿流]说。。。肉身不是被动的，因为这表明灵是在魂
与身体外的第三个个体。如果人由哪三个元素构成，主就是一个人故此，主由灵、魂和身
体三个部分构成。’（J.209）R. Norris说，我们可以从亚波里拿流使用保罗的灵—肉体
的表述中察觉到二元论和三元的分野。他指出保罗著作的出处，认为那两个方面不能被当
作暗示人论组成的分歧。似乎对于亚波里拿流而言，保罗把人格的人性区分肉体—灵的重
点，并使得读者能够描绘道在成为肉身取得人性的时候，祂的组成部分。
(译者：作者在此处因着某种原因过分强调亚波里拿流的三元论立场。但是，根据Fourth
Century 网站提供的Lietzmann文献的英文翻译，亚波里拿流使用二元论的次数要远高于
三元论。由此可见作者的二元论默认立场。Lietzmann的中文翻译可参考
theologychina.weebly.com的相关部分。)
It seems that in his zeal to defend the orthodox position Gregory of Nyssa
had misunderstood Apollinarius on this important point; he failed to see that
the bishop of Laodicea was attempting to formulate his Christological and
anthropological views. For Apollinarius, spirit in the case of Christ means
the Holy Spirit while in a human person it refers to a created spirit. It
must be kept in mind that he was assailing the Antiochene tendency to
perceive Christ in a dualistic fashion and desired to stress the unity
between nature and person. It seems that any reflection upon the teaching of
Apollinarius which is based upon unclear textual evidence such as the
excerpted sections in Gregory's treatise must be treated with caution.
Gregory seems to have overlooked the fact that Apollinarius intended to
perceive the flesh assumed by Christ and incorporated into his person was not
from eternity but formed a composite whole beginning at the Incarnation.
似乎女撒的贵格利为了捍卫正统地位的热诚，在这个重要的点上误解了亚波里拿流：他没
有看见老底嘉的主教尝试公式化他的基督论和人论观点。对于亚波里拿流而言，在基督里
面的灵意味着圣灵，同时在一个人类位格中，灵指的是一个被造的灵。我们必须记得，他
正在攻击安替阿认为基督具有一种双元的架构的长力，想要强调性质和位格间的联合。似
乎任何反应亚波里拿流教义的做法都是根据模糊的本文证据，就如同在贵格利的教义小册
中引用的很多段落一样，需要小心的处理。贵格利看起来忽视了亚波里拿流想要认为基督
取得并并入其位格的肉身并不是从永远而来的，而是在道成肉身的一开始就被塑造成为一
种由不同部分组成的存有。
The insistence Apollinarius places upon the singularity of the divine Logos
after the Incarnation does not imply, as Prestige has remarked(32), that he
was a Monophysite. Although Gregory of Nyssa (as well as Gregory of
Nazianzus) accuse Apollinarius of teaching that Christ's human nature
preexisted, Scholars like Raven(33) have shown that this accusation was not
justified because a clearer appreciation of Apollinarius' position has
evolved from the fragments which have survived. Apollinarius says that "from
the beginning" the Incarnation involves two aspects, a human birth and a
heavenly descent. Gregory of Nyssa has taken the phrase "from the beginning"
as from the beginning of creation, giving rise to a misrepresentation of
Apollinarius' theology. Actually the bishop of Laodicea means that the human
body in Christ has come to participate in God's uncreatedness; Christ is
termed the heavenly Man because he descended from heaven to become man. It
seems that if Apollinarius is to be accused of heresy, it lies in his belief
that the divine spirit of God the Son was substituted in Christ for a human
mind. In other words, when God took human flesh, this is exactly the position
of Apollinarius; his battle with the Antiochene school prevented the bishop
of Laodicea to allow for any possible duality in the personhood of Christ. If
the flesh is dismissed from having a role, it follows that the soul too plays
no part in Christ and therefore by extension, to our salvation. In this case
the famous dictum of Gregory of Nazianzus holds true: "that which has not
been assumed has not been healed."
亚波里拿流坚持在神圣的道成为肉身后的特异性并不意味，就像Prestige特别之处的，他
是一性论者（Monophysite）。虽然女撒的贵格利（并拿先斯的贵格利）抨击亚波里拿流
教导基督人性先存，像Raven这样的学者展现这个抨击并不公平，因为一种更为明确的、
对亚波里拿流立场的评估已经从现有的残篇中逐渐发展出来。亚波里拿流说‘从起初（
from the beginning）’，道成肉身牵涉到两个方面，一个人类的出生和一个属天的降临
。女撒的贵格利则认为‘从起初’指的是创造的起初，造成对于亚波里拿流神学的误解。
老底嘉的主教的意思实际上是，在基督里人类的身体有份于神的非创造性（
uncreatedness）；基督本成作属天的人（heavenly Man）乃是因为祂从天降下成为一个
人。如果亚波里拿流被批判为异端，乃是根据他相信神儿子的神圣之灵在基督里取代了人
的心思。换句话说，当神取得人类的肉身的时候，这就是亚波里拿流的立场；与安替阿学
派的战斗阻挠了老底嘉的主教承认基督的位格具有任何的双重性。如果肉身不具有任何的
角色，就会造成魂在基督里也没有地位，这就延伸到我们的救赎。这就使得拿先斯的贵格
利著名的宣言成为正确的：‘凡没有被取得的，就没有得到医治。’
In the words of Walter Kasper(34), Apollinarianism is essentially a
Hellenization of the Christian faith where God and man form one living whole
in Jesus Christ. God becomes part of the world and a principle within this
world whereas the coming of God's reign in Jesus Christ means that both
freedom and salvation for mankind is inverted. That is to say, God and man
impose limits upon each other and are mutually exclusive. The Church had been
influenced by Apollinarianism when it emphasized Christ's divinity to the
detriment of his humanity. In the course of time, devotion to the Virgin Mary
and saints took on a more prominent role to act as mediators between us and
Christ.
用Walter Kasper的话说，亚波里拿流主义根本上是一种希罗化的基督教信仰，神和人在
基督里面构成了一个活动实体。神成为世界的一部分，并这个世界中的原理，以至于神在
耶稣基督里临及世界的管制意味着倒转了人类的自由意志和救赎。也就是说，神和人强加
在彼此身上的限制对于相互而言都是排外的。当教会强调基督的神性以至于损伤其人性的
时候，就受到亚波里拿流主义的影响。在历史中，对于童女玛利亚和圣徒的献身具有突出
的角色，让他们成为我们和基督间的中保。
The controversy with Apollinarius cen
ters around the interpretation of Lk 1.35, "The Holy Spirit will come upon
you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you." This verse is
employed in J.139 and is used as a rebuttal to Apollinarius' statement, "If
the Son of Man is from heaven and Son of God from woman, how can he be both
God and man?' I believe that Christ is both man and God...for neither is the
divinity earthly nor is humanity divine; rather the power of the Most High
comes from above through the Holy Spirit which overshadowed our human
nature." As M. Canevet has observed(35), it is the notion of power (dunamis)
as perceived in Christ's humanity which saves mankind. This commands the
vision which Gregory of Nyssa has of the personhood of Jesus Christ.
Gregory's chief theme which runs through all his theology is to guard
Christ's divine attributes. With this fundamental principle in mind, we can
see that for the bishop of Nyssa the notion of becoming is applied not so
much to God becoming man but of man becoming God in Christ. This latter
principle helps to explain his stress upon the new creation. In a beautiful
passage dealing with the Incarnation (J.225-26) based upon Lk 1.35 as stated
above, Gregory of Nyssa understands the human nature of Christ in reference
to his salvific mission.
与亚波里拿流的争议环绕着对于Lk 1.35的诠释，‘圣灵要临到你身上，至高者的能力要
荫庇你。’这段经文被J.139引用以驳斥亚波里拿流所宣称的，‘如果人的儿子是从天而
来而神的儿子从人而来，祂怎么可能同时是神又是人？我相信基督同时是人又是神。。。
因为神性不是属地的，人性不是神圣的；反而，至高者的能力从天上透过圣灵覆蓋我们的
人性。’就像M. Canevet观察到的，这是一种在基督的人性中察觉到拯救人性的能力（
dunamis）的观念。贵格利整个神学的主轴是要保卫基督的神圣属性。基于这个基本的观
念，我们就能够看见对于女撒的主教而言，成为的观念不能那么强的使用在神成为人的观
念上，而当用人在基督里成为神的观念。后面的原则就能够解释他强调新造的原因。在一
段根据Lk 1.35，以非常美丽的方式处理上述道成肉身问题的段落中（J.225-226），女撒
的贵格利以基督救赎的任务来理解其人性。
* * * * *

.