AGAINST APOLLINARIUS
驳斥亚波里拿流
BY
GREGORY OF NYSSA
女撒的贵格利
图片
The Text
本文
[M.1124 & J.131] An appropriate way of beginning our treatise is to quote our
Lord who bids us to "beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's
clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know
them" (Mt.7.15-16). If fruit can discern the true sheep from the rapacious
one which surreptitiously creeps into the company of the flock disguised in
our human form, it can reveal the enemy hidden among us. We must therefore
discern the good fruit from the bad in order to expose the [enemy's]
deception. As the text says, "By their fruit you shall know them." In my
judgment, the good fruit of any teaching augments the Church with persons who
have been saved while more pernicious, harmful individuals belong with those
headed for destruction. If a person increases his flock through preaching
[M.1125], extends to everyone the vine growing on the sides of his house
[Ps.127.3], plants cultivated olives around the Lord's table which were once
wild, places mystic branches into the sweet, flowing streams of doctrine
which increase the flocks and diminishes Laban's possession while Jacob's
abounds with [J.132] superior offspring [Gen 30.38], should this person
manifest the fruit of his own teaching, (such fruit, as it is said, is growth
in the truth), indeed he is a prophet who exercises interpretation by God's
spirit. But if anyone plucks the vine's twigs, he uproots the plant around
the divine table, brings it to desolation and withholds spiritual waters so
that the sheep cannot conceive [by eating] the patriarch's tender green
branches and abound with superior offspring. Instead, the sheep stray from
nourishing pastures, that is, from the traditions of the fathers, lodge
outside the fold, and are dispersed throughout alien pastures. When the fruit
of such a teaching brings about this situation, the form of a wolf now hiding
under a sheep's skin will show itself.
[M.1124 & J.131]我们的教义小册当以引用我们的主，那位督促我们‘小心进到你们中间
，披着羊皮但里面是残忍之狼的假先知’（Mt. 7.15-16）的话作为开始。如果我们能够
根据果子把真正的羊从贪婪的人中间本别出来，贪婪的人假扮成为我们人类的样子偷偷摸
摸的潜入羊群中，这样就能够揭发躲在我们里面的敌人。故此，我们必须把好果子从坏果
子中分别出来，好曝露[敌人的]诡计。就像经文所说的，‘但是你们能够根据他们的果子
认识他们。’根据我的判断，那些被拯救的人就会产生任何良善的，对于教会的论点的好
果子；同时，那些更为有毒，有害的个人属于那些朝向灭亡的人。如果一个人透过传福音
，使得他的羊群的数目增加，让他家旁边的葡萄树延伸到每一个人家里面，在主的桌子旁
边种植曾经是野橄榄树，但是变成好的橄榄树，他就是把奥秘的枝子接入甜美的，流动的
教义中，可以增加羊群的数目，消减拉班的财产，是的雅各的财产丰饶[J.132]及其满溢
的流出[Gen 30.38]，这样的人就能够彰显出他的教义的果子，（那样的果子，就如同经
上说的，是从真理中长出来的，）他确实是一个先知，操练藉著神的灵诠释神的话。但是
，如果任何人拔掉葡萄树的嫩枝，他把神圣桌子旁的植物连根铲除，使其荒凉，扣住了属
灵的水，以至于羊群不能[藉著吃]想像父所有的青嫩枝条，并因着及其丰盛的涌泉而繁增
。羊反而离开了滋润的操场，就是离开了教父们的传统，流浪在羊群之外，并在陌生的草
上上郁郁寡欢。当一种教义造成这样的果子的时候，藏在羊皮之下狼的形状就被曝露出来
。
Let us now examine the teachings of Apollinarius of Syria, to see whether
they increase or decrease the flock, gather the dispersed or scatter those
who have been gathered, and whether or not they support or manifest hostility
towards the teachings of the fathers. If [Apollinarius] in his enthusiasm has
something better in mind, he is indeed a sheep, not a wolf. However, the Lord
tells us, "beware of false prophets." This warning is intended to make us
watchful for any slanderous, destructive mouth which approaches with the
teeth of novel doctrines to lacerate God's holy body, the Church. That our
words do not appear hostile, we now present the teaching [of Apollinarius]
whose inscription reads, "Proof of the divine incarnation according to the
likeness of man." Perhaps a correct understanding of this inscription may
dispense the need to disprove the absurdity of [Apollinarius'] teaching.
现在让我们检视叙利亚的亚波里拿流的教义，看看它们是增加了？还是消减了羊群？是聚
集了忧伤的人，还是驱散被聚集的人？他们对于教父们的教义是支持？抑或是展现出敌意
？如果，[亚波里拿流]有任何的善意，他就是一只羊，不是狼。然而，主告诉我们，‘要
提防假先知’。这个警告为的是让我们小心任何毁谤的，毁灭性的嘴巴，他们用炮制出来
的神奇教义的牙齿，撕裂神的神圣身体，教会。我们的话语并不带有任何的敌意，我们如
今展现[亚波里拿流的]教义，其标题为，‘根据人的样式，证明神圣的道成肉身。’对于
这个标题的正确理解或许满足否定[亚波里拿流]教义荒谬之处的需要。
[J.133] [The inscription to Apollinarius' treatise] reads, "the proof of the
divine incarnation according to the likeness of man." We should summon divine
scripture to rebuke the coinage of this new expression: "The word became
flesh" (Jn.1.14), "his glory has dwelt in our land" (Ps.84.10) and "God has
become manifest in the flesh" (1Tim.3.16). Each verse [M.1128] informs us of
the divinity whose substance remains unchangeable, immutable amid change and
unalterable that [God] might cure in his own immutable nature our inclination
towards evil. And so [Apollinarius] states that God did not appear in the
flesh, that is, the Word did not become flesh, the very One who was in the
likeness of man and who shared the same pattern of our human life by assuming
a slave's form. Instead he maintains that the Word impressed itself upon some
form of divine flesh. I do not know what [Apollinarius] means here. Either
the divinity is mutable and changes into the dense nature of flesh from its
simple, uncompounded nature or the divine substance, while remaining itself,
appears as another divine incarnation within the confinements of the human
and divine natures. The result is neither man nor God but something which
participates in both. Such an incarnation is connatural with our humanity,
yet the divinity is certainly more noble than this humanity. But this cannot
be God, for the divinity is simple and uncomposite by nature; when simplicity
is absent, the divinity is likewise absent. Yet man is not something contrary
to this, for he is composed of a body and a rational soul. If we cannot
understand these two components, then how can we use the name "man?" When
speaking of man's body and soul, we consider each part respectively. The
combination of these two elements constitute what we call a man. If the
divine [J.134] incarnation yields neither man nor God, something which the
author [Apollinarius] has devised in his inscription, we are unable to locate
it.
[J.133][亚波里拿流教义小册的标题]是这样，‘根据人的样式，证明神圣的道成肉身。
’我们应当引用圣经的经文来驳斥这个新说法的荒谬之处：‘道成为肉身’（Jn. 1.14）
，‘祂的荣耀住在我们的地上’（Ps. 84.10）并‘神在肉身中被显现’（1 Tim. 3.16）
。每一处经文[M.1128]都告诉我们祂所拥有的神格是不会改变，不会变化并是固定不变的
，以至于[神]能够在祂自己不可改变的性质中医治我们向着邪恶的倾向。[亚波里拿流]也
说神并不会在肉身中显现，道并未成为肉身，就是那位在人的样式中并藉著取了一个奴仆
的形象，而有份与我们的人类生活的模式的。我不知道[亚波里拿流在]此处的意义是什么
。神格从祂纯一（simple）的性质，非组成的性质，或神圣的实质变化并改变成为肉身稠
密的性质，同时仍然是祂自己，看起来就像另一个在神性与人性中包裹的神圣的道成肉身
。这就造成一个非人又非神的、有份两者的某个东西。那样的道成肉身与我们的人性同性
质（connatural），然而神格肯定比这个人性更为尊贵。但是，这不可能是神，因为神格
是纯一，其性质不是由部件构成的（uncomposite）；当失去纯一性的时候，神格也同样
消失了。然而，人并不是某种与这相对的事物，因为他又一个身体和一个理想魂组成的。
如果我们不能理解那两个部分，那么我们怎么能够使用‘人’这个词呢？当论到人的身体
和魂的时候，我们用不同的方式思考每一个部分。那两个元素的结合，构成了我们所谓的
人。如果神圣的[J.134]道成肉身产生的既不是人，也不是神，是某种由作者[亚波里拿流
]在他的灵感中炮制出来的东西，我们不能在圣经中找到它。
"A proof of the divine incarnation according to the likeness of man." What
does this phrase mean, "according to the likeness of man?" That the divine
Incarnation is in accord with human nature. When does this come about? On the
last day? And what about the mystery of [Mary's] virginity? The Lord does not
assume flesh according to man's likeness as our author would like; rather,
the divine power and the Holy Spirit effects this in accord with the Gospel
[Lk. 1.26f]. Does the Incarnation occur before the ages? How can being be
compared to non-being? Man is situated is at the end of all creation while
the Lord is king before the ages. If he existed before all ages, to whose
human image was the divine incarnation made? Adam's? He did not yet exist. To
the likeness of another man? What is this man fashioned before Adam to whom
the divine incarnation is compared? For that [M.1129] is indeed similar to
being but dissimilar to non-being. And so two absurdities appear in
Apollinarius' doctrine: either some created thing is older than its Maker or
the divinity which became incarnate is compared to non-being. The divinity
was in the beginning, not Adam. If the divine nature became incarnate
according to man's likeness, it is compared to something which lacks being;
however, that which is compared to non-being would be composed of nothing at
all. But [Apollinarius] says that the Incarnation occurs in a manner
different from the human one. And what is that likeness composed of two
different natures? If [Apollinarius] denies the divine Incarnation according
to man as existing before the ages as well as at the end of time, that is,
our Lord's dispensation for mankind when God manifested himself [J.135] in
the flesh, the Incarnation is according to the likeness of man (We cannot
maintain this position regarding the mystery of [Mary's] virginity). Both
notions as expressed in the inscription to the treatise would be invalid.
Because his inscription is ill-conceived and unsatisfactory, I believe that
we can adequately clarify this fact by his words, provided we understand them
carefully.
‘根据人的样式，一个神圣道成肉身的证明。’这句话，‘根据人的样式’，是什么意思
？神圣的道成肉身根据的就是人性。不然还会使什么？岂不是在末日？那么童女[玛利亚]
的童真又是什么？主并不是根据人的样式取得人性，好像我们的作者所声称的；反而，圣
灵的神圣能力根据福音[Lk 1.26f]影响了这一切。难道道成肉身发生在万世之前？一个存
在的事物如何能够被拿来与不存在的事物相比较？人被放置在所有创造的最后一个，而主
是在万世之前的王。如果祂存在在万世之前，神圣的道成肉身又是根据那个人类的形像呢
？亚当的？他根本还不存在。根据另一个人的样式？神圣的道成肉身要跟这个在亚当前就
被塑造的人比较吗？因为那与存有相似，与非存有不同。[M.1129]所以，在亚波里拿流的
教义中有两个荒谬之处：若不是某种被造之物比它的创造者更古老，就是成为肉身的神格
被拿去和不存在的事物作比较。神格，而不是亚当，从起初就存在。若神性根据人的样式
成为肉身，祂就被拿来跟缺少存有的某个事物比较；然而，被拿来与不存在的事物作比较
的，应当也被不存在的事物所构成才对。但是，[亚波里拿流]说，道成肉身发生的过程与
人类不同。那个由两个不同的性质所构成的样式是什么？如果[亚波里拿流]否认根据人的
神圣的道成肉身在万世前就存在，也不会持续到时间的终了，就是当我们的主亲自
[J.135]显现在肉身中，为了人类的那个分赐，道成肉身就是根据人的样式（我们不能在
这个立场上坚持关于[玛利亚]童真的奥秘）。两个观点都被表明在那个将被否定的教义小
册的标题中。因为他的标题是病态的，无法令人满意，我相信我们能够藉着他自己的话厘
清这个事实，并证明我们仔细的理会那个事实。
It is now time to clarify by close examination the subject of this
inscription. I will briefly paraphrase the opening words of [Apollinarius']
treatise, paying attention to their meaning while omitting any point that may
be innocuous or not worth exploring. "Only a pious faith is worth practicing,
for Eve lacked the benefit of a faith not subject to inquiry. It behooves
Christians to be inquisitive and not to be imprudently unmindful of the
opinions which belong to the Greeks and Jews." These sentiments are expressed
in many places of the treatise's opening words: "Both the faithless and
heretics claimed that God neither become man nor was subject to human
passions. Some heretics appropriate the form of our faith by claiming that
Christ assumed a divinized man through a birth from a woman and through
sufferings." [Apollinarius] was indeed familiar with certain heresies which
claimed that Christ was a divinized man and may have known their source. For
our part, we have travelled widely and have met persons who share teachings
in common with ours and who confess their faith when confronted with
individuals who disagree and inquire about the Word [of God]. We have not yet
heard from [Apollinarius] who makes inflammatory statements about the mystery
[of faith], namely, that Christ was [M.1132] a divinized man. Therefore, we
ought to correct the [J.136] false opinions of his teachings, introducing in
their place notions more amenable to the faith. In this way, one may refrain
from devising non-existent teachings and to resist anything insubstantial;
however, a person should defend himself with appropriate responses against
reprisals. Skilled physicians do not apply their art to non-existing ailments
but their knowledge serves to heal persons who are already sick. Let it be
known that God did not appear in the flesh but that Christ was a divinized
man; then we will find some value in his tract. However, once we discover the
extent of his illness, it would be useless to ascribe to all his
insubstantial teachings and become involved with such errors.
我们如今要仔细的检验这个标题。我将会简要的描述[亚波里拿流的]教义小册子的引言，
请注意它们的意义，同时忽视任何无害或不值得讨论的点。‘唯有敬虔的信仰值得我们传
扬，因为夏娃缺少了一个不好奇四处探究之信仰的帮助。基督徒不应当四处探究，也不应
当对于属于希腊人和犹太人的那些观念毫不警惕。’在那个小册的引言中不懂出现那样的
话：‘没有信仰的人和异端们宣称神并没有成为人，也没有人类的情感。有些异端藉著宣
传基督透过从一个女人的出生并透过受苦，取得了一个被神圣化的人（a divinized man
），而窃取了我们信仰的模式。’[亚波里拿流]确实与某些宣传基督是一个被神圣化的人
的异端非常类似，甚至可能知道他们的源头。对于我们这部分，我们四处游行，并预计那
些与我们同享一个信仰，并在与某些否定并追究[神的]道的各人冲突的时候，承认他们的
信仰的人。我们并没有直接从那位发表关于[信仰的]煽动言论的，就是基督是一个
[M.1132]被神圣化的人的[亚波里拿流]听见任何回应。因此，我们应当纠正[J.136]他的
教义的错误观点，以更能够经得起信仰检验的观念取代它们的地位。人们可以用这种方式
避免被不存在的教义所误导并抗拒任何不存在的教义；然而，一个人能用合适的回应来保
护自己。熟练的医生不需要在根本不存在的疾病上施用他的医术，他们的知识是用来医治
那些已经生病的人。大家必须知道，神并不是在肉身中显现，而是，基督是一个被神圣化
的人；那么，我们就会发现在他的小册子中有某些价值。然而，只要我们已发现他的疾病
的程度，就不会归向他那个无用的、不存在的教义，并卷入那些错误中。
[Apollinarius], however, did not rashly insert this necessity into his
writings; in order to provide a certain system and order to his teaching, he
added as already said something which was not uttered. In this way, he
appears to combat errors though a fraudulent refutation that God is mortal.
His treatise as a whole claims that the Only-Begotten Son's divinity is
mortal and that passion has no place in his humanity; rather, his impassible,
immutable nature is subject to change and passion. Hence, [Apollinarius']
treatise has a certain value for persons with an esoteric knowledge of
mysteries. However, the sequence of his words is received by persons who are
still infants, for even the irreligious Greeks do not ascribe to them. For if
the divinity of the Only Begotten [Son] has perished, life, truth,
righteousness, goodness, light, and power must have perished along with it.
All these diverse interpretations are offered about the Only-Begotten's
divinity.
[亚波里拿流，]然而，并没有匆忙的把这个必需性插入到他的作品中；为了证明一种特别
的、他的教义的系统和次序，他加入了一些欲言又止的东西。他用这种方法，让自己看起
来在透过不诚实的，对于神是会死的驳斥，对抗不同的错误。他的教义小册宣称独生子的
神格是会死的，他的人性不可能受苦；反而，祂不能受苦并不改变的性质反而是能够改变
并能够受苦的。因此，[亚波里拿流的]教义小册对于那些带有对于奥秘的神秘知识的人而
言，具有某种的价值。然而，他的话造成的结果被某些仍然是婴孩的人所接受，即便是不
敬虔的希腊人都不认可那些话。因为，如果独生[子]的神格已经灭亡了，生命、真理、公
义、良善、光、和能力也必然会一同灭亡。各种不同的诠释都是关于独生子的神格。
Since [Christ] is simple, undivided, and uncompounded [J.137], he is said to
be whole and not composed of parts. It follows that if one part exists [in
Christ], all others exist in him, and if one does not exist, all are
naturally excluded. Therefore, if the divinity has perished, all his other
characteristics which compose his divinity have also expired. However, not
only is Christ power but he is the power and wisdom of God. Because these
attributes have passed away with the Son's divinity, the wisdom of God does
not belong to the Father; neither does power, life, nor can anything else be
named after the good [God]. For all these attributes belong to God, and we
believe that everything pertaining to the Father also belongs to the Son;
what belongs to the Son does not lack existence because we confess that all
things [M.1133] belong equally to the Father and the Son. If power has
perished and, Christ is the power of God, has not that power which has been
destroyed now restored and become something different? For the Father's power
is present in the Son, a teaching our opponents confess. If the one power has
been conquered by death and passed into oblivion at the time of [the Son's]
passion, what other power does [Apollinarius] manufacture which he summons
from death? If he claims that this power has died while another remains
immortal, no longer is the power acknowledged as belonging to the Son of the
Father. As a consequence, our Lord's words which confess that everything
belonging to the Son also belongs to the Father are scorned as no longer
true. For [the Son] who possesses all things belonging to the Father
certainly has the Father's immortality; immortality has nothing at all in
common with death. If the Son's divinity is supposed to be mortal [J.138],
they [the followers of Apollinarius] construct the notion that the Father
himself lacks immortality. But [Christ] said that he has the Father in
himself. And so, anyone attempting to demonstrate the mortality [of the Son]
to whom belongs the Father's eternity is a liar. Since our religion maintains
that the power belongs both to Father and Son (We see the Son in the Father
and the Father in the Son), then anything passible clearly suffers death
while that which is free from passion effects impassibility in what is
passible.
因为[基督]是纯一、不可分割、并不是被组成的（uncompounded）[J.137]，祂被称作是
完整（whole）并不是由部件组成的。这就造成，如果一个部件存在[在基督里面]，所有
其他的部件也都必然存在在祂里面，如果一个部件不存在，所有的部件自然就被排除在外
。故此，如果神格已经消灭，所有祂其他构成神格的特性也会失效。然而，基督不仅仅是
能力，祂是神的能力和智慧。因为那些属性都被赋予给子的神格，神的智慧就不属于父；
能力、生命，甚至其他任何的属性都不能被称之为良善[神]。因为所有那些属性都属于神
，我们相信所有关于父的事物都属于子；属于子的一切都存在，因为我们承诺[M.1133]属
于父的一切都属于子。如果能力被消灭了，基督是神的能力，难道那个已经被毁灭的能力
如今被重新恢复，并成为某个不同的事物？因为父的能力在子里面，这是我们的对手所承
认的。如果，一个能力被死亡征服，并在[子]受苦的时候被遗忘，那么[亚波里拿流]还想
从死亡中炮制出什么样的能力呢？如果他宣称这个能力已经死了，在同时另一个能力仍然
是不死的，父的能力就不再被认为是属于子的。这就造成，我们的主承认每一件属于子的
事物都是属于父的话就不再是真的了。因为[子]承认万有属于父的，当然也拥有父的不朽
性；不朽性与死亡完全没有相同的地方。如果子的神格应该是会死的[J.138]，他们[亚波
里拿流的跟随者们]建构了父自己缺少不朽性的观念。但是[基督]说，祂有父在祂里面。
并且，任何人尝试要证明[子的]不朽性属于父的永恒性就是一个骗子。因着我们的宗教坚
信能力属于父和子（我们看子在父里面，父在子里面），那么任何明显可以忍受死亡在同
时又不会受苦的事物就会影响在可忍受痛苦之事物中的不可受苦性。
But let us move on to the next part of [Apollinarius'] teaching. I will again
briefly refer to his words to understand his intention: "To call Christ a
divinized man is contrary to apostolic teaching and alien to the synod [of
bishops]. Paul, Photinus, and Marcellus are the authors of this distorted
view." Next we have an example of athletes violently engaged in a dispute and
who resort to murderous words: "How can you say that the man from the earth
whom [scripture] claims descended from heaven is called Son of man?" These
words serve to confirm what was just said and serve as an introduction to
further inappropriate remarks. In order to show that God has died,
[Apollinarius] concedes that we cannot attribute an earthly nature to
[Christ] since suffering which belongs entirely to death [M.1136] has an
affinity with the earth. "The man who descended from heaven is not the man
from the earth. Nevertheless, if man has descended from heaven, the Lord did
not deny this fact in the Gospels." How is this statement consonant with
[Apollinarius'] other remarks? If man is not from the earth but has descended
from heaven to us, [J.139] how can it be said that the Son of Man has
descended from heaven? [Apollinarius] concedes this, for just as we maintain
that fathers exist before their sons on earth, so the heavenly man enters
[the earthly] man. Since [Christ] is regarded as the Son of Man, he
unhesitatingly accepts a name from his father, but humanly speaking, we
maintain that another father exists first in heaven. If one attests to the
words, "No one has ascended to heaven except the Son of Man who has descended
from heaven" [Jn.3.13] and disassociates them from the earthly man by saying
that the Son of Man has come to us from heaven, [Apollinarius] attributes
another man in heaven, the Father. [Christ] descended from him to us so that
the life of heaven might signify such things as nations, peoples, lands, and
so forth. If the one who came from heaven is the Son of Man born from Mary of
the seed of David according to the flesh and named Son of Man despite his
heavenly birth, he is falsely called Son of God since he lacks fellowship
with God with respect to heaven and earth. The following words sum up
[Apollinarius'] teaching: "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, a statement complying with faith's correct interpretation and
not with [Apollinarius'] inscription. For neither is the divinity earthly nor
is humanity divine as he maintains; rather, the power of the Most High comes
from above through the Holy Spirit [Lk 1.35] which overshadowed our human
nature, that is, this power took on form, the spotless Virgin nourished it in
human flesh, and he who was born from her was named Son of the Most High. The
divine [J.140] power which has its origin with the Most High thus assumed
fellowship with mankind.
但是，让我们来到[亚波里拿流]教义的下一个部分。我将再次简要的用他的话来理解他的
动机：‘称呼基督为一个被神化的人与使徒的教训相对，并与[主教们的]大会相异。保罗
，Photinus和马赛流（Marcellus）是这种被扭曲观点的作者。’我们接下来有一个运动
员的例子，用暴力介入辩论的冲突，他蓄意用了残忍的话说：‘你怎么能够说，[圣经经
文]宣称那个从天降下，从地来到那个人是神的儿子？’那些话就肯定了刚刚所说的，并
介绍了一个更为不合适的讲法。为了表明神已经死了，[亚波里拿流]认为我们不能把一个
属地的性质归给[基督]，因为完全属于死亡的受苦[M.1136]与地有着非常密切的关系。‘
那个从天上降下的人并不是那个从地而来的人。有鉴于此，如果人从天降下，主在福音书
中并没有否认这个事实。’这句话怎么与[亚波里拿流]其他的评论调和呢？如果人不是从
地而来的，而是从天降下到我们这里，[J.139]怎么能够说人子是从天上降下的呢？[亚波
里拿流]是这样认为的，因就像我们坚信的，父亲存在在他们的儿子之前，所以，属天的
人进入[属地的]人里面。因为[基督]被认为是人子，祂毫不犹豫的接受从祂的父亲而来的
名字，从人的角度讲，我们坚信现有另一个父先存在在天上。如果有人宣称说，‘除了从
天而降的人子以外，没有人曾经升上天，’[Jn. 3.13]藉著说人子从天临及我们将它们与
属地的人分开，[亚波里拿流]认为天上有临一个人，父。[基督]从祂降下到我们这里，好
叫天上的生命能够意表如同各国、各民族、各土地等等那样的事物。如果从天上来的，根
据肉身是从大会的后裔，玛利亚所生人子，并无视于祂属天的出生而被称作人子，祂就被
错误的称作神子，因为祂在天和地上都缺少了与神的交通。以下的话总结了[亚波里拿流]
的教义：‘如果人子是从天而来的，神子是从女人来到，祂怎么可能同时是神又是人呢？
’我相信[基督]同时是人又是神，一个符合对信仰正确诠释的宣告，不认可[亚波里拿流
的]标题。因为，既没有属地的神格也没有神圣的人性，如同他坚信的；反而，至高者的
大能从上透过圣灵而来[Lk. 1.35]，覆蓋了我们的人性，就是，这个能力取得了一个形式
，无玷污的童女在人性肉身中喂养了它，从她所生的被称作至高者的儿子。源自于至高者
的神圣[J.140]能力取得了与人类的交通。
"But God," says [Apollinarius], "took on flesh by the spirit while man took
on divinity by the flesh." Once again, what is the incarnation of the spirit
except union with our flesh? And what is the origin of man except the first
man who came from the earth and whose descent does not come from heaven as
Moses has taught us? "God took dust from the earth and fashioned man [Gen
2.7]." However, we are instructed about another [M.1137] constitution of man
from heaven of whom we have been ignorant. With respect to this statement we
have, "The mystery became manifested in the flesh [1Tim 3.16]." This agrees
with our teaching and "the Word became flesh according to its union [with
human nature]." These words are accurately stated, for [Apollinarius] who
says that the Word was united to the flesh asserts no more than the union of
two [natures]. "But," he says, "the flesh is not inanimate for 'it militates
against the Spirit, and its law is at enmity with the law of my mind [Rom
7.23].'" What an excellent statement! God does not fashion the flesh without
a soul. Therefore, let us inquire whether the flesh assumed by the Word of
God is animate as the inscription says. We maintain that the soul is animate
and the body is in common with the animals. He who attributes to the Word
this animated human flesh unites to it another whole man. Nothing can be more
appropriate to the human soul than an intellectual nature which enables us to
fully share the lot of irrational animals: concupiscence, anger, appetite for
food, capacity for growth, satiety, sleep, digestion, [J.141] change,
excrement and capacities rooted in the soul which belong both to us and
irrational beasts. [Apollinarius] therefore says that he who has assumed man
concedes that he has nothing other than a rational soul and testifies to his
intellect which is his own human soul. Of this the Apostle says, "The wisdom
of the flesh is at enmity with God" [Rom 8.7] (for the flesh is not subject
to God's law). He is speaking here of a person's capacity for free will which
belongs to the intellect. For to chose either in a spirit of obedience or
inflexibility with respect to the law rests with free choice which cannot be
divorced from our intellectual faculty. This faculty belongs to the mind and
is not found among infants. How can a person who opposes free will and
reduces it to servility lack a mind? For our free will does not choose petty,
evil things as demonstrated by persons who lack a mind; rather, those person
who lack a good mind follow its lead. Divinely inspired scripture teaches us
about that serpent, the originator and inventor of evil [Gen 3.1]. The
serpent certainly does not lack reason, but is more prudent than all the
other beasts.
[亚波里拿流]说，‘但是，神藉著（圣）灵取了肉身，在同时，人类藉着肉身取得神格。
’再次，除了与我们的肉身联合，什么是灵的成为肉身？除了第一个从地而来的人外，谁
是人的源头？而祂的降下难道不是从天而来，如摩西所教导的意义？‘神从地去了尘土塑
造了人。[Gen 2.7]’然而，我们被告知有另一种[M.1137]人类从天上来的组成，我们以
往都忽略了。关于这个说法，我们有，‘奥秘在肉身中被显明。[1Tim 3.16]’这与我们
的教义是吻合的，并加上‘道根据它[与人性]的联合成为肉身。’那些话都正确的声明，
因为[亚波里拿流]说道与肉身联合不过就是两者[性质]的联合。他说，‘但是，肉身并不
是无生命的，因为‘它与圣灵相对，它的律与我心思的律相对’。[Rom 7.23]’说的真妙
啊！神并没有塑造出一个没有魂的肉身。故此，让我们追问，神的道所取的肉身是不是如
同圣经所说的，是有生命的。我们坚信魂是有生命的，身体与动物相同。那将这具有生命
的人类肉身归于道的，让它与另一个全人（whole man）联合。相较于一个理性的性质，
没有什么比人类的魂更能够让我们完全有份非理性动物：性欲、愤怒、食欲、成长的能力
、满足、睡眠、消化[J.141]、改变、排泄和根植于既属于我们和无理性的野兽的魂的能
力。因此，[亚波里拿流]说，那位取得人的承认祂有的不过就是一个理性的魂，并见证祂
的理智就是祂自己的人类魂。使徒论到这点说，‘肉体（身）的智慧与神相敌对’[Rom
8.7]（因为肉体不服从神的律）。他在此论到一个人属于理智的自由意志的能力。因为选
择若不是在一个顺服的灵里面，或在律法的僵硬性中选择，都必须依靠不能脱离我们理智
器官的自由意志。这个器官属于心思，在婴孩中并不存在。一个人如何能够违反自由意志
，并将其消减成为严重的缺少心思呢？因为我们的自由意志并不会选择可怜，邪恶的事物
，就像那些缺少心思的人表现的意义；烦热，那些缺少良善心思的人，跟随心思的引导。
被神启迪的经文教导我们蛇是邪恶的起始者与发明者[Gen 3.1]。蛇根本不缺少理性，反
而比一切的野兽更为精明。
Thus we have added our own words to those of [Apollinarius] to refute the
insolence of his teaching. The Apostle [Paul] does not simply oppose the
flesh with the spirit by speaking of a choice for evil with respect to a
[M.1140] more becoming manner of life; rather, he rebukes the Corinthians for
succumbing to passion: "You are carnal" [1Cor 3.3]. When the Apostle had
spoken to the Corinthians, did Apollinarius' triple division of man's
intellect exist? Or does Paul call such people carnal [J.142] because they
behave immoderately due to an inordinate inclination to the flesh? He advises
the following: "While there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of
the flesh" [1Cor 3.3]? Jealousy and strife are works of the mind.
[Apollinarius'] words abundantly show that man consists of three parts,
flesh, soul and mind, a teaching not distant from ours. This three-fold
division claims that man is composed of a rational soul and body while the
mind is numbered separately, a view which allows for many heretical
interpretations. If the rational capacity is counted by itself, another part
may be termed irrational by some persons and concupiscible by others.
Similarly, any other movements of the soul may be enumerated due to their
wide variety instead of employing man's triple division.
我们因此在[亚波里拿流]的话上加上了我们的话，以驳斥他的教义的狂傲之处。使徒[保
罗]并不仅仅以论到在成为生命的模式方面的选择邪恶，以（圣）灵抵挡肉体；反而，他
驳斥了哥林多人不再抵挡情欲：‘你们都是属肉体的。’。[林前3：3]当使徒向哥林多人
说话的时候，亚波里拿流对人理性存有的三分法存在吗？或者，保罗因为那些人的行为无
节制的，以非正常的方式倾向肉体，而称他们[J.142]为属肉体的？他的建议如下：‘你
们中间有嫉妒和纷争的事，难道你们不是属于肉体的吗？’[1Cor 3.3]基督和纷争都是心
思。[亚波里拿流的]话完全表明人由三个部分所组成的，肉身（体），魂和心思，与我们
的教义并没有太大的差异。这种三重分法宣传，人是有一个理性魂和身体构成的，在同时
，心思被分开算为一个部分，这种观点容许许多异端性的诠释。如果理性的能力被独自算
为一个部分，另一个部分就能够被某些人当作是非理性的，并被另一些人当作
concupiscible的。同样的，魂其他的运行都也能因它们的多样性被列举，而不使用人的
三分法。

.