由於華人基督教過分強調基督的神性，而輕視，甚至否定基督的人性，
因此具有非常濃厚的『基督一性論』色彩。(以改革宗和真耶穌教會為
代表。當然，正統改革宗不在此列。特此聲明。)這種色彩，事實上跟教
會歷史中，基督論的各種非正統教義具有很強的重疊性。基本上，在教
會歷史中，否定/輕視基督神性的異端不多，基本上就是：猶太基督教（
伊便尼主義）嗣子說和亞流主義。但是否定/輕視基督人性的異端則一大
堆：幻影論，亞波里拿流主義，歐迪奇主義，一性論，基督一志論等等。
與其和『後自由主義派的台版三尺士萊馬赫』瞎扯，不如好好花時間搞
清楚自己的信仰為何？比較上算。
特此摘錄女撒的貴格利所撰寫的《駁斥亞波里拿流》的介言二，以饗版
友。
××××××××××××××××××××××××××××
本帖啟動安心條款。謝絕本版之具有『堂堂三尺之軀』的某君
蒞臨指教。
謝謝合作！
××××××××××××××××××××××××××××
=====================================
駁斥亞波里拿流 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).
為了嘗試了解基督的先存，亞波里拿流是完全正統的，並使用這個信仰來對抗亞流派，他
們採取的立場是基督有一種（人類的）性質，雖然是神聖的，但是一個被造之物。然而亞
波里拿流在處理道成肉身的時候，就脫離了對於基督的正統認識，說，祂僅僅擁有一個（
神聖的）性質。亞波里拿流用理性分析做出一個結論，嘗試支撐信仰。如果不採取這個方
法，基督徒就會落入『好奇，而不會粗魯的忽視屬於希臘人或猶太人的看法』的錯誤中。
（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.
根據教會的教導，亞波里拿流相信耶穌基督是一個完全被拯救的人。祂僅僅是神與人間的
中保，這個事實導致亞波里拿流堅稱，如果神是一個聯合體，基督自己也必須是一個聯合
體。如果神聖的元素僅僅與人類聯合，我們就有兩個兒子，一個的本質是神，另一個是認
養的兒子。基督的肉身在這個看法中，不能被加到神性中，而必須與神格構成一個性質，
這個事實造成女撒的貴格利寫下了反對老底嘉主教的神學小冊。所以，道成肉身表明物質
的身體與不可改變的神聖之道結合。當約翰說『道成為肉身』的時候，亞波里拿流詮釋為
道取得了肉身，但未曾取得人類的心思，就是邪惡的源頭和不相稱的思想。對於亞波里拿
流而言，道是耶穌—神人唯一的生命，即便是在物質的層次也是如此。故此，祂構成了一
個活的聯合體，魂在其中主導，身體跟隨。在這種對於耶穌的看法中，並不存在不同意念
的衝突，這裡有一種我們提過的安替阿派的基本院長，亞波里拿流就是反對這種張力。
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.
亞波里拿流堅信身體本身不能構成一種性質，因為它不是生命的源頭。在另一方面，道不
能被視為一個與其成為肉身狀態分開的性質，因為主在肉身中住在我們中間。道成肉身代
表道的自我倒空，為的是取得人類的肉身；要記得，雖然如此，基督並沒有倒空祂自己的
心思，仍然保留了救主的心思。有鑑於此，基督的肉身並沒有從天上降到我們中間，祂在
地上的肉身也不會與神同質，如同女撒的貴格利對亞波里拿流教義的錯誤理解一樣；反而
，祂的肉身就是神，它與神性聯合構成一個位格。
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.
這樣的教育讓我們想起亞流，他認為子（不是神）是基督的魂，亞波里拿流則否認基督有
理性魂或人類的魂，以至於子不會改變，改變是屬於被造領域的特徵。這就造成，基督的
肉身就是神的肉身，當被敬拜。在同時，道仍然是神，有份與屬於肉身的屬性，仍然是肉
身的肉身在於神格的聯合中，有份於神的屬性。亞波里拿流提供的這個觀點保證了道與肉
身在耶穌基督裡面的聯合，並證明了祂完整的神學。在另一方面，它減低了基督的人性。
如果神性取代了人類心思的位置，神怎麼接觸其他的人類呢？缺少了理智（人最為不可缺
的構成部分）魂和肉身就不能構成一個人。教會制定迦克頓相關的教義對於亞波里拿流而
言是無法想像的：一個擁有兩個性質的位格。這將造成基督因為祂的不可改變而缺少了一
個人類的心思，因此，亞波里拿流看起來因著罪的傾向，排除了用心思犯罪的人類：他已
經表明即便神自己，也無法醫治這個人類的心思。
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.
即便亞波里拿流因為反對亞流而著名，兩人看起來都持一種類似的基督論，就是道取代了
基督裡面的人類魂。人們有時候會好奇，亞波里拿流是否採取了早期的亞流論點，並將其
融合進入自己的教義中。他反對任何將人類屬性歸於神的做法，特別是可改變性（
mutability），在同時，卻又迴避了那些能夠將人類的構成部分從神分離的做法，這是他
強調神性與人類肉身聯合的一個原因。亞波里拿流也與當代的Diodore of Tarsus相衝突
，兩個人都被發現具有迴避寓意解經的張力。流傳給我們的亞波里拿流殘篇揭示他擔心
Diodore所代表安替阿派基督論的張力，將一個人與神聯合。這樣的觀點會比宣稱亞波里
拿流從亞流派借用了一些看法更容易讓人接受。確實，在那個地區看起來似乎有一種流行
的預設立場，亞波里拿流根據那個立場建構了自己特殊的詮釋。
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.
在亞波里拿流和亞流共有的觀念的起源基礎上，我們就有了Muhlenberg的觀點，就是，亞
波里拿流想要將基督凸顯為theos ensarkos，被肉身包裹的神（the enfleshed God），
而不是anthropos entheos（在神中的人），一個被神啟迪的人，擁有對於神的知識。亞
波里拿流強調被肉身包裹之神聖心思的角色，這個觀念看起來是根據他所相信的，耶穌基
督的位格完全與神相等，不能與任何異教徒的哲學妥協。在基督裡面的人了心思將會被除
基督教的特性。清楚的展示亞波里拿流的教義是非常的困難的挑戰，雖然1904年
Lietzmann已經努力澄清了這個問題。雖然我們能夠相當有把握的根據對於各種殘篇的研
究，認為亞波里拿流相信道在成為肉身的時候，取代了耶穌基督的心思的位置，徹底了解
亞波里拿流真正的動機並真實的意義仍然是非常是一個難題。
The Treatise Against Apollinarius (also know by its Latin title,
Antirrheticus)(16)
駁斥亞波里拿流教義小冊（拉丁文的標題為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).
由女撒的貴格利所撰寫，以對抗被可疑的亞波里拿流教義，專家根據他的附件摘錄了亞波
里拿流的教義。貴格利使用了迷失的羊的圖畫來描繪他反對他所相信的，基督肉身先存的
信仰。他在引言中特別提及這個引自於亞波里拿流的預表，說，『作為人的基督並不會像
一個與祂不同的靈，就是神一樣，有另一個存有；反而，主具有一個神聖之人的性質，但
仍然是一個神聖的靈』（J.147）。這段話基本的信息是，聖靈就是先存的人。換句話說
，主根據其神—人的性情之就是聖靈。對於這個立場的反駁接著出現在J.148：『[亞波里
拿流]形象基督藉著從瑪利亞而來的肉身被彰顯， 不僅僅是根據我們所相信的，祂的神性
的永恆性，也是根據祂那個預先存在的被造的肉身。』就像我們已經說過的，根據
Lietzmann指出的殘篇140，這是對於亞波里拿流教義錯誤的詮釋。
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).
女撒的貴格利在這段話後繼續使用一些關於基督神聖先存的段落，以一種激烈的語調抨擊
亞波里拿流：『在亞伯拉罕以前，我是』[Jn 8.58]和『祂存在在我之前』[Jn 1.15]（參
考J.148.5&7）貴格利在教義小冊更前面的地方引用了亞波里拿流的話，『因為基督作為
神，擁有一個魂和身體，並加上靈，就是心思，人們就可以自然的說祂是從天而來的人。
』（J.143）這段話是對於1Cor 15.45詳細解說，『第一個人亞當被造為活的魂（
soul/psuche）；末後的亞當被造為一個賜生命的靈（spirit/pnuema）』。亞波里拿流解
釋這段經文說，『第二個從天上來的人是屬靈的。這代表那個與神聯合的人缺少自己的的
理智』（J.145）。亞波里拿流在那兩段話中肯定了他的基督論，就是，道不能因著將祂
的神性與人性聯合而成為完全。『還有什麼能比這段話更清楚？相反的事物不能被聯合，
就是完整的神無法與完整的人聯合』（J.162）。反而，神聖的pneuma在道成肉身中取代
了理性，人的pneuma的地位。就像亞波里拿流所說的，『但是，那個人[基督]不是從地而
來的，好像普遍所認為的意義；反而是，神從天降臨，親自與人性聯合』（J.182）。在
他的觀點中，唯有這種的道成肉身才能更保證基督位格的聯合，以及人類的救贖。這可能
僅僅是一位亞波里拿流說基督有一個魂和身體，並一個靈（參考J.143），好像一個從天
而來的人一樣。在這個關鍵點上面，我們看見亞波里拿流堅持神聖的pneuma或nous（理性
）是人最為重要的特徵：『被釘十字架那位的性質不是神聖的；雖然祂是靈，神性並不是
屬於祂。』（J.172）貴格利在他的教義小冊中讓讀者選擇自己的立場，說，『讓人們仔
細的斷定。。。我們論點神聖榮耀因著對我們的愛而住在我們的地上的說法，抑或是像亞
波里拿流所謂的，肉身屬於神，並不是因為祂對我們的慷慨取得的，而是與祂同實質（
consubstantial/sunousiomene）並與祂同性質（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).
女撒的貴格利使用Eph 1.7（『我們藉著祂的血得蒙救贖，赦罪，乃是根據祂的恩典』）
表明神聖的道並不是從永遠就擁有肉身。他接著論到一種對於迷失的羊（Lk 15.5, Mt
18.1）細膩的解釋，基督在該處被描述為好牧人，並成為祂為自己取得的那些羊中的一個
。這段經文在貴格利對於我們的救贖的詮釋中佔有非常重要的地位，並暗示，由於教會是
由哪些被基督所救贖的人所組成的。他在J.153的解經反對亞波里拿流，『藉著祂自己的
身體和魂，將祂自己注入到我們裡面，基督透過摧毀敗壞的權能，為強盜打開了樂園的大
門。摧毀死亡就是藉由神賜生命的大能摧毀無能力的人，因為祂的慷慨和恩典有份了我們
的人類性情。所以，祂有份了兩個部分[身體和魂]藉著自己的復活，與那失散的人聯合。
』他的論文的這個部分根據在之前的一個段落，基督『藉著那個初熟的果子（aparche）
聖別了我們整個人類。』這個字在貴格利的一篇短篇論文中佔有非常重要的地位。
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."
貴格利在J.144引用了箴言9.1，『智慧為自己造了一個房子，藉著與人類聯合， 從童女
把塵土塑造成為一個人。』這段經文是為了反對亞波里拿流所認為的，基督具有一個先存
在天上的人類肉身，就如同我們剛才看見的。貴格利接下來（參考J.223-24）貴格利論到
初熟的果子（aparche）藉著童女成為新人（Ho kaino anthropos），必須將人類的身體
和魂與自己聯合以救贖整個人類：『就像這個創造大能藉著把身體與魂聯合，賦予人類存
在，至高者的大能也透過賜生命的靈，以非物質的方式施行在童女潔淨無瑕的身體上。。
。。祂（新人，基督）根據神，而不是人，被塑造，因為神聖的能力以同樣的方式充滿了
祂整個的構成。這就造成，他兩個構成的部分都有份神性，具有魂與身體和諧的組成。
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).
貴格利在J.151中，抨擊亞波里拿流簡稱基督的人性先存，以至於祂的成為肉身毫無意義
。他在此也以類似的方式把老底嘉的主教歸於亞流和Eunomius那一類。為了反抗道具有先
存的人類肉身的觀點，貴格利說，在『末日』（ep'eschaton hemeron，參考Heb 1.2），
基督作為初熟的果子，將祂自己與我們屬地的人性聯結在一起。那樣的聯合並不意味著會
完成於藉著第一次出生而結束在我們的人性中；反而，是身體和魂得到完全。然而，貴格
利並不認為那就是同質；基督『把羊背負在自己身上並不會造成任何一絲的最或悖逆』（
J.152）的事實並不代表祂的性質與人性分離。
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說，我們會把Eph 1.7和Heb 2.14視為兩處相關的經文。這段話是J.153-4的背
景，貴格利在該段中論到基督透過祂的受苦和復活是祭司和羔羊。祂透過祂祭司的活動被
稱作我們生命的『起源者（Originator/archegos）』（J.154）。雖然身體和魂在死亡的
時候是分開的，前者經過了敗壞，而後者仍然是不敗壞的。女撒的主教說，『在身體和魂
間的聯合被分開後，神復活人並與祂聯合，造成人性完整的救贖』（J.154）。這段話的
目的是為了反對亞波里拿流宣稱的，救贖主仍然保有某種與祂所救贖之人的同質性。