AGAINST APOLLINARIUS
駁斥亞波里拿流
BY
GREGORY OF NYSSA
女撒的貴格利
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):
我要在此根據Muhlenberg的方式，將貴格利的《駁斥亞波里拿流教義小冊》分成九段。
1) Introduction: correct perception of the faith is the enlargement of
the flock (Church). J.131-2.
介言：對於信仰的正確觀念，是羊群（教會）的擴大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.
反對亞波里拿流宣稱的，神在耶穌裡忍受了死亡，貴格利用他自己的教義反駁，就是在基
督裡的神性和人性明顯的是不同的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.
為了反對宣稱基督物質的身體具有永恆性，貴格利簡稱道成肉身發生在時空中。基督取了
我們的人性，並使其復活。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類的性質。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.
反對亞波里拿流相信的，基督是一個被肉身包裹的心思（nous ensarkos），貴格利教導
在救主裡面兩性的分離。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.
反對基督缺少理性的教義，貴格利表明所有基督向人類展現出的美德都需要理性作為基礎
。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.
貴格利向亞波里拿流證明，酒店在道成肉身中神性的聯合，並教導基督是有兩個不同的性
質，組成的，而不是僅僅擁有一個性質。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.
貴格利表明三元論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
性在復活後就如同我們的一樣被變化。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.
結論：亞波里拿流主義認為必須迴避基督的受苦。貴格利根據亞波里拿流的一段簡單的話
做出結論。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正確論到的，這個大綱並不能涵蓋所有亞波里拿流神學的細微之處。貴
格利採取主題式的方式處理《Apodeixis》並嘗試發覺它們的內在聯合性，以至於他能夠
以正統的立場對抗之。
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).
對於亞波里拿流而言，在任何基督的聯合形式中把神的道與一個人類的魂聯合就會導致人
被融入神之中，因而失去了我們這個部分的自由。貴格利往往在他的論文中觸及這個關鍵
的，關於自由的觀念，就像J.141所說的：『這個官能[自由選擇]屬於心思，不屬於嬰兒
。一個人[指的是亞波里拿流]怎麼能夠反對並消減自由意志到缺乏心思呢？』就如同貴格
利在同一段話中接下來說的，選擇的自由就是人類中最為尊貴的部分，而基督缺少了那種
選擇的能力，就如同亞波里拿流在他的神學裡面所認為的，是一種對於聖經侵犯性的詮釋
。然而，亞波里拿流決定反對安替阿的張力，而具有強調這種自由選擇的矛盾。那樣的觀
念是自由的，但仍然是軟弱的。『如何，能夠像[亞波里拿流]所說的，肉身能夠在不被強
迫並有份純潔的美德的情況下，與神聯合？因為誰不知道根據自由選擇的正確行動就是美
德？肉身是由慎重選擇的脈動領導的自由選擇的載具，因為自由選擇如果缺少了心思和傾
向，就沒有意義。』（J.197-8）在這段話後面（J.199），貴格利在亞波里拿流的信念前
捍衛這個被基督的神性吞沒的官能：『那不僅僅在人裡面的心思而已，而是比任何其他部
分更為尊貴的部分。自由，不受限制的向著善的傾向是心思最完美的見證。』（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.
亞波里拿流源自於他的柏拉圖主義對於人的魂和生命的原則的觀點，所擁護的這種聯合，
將它從無生命的領域分別出來。人類和動物，所有具有感覺的存有都擁有一個魂，所以在
這個官能裡面並沒有任何特別不同的事物。在另一方面，靈（pneuma）直接從神而來，人
們藉著這個功能能夠理解理性的實體，讓他與野獸分別出來。因為這個靈的起源是神聖的
，它的性質與聖靈類似，能夠簡單的在人類佔據一個位置而不會干擾人的人性。當這個觀
點轉向成為肉身的基督的時候，亞波里拿流向我們展示一個神聖的、不會改變的人，因此
，也沒有所謂的選擇能力。這對於我們都熟悉的問題而言，這是一個有吸引力的解決方案
。我們要記得，亞波里拿流的柏拉圖觀點，他將靈逃離物質領域的觀念嫁接到基督的復活
。這就造成，他能夠將基督描繪為擁有（神聖的）意志而不會危及祂的神性或人性。亞波
里拿流教導在基督裡面人的靈與魂不同，被道之聖靈的內住所取代。
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).
亞波里拿流藉著否定基督擁有一個理性的魂，就造成耶穌缺乏人性的結論。在另一方面，
他賦予祂一個非理性的魂（動物的性質）。這看起來基督非理性的身體缺乏一種性質的尊
嚴，而僅僅只有某種實體的形式。在祂神性位格並非理性身體中的結合是一個混合物（
mixis），造成某種新的，與兩個構成部分的事物。Wlfson相信這個信念根植於希臘人的
化學，特別是在亞波里拿流思想中佔主導地位亞里斯多德的觀念。這意味著非理性魂和道
的聯合，使得後者保留它的本質但理性魂並沒有，僅僅保留了其質量。當應用到耶穌基督
的位格上的時候，亞波里拿流宣稱道的神性在祂裡面成為肉身，在同時，祂的身體仍然保
留了非理性魂，因此受苦。女撒的貴格利看起來似乎在那些立場上誤解了亞波里拿流，說
，『低聲兒子的神性是會死的。。。祂不可受苦，不可改變的性質變成能改變並能受苦的
。』（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.
亞波里拿流在面對批判的時候，從三元人論（J.186-7）根據聖經關於基督的魂的描述轉
為二元論的立場。在此，他用道取代基督裡面人類理性的位置，在同時仍然保留非理性魂
，就如同Wolfson前面剛剛指出的。亞波里拿流的《Apodeixis》很自然的就會跟隨前一個
發展步驟，道取代了基督人性裡面的pneuma（靈）或nous（心思）的地位。亞波里拿流的
三元論和二元論時期都強調道作為被動的肉身的主要管理原則，只有前一組的作品較為桌
子道做肉身之魂的管理者。那些名稱都是通用的，不屬於任何一個特定的哲學學派。兩個
時期都不缺少所謂『communiatio idiomatum』或屬性相通（exchange of properties）
。就像Grillmeier所指出的，這不僅僅是亞波里拿流的邏輯—本體（
logical-ontological）的問題；反而，如果讀者如同亞波里拿流一樣仔細，據需要深入
了解兩種的存有。
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.
對於專家而言，女撒的貴格利的論文的節錄表明他的人論乃是根據保羅。老底嘉的主教發
現帖前5：23對於他的三元人論的立場非常重要，雖然保羅在其他地方提及魂—身體的二
元關係。用貴格利的話，『[亞波里拿流]說。。。肉身不是被動的，因為這表明靈是在魂
與身體外的第三個個體。如果人由哪三個元素構成，主就是一個人故此，主由靈、魂和身
體三個部分構成。』（J.209）R. Norris說，我們可以從亞波里拿流使用保羅的靈—肉體
的表述中察覺到二元論和三元的分野。他指出保羅著作的出處，認為那兩個方面不能被當
作暗示人論組成的分歧。似乎對於亞波里拿流而言，保羅把人格的人性區分肉體—靈的重
點，並使得讀者能夠描繪道在成為肉身取得人性的時候，祂的組成部分。
(譯者：作者在此處因著某種原因過分強調亞波里拿流的三元論立場。但是，根據Fourth
Century 網站提供的Lietzmann文獻的英文翻譯，亞波里拿流使用二元論的次數要遠高於
三元論。由此可見作者的二元論預設立場。Lietzmann的中文翻譯可參考
theologychina.weebly.com的相關部分。)
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.
似乎女撒的貴格利為了捍衛正統地位的熱誠，在這個重要的點上誤解了亞波里拿流：他沒
有看見老底嘉的主教嘗試公式化他的基督論和人論觀點。對於亞波里拿流而言，在基督裡
面的靈意味著聖靈，同時在一個人類位格中，靈指的是一個被造的靈。我們必須記得，他
正在攻擊安替阿認為基督具有一種雙元的架構的長力，想要強調性質和位格間的聯合。似
乎任何反應亞波里拿流教義的做法都是根據模糊的本文證據，就如同在貴格利的教義小冊
中引用的很多段落一樣，需要小心的處理。貴格利看起來忽視了亞波里拿流想要認為基督
取得並併入其位格的肉身並不是從永遠而來的，而是在道成肉身的一開始就被塑造成為一
種由不同部分組成的存有。
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."
亞波里拿流堅持在神聖的道成為肉身後的特異性並不意味，就像Prestige特別之處的，他
是一性論者（Monophysite）。雖然女撒的貴格利（並拿先斯的貴格利）抨擊亞波里拿流
教導基督人性先存，像Raven這樣的學者展現這個抨擊並不公平，因為一種更為明確的、
對亞波里拿流立場的評估已經從現有的殘篇中逐漸發展出來。亞波里拿流說『從起初（
from the beginning）』，道成肉身牽涉到兩個方面，一個人類的出生和一個屬天的降臨
。女撒的貴格利則認為『從起初』指的是創造的起初，造成對於亞波里拿流神學的誤解。
老底嘉的主教的意思實際上是，在基督裡人類的身體有份於神的非創造性（
uncreatedness）；基督本成作屬天的人（heavenly Man）乃是因為祂從天降下成為一個
人。如果亞波里拿流被批判為異端，乃是根據他相信神兒子的神聖之靈在基督裡取代了人
的心思。換句話說，當神取得人類的肉身的時候，這就是亞波里拿流的立場；與安替阿學
派的戰鬥阻撓了老底嘉的主教承認基督的位格具有任何的雙重性。如果肉身不具有任何的
角色，就會造成魂在基督裡也沒有地位，這就延伸到我們的救贖。這就使得拿先斯的貴格
利著名的宣言成為正確的：『凡沒有被取得的，就沒有得到醫治。』
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的話說，亞波里拿流主義根本上是一種希羅化的基督教信仰，神和人在
基督裡面構成了一個活動實體。神成為世界的一部分，並這個世界中的原理，以至於神在
耶穌基督裡臨及世界的管制意味著倒轉了人類的自由意志和救贖。也就是說，神和人強加
在彼此身上的限制對於相互而言都是排外的。當教會強調基督的神性以至於損傷其人性的
時候，就受到亞波里拿流主義的影響。在歷史中，對於童女瑪利亞和聖徒的獻身具有突出
的角色，讓他們成為我們和基督間的中保。
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.
與亞波里拿流的爭議環繞著對於Lk 1.35的詮釋，『聖靈要臨到你身上，至高者的能力要
蔭庇你。』這段經文被J.139引用以駁斥亞波里拿流所宣稱的，『如果人的兒子是從天而
來而神的兒子從人而來，祂怎麼可能同時是神又是人？我相信基督同時是人又是神。。。
因為神性不是屬地的，人性不是神聖的；反而，至高者的能力從天上透過聖靈覆蓋我們的
人性。』就像M. Canevet觀察到的，這是一種在基督的人性中察覺到拯救人性的能力（
dunamis）的觀念。貴格利整個神學的主軸是要保衛基督的神聖屬性。基於這個基本的觀
念，我們就能夠看見對於女撒的主教而言，成為的觀念不能那麼強的使用在神成為人的觀
念上，而當用人在基督裡成為神的觀念。後面的原則就能夠解釋他強調新造的原因。在一
段根據Lk 1.35，以非常美麗的方式處理上述道成肉身問題的段落中（J.225-226），女撒
的貴格利以基督救贖的任務來理解其人性。
* * * * *

.