AGAINST APOLLINARIUS
駁斥亞波里拿流
BY
GREGORY OF NYSSA
女撒的貴格利
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]我們的教義小冊當以引用我們的主，那位督促我們『小心進到你們中間
，披著羊皮但裡面是殘忍之狼的假先知』（Mt. 7.15-16）的話作為開始。如果我們能夠
根據果子把真正的羊從貪婪的人中間本別出來，貪婪的人假扮成為我們人類的樣子偷偷摸
摸的潛入羊群中，這樣就能夠揭發躲在我們裡面的敵人。故此，我們必須把好果子從壞果
子中分別出來，好曝露[敵人的]詭計。就像經文所說的，『但是你們能夠根據他們的果子
認識他們。』根據我的判斷，那些被拯救的人就會產生任何良善的，對於教會的論點的好
果子；同時，那些更為有毒，有害的個人屬於那些朝向滅亡的人。如果一個人透過傳福音
，使得他的羊群的數目增加，讓他家旁邊的葡萄樹延伸到每一個人家裡面，在主的桌子旁
邊種植曾經是野橄欖樹，但是變成好的橄欖樹，他就是把奧秘的枝子接入甜美的，流動的
教義中，可以增加羊群的數目，消減拉班的財產，是的雅各的財產豐饒[J.132]及其滿溢
的流出[Gen 30.38]，這樣的人就能夠彰顯出他的教義的果子，（那樣的果子，就如同經
上說的，是從真理中長出來的，）他確實是一個先知，操練藉著神的靈詮釋神的話。但是
，如果任何人拔掉葡萄樹的嫩枝，他把神聖桌子旁的植物連根剷除，使其荒涼，扣住了屬
靈的水，以至於羊群不能[藉著吃]想像父所有的青嫩枝條，並因著及其豐盛的湧泉而繁增
。羊反而離開了滋潤的操場，就是離開了教父們的傳統，流浪在羊群之外，並在陌生的草
上上鬱鬱寡歡。當一種教義造成這樣的果子的時候，藏在羊皮之下狼的形狀就被曝露出來
。
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.
現在讓我們檢視敘利亞的亞波里拿流的教義，看看它們是增加了？還是消減了羊群？是聚
集了憂傷的人，還是驅散被聚集的人？他們對於教父們的教義是支持？抑或是展現出敵意
？如果，[亞波里拿流]有任何的善意，他就是一只羊，不是狼。然而，主告訴我們，『要
提防假先知』。這個警告為的是讓我們小心任何毀謗的，毀滅性的嘴巴，他們用炮製出來
的神奇教義的牙齒，撕裂神的神聖身體，教會。我們的話語並不帶有任何的敵意，我們如
今展現[亞波里拿流的]教義，其標題為，『根據人的樣式，證明神聖的道成肉身。』對於
這個標題的正確理解或許滿足否定[亞波里拿流]教義荒謬之處的需要。
[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][亞波里拿流教義小冊的標題]是這樣，『根據人的樣式，證明神聖的道成肉身。
』我們應當引用聖經的經文來駁斥這個新說法的荒謬之處：『道成為肉身』（Jn. 1.14）
，『祂的榮耀住在我們的地上』（Ps. 84.10）並『神在肉身中被顯現』（1 Tim. 3.16）
。每一處經文[M.1128]都告訴我們祂所擁有的神格是不會改變，不會變化並是固定不變的
，以至於[神]能夠在祂自己不可改變的性質中醫治我們向著邪惡的傾向。[亞波里拿流]也
說神並不會在肉身中顯現，道並未成為肉身，就是那位在人的樣式中並藉著取了一個奴僕
的形象，而有份與我們的人類生活的模式的。我不知道[亞波里拿流在]此處的意義是什麼
。神格從祂純一（simple）的性質，非組成的性質，或神聖的實質變化並改變成為肉身稠
密的性質，同時仍然是祂自己，看起來就像另一個在神性與人性中包裹的神聖的道成肉身
。這就造成一個非人又非神的、有份兩者的某個東西。那樣的道成肉身與我們的人性同性
質（connatural），然而神格肯定比這個人性更為尊貴。但是，這不可能是神，因為神格
是純一，其性質不是由部件構成的（uncomposite）；當失去純一性的時候，神格也同樣
消失了。然而，人並不是某種與這相對的事物，因為他又一個身體和一個理想魂組成的。
如果我們不能理解那兩個部分，那麼我們怎麼能夠使用『人』這個詞呢？當論到人的身體
和魂的時候，我們用不同的方式思考每一個部分。那兩個元素的結合，構成了我們所謂的
人。如果神聖的[J.134]道成肉身產生的既不是人，也不是神，是某種由作者[亞波里拿流
]在他的靈感中炮製出來的東西，我們不能在聖經中找到它。
"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.
『根據人的樣式，一個神聖道成肉身的證明。』這句話，『根據人的樣式』，是什麼意思
？神聖的道成肉身根據的就是人性。不然還會使什麼？豈不是在末日？那麼童女[瑪利亞]
的童真又是什麼？主並不是根據人的樣式取得人性，好像我們的作者所聲稱的；反而，聖
靈的神聖能力根據福音[Lk 1.26f]影響了這一切。難道道成肉身發生在萬世之前？一個存
在的事物如何能夠被拿來與不存在的事物相比較？人被放置在所有創造的最後一個，而主
是在萬世之前的王。如果祂存在在萬世之前，神聖的道成肉身又是根據那個人類的形像呢
？亞當的？他根本還不存在。根據另一個人的樣式？神聖的道成肉身要跟這個在亞當前就
被塑造的人比較嗎？因為那與存有相似，與非存有不同。[M.1129]所以，在亞波里拿流的
教義中有兩個荒謬之處：若不是某種被造之物比它的創造者更古老，就是成為肉身的神格
被拿去和不存在的事物作比較。神格，而不是亞當，從起初就存在。若神性根據人的樣式
成為肉身，祂就被拿來跟缺少存有的某個事物比較；然而，被拿來與不存在的事物作比較
的，應當也被不存在的事物所構成才對。但是，[亞波里拿流]說，道成肉身發生的過程與
人類不同。那個由兩個不同的性質所構成的樣式是什麼？如果[亞波里拿流]否認根據人的
神聖的道成肉身在萬世前就存在，也不會持續到時間的終了，就是當我們的主親自
[J.135]顯現在肉身中，為了人類的那個分賜，道成肉身就是根據人的樣式（我們不能在
這個立場上堅持關於[瑪利亞]童真的奧秘）。兩個觀點都被表明在那個將被否定的教義小
冊的標題中。因為他的標題是病態的，無法令人滿意，我相信我們能夠藉著他自己的話釐
清這個事實，並證明我們仔細的理會那個事實。
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.
我們如今要仔細的檢驗這個標題。我將會簡要的描述[亞波里拿流的]教義小冊子的引言，
請注意它們的意義，同時忽視任何無害或不值得討論的點。『唯有敬虔的信仰值得我們傳
揚，因為夏娃缺少了一個不好奇四處探究之信仰的幫助。基督徒不應當四處探究，也不應
當對於屬於希臘人和猶太人的那些觀念毫不警惕。』在那個小冊的引言中不懂出現那樣的
話：『沒有信仰的人和異端們宣稱神並沒有成為人，也沒有人類的情感。有些異端藉著宣
傳基督透過從一個女人的出生並透過受苦，取得了一個被神聖化的人（a divinized man
），而竊取了我們信仰的模式。』[亞波里拿流]確實與某些宣傳基督是一個被神聖化的人
的異端非常類似，甚至可能知道他們的源頭。對於我們這部分，我們四處遊行，並預計那
些與我們同享一個信仰，並在與某些否定並追究[神的]道的各人衝突的時候，承認他們的
信仰的人。我們並沒有直接從那位發表關於[信仰的]煽動言論的，就是基督是一個
[M.1132]被神聖化的人的[亞波里拿流]聽見任何回應。因此，我們應當糾正[J.136]他的
教義的錯誤觀點，以更能夠經得起信仰檢驗的觀念取代它們的地位。人們可以用這種方式
避免被不存在的教義所誤導並抗拒任何不存在的教義；然而，一個人能用合適的回應來保
護自己。熟練的醫生不需要在根本不存在的疾病上施用他的醫術，他們的知識是用來醫治
那些已經生病的人。大家必須知道，神並不是在肉身中顯現，而是，基督是一個被神聖化
的人；那麼，我們就會發現在他的小冊子中有某些價值。然而，只要我們已發現他的疾病
的程度，就不會歸向他那個無用的、不存在的教義，並捲入那些錯誤中。
[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.
[亞波里拿流，]然而，並沒有匆忙的把這個必需性插入到他的作品中；為了證明一種特別
的、他的教義的系統和次序，他加入了一些欲言又止的東西。他用這種方法，讓自己看起
來在透過不誠實的，對於神是會死的駁斥，對抗不同的錯誤。他的教義小冊宣稱獨生子的
神格是會死的，他的人性不可能受苦；反而，祂不能受苦並不改變的性質反而是能夠改變
並能夠受苦的。因此，[亞波里拿流的]教義小冊對於那些帶有對於奧秘的神秘知識的人而
言，具有某種的價值。然而，他的話造成的結果被某些仍然是嬰孩的人所接受，即便是不
敬虔的希臘人都不認可那些話。因為，如果獨生[子]的神格已經滅亡了，生命、真理、公
義、良善、光、和能力也必然會一同滅亡。各種不同的詮釋都是關於獨生子的神格。
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.
因為[基督]是純一、不可分割、並不是被組成的（uncompounded）[J.137]，祂被稱作是
完整（whole）並不是由部件組成的。這就造成，如果一個部件存在[在基督裡面]，所有
其他的部件也都必然存在在祂裡面，如果一個部件不存在，所有的部件自然就被排除在外
。故此，如果神格已經消滅，所有祂其他構成神格的特性也會失效。然而，基督不僅僅是
能力，祂是神的能力和智慧。因為那些屬性都被賦予給子的神格，神的智慧就不屬於父；
能力、生命，甚至其他任何的屬性都不能被稱之為良善[神]。因為所有那些屬性都屬於神
，我們相信所有關於父的事物都屬於子；屬於子的一切都存在，因為我們承諾[M.1133]屬
於父的一切都屬於子。如果能力被消滅了，基督是神的能力，難道那個已經被毀滅的能力
如今被重新恢復，並成為某個不同的事物？因為父的能力在子裡面，這是我們的對手所承
認的。如果，一個能力被死亡征服，並在[子]受苦的時候被遺忘，那麼[亞波里拿流]還想
從死亡中炮製出什麼樣的能力呢？如果他宣稱這個能力已經死了，在同時另一個能力仍然
是不死的，父的能力就不再被認為是屬於子的。這就造成，我們的主承認每一件屬於子的
事物都是屬於父的話就不再是真的了。因為[子]承認萬有屬於父的，當然也擁有父的不朽
性；不朽性與死亡完全沒有相同的地方。如果子的神格應該是會死的[J.138]，他們[亞波
里拿流的跟隨者們]建構了父自己缺少不朽性的觀念。但是[基督]說，祂有父在祂裡面。
並且，任何人嘗試要證明[子的]不朽性屬於父的永恆性就是一個騙子。因著我們的宗教堅
信能力屬於父和子（我們看子在父裡面，父在子裡面），那麼任何明顯可以忍受死亡在同
時又不會受苦的事物就會影響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，讓我們來到[亞波里拿流]教義的下一個部分。我將再次簡要的用他的話來理解他的
動機：『稱呼基督為一個被神化的人與使徒的教訓相對，並與[主教們的]大會相異。保羅
，Photinus和馬賽流（Marcellus）是這種被扭曲觀點的作者。』我們接下來有一個運動
員的例子，用暴力介入辯論的衝突，他蓄意用了殘忍的話說：『你怎麼能夠說，[聖經經
文]宣稱那個從天降下，從地來到那個人是神的兒子？』那些話就肯定了剛剛所說的，並
介紹了一個更為不合適的講法。為了表明神已經死了，[亞波里拿流]認為我們不能把一個
屬地的性質歸給[基督]，因為完全屬於死亡的受苦[M.1136]與地有著非常密切的關係。『
那個從天上降下的人並不是那個從地而來的人。有鑑於此，如果人從天降下，主在福音書
中並沒有否認這個事實。』這句話怎麼與[亞波里拿流]其他的評論調和呢？如果人不是從
地而來的，而是從天降下到我們這裡，[J.139]怎麼能夠說人子是從天上降下的呢？[亞波
里拿流]是這樣認為的，因就像我們堅信的，父親存在在他們的兒子之前，所以，屬天的
人進入[屬地的]人裡面。因為[基督]被認為是人子，祂毫不猶豫的接受從祂的父親而來的
名字，從人的角度講，我們堅信現有另一個父先存在在天上。如果有人宣稱說，『除了從
天而降的人子以外，沒有人曾經升上天，』[Jn. 3.13]藉著說人子從天臨及我們將它們與
屬地的人分開，[亞波里拿流]認為天上有臨一個人，父。[基督]從祂降下到我們這裡，好
叫天上的生命能夠意表如同各國、各民族、各土地等等那樣的事物。如果從天上來的，根
據肉身是從大會的後裔，瑪利亞所生人子，並無視於祂屬天的出生而被稱作人子，祂就被
錯誤的稱作神子，因為祂在天和地上都缺少了與神的交通。以下的話總結了[亞波里拿流]
的教義：『如果人子是從天而來的，神子是從女人來到，祂怎麼可能同時是神又是人呢？
』我相信[基督]同時是人又是神，一個符合對信仰正確詮釋的宣告，不認可[亞波里拿流
的]標題。因為，既沒有屬地的神格也沒有神聖的人性，如同他堅信的；反而，至高者的
大能從上透過聖靈而來[Lk. 1.35]，覆蓋了我們的人性，就是，這個能力取得了一個形式
，無玷污的童女在人性肉身中餵養了它，從她所生的被稱作至高者的兒子。源自於至高者
的神聖[J.140]能力取得了與人類的交通。
"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.
[亞波里拿流]說，『但是，神藉著（聖）靈取了肉身，在同時，人類藉著肉身取得神格。
』再次，除了與我們的肉身聯合，什麼是靈的成為肉身？除了第一個從地而來的人外，誰
是人的源頭？而祂的降下難道不是從天而來，如摩西所教導的意義？『神從地去了塵土塑
造了人。[Gen 2.7]』然而，我們被告知有另一種[M.1137]人類從天上來的組成，我們以
往都忽略了。關於這個說法，我們有，『奧秘在肉身中被顯明。[1Tim 3.16]』這與我們
的教義是吻合的，並加上『道根據它[與人性]的聯合成為肉身。』那些話都正確的聲明，
因為[亞波里拿流]說道與肉身聯合不過就是兩者[性質]的聯合。他說，『但是，肉身並不
是無生命的，因為‘它與聖靈相對，它的律與我心思的律相對’。[Rom 7.23]』說的真妙
啊！神並沒有塑造出一個沒有魂的肉身。故此，讓我們追問，神的道所取的肉身是不是如
同聖經所說的，是有生命的。我們堅信魂是有生命的，身體與動物相同。那將這具有生命
的人類肉身歸於道的，讓它與另一個全人（whole man）聯合。相較於一個理性的性質，
沒有什麼比人類的魂更能夠讓我們完全有份非理性動物：性慾、憤怒、食慾、成長的能力
、滿足、睡眠、消化[J.141]、改變、排泄和根植於既屬於我們和無理性的野獸的魂的能
力。因此，[亞波里拿流]說，那位取得人的承認祂有的不過就是一個理性的魂，並見證祂
的理智就是祂自己的人類魂。使徒論到這點說，『肉體（身）的智慧與神相敵對』[Rom
8.7]（因為肉體不服從神的律）。他在此論到一個人屬於理智的自由意志的能力。因為選
擇若不是在一個順服的靈裡面，或在律法的僵硬性中選擇，都必須依靠不能脫離我們理智
器官的自由意志。這個器官屬於心思，在嬰孩中並不存在。一個人如何能夠違反自由意志
，並將其消減成為嚴重的缺少心思呢？因為我們的自由意志並不會選擇可憐，邪惡的事物
，就像那些缺少心思的人表現的意義；煩熱，那些缺少良善心思的人，跟隨心思的引導。
被神啟迪的經文教導我們蛇是邪惡的起始者與發明者[Gen 3.1]。蛇根本不缺少理性，反
而比一切的野獸更為精明。
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.
我們因此在[亞波里拿流]的話上加上了我們的話，以駁斥他的教義的狂傲之處。使徒[保
羅]並不僅僅以論到在成為生命的模式方面的選擇邪惡，以（聖）靈抵擋肉體；反而，他
駁斥了哥林多人不再抵擋情慾：『你們都是屬肉體的。』。[林前3：3]當使徒向哥林多人
說話的時候，亞波里拿流對人理性存有的三分法存在嗎？或者，保羅因為那些人的行為無
節制的，以非正常的方式傾向肉體，而稱他們[J.142]為屬肉體的？他的建議如下：『你
們中間有嫉妒和紛爭的事，難道你們不是屬於肉體的嗎？』[1Cor 3.3]基督和紛爭都是心
思。[亞波里拿流的]話完全表明人由三個部分所組成的，肉身（體），魂和心思，與我們
的教義並沒有太大的差異。這種三重分法宣傳，人是有一個理性魂和身體構成的，在同時
，心思被分開算為一個部分，這種觀點容許許多異端性的詮釋。如果理性的能力被獨自算
為一個部分，另一個部分就能夠被某些人當作是非理性的，並被另一些人當作
concupiscible的。同樣的，魂其他的運行都也能因它們的多樣性被列舉，而不使用人的
三分法。

.