THE GHOST OF APOLLINARIS IN CHINESE CHURCHES TODAY
今日華人教會中的亞波里那流幽靈
曾劭愷
加拿大維真學院道學碩士．英國牛津大學神學系哲學博士候選人（主攻歷史神學）．
印尼雅加達國際歸正福音神學研究院中文部客座教師
URL: http://herewestand.org/blog/2012/11/02/the-ghost-of-apollinaris-in-chinese-churches-today/
Introduction 介言
In recent years a doctrinal confusion regarding Christ’s human nature has arisen in Chinese churches. A group of Christians identifying themselves as “Reformed” have asserted that Christ’s humanity is uncreated and pre-existent, co-eternal with His deity. Central to their general position is a challenge against what they think to be Chalcedon’s assumption, namely, that human nature must include the flesh. Their proposal is that Christ’s human nature is uncreated and eternally within His divine Person, and this human nature is the “image of God” in which human beings are created. On this view, Christ would be the archetypal human. According to their proposal, the incarnation would be Christ’s act of taking on merely human flesh, but not human nature, which already subsists within Christ’s Person from all eternity without the body. Their very fundamental starting point is that “no part of Christ’s Person can be created,” which, of course, does not necessarily contradict the historic orthodoxy of the Church if this very imprecise statement is properly qualified.
近年來華人教會間出現了一種對於基督人性的辯論。一群自稱為“改革宗”的基督徒堅持基督的人性是非受造的，先存的，與其神性同為永恆。他們基本的立場乃是挑戰他們所認為迦克頓信條的內容，也就是說，基督的人性必須被包含在其肉身之中。他們認為基督的人性乃是非受造的，並且與祂的神格同為永存，這個人性是‘神的像’，人性在其中被造。根據這個看法，基督是人類的原型。根據他們的看法，道成肉身乃是基督取了人類肉身的行為，基督並沒有取得人性，這個人性已經從永遠就存在於基督的位格中，卻沒有身體。他們最基本的觀點乃是，‘基督位格中沒有任何被造的部分（no part of Christ’s Person can be created），’當然，這個非常含糊不清的宣告若是能夠正確的被解釋，它不必然會跟教會的正統教義產生衝突。
However, given that it is not incorrect—though imprecise it may be—to say that “no part of Christ’s Person can be created,” it is a serious misreading of Chalcedonian Christology to interpret its description of Christ’s human nature as “a part of” His Person. On the Chalcedonian understanding, the relation between Christ’s human nature and divine Person is not to be understood as “part of the whole,” but rather a relation of : Christ human nature in such a way that it is inseparably to His divine nature in His divine Person with abiding distinction. If this “relation of communion” is hard to understand, think of the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not three “parts” of the Triune Godhead, but rather, as Augustine famously puts it, each Person in the of the divine Being. The three Persons are inseparably united in a relation of mutual indwelling (Greek: perichoresis) without ever blurring the distinction between the Persons. In a similar way, Christ’s two natures are not two “parts” of His Person, but are in a relation of communion and mutual communication, such that to see the man Jesus to see the very Son of God Himself. One important difference between Christ’s two natures and the Triune Godhead is that while the three Persons are co-eternally self--existent, Christ’s human nature was (i.e., taken on) by His divine Person upon the incarnation, before which Christ is called the “ ”—“Word without flesh.” Thus, when the Bible says that He “emptied Himself” (Greek: kenosis), it does not mean that He dumped some of His divine attributes, but rather He assumed or took on the form of a servant. In other words, it is a self--emptying rather than. In other words, Christ’s human nature was to His divine Person upon the incarnation, before which He was without human nature.
然而，因為這個宣告是錯誤的—雖然它可能只是含糊不清—宣稱“基督位格中沒有任何被造的部分”乃是對於迦克頓基督論的嚴重誤解，並將它對基督人性的描述詮釋為祂位格的‘一部分’。在迦克頓的理解之中，基督人性和神格間的關係不能被了解成為“部分（part of whole）”，而是相通的關係：基督取了人性的方式時代它以一種無法被分隔的方式，在祂的神格中，以彼此內住的方式，與祂的神性聯合。若這個“相通的關係”不容易被理解，我們可以想像三位一體：父，子和聖靈不是神格的三個“部分”，而是根據奧古斯丁著名的說法，每個位格皆擁有神完全的存有。三個位格以不可分割的方式在‘彼此內在’的方式中（希臘文：Perichoresis—相互滲透）相互聯合，同時三個位格的分別也不會被模糊。同樣的，基督的二性也不是祂位格的兩個“部分”，而是在相通和彼此相通的關係之中，如此觀看為人的基督，就是觀看神兒子的本身。在基督的二性和三一神的神格間很重要的一個不同點在於，在三個位格是同永恆，和自有的同時，基督的人性是祂的神格在成為肉身時被取的（例如，穿上），在這之前，基督被成為‘Logos asarkos’—“沒有肉身的道。”故此，當聖經說祂“倒空自己”（希臘文：Kenosis）的時候，並不代表基督把祂神性的屬性都倒光了，而是祂取了，或穿上奴僕的形像。換句話說，祂乃是藉由‘添加’而自我倒空，並不是因‘減少’而自我倒空。換句話說，基督的人性在道成肉身的時候被加在祂的神格之上，在這之前，祂是沒有人性的。
This is of key import to our knowledge of Jesus Christ: suppose that Christ’s human nature were “a part of” His divine Person, and given that the proponents of the aforementioned heterodox Christology are indeed right in their conviction that “no part of Christ’s Person may be created,” then the necessary inference would be that Jesus’s humanity is uncreated and eternally a part of His Person (this is precisely their proposal). Yet, after Christ “emptied” Himself, His humanity underwent : He took on the form of a servant, experienced bodily as well as mental growth (Luke 2:40), tasted death, and became incorruptible upon His resurrection. Now, if Christ’s humanity were uncreated and eternally subsisting as “a part of” His Person, there would then be two possible inferences. The first is to admit that Christ experienced all these changes in the fulness of His humanity, body and soul. But if His humanity, or indeed part of His humanity, were uncreated and eternally “a part of” His divine Person, would this not mean that a part of His very Person also underwent change? But Christ’s Person is the Person of the Son of God, the Creator--Logos: He is —in Him there is not a shadow of change! To avoid this inference, one may then argue for a second possibility: what experienced all these changes was only Christ’s physical body but not His entire human nature. On this view, Christ’s uncreated human nature has indeed been a part of His Person from all eternity, and this part—indeed no part—of His Person underwent change, because what experienced all the changes was only Christ’s body that was not a part of His humanity until the incarnation. Sure this would avoid the inference that Christ’s Person underwent change, but would it not then lead to the conclusion that Christ’s body was only a shadow, as it were? Yet that is an ancient heresy repudiated by Ecumenical Council known as “docetism”, namely, the theory that Christ did not really go through any of the things that happened during His earthly time: what suffered on the cross, for example, was only a shadowy body rather than His true and full human nature. As far as I know, the proponents of the theory of Christ’s uncreated humanity in contemporary Chinese churches have rejected docetism and recognised it as heresy. What this means, then, is that when they posit that Christ’s uncreated humanity subsists eternally within His Person, they cannot avoid the inference that Christ’s Person underwent change. For this reason, Chalcedonian Christology emphasises that Christ’s humanity is “a part of” His Person, thus eternally self--existent (indeed, if His humanity were “a part of” His Person, it would have to be eternal and uncreated if the whole Person is to be eternal and uncreated), but to His self--existent Person by . This way, Chalcedonian Christology can state that Christ really experienced in the fulness of His humanity all that He went through from His conception to the ascension, and all the changes that Christ underwent in His humanity would not constitute any shadow of change in His Person. Thus, it is of key import to understand the relation of Christ’s humanity to His Person as one of by . In my opinion, one key reason for the ongoing Christological confusion in Chinese churches today is a lack of understanding of the crucial differences between “a part of” and “united to.”
這乃是我們對於基督認識的關鍵之處：若基督的人性是祂神格的‘一部分’，並假設前述異端基督論的擁護者（the proponents of the aforementioned heterodox Christology）正確的相信‘基督位格中沒有任何被造的部分，’那麼其必然的推論就是，基督人性是非受造的，並且從永恆就是祂位格的一部分（這正是他們的想法）。然而，在基督‘倒空’祂自己智慧，祂的人性經歷了 ：祂去了奴僕的形像，在身體中經歷了心智的成長（路加2：20），嘗到了死亡，並在復活中成為不朽壞的。若，基督的人性是非受造的，並從永恆就是祂位格的‘一部分’，那麼，就產生了兩種可能的推理。首先，我們必須承認基督在祂人性，身體和魂的完全中經歷了這一切的改變。但若他的人性，或他人性的任何部分是非受造的，並從永恆就是祂位格的‘一部分’，這難道不就意味着祂位格的某個部分經歷了改變？然而基督的位格是神兒子，創造主-道的位格：祂是不改變的——在祂裡面沒有改變的影兒！若要避免這樣的推論，有人就會爭辯第二種可能性：經歷這所有改變的單單是基督的物質身體，而不是祂的整個人性。這個看法，基督非受造的人性實際上已經從永遠就是祂位格的一部分，而祂位格的這個部分—或者是沒有的部分—經歷的改變，因為經歷所有改變的只是基督的身體，而這個身體直到道成肉身都不是祂人性的一部分。當然這能夠避免基督位格經過改變的推論，但是，它難道不會導致基督的身體不過就是個幻影，或曾經是個幻影？是的，這個就是大公會議所否定的異端，成為“幻影論（docetism），”也就是說，那個理論教導基督在地上的時候，並沒用真正經歷那些發生過的事件：例如，在十字架上的受苦，不過就是個影子般的身體，而不是祂真實和完整的人性。就我所知道的，這些中國教會中支持基督非受造人性理論的人也已經拒絕形態論，並認為它是異端。那麼，這就代表，當他們把基督非受造的人性在永恆中就置於祂的位格中之時，他們無法避免基督位格經過改變的推論。有鑑於此，迦克頓基督論所強調的，基督的人性 祂位格的“一部分”，故此，就不是在永遠中自有的（確實，若祂的人性是祂位格的“一部分” ，如果整個位格是永遠和非受造的，那麼它就是永遠的和非受造的），而是藉由 （例如：披上的動作）與祂自有的位格 。如此，迦克頓基督論就能夠宣稱基督確實在他人性的豐滿中經歷了祂所經過的一切，從祂的成孕到升天，而基督在祂人性中所經過的所有改變並不會構成改變祂位格的陰影。故此，它乃是認識基督人性和祂的位格間之關係的鑰匙，將其視為藉由取而產生的聯合為一。今日的中國教會缺乏對於在‘一部分（a part of）’和‘於。。聯合（united to）’間那個關鍵不同的認識。
The irony in this whole confusion is that many proponents of the heterodox Christology claiming to be Reformed have actually stepped out of the limits of Chalcedon and confessional Reformed theology (see, for example, the Belgic Confession, Article 19) while accusing all those who remain within the boundaries of orthodoxy as heretical. This often irrational confusion is evident from online debates on the issue, almost all of which are in Chinese. If time permits, I will write about this online phenomenon in more detail in the future.
這個混亂局面中諷刺的一面是，許多異端基督論的支持者宣稱他們是改革宗的信徒，他們自己已經跨出了加克頓和改革宗神學（例如，比利時信條，19條）的界限，卻在同時攻擊其他那些留在正統範疇中的人為異端。這個非理性（often irrational）的混亂局面在網絡上的爭論中非常的明顯，這些爭論都是用中文進行的。若時間許可，我會進一步更詳細的描述這種網絡上的現象。
The task with which I am engaging myself in this article is not to directly take on the aforementioned heterodox Christology, but to introduce an ancient heresy known as Apollinarianism. What motivated me to compose this entry was a conversation with a friend who is a member of a Reformed church in Asia. He wrote to me saying that he believes in Christ’s possession of a human soul that is created, but he is unsure whether this is right, for logically it would lead to the conclusion that Christ has two souls, which worries him because it sounds like a heresy known as Nestorianism. In my response, I assured him that according to the Definition of Chalcedon, Christ does indeed possess a creaturely, “rational soul” in His humanity. It was instead the denial of Christ’s possession of a creaturely soul/will/mind that was deemed to be heresy by Ecumenical Council in the Seventh Century A.D., and this kind of heresy is known as “monothelitism,” namely, the position that Christ only has one rational soul/mind/will, which is divine and not human. In what follows I shall introduce a specific kind of proto--monothelitism known as Apollinarianism, named after Apollinaris, bishop of Laodicea in the Fourth Century A.D. I shall focus on how an Apollinarian pattern of thought is reflected through various aspects of the life of contemporary Chinese churches. I shall also introduce a staunch opponent of the heresy named Cyril of Alexandria, one of the great defenders of Nicene orthodoxy in the Early Church who made an invaluable contribution to the Council of Chalcedon posthumously.
在這篇文章中我為自己定下的目標乃是，不要直接處理前述的異端基督論，而是要先介紹一個古代的異端，就是亞波里拿流主義（Apollinarianism）。趨勢我這樣做的原因是我與一位在亞洲改革宗成員的對話。他寫信個我，告訴我他相信基督擁有一個被造的人類魂，但是他不確定這是否是正確的，因為從邏輯上而言，這會導致基督有兩個魂，因為這聽起來就像涅斯拖流主義（Nestorianism），使得他很困擾。在我的回信中，我向他寶座，根據迦克頓定義，基督在祂的人性中確實擁有一個被造的‘理性魂’。反而七世紀的大公會議定罪否定基督永遠一個被造的魂/意志/心思是異端，這種異端被成為‘基督一志論（monothelitism），’也就是說，它認為基督只有一個神的，而非人的理性魂/心思/意志。這也促使我將介紹一種基督一志論的原型（proto-monothelitism），被稱為亞波里拿流主義（Apollinarianism）。亞波里拿流（Apollinarius）是四世紀老底嘉的主教。我也會着重於近代中國教會如何反射出亞波里拿流模式的思想。我也會介紹一位名為亞歷山大的區利羅，他是這個異端的堅定反對者，在早期教會中偉大的尼西亞教義的捍衛者，他為了身後的迦克頓會議做出了不可磨滅的貢獻。
Apollinarianism and Its Implications 亞波里拿流主義以及其內涵
As I mentioned, Apollinarianism is a kind of proto--monothelitism denying Christ’s possession of a creaturely mind (in what follows, I will use the word “mind” synonymously with the term “rational soul,” in accordance with the usage adopted by the Definition of Chalcedon). Positing that the human mind is the seat of sin and is necessarily sinful while attempting to uphold Christ’s sinlessness, Apollinaris argues that Christ’s humanity consists only of a physical body and a non--rational soul, and that He does not possess a creaturely mind. As such, Apollinaris practically rejects Christ’s full and true humanity, thereby denying that Christ is of the same nature or substance with us in His humanity (what Apollinaris practically negates is an important dogma known as “consubstantiality,” or, in Greek, : Christ is of the same substance with us in His humanity, like unto us in all things, except without sin; and of the same substance with the Father in His deity, possessing the fulness of divine nature). Apollinaris himself did not hesitate to concur that Christ’s humanity and ours were indeed different. On this note, contemporary proponents of the theory of Christ’s uncreated humanity are indeed right in stating that “there is a qualitative difference between the Eternal and the created.” Yet, by this very same token they contradict themselves when they hold that Christ’s humanity is uncreated but consubstantial with ours. Apollinaris does not commit this fallacy of self--contradiction. Rather, he resorts to an outright denial of the Nicene position and asserts that Christ’s humanity differs from ours, thereby he practically negates Christ’s full and true humanity. Yet, the Bible clearly teaches that Christ “should be made like unto us in all things” (Hebrews 2:17), thus Apollinaris’s position is blatantly unbiblical, and it was repudiated as heresy at the First Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. The Council of Chalcedon that took place some seventy years later would declare over against Apollinarianism that in His humanity Christ possesses the “rational soul” of a creature as well as a body, and that in His human nature He was “consubstantial with us,” “like unto us in all things, but without sin.” Although the Definition of Chalcedon does not use the predicate “creaturely” or “created” to describe Christ’s humanity or rational soul, any scholar would agree that this was Chalcedon’s position. Thus Chalcedonian orthodoxy completely precluded Apollinarianism, along with a number of other heresies.
如同我已經提過的，亞波里拿流主義是基督一志論的原型，否認基督永遠一個被造的心思（接下來我將根據迦克頓定義的使用方式，把‘心思’當作‘理性魂’的同義詞）。亞波里拿流將人類的心思當作罪的溫床，在嘗試堅持基督的無罪性的時候，把人的心思視為必然有罪的，他認為基督的人性只包括一個物質的身體，和一個非理性的魂，這樣祂就不會擁有一個被造的心思。因着這個緣故，亞波里拿流刻意拒絕基督完整和真實的人性，而進一步否定基督在祂的人性中，擁有與我們相同的性質或本質（亞波里拿流特別反對的是一個被稱作‘同質性-consubstantiality’的教義，或，希臘文是，homoousion：基督在祂的人性中與我們有同樣的本質，在凡事上面與我們一樣，只是沒有最；在祂的神性中與父同質，擁有神性一切的豐滿。）亞波里拿流毫不保羅的認為基督的人性與我們的人性根本就是不同的。有鑑於此，今日對基督非受造人性的支持者們事實上正確的宣告“在永恆和被造之間有一種質量上的不同。”然而，當他們堅稱基督的人性是非受造卻與我們同質的時候，他們確是自我矛盾的。亞波里拿流並不認為這種謬論是自我矛盾。他反而採取直接否則尼西亞的立場，堅稱基督的人性與我們不同，故此他基本上否定了基督完全和真神的人性。然而，聖經明確的教導基督“在凡事上與我們一樣”（希伯來2：17），因此亞波里拿流的立場是公然的反對聖經，並在381年的第一次康士坦丁堡大會上被拒絕，定為異端。而七十年後舉起的迦克頓大會又在次定罪亞波里拿流主義，在基督的人性中，祂擁有一個被造之物的‘理性魂’和身體，在祂的人性中，祂‘與我們同質，’‘在凡事上與我們一樣，只是沒有最。’雖然迦克頓公式並沒有使用‘被造的（creaturely）’和‘被造（created）’來描述基督的人性或理性魂，所有的學者們都會同意，這就是加克頓的立場。故此迦克頓正統神學完全拒絕了亞波里拿流主義，以及一些其他的異端。
But what kind of consequences would Apollinarianism lead to, such that the Ecumenical Council would treat it so seriously? One scholar of the last century relied on the insights of Cyril of Alexandria to helpfully outline four implications of Apollinarianism. First, Apollinaris’s denial of a human mind in Christ “deprives Jesus of fully human experience,” and so Christ cannot fully participate in the human condition. This “destroys [Christ’s] representative capacity as Man before God. Hence worship of God cannot be .”
然而，亞波里拿流主義會造成什麼後果，而導致大公教會必須如此嚴肅的處理它呢？上個世紀中一位學者用亞歷山大的區利羅的觀點作為基礎，幫助他列出了亞波里拿流主義的四個內涵。首先，亞波里拿流否認在基督里有人類的意志，而“剝奪了基督完整的人類經驗，”基督也無法完全有份於人類的境況。這“摧毀了[基督]在神面前代表人的資格。故此我們無法基督來敬拜神。”
Second, the denial of the complete humanity of Christ “damages ‘the whole economy’ of salvation,” for if Christ were not consubstantial with us (i.e., not of the same nature with us, like us in all things except without sin), there would have been no real union between God and true humanity in Christ—it would instead be a union between God and an incomplete humanity that is not consubstantial with ours. Yet, if Christ did not possess a creaturely mind, it would have been impossible for our creaturely sins that sprang forth from our minds to be counted as Christ’s. This would mean that Christ could not have taken on our sins and suffered God’s punishment in our place. There thus remains a “considerable gap” between God and humanity, and without our union with Christ, “worship of God does not take place Christ.”
其次，否定基督完整的人性“損害了整個救贖的經綸（the whole economy of salvation），”因為若基督與我們不同質（例如，與我們的本質不同，只是在凡事上像我們，而沒有罪），在基督裡面的神和真實人性間，就沒有真正的聯合—這就成了神與一個不完整人性的聯合，那個人性與我們不同質。然而，若基督沒有一個被造的心思，從我們心思所產生的被造的罪就不可能被算為是基督的最。這就代表基督無法披上我們的罪，並在我們的地位上為神所審判。這就會導致在神與人類間留下了一個“巨大的鴻溝（considerable gap）”，若我們無法與基督聯合，“就無法 基督 敬拜神。”
Third, as implied above, Apollinarianism is unable to deal with the problem of sin because according to it Christ “did not take up into himself without sin that which had sinned intellectually, namely the soul.” Thus, Apollinarianism divorces “worship of God from the redemption of the human soul where it is so deeply in need of salvation within the depth of its struggle with sin.”
第三，如同上面所表明的，亞波里拿流主義無法處理罪的問題，因為根據它，基督“並沒有以無罪的方式披上了那個在理智上犯罪的部分，也就是魂。”故此，亞波里拿流主義切割了“從人類靈魂的救贖中對神的敬拜，而它在其深處急需救贖來幫助它對罪的掙扎。”
Fourth, the salvation of through the “reconciling exchange of Christ” is impossible if Christ did not have a human mind. In dissolving our mental union with Christ, “worship cannot be thought of as taking place Christ.”
第四， （the whole human person）藉由“基督和好的交換（reconciling exchange of Christ）”的救贖只有當基督具有人類心思的情況下才有可能。消滅我們在心思上與記得的聯合，必然導致“無法想像 基督 敬拜神。”
In short, Apollinarianism destroys the saving significance of the incarnation by cutting off the only possible bridge between God and humanity, namely, the true and full deity and humanity of Christ. As a result, Apollinarianism “had no place for [Christ’s] priesthood or human mediation in our worship of the Father, and by the same token it took away the ground for any worship of God with our human minds.”
簡而言之，亞波里拿流主義以切除在神與人類間，也就是真神和完整的神性與基督的人性間，唯一可能的橋梁的方式，摧毀了道成肉身的救贖意義。亞波里拿流主義的結果就是，“在我們對父的敬拜中，[基督]完全失去了祂的祭司和人類中保的職份，它也同樣的奪走了任何我們在人類心思中敬拜神的地位。”
Note that this twentieth- century critic of Apollinarianism consistently points out that this heresy cannot lead to true worship of God. This is of utmost significance, because, in the dear words of my beloved teacher, good old Jim Packer, “the purpose of theology is doxology.” If a theology does not lead to true worship, it is false theology.
讀者當主義這個20世紀對亞波里拿流主義的批判不斷的指出這個異端無法幫助人有對神真實的敬拜。這是最具意義的部分，因為，我親愛的老帥Jim Packer曾經說過，“神學的目的是在敬拜中讚美。”若一個神學無法產生真實的敬拜，它就是一個偽神學。
Cyril of Alexandria 亞歷山大的區利羅
Notable Church Fathers of Nicene orthodoxy who led to the repudiation of Apollinaris at the Council of Constantinople in late Fourth Century A.D. included Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers. However, in my opinion one definitive, though indirect, rejoinder to Apollinarianism in the Early Church came from Cyril of Alexandria. By the time Cyril was active, Apollinaris had long been condemned as a heretic, and Cyril never wrote a treatise against Apollinarianism. However, his two--nature Christology provided a positive system that exposed the defects of Apollinarianism.
在四世紀的康士坦丁堡大會上，帶頭定罪亞波里拿流的著名尼西亞正統教父包括亞他那修和迦帕多加教父。然而，我認為最早期教會中具關鍵，卻不是最直接駁斥亞波里拿流主義的人物是亞歷山大的區利羅。當時區利羅是非常活躍的，而亞波里拿流早就被定罪為異端，區利羅也未曾專門為反對亞波里拿流主義寫過任何一篇論文。然而，他的二性基督論（two nature Christology）提供了一個積極曝露亞波里拿流主義破綻的系統。
Cyril was born in late Fourth Century and lived into the Fifth Century A.D. The years of his theological output spanned the period between the Second and the Fourth Ecumenical Council, and he led the Third Ecumenical Council (First Council of Ephesus) in repudiating the heresy of Nestorianism and affirming that Jesus was not two but one Person, and that the baby to whom Mary gave birth was the Second Person of the Triune. He was a great defender of Nicene-Constantinople orthodoxy, and though he died just years before the Council of Chalcedon, there is no question that he was the true leader in the establishment of Chalcedonian orthodoxy.
區利羅了生於四世紀下半葉，並一直活到五世紀。他的神學著作生產期是介於第二和第四次大公會議之間，他也帶領召開第三次大公會議（第一次以弗所會議）以拒絕涅斯拖留主義異端，並肯定基督不是兩位，而只有一個位格，從馬里亞所生的嬰孩乃是三一神的第二個位格。他是偉大的尼西亞-康士坦丁堡正統的捍衛者，雖然他在迦克頓大會前一年過世，他建立迦克頓正統教義的真領袖地位是毋庸置疑的。
Cyril’s basic starting point is the Nicene understanding of the incarnate God as creaturely man: the Son of God assumed true and full humanity that is consubstantial with ours, creaturely as ours, with a rational soul just like ours except without sin, and in this one incarnate Person the one and the same Son of God acts from two sides, that is, from the side of God towards humankind and from the side of humanity towards God, as He is at once God and human. True enough, the Nicene--Constantinople Creed as published by the first two Ecumenical Councils does not contain the word “consubstantial” to relate Christ’s humanity to ours, but the word was used widely in liturgical versions of the Creed, and there is no question that this was the position of Nicene orthodoxy, which was of fundamental import to Cyril’s theology.
區利羅的起點是尼西亞對於道成肉身的神是一個被造之人的理解：神的兒子取了真神和完整的人性，完全與我們同質，如同我們也是被造的，並如同我們一樣有一個理性魂，只是沒有罪，在這個道成肉身的位格中，那一位不變之神的兒子從兩方面運作，就像他曾經是神，又是人一樣。確實，頭兩個大公會議頒布的尼西亞—康士坦丁堡信經在描述基督人性與我們的關係時並沒有使用“同質（consubstantial）”一詞，然而那個字在白話文版的信經中被廣泛的使用，它無疑的就是尼西亞正統的立場，也被區利羅引用作為其神學的基礎。
Underlying Cyril’s works is an Athanasian (Athanasius was a Church Father in the Fourth Century A.D. who defended the Trinitarian orthodoxy set forth by the First Council of Nicea against heretics, notably the Arians) formula: “Jesus Christ our Lord, whom and whom, to the Father the Son Himself in the Holy Spirit…”
在區利羅作品的內里是一種亞他那修式（亞他那修是四世紀的一位教會教父，他捍衛了第一次大公會議知道的三位一體的正統性，抵擋了亞流異端）的公式：“我們的主耶穌基督， 祂並 祂，在聖靈里同着神的兒子向着父。。。。”
Cyril insists that Christ worships God as a human being with a human mind, and not as a subordinate deity. Contemporary proponents of the theory of Christ’s uncreated humanity emphasise that no part of Christ, not even His humanity, is created, because Christ is our object of worship whereas no creature may be worshipped. Apollinaris used the same argument to argue that Christ could not have possessed a creaturely mind. Yet, Cyril would flip them on their head and ask: were Christ not truly and fully a creature while being truly and fully the uncreated Creator, how could He have been our High Priest, that is, one who worships the Uncreated? Indeed, a creature must not be worshipped, but then can the Creator be a worshipper? Suppose Christ worshipped the Father as the Creator Logos rather than created human, wouldn’t this make the Creator Logos a subordinate deity to the Father? (This was also the rebuttal that Gregory of Nyssa, Nicene--orthodox Cappadocian Church Father of the Fourth Century, A.D., offered against Apollinaris). Thus, the biblical truth that Christ is both the Worshipped One and the worshipper means that He is both uncreated Creator and created human being. It is in this way that His mediatorial role in worship is fulfilled: as creaturely human He offers up worship , with Himself as both Priest and sacrifice, and by our union with Christ through the Holy Spirit, we in His worship of the Father.
區利羅堅稱基督乃是作為一個人並帶着人類的心思來敬拜父，而不是作為一個次等的神祗。今日基督非受造人性的支持者強調，基督沒有一個部分，甚至祂的人性，是被造的，因為基督是我們敬拜的對象，而沒有被造之物能夠被我們敬拜。亞波里拿流就是用同樣的論點變成基督不可能擁有一個被造的心思。然而，區利羅卻敲着他們的頭，問他們：若基督不是同時是完全並完整的被造之物，又是完全並完整非受造的造物主，祂怎麼可能成為我們的大祭司，就是說，大祭司也是敬拜敬拜非受造的那一位？假設基督以造物主—道的身份，而而不是被造之物的身份來敬拜父，這難道不會使得造物主—道變成一個次等的神祗？（這也是尼撒的貴格利，四世紀尼西亞—正統迦帕多加教父，所否定亞波里拿流的論點）。故此，拯救的真理是，基督同時是被敬拜的那位，也是敬拜者，這代表祂同時是非受造的創造主和被造的人類。這樣才能完成祂在敬拜中中保的職份：作為一個被造的人，祂為了我們的緣故獻上敬拜，祂本身同時是祭司和祭物，因我們藉由聖靈與基督的聯合，我們 於祂對父的敬拜。
Our “union with Christ in worship” whereof Cyril speaks includes a “mental union.” One scholar comments: “Christian worship is offered in and through .” He identifies this as “the essence of our worship of the Father through the Son,” for “it is only on the ground of this mental union between us and Christ that He can be said .” The ground of this “mental union” with Christ is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit —an important notion in Reformed theology—hence the phrase “in the Holy Spirit” in the Athanasian formula: Christ sends His Spirit to indwell us as the “bond of unity” between Christ and us, such that Christ is us and we Christ the Holy Spirit, who , according to Cyril and Athanasius whom he follows, the very divine “Mind of Christ.” It is in this way that our theology, that is, our knowledge of God , , and Christ by the Holy Spirit, may lead to true worship of the Triune God. Apollinarianism, as we have seen, cannot achieve this because of its practical denial of Christ’s true and full humanity that is consubstantial with ours.
區利羅在此處論及的，我們“在敬拜中與基督的聯合（union with Christ in worship）”包括了一種“心智的聯合（mental union）”。一位學者這樣評論到：“基督教的敬拜乃是 基督的心思 ，並 基督的心思而被獻給神的。”他將其事物“我們藉由子敬拜父的元素，”因為“這個在我們和基督間心智的聯合是祂能夠被稱作 的唯一立場。”這個與基督“心智的聯合”的立場是聖靈的內住—一個改革宗神學非常重要的特定—故此，“在聖靈中（in the Holy Spirit）”這句話在亞他那修的公式中：基督差遣祂的聖靈來住在我們裡面，並作為在基督和我們之間“聯合的聯結（bond of unity）”，聖靈基督能夠 我們 ，我們也能夠 基督 ，根據區利羅和亞他那修，聖靈 基督那個神的心思’。也就是在這個模式之下，我們的神學，就是我們對神的認識乃是因着聖靈 基督 ， 基督，並 基督，它能夠帶領一個對三一神真正的敬拜。如同我們已經看見的，亞波里拿流主義不能達到這個目的，因為它可以否認了基督真神和完全，並與我們同質的人性。
Apollinarian Patterns of Thought in Chinese Churches Today 今日華人基督教中的亞波里拿流思維模式
Although Apollinarianism was repudiated as heresy by Ecumenical Council as early as the Fifth Century A.D., its diehard ghost does not go away so easily. The Roman Catholic tradition of the Intercession of the Virgin Mary is one example. Many people are of the opinion that the Chalcedonian title of Mary as “God--bearer” or “Mother of God” (Greek: ) is to blame for later confusions in Mariology. However, I do not think this opinion is well--grounded in the historical study of theology. Just as a note of clarification, by giving to Mary the title of God--bearer, the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon are emphasising that the baby to whom Mary gave birth was the very Person of the Son of God, and not a human person indwelled by divine nature. This was directed against the Antiochene title of Mary as “Christ--bearer” or “mother of Christ” ( ), which was meant to express that Mary gave birth to a human person who was indwelled by deity and thus adopted as the Son of God. The Chalcedonian title of Mary as “God-bearer” is to stress that Christ’s two natures are united in Person instead of two, and that His Person is divine and not human, eternal and uncreated. Now, if we look at history, I do not think we can find firm evidence to link this Chalcedonian title of Mary to later confusions in Mariology that arose in the Middle Ages. The veneration and intercession of Mary, in particular, derived from the notion of Mary as “Mediatrix” developed by Ephraim the Syrian and John Damascene in early Middle Ages, and later by Bernard of Clairvaux. One scholar last century pointed out that this notion of Mary as “Mediatrix” was really developed from an Apollinarian pattern of thought.
雖然亞波里拿流主義早在四世紀的大公會議就被否定並被定為異端，它的幽靈卻不是那麼容易被消滅。羅馬天主教對於童女馬里亞的童女懷孕傳統就是一個例子。許多人認為迦克頓福音馬里亞“生神者（God--bearer）”或“神的母親（Mother of God, 希臘文：theotokos ）”是後世馬里亞學所造成混亂的罪魁禍首。然而，我不認為這種觀念在神學歷史的研究中站的住腳。我首先要澄清，以弗所和迦克頓大會賜予馬里亞生神者的稱號乃是為了強調從馬里亞所生的嬰孩就是神兒子的位格，而不是一個有神性內在的人類位格。這乃是直接真的安提阿學派稱馬里亞為“生基督者（Christ-bearer）”或“基督的母親（mother of Christ，Christotokos）”，這意指馬里亞所生的是一個人類位格，藉由內住的神性而被認養成為神的兒子。迦克頓稱馬里亞為“生神者”是為了強調基督的二性被聯合在一個，而不是兩個位格中，而祂的位格是神的，而不是人的，是永恆的和非受造的。如今，若我們查考歷史，我不認為我們能夠找到任何的證明將迦克頓對馬里亞的稱呼與中世紀馬里亞學所造成的混亂聯繫起來。對馬里亞的尊崇和求情，特別是針對中世紀初期敘利亞的以法蓮（Ephraim the Syrian）和大馬士革的約翰（John Damascene）以及後來Bernard of Clairvaux所發展出來的“Mediatrix（女中保——譯者）”的觀念。上個世紀有一位學者指出，認為馬里亞是“女中保”的觀念實際上就是亞波里拿留式的思維模式所發展出來的。
What I mean by “Apollinarian pattern of thought” is a kind of theological tendency to uphold Christ’s full and true divine nature by compromising His full and true human nature. This includes any denial of Christ’s consubstantiality with us in His humanity, of the creatureliness of Christ’s humanity, of His possession of a creaturely mind, etc., as well as any kind of general tendency to emphasis Christ’s deity and undermine or neglect His humanity. Such Apollinarian pattern of thought has continually influenced Christian thinking since very early on. For example, until the Second Century A.D.—well before Apollinarius’s time—the symbol of the cross was scarcely to be found in Christian art, because for Christians under the rule of the Roman Empire, the cross was a symbol of utmost humiliation, and in their artworks they did not dare to associate it with Christ whom they confessed to be God. In fact, Apostle Peter once held to a proto--Apollinarian pattern of thought as well: as soon as he confessed that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God, he rejected the thought that Jesus would die, and for that reason Jesus rebuked him with the harshest words (see Matthew 16). Peter’s confession of Christ as Son of God was not yet orthodoxy, but only half--orthodoxy, and as soon as Peter denied the mortality of Christ’s humanity, his half--orthodoxy turned into Satanic heresy! In the Middle Ages, Apollinarian patterns of thought gave rise to the heresy of “monothelitism” that I mentioned earlier, as well as the traditions of the intercession and veneration of Mary. But how? Well, in the theological writings of aforementioned figures such as Ephraim the Syrian, John Damascene, and Bernard of Clairvaux, there is a lack of emphasis on Christ’s humanity, thus drawing Christ so far away from us, making Him so different from us, such that another mediatorial agent became necessary between Christ and us. Thus the notion of Mary as “Mediatrix” emerged. Believers began praying to Mary and venerating her.
我所指的“亞波里拿留式的思維模式（Apollinarian pattern of thought）”是一種為了堅持基督完全和真實神性而犧牲其完全和真實人性的神學張力。這包括許任何否認基督在人性上與我們同質，基督人性的被造性，祂永遠被造的心思等等，同樣包括任何為了強調基督的神性而忽視或否認祂的人性的張力。例如，在二世紀—遠在亞波里拿留的時代之前—基督教的藝術作品中幾乎找不到十字架的機會，因為對在羅馬帝國統治下的基督徒而言，十字架是一個最為羞辱的記號，在他們的作品中，他們不敢把它聯於他們所承認是神的基督。事實上，使徒彼得也曾經採取了亞波里拿留原型的思維模式：只要承認耶穌是基督，活神的兒子，他拒絕耶穌會死的觀念，因着這個緣故耶穌用最嚴厲的話來責備他（參考馬太16）。彼得承認基督是神的兒子還不夠正統，而只是半個正統，只要彼得一開始否認基督人性是會死亡的，他的半個正統立刻就會變成屬撒旦的異端！在中世紀，亞波里拿留主義的思維模式造成了我前面提及的“基督一志論”，已經對尊崇馬里亞並向馬里亞求情的傳統。怎麼可能呢？因為在前面提及的敘利亞的以法蓮，大馬士革的約翰和Bernard of Clairvaux的作品中缺乏對基督人性的強調，故此把基督置於遠方，讓祂與我們是那麼的不同，造成在基督和我們之間需要另一個中保的代表。這就孕育了馬里亞為“女中保”的觀念。信徒開始向馬里亞禱告，並尊崇她。
Many Chinese churches in our day also exhibit an implicitly Apollinarian pattern of thought by exalting Christ’s eternality and deity at the expense of His true and full humanity. The recent proposal to deny the creatureliness of Christ’s humanity is an example—it echoes Apollinaris’s claim that Christ does not possess a creaturely mind. Of course, to be sure, this heterodox Christological proposal is quite different from Apollinarianism in terms of the formal aspects of their respective doctrines. However, it is not hard to see that the two share similar concerns and exhibit similar patterns of thought.
今日的許多中國教會也表現出亞波里拿留式的思維模式，而過分高舉基督的永恆性與神學而犧牲了祂真實和完整的人性。近期對於基督人性的被造性之否認就是一個例子——它呼應了亞波里拿留所宣稱的，基督並沒有擁有一個被造的心思。當然，這個異端基督論的提綱肯定與亞波里拿留主義在相應的公式和教義上面是非常的不同。然而，我們不難看見兩者都共享相似的顧慮，已經體現出相似的思維模式。
Upholding the deity of Christ at the expense of His humanity in such an Apollinarian way would create a gulf between Christ and the rest of humanity. According to Nicene--Chalcedonian orthodoxy and historic Reformation theology, the Mediator between God and humanity must be the union of full and true deity and humanity in one Person, for if the Mediator were wholly God but not wholly human, then the divine--human “ontological divide” (as one contemporary theologian likes to put it), let alone the gulf of sin, would persist between humankind and the Mediator Himself. One strategy to overcome this gulf, as we have seen in the example of Roman Catholic Mariology, is to find a mediatorial agent between Christ and us. That is, if Christ were fully and truly God without at the same time being truly and fully human, then there would still be an infinite gulf between Christ and us, requiring us to be mediated to Christ by yet another agent, say, the intercession of Mary or the saints.
用亞波里拿留主義的方式高舉基督的神性並犧牲基督的人性會在基督和其他的人類間劃出一道鴻溝。根據尼西亞—迦克頓正統神學和歷史上改革宗的神學，神和人類間的中保必須在一個位格中聯合完全和真神的神性與人性，因為若中保只是完全的神而不是完全的人，那麼神-人“本體上的分別（ontological divide）”（今日的神學家們喜歡這樣稱呼它），在人類和中保本身間就會留下一道罪的鴻溝。在我們看見羅馬天主教馬里亞學的例子中，就看見在基督和我們之間有另一個中保。就是說，如果基督是完全和真實的神，在同時卻不是完全和真實的人，那麼在基督和我們之間仍然有一道無法跨越的鴻溝，需要另一位中保在我們和基督間調停，這就是對馬里亞和聖人的尊崇。
In many Chinese churches today, the same root of the problem has led to an opposite result. When we undermine the full and true humanity of Christ, neglecting or even denying His possession of a creaturely and rational mind, we have also come to forget the truth that Christ in His creaturely humanity offered up Himself as sacrifice, so that and Him we may also come to worship God. We forget that the gulf of sin still separates sinners from God, that we are still sinners, and that only by Christ’s mediation can we come before God. Thus in our churches we sing praises to God without sufficiently high regard for the Lord’s Supper, which is the spiritual sign and seal of our participation in the Mediator Jesus Christ. On that note, it is worth mentioning that in the good old days of the Reformation, John Calvin insisted that the Lord’s Supper be observed at least every Sunday, if one could not keep it every day! In an average Chinese church today, however, usually the Lord’s Supper is observed only once a month—for Calvin that would have been horrendous!
在許多今日的中國教會中，這個問題的根已經造成了一種反面的結果。當我們貶低基督完全和真實的人性時，就忽視或甚至否認祂擁有一個被造和理性的魂，我們也會忘記基督在祂被造的人性中將自己獻上為祭，好叫我們 祂裡面，並祂能夠近前來敬拜神的真理。我們也會忘記罪的鴻溝仍然將分割了罪人和神，使得我們仍然是罪人，只有基督的中保職分能夠讓我們來到神的面前。故此，在我們的教會中我們嘗試讚美神卻對主的晚餐沒有足夠的尊重，它乃是我們有份於中保耶穌基督的屬靈記號和印記。順着這個思路，我覺得值得提及改革宗美好的過去，約翰加爾文堅持主的晚餐應該最起碼每個禮拜舉行一次，若不能每天都有！然而，今天的華人教會平均每月只舉辦一次主的晚餐—對於加爾文而言，這是令人膽戰心驚的！
Similarly, Word and Sacrament, as well as preaching and worship, in many conservative Evangelical Chinese churches, especially ones that identify themselves as Reformed, have grown into disproportion, partly because of an implicit—and in some cases explicit—Apollinarian pattern of thought among these churches. Recall that for Cyril of Alexandria, the rational, creaturely soul of Christ is so crucial because it ensures that our human, creaturely reason can be united to Christ in worship. Put another way, theology as a rational activity can lead to worship precisely because our creaturely reason is united to the creaturely mind of Christ. Conversely, to emphasise our participation in Christ’s creaturely mind is to stress that the purpose of theology is doxology. Yet, in conservative Evangelical Chinese churches today, it is often the other way around: doxology often becomes subservient to theology. For instance, the standard length of a sermon in an average Evangelical Chinese church would range from 45 minutes to an hour, whereas the worship would comprise about twenty to thirty minutes only. At the start of the service, the “worship leader” would often say, “Let’s start singing praises to God in order to prepare our hearts for listening to His Word.” This one-sided emphasis on the centrality of the Word is part and parcel of the marginalisation of sacrament and liturgy in the vast majority of conservative Evangelical Chinese churches today: doxology is no longer the purpose of theology, but rather theology has been made the purpose of doxology!
同樣的，道和聖禮就像傳道和敬拜一樣，在許多保守的福音派中國教會中，特別是那些自認為是改革宗的教會中，已經發展的不成比例了，部分的原因是因為在這些教會中的—在某些事例上特別明顯—這種亞波里拿留式的思維模式。讓我們回想，對於亞歷山大的區利羅，基督理性和被造的魂是那麼的重要，因為它保證了我們人類被造的理性能夠在敬拜中與基督聯合為一。換個方式說，神學是一種理性的活動，因着我們被造的理性被聯合與基督被造的理性，能夠產生正確的敬拜。相反的，強調我們有份於基督被造的心思就是強調神學的目的乃是要在敬拜中讚美神（doxology）。然而，在現在的福音派華人教會中，往往反其道而行：在敬拜中讚美往往成為神學的下屬。例如，在一個標準的華人福音派教會中，標準講道的時間約在45分鐘到一個小時之間，而敬拜的時間往往被壓縮到20到30分鐘。在聚會的一開始，“敬拜的領導者（worship leader）”往往會說，“讓我們開始唱敬拜神的詩歌，好預備我們的心以聆聽祂的話語。”這種單方面強調道的中心性是今日大部分保守福音派華人教會把聖禮和敬拜儀式邊緣化做法的一部分：在敬拜中讚美神不再是神學的目的，反而把神學當作在敬拜中讚美的目的！
There are, of course, many Chinese churches today—not just Charismatic ones but also the less conservative among Evangelical churches (in the Chinese usage, “Charismatic” and “Evangelical” often tend to be mutually exclusive)—that exhibit an opposite tendency to marginalise the Word and fill their worship services with emotional “singspiration” or “praise and worship.” I would venture to posit that this also has to do with an implicitly Apollinarian pattern of thought characteristic of certainly more than just a small minority of Chinese churches today: as the mind of Christ is undermined in worship, one twentieth -century theologian observes, “the noetic character of the liturgy as ‘rational service’ progressively faded into the background,” and a “detachment of worship from theology” occurs. Additionally, contemporary “praise and worship”—not just in Chinese churches but in the West as well—often tends to seek to overcome the lack of Christ’s mediatorial role in their worship services by undermining God’s utter transcendence. That is, they tend to think that the Most Holy Place is not such a dreadful place to enter without a High Priest. The lyrics of a praise--and--worship song popular in both East and West today make my point clear:
當然，今天仍有許多華人教會—不單單是溫和靈恩（Charismatic）教會，也包括較不是那麼保守的福音派教會（在中文世界中，“溫和靈恩派（Charismatic）”和“福音派（Evangelical）”常常是互相排斥的）—這表現出一種將道邊緣化的相反張力，用情緒化的‘歌頌獲得靈感（singspiration）’或‘讚美敬拜（prasie and worshiip）’充斥着他們的崇拜。我要大膽的指出這也是與今日華人教會的一小群教會所具有的亞波里拿留式的思維模式特徵有關的：就像基督的心思在敬拜中被貶低，一位二十世紀的神學家察覺到，“禮儀中為‘理性服務’的抽象特徵慢慢的淡化到背景之後，”以及“使敬拜從神學中脫節”已經發生了。除此以外，今日所謂“敬拜讚美”—這不單單發生在華人教會中，也同樣發生在西方的叫花子—往往藉由貶低神的完全超越性，來客服在他們敬拜中缺乏基督為中保的缺失。就是說，他們總認為最聖潔的地方（指至聖所——譯者）並不是我們必須由基督伴隨一同進入的那個令人生畏的所在。這種今日在東西方都盛行的，抒情式的敬拜讚美詩歌讓我的訴求點變得非常清晰：
When the music fades, all is stripped away,
And I simply come; longing just to bring
Something that’s of worth, that will bless Your heart.
當音樂逝去，揭開一切的表象，
我單純的前；希望之帶來
配得過的事物，以祝福你的心腸。
I’ll bring you more than a song,
For a song in itself is not what You have required.
You search much deeper within, through the way things appear;
You’re looking into my heart.
我不單單帶個你一首歌，
因為歌曲的本身並不是你所要求的。
你在我的更深之處尋覓，藉由顯現給我的事物；
你正在查驗我的心。
These lyrics betray a widespread Evangelical attitude in worship today, namely, the notion that believers themselves are offerers of worship, and the content of offering is not Christ but human emotions. Several points can be observed here. First, the mediatorial role of Christ is scarcely found in Evangelical “praise--and--worship” songs today (there are exceptions of course, such as many hymns written by Keith and Kristyn Getty). Second, the rational element—the “mind”—in worship is lost; the centrality of the worshipping mind of Christ is replaced by human emotions. Third, this style of worship is detached from the overall conservative theology of Evangelicalism, which stresses the transcendence and wrath of God, and the penal nature of Christ’s substitutionary atonement.
這些抒情歌曲背叛了今天福音派在敬拜中的態度，也就是說，是一種信徒將自己獻上作為敬拜的觀念，其奉獻的內涵並不是基督，而是人的情感。在此處我們可以看見許多的重點。首先，基督中保的職份已經很難在今日福音派所謂‘敬拜-讚美’的是個中找得到了（當然也有例外，例如Keith和Kristyn Getty所寫的詩歌）。其次，敬拜已經失去了理性的元素—“心思”；敬拜中以基督的心思為中心已經被人的情緒所替代。第三，這種敬拜的風格基本上已經脫離了福音派主義的保守神學，它強調神的超越性和憤怒，以及基督為我們替死代贖的法理本質。
Conclusion 結論
The implicitly Apolliniarian patterns of thought that I have identified thus far is reflected not only in various, and often conflicting, liturgical practices among many Chinese churches today, but also shown in a more rational-theological attitude among many Chinese Christians. At the beginning of this article I gave the example of a friend from a Reformed church in Asia. This good Christian is well in line with Nicene--Chalcedonian orthodoxy in his belief that Christ’s human soul was created. However, he was uncertain about this belief, because he was brought up in a church in which believers are unintentionally trained to be afraid of emphasising Christ’s true and full humanity. In particular, my friend was afraid that his belief in the creatureliness of Christ’s human soul might lead to the conclusion that Christ has two wills and two minds, one divine and one human.
我在此所指出的亞波里拿流思維模式的現象往往不只出現在今日許多的華人教會中互相矛盾的儀式之中，也出現在許多中國基督徒更為理性-神學性的態度中。在本文的一開始，我已經用我從亞洲改革宗教會的朋友作為例子。這位良善的基督徒完全以和合尼西亞-迦克頓正統教義的方式相信基督人類魂是被造的。然而他對這樣的信仰卻沒有把握，因為他在一個充滿了無意間被訓練的成為害怕基督真實和完全人性的信徒之教會中被帶大的。我的這位朋友特別擔心他對於基督人性魂為被造的信仰可能導致基督有兩個意志和兩個心思，一個是神的，一個是人的這樣的結論。
For many Chinese Christians, their religious instinct is to find such a conclusion unacceptable. They fear that it might tear apart Christ’s one divine Person, rendering Him schizophrenic, so to say. But, one may ask, isn’t this precisely one of Apollinaris’s fears? Apollinaris wanted to ensure that Christ is fully and truly God, and, in an effort to steer away from the heresy of Arianism, which emphasised Christ’s humanity by compromising His deity, Apollinaris went too far in the opposite direction, denying Christ’s possession of a creaturely mind, the “rational soul” in His humanity. One might ask, is the theory of Christ’s pre--existent humanity proposed in Chinese churches of our own day not akin to Apollinaris’s one--sided concern to safeguard the deity of Christ in their insistence that Christ’s humanity is uncreated, and, consequently, that Christ does not possess a creaturely soul?
對於許多中國基督徒而言，他們的宗教直覺會告訴他們這樣的結論是無法接受的。他們害怕這回撕裂基督獨一的神格，或者說，把他變成精神分裂換着。然而，有人或許會文，難道這不就是亞波里拿流所害怕的嗎？亞波里拿流想要確保基督是完全和真實的神，為了能夠徹底擺脫為了強調基督人性而消減基督神性的亞流主義異端，亞波里拿流在相反的方向跑的太遠了，導致他否認基督在祂的人性中，擁有一個被造的心思，“理性魂”。有人或許會文，我們今天許多華人教會所提出的基督人性先存的理論，與亞波里拿流那種一面倒的，為了捍衛基督的神性而堅稱基督的人性是非受造的，進而導致基督不會擁有一個被造之魂的顧慮難道是一樣的嗎？
In response to my friend who expressed his worries in holding to the belief that Christ’s human soul was created, I offered the following reassurance—and therewith I conclude my rather lengthy blog entry:
為了回應我這位相信基督人性魂是被造的朋友，我提供一下的保證—也藉此為這篇頗長的博文做一個結論：
Indeed your position would lead to the conclusion that Jesus has two souls/wills/minds—but that is exactly the position that the Nicene-Chalcedonain Fathers decided to adopt! And no, it does not lead to Nestorianism or any other heresy. Quite the contrary, there was a heresy known as “monothelitism,” which holds that Jesus only had one soul/will/mind, divine and not human. Ecumenical Council of the Seventh Century A.D. decided that this was a heresy. One form of proto--monothelitism that became prominent early on was Apollinarianism, named after Apollinaris, bishop of Laodicea in the Fourth Century A.D. Apollinaris was a staunch opponent of Arianism, and had a high view of Christ’s divine nature. However, Apollinaris exalted Christ’s divine nature at the expense of His human nature, asserting that Christ’s humanity did not include a rational soul, but only a lower soul (emotions and instincts).
事實上，你的立場會導致基督擁有兩個魂/意志/心思的結論—然而，那正是尼西亞—迦克頓教父們決定採用的教義！不！它絕對不會導致涅斯拖留主義或任何其他的異端。反而，有一個被稱作“基督一志論（monothelistism）”的異端，堅持基督只有一個魂/意志/心思，是神的，而不是人的。七世紀的大公會議將其定為異端。另外一種在其之前，極具影響力的基督一志論的原型就是亞波里拿流主義，根據四世紀老底嘉主教亞波里拿留命名的。亞波里拿流是亞流主義的堅決反對這，並正確的認識基督的神性。然而，亞波里拿流高舉基督的神性到一個地步，以犧牲祂的人性為代價，堅稱基督的人性不包括一個理性魂，而只有一個低級的魂（情感和本能）。
You mentioned Nestorianism. Interestingly, one great Nicene Father who was a staunch opponent of Nestorianism was Cyril of Alexandria. While Cyril opposed Nestorius’s Antiochene emphasis on Christ’s humanity, however, the Alexandrian Father had rejected the Christology of another heretic, and that was Apollinaris. For Cyril, Apollinaris compromised Christ’s full humanity to the extent that Christ was without a rational soul and thus, implicitly, was not consubstantial with us. Cyril agrees with Apollinaris that the rational soul is the “seat of sin,” but unlike Apollinaris, Cyril argues that without a rational soul, Christ could not have imputed unto Himself our sins as a true human being, and thus could not have been our Mediator. According to Chalcedonian orthodoxy of which Cyril was one of the most important founders, Christ possesses a “rational soul” in His creaturely humanity. This position is expressed clearly in the Chalcedonian Creed. Therefore, rest assured, your position is well in line with the historic orthodoxy of the holy universal Church!
你提到涅斯拖留主義。很有意思的是，一位堅決反對涅斯拖留主義的尼西亞教父是亞歷山大的區利羅。當區利羅堅決反對涅斯拖留那種安提阿式的，對基督人性的強調的同時，這位亞歷山大教父同時也拒絕了了你跟一個基督論異端，亞波里拿流。對於區利羅，亞波里拿流犧牲了基督完全的人性到一個地步，基督完全失去了理性魂，故此暗示基督與我們不同質。區利羅認可亞波里拿流所謂理性魂是“罪的溫床”的說法，但是他與亞波里拿流不同之處在於，區利羅認為缺少了理性魂，基督就不能作為一個真正的人，將我們的罪背負在祂自己身上，故此不能成為我們的中保。根據區利羅作為主要建立者的迦克頓正統，基督在祂被造的人性中擁有一個“理性魂”。這個立場在迦克頓信經中表述的非常明確。故此，讓我確認，你的立場完全與歷史中，神聖的宇宙教會所堅守的正統完全一致！
