simply the Spirit of God. The soul, he explains, is not immortal in and of itself; so, “if it remains by itself, it dies with the flesh … But when it is untied to the divine spirit (πνεῦμα), it does not lack for help, and it rises to where the spirit leads it. For the seat of the latter is above, while its origin is below. Now, in the beginning, the spirit was the guide of the soul; it abandoned it when it did not want to follow it… Now the Spirit of God does not reside in all, but in some who live justly … The souls who have obeyed wisdom have drawn the Spirit, who is closely related to them (GREEK) …”
Saint Irenaeus, then Origen, should make us pause a little longer because of the abundance of texts, their importance and their difficulty.
It is in the fifth book of Adversus Haereses that Irenaeus gives us his views about anthropology. But his goal was not to write a clear and didactic exposition for the use of the historians who would pore over his text later on; it was to refute heretics who conceived of salvation for man only in “rejection of the flesh”. On the other hand, careful always to stick very close to Scripture, he lets himself be guided successively by the different texts he uses, which leads him to change more or less his perspective and his terminology in the course of his text. Hence the difficulties for interpreters.
The first passage in which the distinction between the soul and the spirit is affirmed is of little interest to us, for it is there a question of an exposition of heretical doctrine. In response, chapter 6, no.1, is presented as an orthodox commentary on the Pauline texts:
Through the hands of the Father, which is to say, by the Son and the Sprit, it is man, and not a part of man, who becomes the image and the resemblance of God. Now the soul and the sprit can be a part of man, but in no way man: the perfect man is a mixture and union of the soul who has received the Spirit of the Father and who has been mixed with the flesh modeled according to the image of God….
 Tatian, Ad Graecos, c.13, 2 (PG 6, 833 AB and 836 A).
 “The anthropology of Irenaeus”, writes Dom Bernard Botte, “is not a learned anthropology” (BTAM. 10, 566). One can say as much for his whole theology. Which does not mean it is without interest.
Dom Bernard Botte寫到，「愛任紐得人論並不是一個學術性的人論」（BTAM. 10, 566）。人們可以討論他的整個神學思想。但這並不代表他的神學是沒有某個著重點的。
 More particularly, as we shall see, it passes from the perspective of 1 Corinthians 2:14-15 (opposition of the natural and the spiritual) to that, which is completely different, of 1 Thessalonians 5:23 (trichotomic gradation), the whole interfering with Genesis 1:26.
 Adversus Haereses 1.5, c.8, n.1 (Sources chretiennes 153:95).
 Ibid., 1.5, c.4, n.1: “… in saying what is vivified by the Father, this, whose duration is endless, is evident for everyone, to wit, the spirit, the soul and the other things of this kind…” (Sources Chretiennes 153:57).
Ibid., 1.5, c.4, n.1:「。。。當論到被父所點活的部分，它是永恆的，明顯的就是靈，魂以及其它類似的事物。。。」(Sources Chretiennes 153:57)
under the name of “perfect”, the Apostle designates those who have received the Spirit of God… He also calls them “spiritual”; they are spiritual through a participation of the Spirit, but not through a voiding and a suppression of the flesh. In fact, if one dismisses the substance of the flesh, that is, such a thing is no longer the spiritual man but the Spirit of man or the Spirit of God. By contrast, when this Spirit, mixing with the soul, is united to the modeled work, thanks to this effusion of the Spirit, the spiritual and perfect man is achieved, and it is he himself who has been made in the image and resemblance of God. When, on the contrary, the Spirit is absent in the soul, such a man, remaining in all truth natural and carnal, will be imperfect, possessing indeed the image of God in the modeled work, but not having received the resemblance by means of the Spirit.
From all the evidence, Irenaeus counts here three elements in man. But is it simply a matter of man or of the perfect man? Or, rather, to speak without ambiguity, is it simply a question of the “perfect” man, which is to say, complete in his nature, or man divinized through the participation of the Spirit of God? Or indeed, does Irenaeus mix the two things? The text that follows will perhaps enlighten us:
Modeled flesh alone is not the perfect man: it is only the body of man, thus one part of man. Neither is the soul alone man: it is only the soul of man, thus one part of man. Nor is the Spirit man: one gives it the name of Spirit, not that of man. It is the mixture and union of all these things that constitute the perfect man. And this is why the Apostle, in explaining himself, has clearly defined the perfect and spiritual man, beneficiary of salvation, when he says in this First Letter to the Thessalonians: “May the God of peace make you perfect and holy, so that you may be fully complete and so that your whole being – to with, your Spirit, your soul and your body – may be preserved without reproach for the coming of the Lord Jesus.”
What motive did he have in asking that theses three things, to wit, the soul, the body and the Spirit, be preserved whole for the coming of the Lord if he had not known that all three were to be restored and reunited and that there is for them but one and the same salvation? This is why he calls “full complete” those who present these three things without reproach to the Lord. Thus those are perfect who, all at once, possess
 Ibid., 1.5, c.6, n.1 (153:75-77), translated by Adlin Rousseau.
The Spirit of God, remaining always with them, and maintain themselves without reproach with respect to their souls and their bodies, which is to say, preserving faith toward God and keeping justice toward their neighbor.
The hesitation remains. On the one hand, the Spirit constitutes with the soul one part of man; it is called the “Spirit of the man” and seems to be distinguished from the “Spirit of God”; it, in itself, does not constitute the man any more than the body or the soul does, but it is one of the three elements that constitute him; these three elements are also enumerated according to Saint Paul, who wishes them, all three, to be without reproach – a wish that would be irrelevant, even impertinent, in the case of the Spirit of God; finally, moreover, Irenaeus himself considers that they are all three to be “restored” and to be presented to the Lord. But, on the other hand, the soul receives “the Spirit of the Father”; the man is called “spiritual” insofar as he receives participation of the Spirit, and this participation makes him to be not only in the image but in the resemblance of God; finally, if this man is “perfect”, it is because, in additions to the soul and the body, he “possesses the Spirit of God”. And these two series of affirmations are not found in different contexts, they are closely intermingled.
仍然有人拒絕這樣的看法。在另一方面，靈與魂構成了人的一部分；被稱作「人的靈（Spirit of the man）」並看起來與「神的靈（Spirit of God）」不同；靈跟身體或魂一樣都不能構成人，而是構成人的三個元素之一；保羅也希望這三個元素能夠無可指摘－若此處指的是神的靈，那是牛頭不對馬嘴，甚至是無理莽撞的看法；最後，愛任紐認為這三者都會被「恢復」並被獻給主。但是，在另一方面，魂領受了「父的靈（the Spirit of the Father）」；人因為有分於聖靈而被稱作「屬靈人」，這使得他不僅僅成為神的形像，也成為神的肖像；最終，人在魂與身體之外，因為「擁有神的靈」，而成為「完全的」。這兩種肯定的方式並不是出現在不同的本文中，而是彼此緊密的交織在一起。
Yet, a little farther on, several passages come to support the second series:
Those who possess the deposit of the Spirit and who … surrender themselves to the Spirit …, the Apostle rightly calls “spiritual”, since the Spirit of God dwells in them: for spirits without bodies will never be spiritual man, but it is our substance – that is, the composite of soul and flesh – that, in receiving the Spirit of God, constitutes the spiritual man … The weakness of the flesh makes the power of the Spirit shine
 Ibid., 77-81. Like the translator, we always write Spirit with a capital, but without making too hasty a judgment about the precise meaning of the word: in any hypothesis, the dignity of this third principle merits a capital.
 Cf. Henri Rondet, Le Peche original dans la tradition patristique et theologique (1967), 58: “Irenaeus linking up with Jewish anthropology. The soul of which he speaks is probably closer to the Hebrew nephesch than Greek psyche, and it is in this sense that he says of it, in a text that has become a classic, that the perfect man is composed of a body, a soul and the Holy Spirit: Adversus Haereses 5.9.I (Harvey, 2:342; PG 7, 1141 B). Cf. J. Lebreton, 2 (1982), 607.
Cf. Henri Rondet, Le Peche original dans la tradition patristique et theologique (1967), 58: 「愛任紐引用了猶太人的人論。他所說的魂可能更趨近於希伯來文的nephesch ，而不是希臘文的psyche，並且，他的論述在這個意義上成為經典之作，就是完全的人是由一個身體，一個魂與聖靈所構成的：Adversus Haereses 5.9.I (Harvey, 2:342; PG 7, 1141 B). Cf. J. Lebreton, 2 (1982), 607.
 If we must believe that Latin version (and the Greek retroversion), Irenaeus takes “body” and “flesh” here as synonyms. The weakness of the flesh is not here, it seems, moral weakness (at least not at first); it is, if one can say so, ontological weakness. Cf. below, Adversus Haereses, 5.9.1, where, if the two meanings of “flesh” succeed each other, it is the moral sense that carries it along.
Forth …, and it is of these two things that the living man is made: living due to the participation of the Spirit, man through the substance of the flesh. – Therefore, without the Spirit of God, the flesh is dead… 
The breath of life, which makes the natural man, is one thing, and the vivifying Spirit, which renders him spiritual, is another. The breath has been given indistinctly to all the people who inhabit the earth, while the Spirit has been given exclusively to those who trample down earthly covetous desires …
“For the Spirit will come out around me, and it is I who made all breath” (Is 57:16). He ranks in a way the Spirit in a sphere apart, beside God, who, in the last days, spread it over mankind for adoption; but he situates the breath in the common sphere, among creatures, and he declares it something created. Now, what has been created is different from the one who creates it. The breath is thus a temporary thing, while the Spirit is eternal… After having enveloped man from within and without, he remains always with him and, henceforth, will never abandon him.
One will note, however, that in these texts the perspective is no longer that of an anthropological analysis and that they are condemned by other biblical passages than the preceding. Moreover, as Irenaeus’ principle objective just now was to claim for the body itself a salvation of which the heretics say it is incapable, his objective here is to show that this salvation, the definitive blossoming of the spiritual life whose seed is in each man, is the work of the Spirit of God in each man. In no passage is Irenaeus concerned to give us what we would call a philosophical anthropology. He does not go deeply into – to tell the truth, he does not even have in mind – the problem of the insertion of the Spirit of God in man. Despite the several expressions we have brought out, and several others as well, we believe that the Spirit of which he speaks is always the Sprit of God, even when he considers it in man. If, for example, it is said in 5.6.1 that the soul and the Spirit can be “one part of man”, one can observe, with Dom Adelin Rousseau, that “pars” is in the singular. “Thus, although Irenaeus does not hesitate to see in the Spirit of God one of the three constitutive
讀者會注意到，在那些本文中的視角不再是人論的分析，並而是針對那些被其它聖經經文所定罪的觀點。此外，愛任紐的主要目的是要宣告身體的救贖，異端則認為這是不可能的，愛任紐就是要表明這個救贖，屬靈生命綻放的種子就是神的靈在每一個人裡面工作的結果。愛任紐的作品中也沒有別的段落為我們提供所謂哲學性的人論。他並沒有想要深入－教導真裡，他根本沒有這樣的想法－探討神的靈如何進入人裡面的這個問題。不論我們提出什麼樣的說法，當愛任紐認為這個靈是在人的裡面的時候，我們相信我們所論及的靈就是神的靈。例如：在5.6.1中說到，魂與靈應該是「人的一部分」，讀者就可以看見所Dom Adelin Rousseau說的，此處的「pars」是單數的。「故此，雖然愛任紐並不會將神的靈視為完整之人的三個構成元素中的一個，
 Ibid., 1.5, c.8, n.2; c.9, n.2-3 (pp. 588 and 592).
 Ibid., 1.5, c.12, n.2 (pp. 143 and 145). Cf. Gen 2:7 and 1 Cor 15:45.
 Ibid., 147-49. One should not dwell on: 1.5, c.4, n.1, which reports a remark made by the heretics. (p.57)
Ibid., 147-49。讀者不能只停止在：1.5, c.4, n.1，該處乃是論道異端的觀點。(p.57)
elements of the perfect man, he refuses, and for good reason, to make this Spirit a ‘part’ of the perfect man … ” A little father on, it is said that the Spirit, like the soul and the body, is to be restored and saved, which seems strange if it is indeed a question of the Spirit of God; but, Dom Rousseau again comments, “what is to be saved is not the Spirit as such but the Holy Spirit insofar as communicated to man for his full achievement; in other words, the Spirit is less saved than is saved …”These explanations are ingenious; they can seem a little subtle; they do not, however, in our opinion, falsify the general line of Irenaean thought. Perhaps it is only necessary to complete them by recognizing that the texts that are to be thus explained give witness to a rather clear tendency to conceive of man (even if it is a question of the “perfect man”) according to the anthropological scheme suggested by the Apostle.
If, therefore, the Spirit indeed designates for Irenaeus the Spirit of God, his very manner of considering this Spirit of God in man, and of seeing in it thus one of the three elements that combine to constitute the perfect man, poses an anthropological problem. Just like the text of the First Letter to the Corinthians of which Irenaeus wants to give an account, it invites a resolution of this problem in the direction of a certain “trichotomy” – which Origen, more of a philosopher, will soon do. “The heretics”, we read again in the fifth book of Adversus Haerese, “… do not understand that three things, as we have shown, constitute the perfect man: the flesh, the soul and the Spirit. One of them saves and forms, to wit, the Spirit: another is saved and formed, to wit, the flesh; another, finally, is between those two, to wit, the soul, which now follows the Spirit and takes its flight thanks
 Ibid., 5.6.1, Cf. Sources chretiennes 152:228-29 and 233-34.
 On a point that does not inform his essential thesis, we hesitate to make our own an explanation by Dom Rousseau. According to him, the substantia carnis of 5.6.1 (pg. 74, l.21) would signify the flesh alone, and spiritus hominis (p.76.l.i) would signify the soul. But a little father on, in 5.9.2, Irenaeus goes on to say: “The living man is made of these two things: living, due to the participation of the Spirit, man through the substance of the flesh” [1.12, 2.38-40]. This text is not annotated. If one understands it according to the explanation given for 5.6.1, and for other passages, would it not be necessary to conclude that, according to 5, 9.2, man would have neither soul nor spirit? He would be, in his very perfection, composed of two single elements: the flesh along (substantia carnis) and the Holy Spirit (Spiritus). On the “flesh” in the anthropology of Irenaeus, refer to the explanations of Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Glory of the Lord: A Theological Aesthetics, vol. 2 Studies in Theological Style: Clerical Style (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1984), 62-67.
我們拒絕解釋為甚麼於Dom Rousseau未曾提供他最基本論點。根據他本人，5.6.1中的substantia carnis（肉體的實質）（pg. 74, l.21）只代表肉體，而spiritus hominis（人的靈）（p.76.l.i）代表的是魂的說法。但是過不了多久，在5.9.2裡面，愛任紐繼續說到：「活人由以下兩件事物構成：活，因為有分與聖靈，人，藉由肉體的實質。」[1.12, 2.38-40]他並沒有解釋這段本文。若讀者根據5.6.1的解釋來詮釋這段話並其它的段落，難道就不會結論到，根據5.9.2，人即沒有魂也沒有靈？人在他的完全狀態中由兩種元素所構成：肉體（substantia carnis）以及聖靈（Spiritus）。愛任紐人論中對於「肉體」的解釋參考Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Glory of the Lord: A Theological Aesthetics, vol. 2 Studies in Theological Style: Clerical Style (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1984), 62-67。