to him, now let itself be persuaded by the flesh and falls into earthly desires.”
These explanations seem to us akin to those of Father Jean Meyendorff, with respects to man ‘composed of flesh, soul and Holy Spirit”: “This view”, he observes, “which sounds strangely pantheistic if one judge it according to later theological categories, shows in fact a dynamic concept of man that excludes the notion of ‘pure nature’. Man is created so as to share the existence of God: this is what distinguishes him from the animal and is expressed in the biblical account of the creation of Adam ‘in the image of God’”. As Pierre Boyer-Maurel also says, if, for Irenaeus, a certain dichotomy “accounts for man fashioned in the image of God”, it is nevertheless a trichotomy, “in which the breath only precedes the Spirit”, who “accounts for the becoming of man, of that man who is created, by letting himself be created, throughout the divine Economy”.
那些解釋看起來都很像梅耶鐸夫神父（Father Jean Meyendorff）對於人的觀點，「由肉體，魂與聖靈所構成」：他觀察到，「若根據後世的神學分類，這個觀點看來就像是一種奇怪的泛神論，事實上它表現出一種排除了『純粹本質（pure nature）』的充滿活力的觀點。人之所以被造乃是為了有分於神的存有（existence of God）：這就是聖經所記載的，亞當『在神的形像裡（in the image of God）』被造中，所要表達之人與動物的分別。」也如同Pierre Boyer-Maurel所說的，若對愛任紐而言有某種的二元論「導致人在神的形像中被塑造」，然而他的這種說法根本就是一種三元論，「在這個架構中，唯有從聖靈產生的氣息能夠成為人，那個人乃是經由神聖的經綸，藉著讓自己被造，而被造成。」
Irenaeus spoke particularly of the Spirit of God, even when that Spirit, shared, became, by consent of the soul, the spirit of man. Origen will speak more explicitly of the spirit of man, insofar as an opening to the Spirit of God. These are two inverse perspectives much rather than two adverse doctrines.
One authority on Origen, Gustave Bardy, has, however, written that the tripartitie division, “which is imposed on him, in a way, by several Scripture passages, plays no role in his teaching”. Another historian of ancient Christian doctrines, Francois Bonifas, had expressed a judgment in the contrary direction, but as little conformed to the reality; after having pointed out that “unsteadiness” of Pauline terminology “makes it doubtful that the Apostle intended [in I Thessalonians
一位俄列根神學的專家，Gustave Bardy，也寫過關於三分法（tripartitie division）的文章，「他使用好幾處聖經經文解釋三分法，但三分法在他的教導中毫無地位」。另一位古代基督教教義專家Francois Bonifas，卻表現出更合乎事實，卻又與前者完全相反的判定；在指出保羅用詞的「不穩定性（unsteadiness）」後，他說，「毫無疑問的，使徒像要［在帖撒羅尼加前書
 Adversus Haereses, 5.9.1; Souces chretiennes 153:107-9; cf. the commentary 152:249. Irenaeus mixes here the idea of the body, first element of human nature, with that of the flesh that is opposed to the Spirit.
Adversus Haereses, 5.9.1; Souces chretiennes 153:107-9; cf. the commentary 152:249。愛任紐在此將身體的概念，就是人性的首要元素與和靈相對的肉體的概念混為一談。
 Relativesme historique et autorite dans le dogme chretien (1996), 260.
 La Genration divine selon saint Irenee, chap,. 1 (manuscript thesis).
 On the pneumatology of Origen and his trichotomic anthropology, see also H. de Lubac, Histoire et Espit (Aubier, 1950), 150-58.
關於俄列根的聖靈論與三元人論，也參考H. de Lubac, Histoire et Espit (Aubier, 1950), 150-58。
 Dictionnaire de theologie catholique, vol. II, col. 1534; article “Origene”. At least Bardy saw that the Pauline division was of biblical origin.
Dictionnaire de theologie catholique, vol. II, col. 1534; article “Origene”。Bardy最起碼看見了保羅的分法是根據聖經的。
5:23] to make a scientific distinction”, he went on, thinking essentially of Origen, “Yet the Fathers of the Church saw in the expressions of Saint Paul a rigorous division, in which they found once again that of their old mentor Plato.” Previously, J. Denis, while not mixing Plato up in the affair, had recognized in Origen the existence of trichotomic text, but he saw in that only a foreign body in the midst of Origenian doctrine. “Generally speaking,” he said, “the soul and the spirit are but one for Origen, and if he had not respected a division that came to him from Saint Paul, and which appears to have been adopted, generally, as much by the orthodox Fathers as by the heretic scholars, he would have suppressed one of the terms of this division and would thereby have been spared numerous contradictions.” The prejudice to which, in each of these three last cases, the historian is unconsciously giving way is not difficult to perceive. To overcome it would require an in-depth study. After the work by G. Verbeke on L’Evolution de la dotrine du Pneuma du Stoicisme a saint Augustin (1945), the works of Henri Crouzel and Jacques Dupuis have brought us all desirable light on this point. “At times”, Father Crouzel tells us, “Origen is a dichotomist, distinguishing the body and the soul following Platonic custom. But most of the time, he sees, according to Scripture, three elements in man: spirit, soul and body. He has recourse to this trichotomy when it is a matter of explaining his idea of man, and he sates it each time he encounters in the texts an expression that suggests it: and this is so throughout his literary career.” But it is Father Jacques Dupuis who draws the matter into perfect clarity in his important monograph on “L’Espirit de l’homme”, etude sur l’anthropologie religieuse d’Origene. For him, “There can be no doubt that the verse from Saint Paul is the immediate source of his anthropological trichotomy”. It is principally he that we will follow here.
5:23中］提出一種科學性的分別法」，他繼續考慮到俄列根，「教會的教父們看見保羅的用語中有一種嚴密的區分，著使得他們再次找到了他們老師傅柏拉圖。」J. Denis原先還沒有讓柏拉圖攪進這灘混水，承認在俄列根的作品中有論及三元論的本文，但他認為這是混雜到俄列根教義中的外來因素。他說，「整體而言，靈與魂對於俄列根而言是同一個東西，就好像他不在乎保羅留給他的區分法一樣，這個看法被正統教父們並異端學者們同時採用，這使得他必須禁止使用這種區分法的某些字眼，好迴避許多的矛盾。」歷史學者們在這三個例子中都帶著偏見，不經意的放棄了許多不難察覺的證據。若要去除偏見，就需要進行更為深入的研究工作。在G. Verbeke的L’Evolution de la dotrine du Pneuma du Stoicisme a saint Augustin (從斯多亞主義到奧古斯丁間靈的教義的進化，1945)後，Henri Crouzel與Jacques Dupuis的作品為我們提供了亮光。Crouzel神父告訴我們，「俄列根有時候是二元論者，根據柏拉圖主義的習慣區分身體與魂。但是絕大多數的時候，他乃是根據聖經，在人裏面看見三個不同的元素：靈，魂與身體。當他要解釋他對於人的觀念的時候，就訴諸這個三元論，並在每次遇見相應的本文的時候，都做出同樣的宣告：這個作法貫穿了他所有的著作。」但是Jacques Dupuis神父在他重要的專著“L’Espirit de l’homme（人的靈）”, etude sur l’anthropologie religieuse d’Origene（對俄列根宗教性人論的研究）中為這件事勾勒出了一幅完美的圖畫。對於他而言，「保羅的經文毋庸置疑的是俄列根人論的直接根據。」我們在此主要採用的是他的觀點。
“We often find it asserted in Scripture”, says Origen, “That man is spirit, body and soul, and we have ourselves developed the subject at
 Histoire des dogmes de l’Eglise chretienne, vol. 1 (Paris: Fischbacher, 1886), 312.
 De la philosphie d’Origene (1884), 237. One senses here the influence of the Cousinian spiritualism of our nineteenth century.
De la philosphie d’Origene (1884), 237。讀者可以在此查覺到十九世紀Cousinian屬靈主義的影響。
 Then one can find in him other kinds of distinctions, coming also from Greek philosophy, for example in Contra Celsum, 1.8, c.60, speaking of God “whose power is different… in pouring out over men the benefits of the soul, the body, external goods” (P. Borret, vol. 4, Sources chretiennes, 150 :313; cf. l.I, c.21; l.6, c.54; L.8, c.51).
讀者可以自行在他裡面找到另一種源自於希臘哲學的分法，例如在Contra Celsum, 1.8, c.60中，論道神「的能力是與眾不同的。。。將祝福傾倒在魂，身體與外在的美善之上」(P. Borret, vol. 4, Sources chretiennes, 150 :313; cf. l.I, c.21; l.6, c.54; L.8, c.51)。
 Theologie de l’image de Dieu chez Origene (Aubier, 1956), 130.
length.” In that as in other subjects, it is in fact the sacred text, most especially that of Saint Paul, that truly constitutes the framework for his thought. And it is with reference to Scripture that he tries to define clearly the notion of the Pneuma. For him, the Pneuma is first of all the Divine Life in principle, but it is also the shared divine life: the creature itself becomes pneuma, in the measure that it possesses this life. Yet, it is a first kind of participation in the divine Pneuma, which does not yet allow it to be said that man has become pnuema; a participation that, without betraying Origen, we can already call natural, because it consists in an element that is an integral part of the nature of all men and that is precisely his pneuma: “The Spirit of God, even when it is present in us, is one thing, and the pnuema proper to every man, that which is in him, is something else … The Apostle clearly affirms that this spirit (this pnuema) is different from the Spirit of God, even when the Holy Spirit is present in us, over and above the spirit of man that is in him.” The distinction could not be put more clearly. Origen asks again, in the same passage of the commentary on Saint Matthew: “Is the spirit of Elias the same as the Spirit of God who dwells in Elias? Or, indeed, do we have two different things there?” And he replies: "The Apostle shows clearly that the Spirit of God, when he dwells in man, is distinct from the spirit of the man: ‘The Spirit itself testifies to our spirit that we are children of God’ (Rom 8:16), and in another place: ‘No man knows what is in a man if not the spirit of the man who is in him; likewise no one knows what is in God if not the Spirit of God’ (1 Cor 2:11).”
就如同其它的神學主題一樣，聖經的本文，特別是保羅的經文才真正的構成了他的思想架構。他往往訴諸於聖經來清楚的定義Pneuma的觀念。對於他而言，Pneuma首先是神的生命，同樣也是被人所分享的神的生命：被造之物本身在有分於這個生命的基礎上成為Pneuma。然而，第一種的有分於神的Pneuma，並不能使得人成為Pneuma；根據俄列根，我們可以稱這種有分為天生的，因為它包括了所有人類本質種不可分割的一個部分，就是他的Pneuma：「神的靈在我們裏面是一件事，在人裏面的那個屬於每一個人的pnuema又是另一件事。。。使徒明白無誤的肯定這個靈（pnuema）與神的靈不同，即便當聖靈在我們裏面的時候，都是在人裏面的靈之上。」者是對於這個分別最為清楚的解釋。俄列根在馬太福音注釋（the commentary on Saint Matthew）中的同一個段落中又問到，「難到以利亞的靈就是住在以利亞裡面的神之靈嗎？或，我們在那裏看見兩個不同的事物？」他接著回答說，「使徒明確的表明當神的靈住在人裏面的時候，與人的靈不同：『那靈與我們的靈同證，我們是神的兒女。（The Spirit itself testifies to our spirit that we are children of God，Rom 8:16）』，他在另一處說到，「因為除了在人裏面人的靈，在人中間有誰知道人的事？照樣，除了神的靈，也沒有人知道神的事。（No man knows what is in a man if not the spirit of the man who is in him; likewise no one knows what is in God if not the Spirit of God，1 Cor 2:11）」。
Origen indeed says, like Paul, pneuma and not nous. It is because they did not sufficiently distinguish between these two concepts that several have indentified the pneuma of the anthropological trichotomy with the preexisting nous and have made it the higher (intellectus) part of the soul – unless, in order better to distinguish between pneuma and psyche, they reduced this latter to its sensible part. They then spoke
 In Rom. 1, 1, 18: “Frequenter in Scripturis invenimus, et a nobis saepe dissertum est, quod homo spiritus et corpus et anima esse dicatur” (PG, 14, 866, 2) CF. In Jo., vol. 32, 11 and 18 (PC 14, 790 A). In Num., hom. 1.7; peri archon, 1.3, c.1 and 4.
 G. Verbeke, I. ‘Evolution (Paris-Louvain, 1945), 459; cf. 468. Jacques Dupuis, S.J., “Espirit” (DDB, 1967), 1 and 65.
 In Matt., 13.2. Klost. –B, GCS, 10, p.180; PG 13, 1093 AB.
 Ibid. Cf. H. U von Balthasar, Origene, Espirit et Feu, French trans. , 1(Cerf, 1959), 104-5.
of Origen’s impressions, his unstable terminology, indeed of his inconsistency of thought and of his contradictions. This was from not having read him closely enough. He distinguishes the spirit from the soul (and in this case he is not speaking of the nous) as clearly as he does the soul from the body, and he repeats at different times that “we are composed of a soul and a spirit”: this is the case, it seems, in the third book of Peri archon; so too in the forth book, in the famous theoretical parallel that he institutes between man and Scripture. In the Entretien avec Heraclite, for the instruction of his audience, he insists: “That man is a composite being, we know through Scripture. The Apostle in fact says: ‘May God make you holy, spirit, soul and body’, and so forth. This spirit is not the Holy Spirit, but one part of the human composite (GREEK), as the same Apostle teaches when he says: ‘The Spirit gives witness to our spirit’…” In the commentary on the Letter to the Romans, he will also quote in support a text from Daniel; here, he invokes as an example what happened at the death of Christ: having wanted to save all men, the Savior had taken body, soul and spirit; now “these three elements, during the Passion, were separated; at the time of the Resurrection they were reunited. During the Passion they were separated: How? The body, in the tomb; the soul, in hell; the spirit, he deposited it in the hands of the Father…”.
俄列根的觀點，他不穩定的用詞，他前後不一的觀念，以及他的自我矛盾。這都是因為沒有仔細的閱讀俄列根的作品。俄列根把靈從魂裡面分別出來（他並不是說到nous）就好像他把魂從身體裡面分別出來一樣，他也不斷的重複說到，「我們是由魂與靈所構成的」：這就是Peri archon卷三的說法；以及其卷四中他所提出的將人與聖經的構成加以對比的理論。在Entretien avec Heraclite中，為了教導他的聽眾，他堅稱：「我們藉由聖經知道人乃是一個被構成的存有。事實上，使徒說過：『願神使你們的靈、魂與身體聖潔』，等等。這個靈不是聖靈，而是人構成(GREEK)的一部分，就好像使徒在說：『那靈與我們的靈同作見證』。。。的時候所教導的一樣。」在羅馬書注釋（the commentary on the Letter to the Romans）中，他也引用了但以理書的經文來支持他；他在此訴諸基督的死亡為例子：為了要拯救世人，救主取了一個身體、魂與靈；如今「這三個元素在死亡的時候被分開了；在復活的時候被重新聯合為一。在死亡中，它們被分開：如何呢﹖身體在墳墓裡；魂在地獄中；祂把靈交在父的手中。。。」
This spirit of man, represented by the eagle in Ezekiel, is placed above the soul. But never, in the texts of the trichotomic series, does
 Cf. Dupuis, criticizing Verbeke, Denis, Mehat, Freppel, etc.; “Espirit”, II, and Henri Crouzel, Introduction a Origenen, Traite des principes, I (Souces chretinnes), 252.
 L. 3, c.4, n.1; GCS, 4, p.263. We no longer have anything but Rufinus’ translation: “… in nobis, id est hominibus, qui ex anima constamus et corpora ac spiritu vitali…”
L. 3, c.4, n.1; GCS, 4, p.263。我們手上只有Rufinus的翻譯：「… in nobis, id est hominibus, qui ex anima constamus et corpora ac spiritu vitali…」”
 L.4, c.2, 4: “Just as man is composed (GREEK) of body, soul and spirit (GREEK), in the same way was Holy Scripture given by God for the salvation of man.” Ibid., 313.
L.4, c.2, 4: 「就像人是由身體，魂與靈(πνεῦμα)所構成(GREEK)的一樣，神所賜下的聖經也以同樣的方法是為著人類的救贖。 Ibid., 313。
 Ed. Jean Scherer, Sources chretiennes 57 (1960): 68-70.
 In Rom., 1,10: “Deservit ergo Apostolus Deo, non in corpora, neque anima, sed in meliore sui parte, id est in spiritu. Haec enim tria esse in homine designat ad Thess… Et Daniel dicit:’Laudate, spiritus et animae justorum, Dominum’” (Dan 3:86). PG 14, 856 A. In Matt., 13, 12.
 Ed. Scherer.
 In Ezech., hom.1, n.16, GCS, 8, p.340.
 Cf. Joseph Bonsirven, L’Evangile de Paul (Aubier, 1948), 281. “The Fathers of the Church will write: Man is composed of a body and a soul; the Christian is composed of a body, a soul and a spirit.” This overall view, in general, is in any case not accurate as far as Origen is concerned.
Cf. Joseph Bonsirven, L’Evangile de Paul (Aubier, 1948), 281。「教父們會這樣寫：人是由身體與魂所構成的；基督徒是由身體，魂與靈所構成的。」這個普遍的觀點並不能準確的描述俄列根所思考的問題。
Origen call it (νοῦς, nous)— so that this could be a criterion for discerning the origin of certain passages given as Origenian but which are in reality from Evgrius.
But how are we to understand this spirit which is “in us”? What is its role? If we follow, again, the indications given by the Apostle, we will compare it to the moral conscience. “Our glory”, says Paul, “is the testimony of our conscience” (2 Cor 1:12). The conscience always rejoices in what good I do; on the other hand, it can never be accused of doing evil, but, on the contrary, it remonstrates, it accuses the soul to which it is bound; this is a sovereign freedom; I therefore think that it is this very spirit that the Apostle tells us is with the soul, being associated with it like a pedagogue and a guide to teach it good, to chastise it and to reprimand it when it sins. It is this spirit of which the Apostle again says that “no one knows what the man is if not the spirit of the man who is in him”; it is the spirit of the conscience, also according to what Paul says: “The spirit himself gives witness to our spirit.”
那麼，我們要怎麼來理解這個「在我們裏面（in us）」的靈？它的角色是什麼？若我們再繼續根據使徒所提供的線索追問，我們就會將它與道德的良心所比較。保羅說，「我們所誇的，是我們的良心所見證的」（2 Cor 1:12）。良心總享受我們的善行；在另一方面，它也不能被惡行控告，它反而會抗議，並控告魂；這就是人自主的自由；因此我認為就是使徒所謂靈同著魂，靈如同魂的導師引導它行善，當魂犯罪的時候，靈嚴厲的責備魂，並訓斥魂。也是這個使徒再次論到的靈，「除了人裏面的靈以外，有誰知道人的事」；根據保羅所說的，它也是良心的靈（the spirit of the conscience）：「那靈與我們的靈同作見證」。
We should not, however, in exalting the pnuema, excessively reduce its reality; if it is not a simple member of the human composite, neither is it the simple voice of the conscience. Inaccessible to evil, placed in a way, as we have said, “above the soul” (GREEK) as a “guide to virtue”, it is “much more divine than the soul and the body”; “belonging truly to man, it remains entirely in a participation of the Holy Spirit who gives himself to us; it is the point of contact between man and the divine Pneuma who inhabits him.” This is why it is always holly;
然而，我們不能用一種減低pnuema真實性的方式來高舉pnuema；就好像否定它是人類的一個構成部分一樣，它也不僅僅是良心發出的聲音而已。就如同我們所說的邪惡無法觸及它，它的位置「在魂之上（above the soul）」(GREEK)作為「道德的指引（guide to virtue）」，要「遠比魂與身體更為神聖」；它「確實屬於人，並完全能夠有分於聖靈；它也是人與住在人裏面神之Pneuma的接觸點。」這就是為什麼它總是神聖的；
 H. Crousel, “Recherches sur Origene et son influence”, Bulletin de litt. Ecclesiatique (1961), 111. Evagrius is closer to Plotinus: Crouzel, “L’Anthropologie d’Origene dans la perspective du combat spiritual”, Revue d’ascet. Et de mystique (1955), 364-65. Hans Urs von Balthasar, “Die Heira des Evagrius”, Zeitschrift fur Kathol. Theologie 63 (1939).
 It will be noted that Origen several times makes the formula of Paul his own: “the spirit that is in man”; -- which he does not say for the body or the soul. Cf. Dupuis, “Espirit”, 127: “The Pneuma is part of the human composite, without doubt; it is not, however, properly speaking, man himself”.
讀者當注意俄列根多次把保羅的公式當作自己的公式：「靈在人的裡面」；－他從未這樣形容過身體或魂。Cf. Dupuis, “Espirit”, 127:「Pneuma毫無疑問是人的一個組成部分；然而，它不能被當作人的本身。」
 In Rom., l.2, 10; PG 14, 893 AC. Cf. 2 Cor 1:12; 1 Cor 2:11; Rom 8:16.
 In Jo. Vol. 32, 11: “The spirit of man that is in him cannot receive any evil” (PG 14, 789 A).
In Jo. Vol. 32, 11:「人裏面的靈不能接受任何邪惡」(PG 14, 789 A)。
 In Levit., hom.2, n.2: “Spiritus dux ejus (animae) est ad virtutem, si eum sequi velit.” GCS, 6, p.293.
 In Jo., l.2, 21(15): (GREEK), GCS, 4, p.78; PG 14, 152 A.
 Dupuis, “Espirit”, 9.H. U. von Balthasar, “Le Mysterion d’ Origene” Recherches de science religieuse 26:513-62; 27: 38-64: “The pneuma of man is described as a part that is coming to be added as a properly divine elements to the psyche.”
Dupuis, “Espirit”, 9.H. U. von Balthasar, “Le Mysterion d’ Origene” Recherches de science religieuse 26:513-62; 27: 38-64:「人的pneuma被描繪為被當作神聖的元素賦予psyche的一個部分。」