Through it … Its proper role consists in grasping … the things that reason can know and probe…
As for the third term, the body, its function is to “act” and to “put into practice the knowledge of the soul and the faith of the spirit”. As Maurice de Gandillac observes, here, the body has nothing to do with “mire”. And by adopting such a tripartition of the human being (which is not at all to be understood, we repeat, as a division of the three “faculties”). Luther envisages the human subject, as Saint Paul and, after him, the whole of Christian Tradition have done, “in a perspective that is more biblical than Greek”. The relative assimilation that he works between the soul and the spirit is the echo of a common Scholasticism and the fruit of an inflection toward the point of view of knowledge, which was not that of Saint Paul in his address to the Thessalonians but in new way contradicts it. Of these two characteristics, the preeceding centuries have already brought us many an example.
第三個辭彙是身體，它的功用是「行動」並「將魂的知識與靈的信心付諸於實行。」就像Maurice de Gandillac在此觀察到的一樣，身體與「mire（令人嘆為觀止的事物－譯者）」沒有任何關係。因著採用了人類的三分法（tripartition）（我們重覆，不能將其理解為三個「功能（faculties）」）。路得就如同保羅以及他之後的整個基督教傳統所作的一樣，「以更為接近聖經而不是希臘文化的視角」來思考人類這個題目。他在靈與魂間作出的，相對性的等同視之的做法反映出普遍流行的經院神學主義以及對於知識變調的視角，這並不是保羅在帖撒羅尼加書中所講的，甚至以新的方式與保羅的說法對抗。前幾個世紀已經為我們提供了許多關於那兩個特徵的例子。
Like his predecessors, Luther thus maintains the threefold gradation, which he also develops through a traditional image:
We will give a simile for that, drawn from Scripture. Moses made a tabernacle with three different edifices. The first edifice was called sanctum sanctorum: it was the dwelling of God, and there was not light from within. The other, sanctum, contained a chandelier with seven branches and lights. The third was called atrium, the parvis; it was located in the open air, in the light of the sun. This figure depicts the Christian. His spirit is sanctum sanctorum, the dwelling of God in the night (stripped of light) of faith, for he believes what he neither sees nor senses nor understands. His soul is the sanctum: there are found the seven lights, to wit, all kinds of understanding, discernment, science and knowledge of corporal and visible things. His body is atrium; it is manifest for all, in such a way that one can see whant he does and how he lives.
我們會對那從聖經中汲取的例子發出微笑。摩西用三個不同的結構來建造會幕。第一個結構被稱為sanctum sanctorum：它是神的居所，其中沒有任何的光。另一個叫做sanctum，裡面有一個帶有七個分支與燈盞的燈臺。第三個被稱作atrium，或院子；它有一個敞開的頂，在陽光之下。這個圖畫描繪了基督徒。他的靈是，sanctum sanctorum：它是神在信仰的夜間（沒有任何的光）的居所，因為他相信他看不見也感覺不到又無法理解。他的魂是sanctum：理面又七盞燈，對他而言是各種不同的理解力，分辨力，科學和對物質並可見之物的知識。他的身體是atrium；是眾人都看得見的，以至於人可以看的見他的行為與生活。
It is necessary, however, to recognize that this trichotomy did not have for Luther an importance comparable to his dialectical opposition between the flesh and the spirit. In Saint Paul, from before the commentary
 Cf. the explanations given by Maurice de Gandillac, in Histoire de la philosopie, 2 (Gallimard, Pleiade, 1973), 203.
 Cf. ibid., 203-4.
 See also, for example, La Perle evangelique, l.i, c.46; the spirit is “the highest part of the soul”, etc.
 Oeuvres, French trans., 2(Geneva, 1963), 21-22. In 1521.
on the Magnificat, he had been selective; the lessons on the Letter to the Romans (1515-1516) were aleready setting up an opposition between the flesh and the sprit without anthropological reference to any subject whatever, and later, in his controversy with Erasmus, he was to prove all the more hostile to the anthropology drawn from 1 Thessalonians 5 by his adversary, whom the latter, guided by Origen, used to weaken his dialectic. He writes in De servo arbitrio:
羅馬書的授課(1515-1516)就已經把肉體與靈對立起來，這個對立並不是基於任何的人論等等，隨後，在他與伊拉斯姆的衝突中，他展現出對於他對手所提出帖撒羅尼加前書五章人論的敵意，伊拉斯姆則因著俄列根的影響，使用這段經文來消弱路得的辯證法。路得在De servo arbitrio中寫到：
I am well aware of Origen’s fable about the threefold affection of man: of flesh, soul, and spirit, the soul holding the middle between the flesh and the spirit and able to turn either toward the one or toward the other. But this is dreaming; he says them but does not prove them at all. Saint Paul calls flesh everything that is without sprit, as we have demonstrated.
Luther does not formally contradict here what he had said in the commentary on the Magnificat. What he reproaches in Origen, as in Erasmus, is believing in free will. But this preoccupation leads him to falsify their anthropology and thereby to forget or to misunderstand the Pauline verse that he had first interpreted correctly. To which, in his enormous second Hyperaspistes, Erasmus will reply several times over that the tripartition of 1 Thessalonians 5, even if counterparts are
 Cf. Jared Wichks, Man Yearning for Grace, Luther’s Early Spiritual Teaching (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1969; Institut d’histoire europeenne de Mainz, dir. J. Lortz, no. 56): “A second anthropological problem arises from Luther’s exclusive use of the dualism caro/spiritu in the Lecture to Romans. He speaks only of the two opposed powers struggling for dominance in a human life. Luther did not make it clear that there is a human subject who is decisively qualified either by his nonagreement with the Spirit of by his surrender to the flesh. In the terminology of the Dictatesi, who is it that takes to himself to God’s judgment so as to justify God in his words and bring the Gospel from being ‘ostensively and doctrinally’ judgment and justice to the fully this in the life and self-awareness of the Christian ? In the language of the Lectures on Romans, who lusts with self-seeking or who serves willingly with and under God’s grace? It is not enough to say the flesh lusts and the spirit loves, for this can go on independently of our choice and willingness. – This is not an artificial problem…”
Cf. Jared Wichks, Man Yearning for Grace, Luther’s Early Spiritual Teaching (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1969; Institut d’histoire europeenne de Mainz, dir. J. Lortz, no. 56)：「路得在羅馬書中專門使用的的二分法caro/spiritu引發了人論的第二個問題。他只論到在人類生命中掙扎著要奪取控制權的兩種力量。路得並沒有明確的說到一個能夠因著不同意聖靈而降伏於肉體的人。根據Dictatesi這個辭彙，誰是那將自己放在神的審判下好證明神在他的工作中，並根據『明證並教義』的審判帶來福音並完全在基督徒生活並自我意識中完全證明神的人？在羅馬書課程中所使用的語言中，誰是尋求自我（self-seeking）情慾的人呢？或誰自願的服在神的恩典之下呢？所以，說肉體是情慾並靈是愛，明顯是不足的，因為同樣的情況也會發生在我們的選擇與意願上。」
 This is a gross error about Origen’s thoguth, as can be readily perceived. Luther confuses the anthropological trichotomy with a threefold “affection” or orientation of man; as if “body” and “flesh” were synomymous.
 Traite du serf arbitrei, trans. Denis de Rougement (Paris, Geneva, 1936), 308-9. The translator writes in a note: “Origen sets for that ‘tripartite’ psychology that one finds again, in varied forms, in different earlier an later Gnostics and philosophers and up to the modern period (in several theoreticians of German romanticism and in certain theologians)”, 349. These remarks are an accumulation of confused errors. To enumerate “body, soul, spirit” is not to enunciate a tripartite psychology – and if Origen had done so, Saint Paul would have done so before him; he would be equally responsible for the “agnostic” errors and should be counted as the first ancestor, in the Christian era, of the theoreticians of German romanticism…
Traite du serf arbitrei, trans. Denis de Rougement (Paris, Geneva, 1936), 308-9. 譯者有一個注釋：「俄列根設立的『三分法』心理學可以在不同的，比後諾斯低主義者與哲學家之前，直到現代（在好幾個德國浪漫主義的倫理學家與某些神學家的思想中），以不同的方式被找到」，349。那些評論代表了一種累積又雜亂不清的錯誤。將人分為「身體，魂，靈」並不是某種的三重心理學－若俄列根是這樣作的，那麼保羅就是在他直前這樣作的人；保羅也應當同樣位「不可知論（agnostic）」的錯誤負責，並當被視為其理論在基督教界，以及在德國浪漫主義倫理學界中的創始人。。。“
found in the philosophers, is proper to Saint Paul. The philosophers, in fact, do not usually call the highest part of the human being sipiritus (pnuema), but mens or ratio; and what Paul understand by spiritus is not any ratio whatever, but the ratio already inspired by grace. That, he concludes, is what Luther does not want to recognize. As often happens, the discussion in which Erasmus finds himself involved leads him himself to a partially inaccurate interpretation of Saint Paul’s text by making him attribute to the “spirit” what Paul says of “the spiritual man”. Yet it remains true that he had first analyzed perfectly the address of the Apostle to the Thessalonians, and Luther had at the first done the same.
這就好像我們能夠在哲學家的思想中也能夠找到與保羅相類似的思想一樣。事實上，哲學家往往並不會稱人最高的部分為sipiritus (pnuema)，而是mens或ratio；保羅所理解的spiritus並不是ratio，但是ratio會被恩典所啟迪。這導致保羅德作出了不是路得想要承認的結論。與伊拉斯姆的辯論往往會導致路得部分的誤解保羅的本文並使得他把「靈（spirit）」當作保羅所謂的「屬靈人（the spiritual man）」。然而，我們還是要承認路得原先完美的詮釋了使徒在帖撒羅尼加書中所說的話。
Lutheran mysticism, at leat in the rather unorthodox Sebastrien Frank (1499-1542), nonetheless recognizes the three elements of which man is composed: body, soul and spirit. Frank sees in the soul the personal and free being capable of orienting himself in one direction or in the other; he sees in the spirit the inner Word, or God present at the heart of every man, enlightening him through his Word and inclining his will through his Spirit.
路得會神秘主義，最起碼在不是那麼正統的Sebastrien Frank (1499-1542)思想中，還是承認構成人的三個部分：身體，魂與靈。Frank認為魂是具有位格的，並且能夠自由的引導自己往不同的方向；他視靈為內在的話（Word），或神在每個人心中的顯現，藉由自己的話光照人並藉著自己的靈引導人的意志。
The same traditional distinctions, originating in Saint Paul, are found in the humanists of the sixteenth century of mystical tendency. For a Paracelsus (1943-1541), since man is a microcosm, he must unite within himself the three constitutive parts or elements corresponding to the three stages of the universe: material world, astral world, Divinity ( an didea of Nicholas of Cusa, although distorted, is recognizable in this). Cornelius Agrippa, in his De occulta philosphia, tried to unite the Platonic traditions to Moses and to Saint Paul:
這種從保羅開始的，傳統的分別法也能夠在具有神秘主義傾向的十六世紀人文主義者身上看見。對於Paracelsus (1943-1541)而言，因為人是一個微觀宇宙（microcosm），他必須在自身裡面把與宇宙三個不同狀態相對應的三個不同的構成部分聯合起來：物質世界，星際世界，與神（是源自於Nicholas of Cusa的觀點，雖然被扭曲，但是還是可以被察覺到）。Cornelius Agrippa在他的De occulta philosphia中，嘗試要把柏拉圖主義的傳統與摩西和保羅的傳統聯結起來：
Plotinus itaque et Platonici omnes post Trismegistum similiter tria ponunt in homine, quae vocat supremum, infimum et medium. Supremum est illud divinum, quanm mentem, sive portionem superiorem, sive intellectum illustratum vocant. Moses in Genesi vocat ipsum spiraculum vitaum, a Deo vid., vel a Spiritu ejus in nos spiratum. Infimum est sensitive anima, quam etiam idolum dicunt, Paulus Apostolus animalem hominem nuncupat. Medium est spritus rationalis utraque connecten
 Hyperaspistes，II. Opera onmia, LB, vol. 5, 19, 1460 A, 1464 AC, 1497 C. Cf. 1458 F. On the passage corresponding to the De servo arbitrio, see the curious note in LF. 218, note 1.
Hyperaspistes，II. Opera onmia, LB, vol. 5, 19, 1460 A, 1464 AC, 1497 C. Cf. 1458 F。關於與De servo arbitrio相同的段落，參考一段古怪的注釋：LF. 218, note 1.
 Cf. Doris Rieber, Bibliotheque d’Humanisme et Renaissance, 21 (1959), 191. In Frank the explanation presupposes a modalist theology.
 Philosophia sagax. Cf. Alexandre Koyer, Mystiques, spirituels, alchimistes du XVI’ siècle alleman (1955), 52.
Extrema atque ligans, vid. Animam animalem cum mente, et utriusque sapiens naturam extemorum…
Guillame Postel, as original as ever, at least in expression, distinguishes in man the anima, the animus and the mens. It was undoubtedly following him, four years later, that Charles Toutain wrote, in his tragedy Agamemnon:
特立獨行的Guillame Postel最起碼在語言上把人分為anima，animus和mens。四年後，Charles Toutain跟隨他的腳步在他的悲劇Agamemnon中寫到：
Three natures in us, which all talk with each other
Excite our life and keep it alive:
The Sprit, the Soul, and Animu. And one being taken away,
Suddenly all life together would depart.
The Anglican Lancelot Andrewes (1555-1626) expresses himself in a similar way in his devotions:
安立甘會的Lancelot Andrewes (1555-1626)在他的信仰宣言中也以類似的方式為表白自己的信仰：
Into thy hands, O Lord, I commend myself,
My spirit, soul and body…
I. The Modern Period
Saint Francis de Sales will open this period for us. His Traite de l’amour de Dieu [Treatise on the Love of God] reproduces the Pauline doctrine to perfection. After having explained that “we have three kinds of loving actions: spiritual, reasonable and sensual”, Francis de Sales observes that “the powers of the sensory part, which are or must be the servants of the spirit, ask, seek and take what has been rejected by the reason… dishonoring … the purity of the intention of their master
Francis de Sales為我們揭開了他的時代。他的Traite de l’amour de Dieu（論神的愛）複製了保羅關於基督徒成為完全的教義。在解釋「我們擁有三種愛的行動：屬靈的，理性的與感性的」後，Francis de Sales觀察到「感性部分的能力必須成為靈的僕役，詢問，追求與擷取理性所拒絕的。。。羞辱。。。他們中世紀主人動機的純結性」，
 L.3, c.36. De homine quomode creates ad imaginem Dei. Text in Archivio di filosofia (1955), 10.
 Les Tres Merveilleuses Victoires des Femmes du Nouveau Monde (1553).
 In 1557, cf. Lucien Febvre, Le Probleme de I’incroyance au XVI’ siècle, 203. For Postel, the Spirit illumines the animus and the mens illumines the anima.
 The Devotions of Bishop Andrewes, “Order of Evening Prayer”, “Commendation” in Prayer, Verses and Devotions by John Henry Newman (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1989), 17.
in the Middle Ages, Francis de Sales, following Saint Augustine, also distinguishes “two portions of the soul, the inferior and the superior”,the inferior being that which discourses on the basis of the experience of the sense , while the superior, founded “on the discernment and judgment of the spirit, … is commonly called the spirit and mental part of the soul”; in this “superior portion” he also distinguishes “two kinds of light”, a natural one and a supernatural one, and so forth. This whole apparatus of precisions, which aims at integrating, as we have already seen in others, the “degrees of knowing” within the spiritual movement, is not without interest; but it is in some way only a flowering from the basic trichontomy.
Francis de Sales跟隨奧古斯丁的腳步，區分了「魂的兩個點，底等的與高等的」，底等的部分乃是根據感覺的經驗，高等的乃是基於「靈的分辨力與判斷力，。。。往往被稱為靈與魂的理性部分（mental part of the soul）」；他也在這個「高等的部分」中區分了「兩種光」，自然的光與超自然的光，等等。這種如同我們已經在別的作者身上所看見的，為了要把「認知的不同層次（degrees of knowing）」融合到屬靈的行動中所產生的精密結構是非常具有吸引力；但從某個方面而言，這就是從基本的三元論所綻放出來的花朵。
It is this same trichotomy that we find again, as might be expected, in a philosopher attentive to the spiritual life, such as Maine de Biran. We know the place that the doctrine of the “three lives” holds in Biran: animal life, human life and divine life, particularly in the reflection of his Journal intime. Jules Lachelier also adopts it, but perhaps by diminishing it, in his desire to work a kind of synthesis between Maine de Brain and Kant, when he explains the three components of existence: sensibility, understanding and reason. We detect also an indication of the very strong mystical tendencies in Joseph de Maistre in this affirmation from the Eclaircissements sur les sacrifiece: “The animal has received only a soul; to us were given a soul and a spirit.”
如同我們所期盼的，我們還發現這個三元論也成為在哲學範疇中屬靈生活的替代品，就如Maine de Biran同一樣。我們知道Biran堅持一種「三種生命」的教義，獸類的生命，人類的生命與神聖的生命，這個教義特別在他的Journal intime中被體現出來。Jules Lachelier也採取了這個觀點，或許當他在解釋人類存有的三個不同的組成部分的時候，想要藉著削弱它，使得他能夠寫出界於Maine de Brain與Kant間的作品。那三個部分乃是：感覺，理解力與理性。我們也在Joseph de Maistre的作品中察覺到非常強烈的神秘主義張力，特別是在這段在Eclaircissements sur les sacrifiece中所肯定的話：「動物只領受了一個魂；我們則領受了一個魂與一個靈。」
One might be tempted to seek a distant analogy with Saint Paul in the Kierkegaardian theory of the three spheres (rather than stages) of existence: aesthetic, ethical, religious. If that analogy is an illusion, other thoughts of Kierkegaard are right in finding their plaice here: “It is impossible to treat of sin in any of the sciences that ordinarily speak of it, because all are occupied with what is psychological in our nature, while sin is a determination of the spirit”; and again: “The spirit intervening psychology is impotent. So good, as its name indicates,
 Traite de l’amour de Dieu, l.i, chaps. 10 and 11. Ed. Andre Ravier (Gallimard, Pleiade), 379-89.
 Journal intime …. Cf. Gaston Fessard, La Methode de reflexion chez Maine de Brian, Cahiers de la Nouvelle Journee, 39 (Bloud et Gay, 1938), 125-47: “La Derniere synthese”. Henri Gouhier, Maine de Brian (Seuil, 1970), 148.
 Jules Lachelier, Cours de psychologie de l’Ecole normale superieure. From Lachelier again, these words quoted by Aime [Andre] Forest: “It seems to me that whoever says soul life, beauty, says something purely spiritual and escapes, at least in substance, all the determinations that are the sole object of understanding.” Forest, L’Avenement de l’ame, 24 (see below).
Jules Lachelier, Cours de psychologie de l’Ecole normale superieure。Aime [Andre] Forest再次從Lachelier引用這段話：「對我而言，不論誰論到魂的生命，或美麗，就是論到某種純粹屬靈的事物，並最起碼在實質上脫離了所有來自理解力的決定。」Forest, L’Avenement de l’ame, 24 (see below).
 Chap. 1. Cf. Sur les delais de la justice divine, chaps. 46 and 47.