The conflict between the flesh and the spirit. Or the last part of The…The conflict betvveene the flesh and the spirit. Or the last part of The…

¹Now in the last place it remaineth that we answer some objections; whereby they endeavour to prove that by the flesh we are to understand our bodies and sensitive faculties only with their corruption; and not the soul and superior faculties. And first they reason that this spiritual enemy of our salvation is the body and inferior faculties of the soul, seeing it is usually called by the name of flesh and carnal concupiscence. To which I answer that this manner of speech is not proper but tropical and figurative, and to be understood by a metonymy of the subject for the adjunct or quality, flesh for the fleshly quality of corruption which hath defiled soul and body, the which is usual with the Hebrews who in their ordinary phrase, put the abstract for the concrete, and the subject for the quality that belongeth unto it; the which also the Greeks and Latins do sometimes imitate, as when they called a wicked fellow [Greek or Hebrew] Scelus. But it may further be demanded why this spiritual enemy should by this metonymy be called the flesh rather then sin and corruption, if it were not chiefly seated in the body. I answer that it is thus called to show how deeply our nature is tainted and infected with the poison of sin, in that it is, (as it ⟨p. 56⟩were) incorporated into our flesh, and one of our essential parts turned and (as it were) transformed into corruption, and i• into them; so as there is nothing naturally remaining but even a mass of corruption and lump of sin. And secondly to intimate unto us the dangerousness of this enemy, in that it is not only domesticall, dwelling in us, but (after a sort) essential and inherent, so as it is not possible to avoid it, but we must deny our selves, nor to kill it, unless we crucify our own flesh, nor to vanquish and subdue it, unless we overcome our selves. Yea but why is this corruption of nature called carnal and fleshly, rather then animal and spiritual, if it were not seated in the body, rather then in the soul? I answer that this corruption having defiled both the special parts of man the body, as well as the soul, it was indifferent by a synecdoche to understand the whole corruption of nature, by the name of either part. But if this answer will not satisfy: but that they will further object;

¹NOw in the last place it remaineth that wee answere some obiections; whereby they endeauour to proue that by the flesh wee are to vnderstand our bodies and sensitiue faculties only with their corruption; and not the soule and superiour faculties. And first they reason that this spirituall enemie of our saluation is the body and inferiour faculties of the soule, seeing it is vsually called by the name of flesh and carnall concupiscence. To which I answere that this manner of speech is not proper but tropicall and figuratiue, and to bee vnderstood by a metonymie of the subiect for the adiunct or qualitie, flesh for the fleshly qualitie of corruption which hath defiled soule and body, the which is vsuall with the Hebrewes who in their ordinarie phrase, put the abstract for the concrete, and the subiect for the qualitie that belongeth vnto it; the which also the Greekes and Latines doe sometimes imitate, as when they called a wicked fellow Scelus. But it may further bee demaunded why this spirituall enemie should by this metonymie be called the flesh rather then sinne and corruption, if it were not chiefely seated in the body. I answere that it is thus called to shew how deepely our nature is tainted and infected with the poison of sinne, in that it is, (as it