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…

namely in this respect, as the concupiscence of the flesh, hindereth the concupiscence of the spirit. But this answer is not sufficient, for if both kinds of concupiscence come from the soul, the one immediately, the other mediately according to the flesh, this maketh no contrariety between the spirit and the flesh, as he understands it, but only in the same act of concupiscence which is in the soul alone in respect of the divers manner of lusting, the one kind by the body, the other by it self. And therefore this answer would better fit the objection and agree with Augustine's speech, that there is in the soul a double concupiscence, the one in the part regenerate which is spiritual, the other in the part unregenerate which is carnal, the which are directly contrary the one to the other. And thus he might answer another objection which himself maketh against his own words; for whereas the Apostle saith, that the spirit lusteth against the flesh, he objecteth, that if we here take the spirit for the holy spirit, and grant that spiritual concupiscence is only against that which is evil, it will follow, that the flesh or body against which the spirit lusteth is evil, which was the error of the Manichees. To which he answereth that the spirit lusteth not against the nature of the flesh, but against it desires only as they extend to superfluity. But this answer crosseth his former speech, whereby he affirmed that the flesh or body had no concupiscence at all, but that it was an act proper to the soul alone. And therefore the objection were better satisfied if we say that there is not only in the regenerate part of the soul, the concupiscence of the spirit, but ⟨p. 53⟩also the relics of carnal concupiscence in the part unregenerate, which fight as contraries and enemies the one against the other. But as Aquinas affirmeth, that concupiscence ¹is only an act of the soul, and consequently evil and carnal concupiscence, as well as holy and spiritual, wherein he agreeth with us; so also be granteth in some places that the flesh is the corruption of nature or original sin, which is derived unto us from our first parents.

namely in this respect, as the concupiscence of the flesh, hindereth the concupiscence of the spirit. But this answere is not sufficient, for if both kinds of concupiscence come from the soule, the one immediately, the other mediately according to the flesh, this maketh no contrarietie betweene the spirit and the flesh, as he vnderstands it, but onely in the same acte of concupiscence which is in the soule alone in respect of the diuers maner of lusting, the one kinde by the body, the other by it selfe. And therefore this answere would better fitte the obiection and agree with Austines speech, that there is in the soule a double concupiscence, the one in the part regenerate which is spirituall, the other in the part vnregenerate which is carnall, the which are directly contrary the one to the other. And thus he might answere another obiection which himselfe maketh against his owne wordes; for whereas the Apostle saith, that the spirit lusteth against the flesh, hee obiecteth, that if we here take the spirit for the holy spirit, and grant that spirituall concupiscence is onely against that which is euill, it will follow, that the flesh or body against which the spirit lusteth is euill, which was the errour of the Manachees. To which he answereth that the spirit lusteth not against the nature of the flesh, but against it desires onely as they extend to superfluitie. But this answere crosseth his former speech, whereby he affirmed that the flesh or body had no concupiscence at all, but that it was an acte proper to the soule alone. And therefore the obiection were better satisfied if we say that there is not onely in the regenerate part of the soule, the concupiscence of the spirit, but