Dist. 32, Art. 2, Q. 1
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/2/d/32/q/bon-sent-II-d32-a2-q1
----------------------------------------
### Article II.
### *On the disease of concupiscence.*

Consequently it is asked concerning the second principal [point], namely concerning the disease of concupiscence. And about this two [questions] are asked.

First it is asked, in what concupiscence is as in a subject.

Secondly it is asked, from what it is as from an effective principle.

### Question I.
### *Whether concupiscence is in the soul, or in the flesh as in a subject.*

Concerning the first point one proceeds thus and it is asked, in what concupiscence is as in a subject, namely, whether it is in the soul, or in the flesh. And that it is in the flesh, it seems:

**To the opposite.**

1. To the Romans, seventh [chapter], the Apostle says: *I see another law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind;* the Gloss: *I see another law*, that is, « the tinder of sin, which reigns » in my members, « as in the eye for concupiscing, in the hand for operating »: therefore concupiscence is in the eye.

2. Likewise, Hugh of St. Victor: « The vice of human origin infects nature by a twofold corruption: ignorance [infects] the mind, and concupiscence the flesh ». If therefore ignorance is in the mind as in a subject, it seems that concupiscence too is in the flesh as in a subject.

3. Likewise, as the law of the mind is related to the mind, so the law of the flesh is related to the flesh; but the law of the mind is in the mind as in a subject: therefore by parity of reasoning the law of the flesh too is in the flesh as in a subject. But the law of the flesh is concupiscence, as is often said to the Romans, seventh [chapter]: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, the concupiscence of the flesh is not in the soul, except as long as the soul is united to the flesh: if therefore a property is to be preserved in its proper subject, it seems that concupiscence itself is not in the soul, which is separable from the flesh, but rather in the flesh itself.

5. Likewise, of whatever the act is, of it is also the habit; but concupiscing belongs to the flesh, as is said to the Galatians, fifth [chapter]: *The flesh concupisces against the spirit:* therefore concupiscence is from the flesh.

**On the contrary:**

1. Augustine, *On the Words of the Apostle*: « The vice of concupiscence is that which the soul draws from the flesh »; but that which the soul draws is properly in the soul: therefore the vice of concupiscence is in it [the soul] as in a subject.

2. Likewise, Augustine in the book *On Eighty-Three Questions*: « Concupiscence is a base affection, by which the soul pursues lower things, which is more properly called cupidity »; but an affection has its being in the soul as in a subject: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, to concupisce belongs to that alone to which knowing belongs: therefore concupiscence is in that alone in which knowledge is; but knowledge is in the soul as in a subject: therefore concupiscence too.

4. Likewise, concupiscence is as in a subject in that alone in which there can be guilt: but such is not the flesh, but the soul: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, when the soul withdraws from the flesh, the flesh concupisces no more than a stone; but the soul apart from the flesh can concupisce and desire, just as also grieve: therefore it seems properly that concupiscence has its being in the soul as in its proper subject.

### Conclusion.

> Concupiscence is in the flesh causally, in the reason formally, in the sensuality in both ways, and properly in the conjoined [whole].

**I respond:** It must be said that concupiscence is taken in two ways. In one way concupiscence is called every too-intense and immoderate desire, whether it be with respect to an interior, or exterior, or lower good. And in this way it is taken to the Romans, seventh [chapter], where it is said in the Gloss: « Good is the law, which, while it prohibits concupiscence, prohibits all evils ». And so concupiscence has its being in the appetitive power of the soul, whether it be called the brute appetitive power, or be called the rational appetitive power. — In another way concupiscence is taken for the appetite of the delectable according to touch; and so it is taken in Ecclesiasticus, ninth [chapter]: *On account of the beauty of a woman many have perished, and from this concupiscence is kindled like a fire.* But this concupiscence is said to be in the flesh and in the sensuality and in the rational part. But in the flesh it is causally, in the rational part it is formally, in the sensuality in both ways, namely causally and formally. — Therefore I say that in the rational part and in the sensuality it is formally, since the act, which is to concupisce, as Augustine holds, properly belongs to the soul itself. But it is said to be causally in the flesh, because the infected flesh, joined to the soul, by its own infection renders it concupiscent. Whence if one wished properly to assign the subject of carnal concupiscence, he would say neither only the flesh, nor only the soul, but the conjoined [whole] itself, so that, just as to sense is the act of the conjoined, so also the act of the conjoined is to be delighted carnally and to concupisce.

On account of which note that flesh is taken in two ways in Scripture. Sometimes flesh is called the exterior, carnal, and sensual human; and thus it comprehends the flesh with the sensitive power of the soul; and in this way it is properly the subject of carnal concupiscence. In another way flesh is called the constitutive part of the human; and in this way it is not to be conceded that concupiscence is in the flesh, unless it be said to be in it as in a cause. — Therefore the reasons showing that concupiscence is more properly in the soul than in the flesh are to be granted.

1. To that therefore which is objected concerning the word of the Apostle: *I see another law in my members* etc.; it must be said that a member is there called not only the exterior flesh, but is also taken there for the flesh together with the appetitive power.

2. To that which is objected concerning Hugh, it can be answered similarly, that he takes the flesh for the carnal human; or if the flesh is called the body itself, then he understands it of causal predication, so that concupiscence is said to infect the flesh, that is, [it is] the foulness or corruption of the flesh, from which concupiscence itself arises.

3. To that which is objected concerning the law of the flesh, it must be said that the flesh is there taken for the carnal and exterior human; and similarly in the last authority, in which it is said: *The flesh concupisces against the spirit.*

4. To that which is objected, that in the separated soul there is no carnal concupiscence; it must be said that from this it does not follow that the flesh is the proper subject of concupiscence, but from this it well follows that concupiscence is not in the soul, except as united to the flesh.

5. To the last [argument] the response is already plain from those things which have been said. For when it is said: *The flesh concupisces against the spirit*, flesh there, according as the Gloss expounds, is called the carnal human or the sensuality of the flesh.