Those who attack the creation of souls disagree among themselves; three of their opinions on the soul's origin are refuted
Article XII. Those who attack the creation of souls disagree among themselves; three of their opinions on the soul's origin are refuted.
1. After defending the common view on the soul's origin and sin's propagation, I meant also to propose and confute the adversaries' traducian opinions — for readers who have not yet met Molinaeus. Because I seriously reject eduction of the rational soul from matter's potency, it seemed worthwhile to confute one by one every opinion on soul-traduction I remember reading or hearing.
2. First: Jacob Martini (Miscellanies 3.7) — the child's soul is from the father's by a translate in an uninvestigable, unknown way. Easy, but dishonest, and unworthy of so sharp a man. Against those who hide in that den: what no natural cause produces per se in any way known to us cannot be said to be produced by a natural cause in an unknown way; but no natural cause produces the rational soul in a known way; therefore not in an unknown way either. Seeking ignorance's hiding-place when physical causes cannot be assigned destroys the opinion rather than strengthens it.
3. Second: those who say the soul is educed from the seed's potency — which Meisner keenly defends and which is rightly rejected. His own arguments: an accident (seminal virtue) cannot produce so noble a substance; the soul is an immaterial form, so not in the seed before arrival; material forms are educed from matter's potency, but the soul is spiritual. As these strike eduction from matter, they also strike a material translate.
4. Third: the parent emits with the seed a particle of his soul, so the seed is actually animated when emitted; the child's soul comes by division and a kind of diminution of the father's. Meisner rightly judges this unsafe: it makes the soul divisible and therefore material and corruptible — for what is divided and diminished is quantitative and material.
Latin
ART. XII. Ostenditur eos qui animarum creationem impugnant multum inter se dissentire; & confutantur tres primae eorum sententiae de origine animae. 1. Statueram apud me, in hac Exercitatione, postquam communem sententiam de origine animae & propagatione peccati proposuissem & defendissem, etiam adversariorum sententias de traduce propositae & confutatae essent, idque in eorum gratiam qui nondum Molinaeum legerunt. Et nihilominus serio damnare & rejicere dogma illud de eductione animae rationalis ex potentia materiae ideo operae pretium me facturum sentiebam, si proponerem & sigillatim confutarem omnes sententias quas memini me legisse aut audivisse de traductione animarum. 2. Prima sententia est Jacobi Martini, qui in lib. 3. Miscellanearum quaestionum, disput. 7., dicit animam filii esse ab anima patris per traducem, modo tamen impervestigabili & nobis incognito. Hic modus recedendi a communi sententia facilis est, sed inhonestus, & si quid judico, tanti viri acumine indignus: verum ne illi qui his latebris se occultant secure delitescant, contra eos utar unico argumento, sed nisi me animus fallit, valido & perspicuo; illud autem sic proponi potest: Quod a nulla causa naturaliter & per se producitur, nisi modo aliquo nobis cognito, id non potest dici a causa naturali produci modo nobis incognito: at anima rationalis a nulla causa naturali producitur modo nobis cognito: Ergo neque modo nobis incognito. Qui enim latibulum ignorantiae quaerit, cum causas physicas assignare nequit, is sententiam suam non firmat sed destruit. 3. Secunda sententia est eorum qui dicunt animam educi ex potentia seminis — quam sententiam Meisnerus acerrime propugnat, non immerito rejicitur. Argumenta ejus haec sunt: 1. Accidens, videlicet virtus seminalis, non potest producere tam nobilem & excellentem substantiam. 2. Anima est forma immaterialis: Ergo non est in semine ante adventum animae. 3. Formarum materialium proprium est educi e potentia materiae; anima autem est forma spiritualis. Vide caetera apud ipsum Meisnerum, loco citato. Haec argumenta, ut contra eductionem ex potentia materiae valent, ita etiam ostendunt animam non esse ex traduce materiali. 4. Tertia sententia est eorum qui affirmant parentem simul cum semine emittere suae animae particulam, & proinde semen primo cum emittitur esse actu animatum; hi igitur volunt animam filii esse ab anima patris per ejus divisionem & quasi imminutionem. Hunc modum tuendi animarum traducem non satis tutum judicat Meisnerus, & merito; quia ex eo sequitur animam divisibilem & proinde materialem & corruptibilem esse; quia quod dividitur & imminuitur, quantum & materiale est.
About this text
Robert Baron, Philosophia Theologiae Ancillans (Philosophy in Service to Theology): the first exercise, on being and essence, and the second, on the origin of the soul and the spread of sin — newly rendered from Latin. Later exercises are not in this volume.
English follows locked 1658 Oxford Latin. Prima Art. I-XII from IA PDF leaves ~15-53. Secunda Art. I-XV from PDF leaves 56-107 / printed pp.54-105 (tess+pdftotext+DjVu). No modern English copied. Exercitatio Tertia+ remain.
Catalogue & scope
Wing B887. IA bim_early-english-books-1641-1700_philosophia-theologi-an_baron-robert_1658. Exercitatio Prima Art. I-XII; Exercitatio Secunda Art. I-XV (De origine animae & propagatione peccati). Not whole Philosophia (213 pp). Exercitatio Tertia+ remain.
Witnesses
- Copy-text Locked Latin, Exercitatio Prima Art. I-II tip (Oxford 1658) (Latin)
- Checked print IA Text PDF tip-page extract of Art. I-II (Latin)
- Checked print IA DjVu OCR of the 1658 volume (Latin)
- Copy-text Locked Latin, Exercitatio Prima Art. III (Oxford 1658) (Latin)
- Checked print IA Text PDF page extract of Art. III (Latin)
- Copy-text Locked Latin, Exercitatio Prima Art. IV (Oxford 1658) (Latin)
- Copy-text Locked Latin, Exercitatio Prima Art. V (Oxford 1658) (Latin)
- Checked print Tesseract OCR of Art. IV PDF pages (Latin)
- Checked print Tesseract OCR of Art. V PDF pages (Latin)
- Copy-text Locked Latin, Exercitatio Prima Art. VI (Oxford 1658) (Latin)
- Checked print Tesseract OCR of Art. VI PDF pages (Latin)
- Checked print IA Text PDF page extract of Art. VI (Latin)
- Copy-text Locked Latin, Exercitatio Prima Art. VII (Oxford 1658) (Latin)
- Checked print Tesseract OCR of Art. VII PDF pages (Latin)
- Checked print IA Text PDF page extract of Art. VII (Latin)
- Copy-text Locked Latin, Exercitatio Prima Art. VIII (Oxford 1658) (Latin)
- Checked print Tesseract OCR of Art. VIII PDF pages (Latin)
- Checked print IA Text PDF page extract of Art. VIII (Latin)
- Copy-text Locked Latin, Exercitatio Prima Art. IX (Oxford 1658) (Latin)
- Checked print Tesseract OCR of Art. IX PDF pages (Latin)
- Checked print IA Text PDF page extract of Art. IX (Latin)
- Copy-text Locked Latin, Exercitatio Prima Art. X (Oxford 1658) (Latin)
- Checked print Tesseract OCR of Art. X PDF pages (Latin)
- Checked print IA Text PDF page extract of Art. X (Latin)
- Copy-text Locked Latin, Exercitatio Prima Art. XI (Oxford 1658) (Latin)
- Checked print Tesseract OCR of Art. XI PDF pages (Latin)
- Checked print IA Text PDF page extract of Art. XI (Latin)
- Copy-text Locked Latin, Exercitatio Prima Art. XII (Oxford 1658) (Latin)
- Checked print Tesseract OCR of Art. XII PDF pages (Latin)
- Checked print IA Text PDF page extract of Art. XII (Latin)
- Copy-text Locked Latin, Exercitatio Secunda Art. I (Oxford 1658) (Latin)
- Checked print Tesseract OCR of Secunda Art. I PDF pages (Latin)
- Checked print IA Text PDF page extract of Secunda Art. I (Latin)
This is an AI-assisted study translation. Source fidelity and completeness have not been independently certified. Open Latin on each section (or the Latin source witness link) for the source text. This is not a complete critical edition.