Two other opinions on the traduction of sin are considered
Article XI. Two other opinions on the traduction of sin are considered.
1. Next are the third and fourth classes that reject the common view of the soul's infection from the body. Third class: original sin is translated by natural generation alone, without infection of soul from body. Generation explains why we are guilty of Adam's sin, they say, but not our blindness, ignorance, and propensity to evil. So this view can account for the first part of original sin, not the second and third.
2. Fourth class: they agree with us on the first and second parts, but say the third is propagated not through itself but through the second — lack of original justice, to which it is necessarily joined. Why is a newborn guilty of Adam's sin? Because he is Adam's son by natural generation. Why does he lack original justice? Because parents lack it and cannot confer it. Whence propensity to evil? It necessarily follows lack of justice, as darkness follows lack of light.
3. This does not satisfy. Lack of original justice is mere privation and non-being; non-being cannot cause a real being such as propensity to evil, which imports a positive real habit (Molinaeus ch. 8). So lack of justice has no real positive causality for producing concupiscence. Objection: blindness causes a fall; lack of light causes wandering — and those are real. Answer: privation is not a positive efficient cause but a condition sine qua non, or a cause per accidens.
4. For readers who have not met Molinaeus: his first assertion — that the intellect destitute of original justice and not yet called by the word neither knows nor can know spiritual and supernatural goods while that state lasts — needs no proof. Bellarmine (Grace and Free Choice 6.1): all theologians, Pontifical and Evangelical, agree those mysteries of faith cannot be known without divine revelation.
5. His further claims do not prove concupiscence arises merely from lack of justice. Concupiscence is not only proneness to excessive love of earthly things from ignorance of heavenly ones; it is also proneness to despising revealed heavenly goods known from the word, and to doing what we know from God's word to be base. So Paul (Rom 7:22–23): I delight in God's law in the inner human, but see another law in my members rebelling and leading me captive under sin's law.
6. If fleshly concupiscence were only inordinate love of earthly things from ignorance of heavenly ones, it would not remain after the word's illumination and regeneration — yet experience and Scripture say it remains in the regenerate. So explaining the third part by mere lack of justice is to be rejected.
Latin
ART. XI. Considerantur duae aliae sententiae de traductione peccati. 1. Sequuntur in hoc articulo considerandae tertia & quarta classes eorum qui communem sententiam de infectione animae a corpore rejiciunt. Ad tertiam classem eos refero, qui dicunt peccatum originale traduci a parentibus ad liberos per solam generationem naturalem, absque ulla infectione animae a corpore: generationem (inquiunt) esse quidem causam cur nos rei sumus peccati ab Adamo commissi; non vero posse esse causam nostrae caecitatis, ignorantiae, & propensionis ad malum; & proinde haec opinio in eo peccat, quod secundum eam explicari possit traductio primae partis peccati originalis, non vero secundae & tertiae partis. 2. Ad quartam classem eos refero, qui nobiscum consentiunt in explicanda traductione primae & secundae partis peccati originalis, dissentiunt vero in explicanda traductione tertiae partis; dicentes eam propagari & traduci a parentibus ad liberos, non per se, sed per secundam partem; h.e. per carentiam originalis justitiae, cum qua necessario connexa & conjuncta est. Si quis igitur eos roget, undenam sit quod infans recens natus sit reus peccati ab Adamo commissi? Respondebunt, quia est filius Adami, h.e. quia ab eo per naturalem generationem descendit. Item si roget, unde caret originali justitia? Respondebunt, quia parentes ea carent & eam conferre nequeunt. Si vero roget, unde propensio ad malum? Dicent eam necessario consequi carentiam justitiae originalis, tanquam tenebras carentiam luminis. 3. Verum haec sententia non satisfacit. Primo, quia carentia justitiae originalis est mera privatio & non Ens; at non Ens non potest esse causa Entis realis, qualis est propensio ad malum, quae habitum quendam positivum & realem importat, ut docet ipse Molinaeus cap. 8. istius operis: Ergo carentia justitiae non habet realem & positivam causalitatem ad producendam concupiscentiam. Dicet aliquis: caecitas, quae est privatio, potest esse causa lapsus, & privatio luminis potest esse causa aberrationis a via; lapsus autem & aberratio a via sunt entia realia. Resp. lapsus & aberratio non producuntur a privatione tanquam a causa efficiente positiva, sed privatio est conditio sine qua non, seu causa per accidens. 4. Secundo, proposita sunt nonnulla asserta Molinaei de intellectu hominis justitia originali destituti, idque in eorum gratiam qui nondum Molinaeum legerunt. Prima assertio: Intellectus hominis originali justitia destituti, & nondum per verbi praedicationem vocati, neque cognoscit, neque cognoscere potest, durante eo statu, bona spiritualia & supernaturalia. Haec assertio probatione non eget; nam ut docet Bellarminus lib. 6. de gratia & libero arbitrio cap. 1., convenit inter omnes Theologos, sive sint Pontificii sive Evangelici, ista mysteria fidei sine divina revelatione cognosci non posse. 5. Secunda assertio Molinaei non probat concupiscentiam oriri mere ex carentia justitiae. Tertio, concupiscentia seu propensio ad malum non solum est pronitas ad nimium amorem rerum terrenarum, orta ex ignorantia rerum caelestium & supernaturalium (ut statuit haec sententia); sed etiam est pronitas quaedam ad contemnenda & negligenda bona illa caelestia quae nobis patefacta & revelata sunt, h.e. quorum cognitionem ex verbi auditu acquisivimus; item est propensio ad ea agenda quorum turpitudinem ex DEI verbo cognitam & perspectam habemus. Unde Paulus de seipso conqueritur, Rom. 7:22–23: Delector (inquit) lege DEI secundum interiorem hominem; sed video aliam legem in membris meis rebellantem legi mentis meae, & captivum me ducentem in lege peccati quae est in membris meis. 6. Quarto, si concupiscentia carnis nihil aliud sit nisi propensio ad inordinatum amorem rerum terrenarum, orta ex ignorantia rerum caelestium, absurdum sequetur dogma: videlicet concupiscentiam post illuminationem verbi & regenerationem non manere; at experientia & Scriptura docent eam manere in renatis. Quare sententia quae tertiam partem peccati originalis sola carentia justitiae explicat, rejicienda est.
About this text
Robert Baron — Philosophia theologiae ancillans from the 1658 Oxford Latin. Exercitatio Prima Art. I-XII On Being and Essence; Exercitatio Secunda Art. I-XV On the origin of the soul and the propagation of sin. Later Exercitationes / remainder of 213 pp remain.
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.