86.  The first difficulty is how the soul could be infected with original sin, which is the root of actual sins, without injustice on God’s part in exposing the soul thereto.  This difficulty has given rise to three opinions on the origin of the soul itself.  The first is that of the pre-existence of human souls in another world or in another life, where they had sinned and on that account had been condemned to this prison of the human body, an opinion of the Platonists which is attributed to Origen and which even to-day finds adherents.  Henry More, an English scholar, advocated something like this dogma in a book written with that express purpose.  Some of those who affirm this pre-existence have gone as far as metempsychosis.  The younger van Helmont held this opinion, and the ingenious author of some metaphysical Meditations, published in 1678 under the name of William Wander, appears to have some leaning towards it.  The second opinion is that of Traduction, as if the soul of children were engendered (per traducem) from the soul or souls of those from whom the body is engendered.  St. Augustine inclined to this judgement the better to explain original sin.  This doctrine is taught also by most of the theologians of the Augsburg Confession.  Nevertheless it is not completely established among them, since the Universities of Jena and Helmstedt, and others besides, have long been opposed to it.  The third opinion, and that most widely accepted to-day, is that of Creation:  it is taught in the majority of the Christian Schools, but it is fraught with the greatest difficulty in respect of original sin.

87.  Into this controversy of theologians on the origin of the human soul has entered the philosophic dispute on the origin of forms. Aristotle and scholastic philosophy after him called Form that which is a [170] principle of action and is found in that which acts.  This inward principle is either substantial, being then termed ‘Soul’, when it is in an organic body, or accidental, and customarily termed ‘Quality’.  The same philosopher gave to the soul the generic name of ‘Entelechy’ or Act.  This word ‘Entelechy’ apparently takes its origin from the Greek word signifying ‘perfect’, and hence the celebrated Ermolao Barbaro expressed it literally in Latin by perfectihabia:  for Act is a realization of potency.  And he had no need to consult the Devil, as men say he did, in order to learn that.  Now the Philosopher of Stagira supposes that there are two kinds of Act, the permanent act and the successive act.  The permanent or lasting act is nothing but the Substantial or Accidental Form:  the substantial form (as for example the soul) is altogether permanent, at least according to my judgement, and the accidental is only so for a time.  But the altogether momentary act, whose nature is transitory, consists in action itself.  I have shown elsewhere that the notion of Entelechy is not altogether to be