before such time as by the operation of seminall causes formes be accomplished and made to appeare in their owne likenesse upon this theater This is also the judgement of Athanas Kircherius a late learned writer l. 3. de magnete part 3. c. 1. where he shewes how rich compounds earth and water be as Chymique industries for seperation have discovered insomuch as in them as he noteth is conteined a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or generall magazine the common matter being from the first creation not leane and hungry but faeta and praeseminata with formes partiall and incompleate This also is the inchoations of formes and the rationes seminales praeëxistent which many learned men have often favoured and which being thus explained and in which this sence of ours can suffer nothing from the objections of Gandavensis or Durandus This lastly is nothing else but in a good sence an eduction of formes ex potentia materiae which is Aristotles and his Disciples Doctrine for it cannot be thought that Aristotle ever intended to presse or squeeze any formes out of the dry skeleton of materia prima which matter is a principle onely receptive and no promptuary out of which to educe a forme by virtue of any naturall agent whatsoever for in such a spare entity as that what fecundity is imaginable And so much touching the originall of formes which is one of the abstrusest and nicest points in all philosophy and that which by vulgar authors is meanliest handled and by the wisest is knowne but by conjecture Thus his maine argument is answered after which all the rest will fall downe headlong with any light touch though but of a finger Immediately after this he argueth out of Gen. 3. 19. where Adam is told that for his disobedience he must turne into that dust of which he was made out of which he concludes that all and every part of Adam must be converted into dust which if it be so as he sayeth then not only his earthly particles but his aiery watry and fiery partes must to dust also and not only his body but his soule if he have any must be turned into the same matter See what fine conclusions follow out of this mortall soules philosophy It sufficed then that so much of his body or of the whole man was to returne to dust as had beene made up of it And by this alone the commination of God is fullfilled without any more adoe After this he comes upon us with his false Latin saying as followeth Death reduceth this productio entis ex non ente ad Non-entem returnes man to what he was before he was that is not to be c. and by and by citing impertinently two or three places of Scripture falls to another argument drawen from the resurrection As for the Latine word Non-entem whether it be right or no we will not examine but apply our selves to the consideration of the sense which is as faulty as the Latine can be know therefore in breife that death did not reduce Adam to non ens but to non Adam it did not cause him absolutely not to be but onely not to be man or Adam any longer And forasmuch as concernes his body it is confest and certaine that it was not turned by death or mortality into nothing or non ens but into dust which is an ens or something that is to say his body was not annihilated but corrupted and to dye is not wholly to be destroyed but partially only which act is all one with dissolution Now if to the totall mortalizing of man it be not necessary that his body be destroyed then can it not be needfull that his soule should be so and thus our adversaries stout argument is more then mortalized for it comes to nothing which man by dying does not We will not deny him but that the soule of man did die and die againe as much as it was capable of death for first it dyed by the being seperated from the body secondly by being subjected unto damnation which as we know is called in scripture a second death But as for the annihilation of it or of the body that is it which we deny and so to doe we have just reason In fine as generation is nothing but the union of the parts and not the creation or absolute production of them so againe Death and Corruption is nothing but the disunion or dissolution of them and in no wise the annihilation according as this wise Author would perswade us As for the article of the Resurrection it proves nothing against the perpetuity of the soule for we never read of any resurrection besides that of the body wherefore to averre a resurrection of soules were a grand foolery and a doctrine never debateable or heard of amongst Christians till this silly Author came to teach it And so much for his first chapter CHAP. III. Scripture no way a favourer of the soules mortality HIs places cited out of scripture in favour of his errour are so impertinent as that it were no small peice of folly to examine them one by one They all of them signifie that man shall dye or sometimes that Joseph or Simeon is not as Gen. 42. 36. all which how they are to be expounded and understood may sufficiently appeare by that which hath beene said in the precedent chapter and how againe they make nothing at all against the soules immortality Touching the words of Ecclesiastes c. 3. the answer is that they were no determinations or resolves but a history or an account given of what sometimes came into his thoughts and what obscurities and desolations of soule he had and what lastly was one of the first difficulties that troubled him and stirred him up unto a sollicitous enquiry for certainely this one verity of the mortality of mans soule is that which is to order his designes to regulate his actions and to put life and vigour into them this being a truth most fundamentall We see this one was it which moved Clemens Rom. if he be the true Author of that which passeth under his name to a serious inquiry and care Clem. l. 1. recogn for the finding out what he was to do whom to consult what to esteeme most and in fine what to feare or hope most and how to order all the passages of his life This is the question that usually troubles men first of all and till a resolution be had suffereth their hearts not to be at quiet every man at first suspiciously as Solomon did asking of himselfe as Seneca gallantly expresseth saying Senec. in Troade Verum est an timidos fabula decipit Vmbras corporibus vivere conditis Cum conjux oculis imposuit manum Supremusque dies Solibus obstitit Et Tristes cineres urna coërcuit Non prodest animam tradere funeri Sed restat miseris vivere longius An toti morimur nullaque pars manet Nostri cum profugo spiritus
to the judgement of the wisest doe appertaine unto it For first what is the wealth and treasure of man but the dignity and value of his actions of this he hath long since beene plundered His eyesight whereby his steps were to be guided was his knowledge but this divers have laboured to extinguish by denying with the old Academickes and late Socinians that there is any certainty in it and by becoming so witty as to know nothing His crowne and life was the immortality of his better part as therein cheifely being superiour to beasts and all other living things irrationall but behold here a privy but a dangerous traitor endeavours to despoile him of it so that in fine if all these treacherous assailants might have their wills he shall be wholly mortall poore feeble blinde and miserable dethroned from his wonted dignity and cast downe unto the lower classe of Beasts Profectò plurima homini ex homine mala as Pliny justly complaineth though he himselfe be one of the Authors of these eevills Was it not enough that all inferiour creatures doe rebell against us but we must basely and treacherously conspire against our selves The man that going from Jerusalem to Jericho fell amongst theeves had hard measure offered him for he was despoiled and wounded by them and left onely halfe alive but those theeves amongst whom we are now fallen be farre more cruell for they would kill us outright both in soule and body and with lesse then this will not be contented But now it is time we examine what urgent reasons what killing arguments there were that moved this new author unto so extravagant a course of rigour against all mankinde for if these be not very urgent and invincible we must conclude this man guilty not onely of much folly but also of heinous malice and temerity against the rights and prerogatives of man CHAP. II. His first Classe of arguments examined and refuted HIs first arguments be drawen from mans creation fall restitution and resurrection the principall is this That what of Adam was immortall through Innocency was to be mortalized by transgression But whole Adam quatenus animal rationale was in Innocency immortall Ergo all and every part even whole man liable to death by sinne Upon this bungling argument or syllogisme the weight of all his cause must leane which as I perceive by the posture it should have been a syllogisme if the Author could have cast it into that forme but since that might not be we will be contented to take it in grosse as it lies rather then passe it over without an answer We grant then that indeed all Adam for example by sinning became mortall and all and every part of him that is to say he was after so much of his age expired to yeild up to death and be totally corrupted or which is all one he was to have his two essentiall parts disunited and after that untill the resurrection neither he nor any of his parts thus dissevered disunited to be Adam or a man any longer All which might be without that either the matter of his body or substance of his soule should perish or be destroyed And forasmuch as concernes the matter of his body it is an evident case because matter is a thing both ingenerable and incorruptible and so neither produced by his generation nor destroyed by his corruption and as by generation onely fashioned and united so againe by corruption or death onely defaced and disunited or dissolved And as for the soule the other part there is no more necessity death should destroy it then there was it should destroy the matter there being no more reason for the one then for the other Wherefore Saint Paul wishing death that so he might be with Christ did not desire to be destroyed as this silly authours doctrine would inferre but to be dissolved for surely if his soule by act of mortality was to have beene destroyed he could not thinke to be with Christ during the time of that destruction or dissolution which he wished and so his words and wishing would have beene very vaine seeing according to this Author he should by his being dissolved come never the sooner to be with Christ because according to this Author neither alive nor dead he was to come unto him before the Generall resurrection nay further his wish would have made against himselfe and his owne ends because he knowing Christ a little in this life might in some small measure injoy him in it but if by death his soule be killed as well as his body he should have no knowledge at all nor comfort of Christ but be cast farther off then he was before Now as all agree that matter throughout all mutations remaineth incorrupted so also according to the judgement of sundry knowing men and diligent inquirers into the workes of nature and transmutation of naturall compounds naturall and materiall formes themselves also doe not perish at their parting from their matters but onely are dissolved and dissipated lying after that in their scattered atomes within the bosome of nature from whence they were before by force of the seed extracted the result of whose union was the forme So that the entity of the forme remaines after corruption though not in the essence and formality of a forme or totally and compleatly Thus teacheth the learned author of Religio medici and exactly declares himselfe of the same minde is the famous late Physitian Daniel Sennertus in his Hypomnemata though sometimes not so fully as for example when he ascribes to formes precedent the full production of the subsequent assigning a vis prolifica in every forme for multiplying of it selfe by which doctrine he seemes to recede from his former principles of Atomes and not to sticke constantly to them yea and besides to deliver a conceit which is hardly understood and which moreover seemes to be improbable for who can explicate what one forme does when it multiplies another or what kinde of causality it doth then exercise or by what strange influence that effect is wrought and the forme made up of nothing This same doctrine of Religio Medici and that also which we deliver here touching the Origination of formes was the doctrine of old Democritus expressed by him in his constitution of Atomes or minima naturalia not that every Atome did conteine a forme as Sennertus seemes to thinke but rather severall peeces for the composition of it as every simple or ingredient of Diacatholicon for example is not Diacatholicon but conteines something in it of which it is to be made up and from which as from differing heterogeneall parcells collected and united by an artificiall mixtion it results and for want of putting this difference or restraint Sennertus his owne doctrine and explication of Democritus may seeme defective This also was taught by Anaxagoras when he affirmed all to be in all or every thing and to have a preexistence in the bosome of nature
astris Nec dubium est habitare Deum sub pectore nostro In coelumque redire animas coeloque venire Of the whole world we' are now possest And cleare behold our Parent blest A part of him and from these warres Make our approaches to the starres No doubt but under humane brest A sacred Deity doth rest And that our soules from heaven came And thither must returne againe Lo here how he doth signifie not onely the soules of men be divine and immortall but besides that they had not their originall from the earth or from any earthly agent with whom consenteth a Greeke Philosopher Sallustius Emescenus in his booke de Diis mundo lately published and vindicated from the moathes by Leo Allatius This Philosopher c. 8. teacheth on this sort First saith he let us know Sallustius Emasenc 8. what the soule is The soule is that which makes things living or animated differ from the livelesse or inanimate Their difference consists in motion sense phantasie and intelligence The soule devoyd of reason is a life that serves apparences and the senses but the rationall using reason beares rule over the sense and Phantasie Indeed a soule destitute of reason followes the affections of the body for it desires and is angry without reason but a rationall according to the rule of reason contemnes the body and entring into combate with the soule irrationall if it get the better doth follow virtue if vanquisht declines to vice This of necessity must be immortall because it knowes the Goddesse and no mortall thing can know that which is immortall besides it contemnes humane things as if they were belonging to some other person and being it selfe incorporeall is a verse from things corporeall which bodies if they be faire and fresh it languisheth if old it begins to flourish Also every diligent soule makes use of the mind 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the soule is not generated by the body for how should any thing that wanteth reason generate that which hath Thus Sallustius out of whose words we have first that the soule differs from the body 2. That the rationall from the irrationall or the sence 3. That the rationall is immortall and the reason why 4. That it is ingenerable and for what cause With this greeke Sallustius agrees the Roman who l. de bello Jugurth saying Ingeniiegregia facinora sicut anima immortalia sunt The egregious atcheivments of the wit are like the soule immortall and by and by Omnia orta occidunt aucta senescunt animus incorruptus aeternus rector humani generis All things which rife do fall and being ever eased doe wax old the minde is incorrupt and eternall c. Our next authority is that of Apollonius Tyanaeus that famous Pythagorean Phylosopher whose life Philostratus Lemnius hath writ at Apollonius apud Philostrat l. 8. de vita ejus large and amongst other accidents relates of him how after his decease he appeared to a young man a student in philosophy resolving him as followeth The soule is immortall and no humane thing but proceedeth from the providence divine This therefore after the body is corrupted as a swift courser released from his bonds and delivered from a troublesone servitude removeth up and downe and intermingles with the gentle aire Thus he to whom consenteth most expressely Hierocles in his commentary upon the golden verses of Pythagoras in sundry places telling us that the soule is not only incorruptible but also made immediately not by procreation but the hand of God See him of the Greeke and Latine edition of Paris pag. 101. 103 132. I will adde to these the words of the Emperour Marcus Antoninus commonly called Aurelius l. 4. n. 13. according to Merick Casaâ—bon's division If soules saith he remaine how from all aeternity Marc. Antonin l. 4. de vitasuâ— n. 13. could the aire hold them or how the earth retaine their bodies As here the bodies after they have lyen a while within the earth are changed and being dissipated leave space for other carkasses so soules carried up into the aire after they have beene there sometime whither kindled or liquefied are conjoined to the common 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is unto the originall mind or great soule of the world Thus he as if he had said with Solomon the spirit returnes to God that made it for the great soule of the universe or the originall minde of all is nothing else Horace consenteth saying Melior pars nostri vitabit lebitinam and Tacitus in vit Jul. Agric. Siquis piorum manib locus sive sapientib placet non cum corpore extinguuntur magnae animae placide quiescas If to the spirits of the pious there be any place remaining if great soules be not together with their bodies extinguished mayest thou rest in peace To these Ovid subscribeth Metamor l. ult Cum volet ille dies quae nil nisi corporis hujus Jus habet incerti spatium mihi finiat avi Parte tamen meliore mei super alta perennis Astra ferar nomenque erit indelebile nostrum Come when it will my Deaths uncertaine hower Which of this body only hath a power Yet shall my better part transcend the sky And my immortall name shall never die The same doctrine is constantly taught by Pythagoras as appeares by his doctrine of Metempsycosis and also both Jamblichus Porphyry in their severall histories of his life do witnesse of him as also Diogenes Laërtius I conclude this Jury with the judgement of Macrobius who c. 14. Macrob. in som scipio c. 14. in somnium Scipionis after he had recited sundry and differing fancies of severall Philosophers touching the nature of the soule concludes as followeth Obtinuit tamen non minus de incorporalitate ejus quà m de immortalitate sententia Neverthelesse the opinion touching the incorporeity of the soule as well as touching the immortality of it hath beene prevalent Against all these therefore it importes little that Dicaearchus Messenius a Peripatetique Philosopher Scholler to Aristotle or as Aristoxenus should as Cicero relateth in the first of his Tusculanes and in his second of his Academiques hold and defend it to be mortall or that both he and as Cicero reporteth out of him another more ancient Philosopher by name Pherecrates one of the linage of Deucalion did thinke there was no soule at all neither in man nor beast and forasmuch as concerneth the same Dicaearchus Sextus Emp. l. 2. Hypotyp c. 5. Fr. Picus l. 1. de Doctrin vanit Gentium c. 14. we read in Sextus Empericus and Tertullian as also in Joh. Fr. Picus of Mirandula he was of the same opinion for there is nothing so absurde which some one Philosopher or other hath not maintained Sextus Empericus was of the same minde also as he l. adv Mathematicos acknowledgeth But now by the way I note how sublimely most of these heathen wise men did Philosophize when as they conclude the soules
not at all for still the soule and body are authours of their own actions and the deformity ariseth from their misdemeanour and not from God's creation or concurrence Doctour Sennertus although he admit not of any mortality in the soule yet he holds it probable that it comes by procreation and that from the first instance of conception the seed is animated with the rationall soule which Doctrine of his by his leave inferres mortality for whatsoever is generated is corruptible and is to go out according to the ordinary Lawes of Nature at the same gate of according to the ordinary Lawes of Nature at the same gate of corruption at which it entred in Neither is it true or likely or lastly any way philosophicall to say as he doth Hypomn. 4. c. 10. that nothing created is immortall by the principle of Nature but onely by the free will or gift of God because as it is amongst bodies some are very durable as Marble and Cedar some by and by corrupted as flowers and fruits even out of the severall natures of their composition which God hath appointed for them and not out of the free will of God immediately without any further relation so in like sort some substances are perpetuall out of the nature of their being as spirituall substances and bodies that are simple and unmixt other some out of their own Natures corruptible as those that are mixt and made up of Elements which as by some naturall agents they were knit up together so by the operation of other some they are dissolvable Soules then if generated are compounds and if so may be uncompounded by the agency and operation of causes naturall wherefore to seek an immortality onely from a decree extrinsecall without any foundation in their naturall beings seemes neither to be philosophicall nor true wherefore the immortality of Soules and Angels is not to be reared upon this weak foundation according to which a Flye may be as much immortall as an Angel one by Nature according to Sennertus having no preheminence over the other the free determination of God for their perpetuall conservation being equally applicable to either of them Conformably to this position of his he will needs have the sperme alwaies animated with a reasonable soule but then consider how many Sennertus Hypomn 4. ca. 10. lib. de consens Chymic cum Arist Galeno c. 9. more soules are cast away without any bodies organicall and humane then are actuated and preserved by bodies I aske what must become of these innumerable soules must they perish or have bodies made them at the Resurreection neither of these two can be admitted without great temerity and absurdities Besides this we know God did not inspire Adam with a living spirit while he was a lumpe of clay but when he had a face and a body that was organicall and not before Againe why does the soule depart from the body but onely because it leaves to be organicall why then or with what probability can we imagine the soule is in the inorganicall sperme certainly with none at all The winde that did drive Sennertus upon this inhospitall shoare was the necessity of assigning a vis formatrix or a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say an able architect or former of humane body which though most acknowledge to be the seed yet Sennertus sees not how this can be unlesse it should be animated with the soule his reason is because the soule onely is to build an house fit for it selfe to inhabit But this reason of his is not urgent nay more it is not likely for egges and young birds do not build their own nests but the old ones for them so that it must by this account be the fathers office to erect this new building and not the childes But how sayes he can the father do this easily and well by sending his sperme as his deputy and officer Argent com in 1 Aphor. Hipp. to performe that duty as Argenterius also teacheth which entity hath derived to it from the generatour so much naturall strength and cunning as to make a sufficient architect for the effecting of this work and all this may be done with the only forme of seed without any animation of it with a soule Thus it is likely that the Acorne for example without any more forme than of an Acorne collects fit particles out of the elements and materials about it and by a virtue derived from the tree on which it grew formes out and fashions the body of an Oake and for the effecting of this worke the seed participates tmch of the nature of the tree or plant and hath ordinarily much of â—he same virtue wherefore in this abstruse question or quere that we may say something which is likely and hath for the truth thereof probable examples and instances in Nature we do conceive that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or forming virtue is the seeds own forme excited and assisted by the breeding cherishing and connaturall warmth of the maternall body which doth environ it as in the procreation of birds it seemes to be where the semen of the Cocke being cherished and stirred up by the ambient and incumbent warmth of the Hen is that which changes the egge and formes it into the shape of the bird from whence it came Neither is it probable that in so small a coagulum or seed which came from the Cocke the soule or essence of a Cocke is resident Now whereas he tels us that by the blessing granted to all Creatures by the Creatour of them in these words Increase and multiply force was given to every soule to multiply another we confesse it to be true yet this not to be done by creating of the younger by the elder soules or by the giving of them new entities but rather by doing some other act out of which these formes should connaturally follow as materiall formes they do by a resultancy and immateriall by creation from a higher cause which creation is to follow and is due by a regular ordination exigence of Nature and so they may truly be said to be given and communicated though not made by the force of generation And this is the true vis prolifica and not that other which Sennertus feignes unto himselfe by which he will have one humane soule to beget another and on the instant to become with childe of it no bodie knowes how neither by what particular operation nor from what Mine it should be digged For this manner of speaking makes shew rather of some empty Magicke than of sound Philosophy and seemes altogether as hard and impossible as the eduction of them out of the potentiality of the materia prima when understood in that sense in which he himselfe impugnes it If the Parents objecteth Sennertus do not give the soule which is the forme of man they do not generate the man but for certaine they do generate the man therefore
both be generated then both are mortall Answ Whole man is generated by man I grant it Therefore both soule and body are generated I distinguish That both soule and body are made parts of man by generation and a creature produced like in nature to him that generates I also grant and doe affirme that by doing of this onely the compleat act of generation or procreation is performed according to the received definition of generation before exhibited in the Chapter precedent But that both soule and body must be therefore made and have their Entities or beings given them by procreation that consequence I deny as false and absurde yea so absurde as it suffers a thousand instances to the contrary in all sorts of Animals For example a whole horse is generated both matter and forme and yet his matter did not receive any being by generation and so it falls out in other creatures If then it be not necessary that the matter receive the being by procreation though the whole Animal consisting of matter and forme be truly generated what reason can there be why to the generation of the whole Animal a new being of the forme by vertue of procreation should be necessary or why can one be necessary to generation when as we see evidently the other is not or why againe should we exact the new production of either of them by generation when without any such act the definition of generation See Argenter com in Aphor. 1. Hippocr is fulfilled and agrees both unto the generation of beasts whose matter is not generated and to the generation of man whose forme is not generated any more then his matter is By force of this solution all his imaginary absurdities which he labours to fasten upon the non procreation of the soule doe of themselves dissolve If the soule saith he be infused then Christ did not take whole humanity from the seed of the woman Answ He received from the seed of the woman as much of the humanity as was to be received thence and that which he tooke did not come unto him by procreation nor was it so to doe As for the fourteenth to the Hebrewes which he cites for his purpose our answer to it is that it is not found in our bookes neither Greeke nor Latine neither do the Editions of Raphelengius or Elzevir contain any more Chapters than thirteen If saith he we consist of soule and body and are not men without both and receive not our soules from him he meanes the Generatour as I suppose then Adam is the father of no man nor Christ the Son of man because his manhood 's constitutive part even that which should make him a man could not be by the seed of the woman and a man is as much a father of fleas and lice which receive their matter from him as of his children Answ Surely fleas and lice whence soever they receive their matter do not proceed from him in likenesse of Nature as by the definition they if they were generated by man ought to do Moreover they are not generated by man but of him neither is he the agent but the patient and so is of these vermin no generatour at all proper or improper Secondly men do receive their soules by force of generation although they be not generated and so notwithstanding this non-generation of the soule Adam might truly and univocally be the father of all men and also the soule of Christ might come by the seed of the woman although it were not made or procreated by it If the soule addes he be infused after the conception then there is growth before there is life which is impossible for the soule is made the vegetative as well as the motive sensitive or rationall part Answ I grant that before the infusion of the soule there may be vegetation and this by the sole virtue of the sperme but I deny that therefore there be in man more soules than one that is than the rationall for this same force of vegetation which is in the seed holdeth it selfe upon the part of the matter onely and doth not performe the office of a soule or forme the substance and operation thereof being no more than to fashion an organicall body and to make it fit for the reception of the soule and the union with it after whose infusion both the vitall and animal spirits do but serve as instruments to it and to accomplish the body in making it to be so perfectly organicall as the eminency of a rationall spirit above other formes doth require to have it If the soule be not generated but infused into a dead body then saith he it is lawfull to be Nigromancer for Nigromancy is nothing but putting a spirit into a dead body and so it is imitation of God and God the onely Nigromancer and all the men in the world but Nigromanticke apparitions whose spirits when they have done the worke for which they were put into the bodies desert them as other conjured Ghosts do Answ See the shallownesse of this man who can neither speak right nor reason with common sense and probability He calls Necromancy constantly Nigromancy and he supposes that a soule in a dead body makes a living man and can exercise vitall actions in it or actions of life and so according to his grosse capacity if the soule be infused God must be a Necromancer and men but Necromantique apparitions for this Ignoramus it seemes knowes no difference between a soule and body that are united and those that are not united but together onely nor between a body living by the virtue of the spirit and by virtue thereof doing vitall actions and another which is onely moved and inhabited by a spirit without any union with it or participation of life But supposing all were one yet were it not lawfull to be a Necromancer because nothing at all be it never so good is to be done by superstitious actions or by making any recourse unto the Devill and acknowledgement of his power by any dependency of him whatsoever more or lesse It is granted saith he that the body considered meerly sensitive cannot sin and is but an instrument or as the pen in the hand of the writer Therefore if the soule be infused then of necessity the immortall thing and not our mortall flesh is the authour of all sin and so God's immediate hand the cause of all sin That the body is onely an instrument of the soule is false for it is a See Solo of this in 4. d. 43. q. 1. a. 2. Rat. 3. living co-agent with it and a partaker both in the good and evill actions and so is both rewardable and punishable with it whether in the mean time it be created or generated for this variation makes no difference in this matter of merit or demerit neither doth the creation of the soule make God the authour of sin more than the generation of it that is to say