If the rational creature were compelled to perform a sinful act, as act, resistance would be impossible. And if it were true that the malice of an act practically cannot be separated from its physical entity, then in the Thomistic hypothesis God would be the author not only of the _entitas_ but likewise of the _malitia peccati_. The devil tempts us only by moral means, _i.e._ by suggestion; are we to assume that God tempts us physically by inducing sin as an act and simultaneously withholding the _praemotio ad bonum_, thus making sin an inevitable fatality? This consideration may be supplemented by another. So-called “sins of malice” are comparatively rare. Most sins are committed for the sake of some pleasure or imaginary advantage. It is for this reason that moral theology in forbidding sin forbids its physical entity. How gladly would not those who are addicted to impurity, for instance, separate the malice from the entity of their sinful acts, in order to be enabled to indulge their passion without offending God! β) Against the logic of this argument some Thomist theologians defend themselves by a simile. The soul of a lame man, they say, enables him indeed to move his disabled limb; however, the cause of limping is not the soul but a crooked shinbone. Father Pesch wittily disposes of such reasoning as follows: “The will of Adam before the fall was not a crooked shinbone, but it was absolutely straight, and became crooked through physical premotion.”(742) Another and more plausible contention of the Thomist school is that Molinism, too, is compelled to ascribe sin somehow to God. “It is impossible for a man to sin unless God lends His coöperation. Do not, therefore, the Molinists also make God the author of sin?” Those who argue in this wise overlook the fact that there is a very large distinction between the _concursus simultaneus_ of the Molinists and the _praemotio physica_ of the Thomists. The _praemotio physica_ predetermines the sinful act without regard to the circumstance whether or not the will is able to offer resistance. The _concursus simultaneus_, on the other hand, begins as a mere _concursus oblatus_, which is in itself indifferent and awaits as it were the free consent of the will before it coöperates with the sinner as _concursus collatus_ in the performance of the sinful act.(743) For this reason the distinction between _actus_ and _malitia_ has a well-defined place in the Molinistic system, whereas it is meaningless in that of the Thomists.(744)