In its first and rather indefinite form the proposition is attacked by Ripalda,(179) Molina,(180) and many later Scholastics. These writers argue as follows: It is impossible to deduce from Revelation or experience a definite rule by which man could determine the conditions on which the grievousness of a temptation depends. To say that a temptation is grievous when it cannot be resisted without the aid of grace, would be begging the question. Besides, the possibility always remains that there be men who, though in theory unable to withstand all grievous temptations without the aid of grace, _de facto_ never meet with such temptations, but only with the lighter kind which can be overcome without supernatural help. The second and more specific formulation of our proposition is supported by Sacred Scripture, which explicitly declares that all men are subject to temptations which they could not resist if God did not uphold them.(181) If the just are obliged to watch and pray constantly, lest they fall,(182) this must be true in an even higher degree of sinners and unbelievers. St. Augustine writes against the Pelagians: “Faithful men say in their prayer: ‘Lead us not into temptation.’ But if they have the capacity [of avoiding evil], why do they pray [for it]? Or, what is the evil which they pray to be delivered from, but, above all else, the body of this death?... the carnal lusts, whence a man is liberated only by the grace of the Saviour.... He may be permitted to pray that he may be healed. Why does he presume so strongly on the capability of his nature? It is wounded, hurt, harassed, destroyed; what it stands in need of is a true confession [of its weakness], not a false defense [of its capacity].”(183) c) Another question, on which Catholic divines disagree, is this: Can fallen man, unaided by grace, elicit an act of perfect natural charity (_amor Dei naturalis perfectus_)? Scotus answers this question affirmatively,(184) and his opinion is shared by Cajetan,(185) Bañez,(186) Dominicus Soto,(187) and Molina.(188) Other equally eminent theologians, notably Suarez(189) and Bellarmine,(190) take the negative side. In order to obtain a clear understanding of the question at issue we shall have to attend to several distinctions. First and above all we must not lose sight of the important distinction between the _natural_ and the _supernatural_ love of God. Supernatural charity, in all its stages, necessarily supposes supernatural aid. The question therefore can refer only to the _amor Dei naturalis_.(191) That this natural charity is no mere figment appears from the ecclesiastical condemnation of two propositions of Baius.(192)