Onku

27. It is easy for anyone to defeat Augustine; you must consider whether it is by truth or by shouting. I have nothing to say except that it is easy for anyone to defeat Augustine; how much more easily, then, may someone appear to have defeated him, or, even if he does not appear to have defeated him, nevertheless be said to have done so? This is easy. I do not want you to think it a great thing; I do not. I do not want you to seek it as something great. For when people perceive so immense a hunger for this in your heart, many will rejoice to have found an opportunity to make so powerful a man their friend at the cost of a few cries of “Bravo! Bravo!” I do not wish to say that, if they do not applaud you, or if they express a contrary opinion, they may even fear making you their enemy. This would indeed be foolish and stupid, but nevertheless most people are like that. — St. Augustine, Epistle 238, §27 (To Pascentius; PL 33).

So much for the Unilateral Communication of thought, as a mean of knowledge. We now proceed to the Mutual Communication of thought, Conference. Conference-, of two kinds. This is either mere Conversation,-mere Dialogue, or Formal Dispute, and at present we consider both of these exclusively, only as means of knowledge,-only as means for the communication of truth. 1. Dialogue. The employment of Dialogue as such a mean, requires great skill and dexterity; for presence of mind, confidence, tact, and pliability are necessary for this, and these are only obtained by exercise, independently of natural talent. This was the method which Socrates almost exclusively employed in the communication of knowledge; and he called it his art of intellectual midwifery, because in its application truth is not given over by the master to the disciple, but the master, by skillful questioning, only helps the disciple to deliver himself of the truth explicitly, which his mind had before held implicitly. This method is not, however, applicable to all kinds of knowledge, but only to those which the human intellect is able to evolve out of itself, that is, only to the cognitions of Pure Reason. 2. Disputation,-Oral and Written. Disputation is of two principal kinds, inasmuch as it is oral or written; and in both cases, the controversy may be conducted either by the rules of strict logical disputation, or left to the freedom of debate. Academical disputation. Without entering on details, it may be sufficient to state, in regard to Logical Disputation, that it is here essential that the point in question,-the status controversiæ,-the thesis, should, in the first place, be accurately determined, in order to prevent all logomachy, or mere verbal wrangling. This being done, that disputant who denies the thesis, and who is called the opponent, may either call upon the disputant who affirms the thesis, and who is called the defendant, to allege an argument in its support, or he may at once himself produce his counter-argument. To avoid, however, all misunderstanding, the opponent should also advance an antithesis, that is, a proposition conflictive with the thesis, and when this has been denied by the defendant the process of argumentation commences. This proceeds in regular syllogisms, and is governed by definite rules, which are all so calculated that the discussion is not allowed to wander from the point at issue, and each disputant is compelled, in reference to every syllogism of his adversary, either to admit, or to deny, or to distinguish. (a) These rules you will find in most of the older systems of Logic; in particular I may refer you to them as detailed in Heerebord's Praxis Logica, to be found at the end of his edition of the Synopsis of Burgersdicius. The practice of disputation was long and justly regarded as the most important of academical exercises; though liable to abuse, the good which it certainly ensures greatly surpasses the evil which it may accidentally occasion. (a) Cf. Krug, Logik, § 186. Anm. 2. Scheidler, Hodegetik, § 45, p. 138.-Ed. William Hamilton, Lectures on Metaphysics and Logic, vol IV, pp. 224–225

1. First remember this ground which they have given you, that If you prove them guilty but of any one error in points of belief determined by their Church, you thereby disprove the whole body of Popery as such: For you pull up the foundation on which they build, and the authority into which they resolve their faith. They will grant you, that if they are deceived by the Church in one thing, they have no certainty of anything upon the Church's credit. So that if you read Paul's discourse against praying in an unknown tongue, or the many precepts for our reading and meditating in the Law of God, or the like, and can but perceive that the Popish Latin service, or their forbidding men to read the Scripture, &c. are contrary hereto; or if you find out any one of their errors, you cannot be a Papist, if you understand their profession. 2. But it is not so with us: for though we know that the Scripture, and all that is in it, is of infallible truth, and that every true Christian (while such) is infallible in the essentials of Christianity, (for else he were no Christian;) yet we profess that we know but in part, and that our own writings and confessions may possibly in some things be beside the sense of Scripture; and there being much more propounded in Scripture to our faith, than what is of absolute necessity to salvation, we may possibly, after our studying and praying, mistake in some things which are not of the essence but the integrity of Christianity, and are necessary to the strength or comfort, though not to the being of a Christian. So that every error in their faith destroys their grounds, and so their new religion; but so doth not every error of ours. 3. Or to speak more distinctly; let us distinguish between the Fides quæ and qua; their objective faith, and our subjective faith. 1. Their objective faith hath errors in it; but ours has none by their own confession: for theirs is all the decrees of their Popes and Councils; (*) and ours is only the Holy Scripture, which they confess to be infallible. Our own writings do but shew how we understand the Scriptures, and so whether our subjective faith be right or not-2. We confess that it is not only possible but probable, that we are mistaken in some lower points, about the meaning of the Scriptures, and yet our foundation is still sure. But they have in a sort confounded their subjective and objective faith; and one believes it, because others believe it; and so one age or part does but seek for the object of their faith in the actual faith of the other. Yea 3. They conclude that every point which is of faith, that is, which is determined by the Church to be so, is of such necessity to salvation that no man can be saved who denies it, or who doth not believe it, if sufficiently proposed. But we are assured, that though all that is in Scripture be most true, yet through misunderstanding, some points there proposed to our faith, may possibly be denied and disputed against by a true believer; and yet his salvation not be overthrown by it. The Papists cry out against us for distinguishing between the fundamentals (or essentials) of religion and the integrals; but we know it to be necessary. * Oath of Pius IV., § 12. — Richard Baxter, A Key for Catholics, pp. 41-42 (1839, ed. Allport).

What wonder is it, then, if the Examiner, proceeding from the principles of his own pseudo-theology, reproaches Voetius because he requires for theology the full apparatus of all arts and all sciences? Nor indeed should anyone suppose Voetius to be so mad—as the Examiner would gladly persuade the unlearned—as to claim for himself alone a perfect knowledge of all things. He knows and has thoroughly digested that Socratic adage: How vast is that which we do not know! He does not peddle himself as a jurist, nor as a physician. He seeks to advance in those faculties, and in other architectonic disciplines, only so far as suffices to unlock the inner sanctuaries of solid and profound theology. But if, glutton for books that he is, he advances a little further into any discipline, who would begrudge him that? Who would snarl? — Martin Schoock, Remonstranto-libertinus a Cl. D. Gisberto Voetio, pp. 9–10.

"Consider, I pray you, Franciscus Junius: a man beyond what can be expressed in words, thoroughly versed in every branch of knowledge, and most expert in Scholastic theology and debate." — Johannes Hoornbeeck, Institutiones theologicae ex optimis autoribus concinnatae (1658), "Praefatio".

"Of what erudition and dignity the Theologian Chamier was, does not concern us to say now: his Panstratia testifies to it, which the leading men among the Lutherans value so highly today, that they judge its author alone can stand in place of all who have treated the controversies common to Lutherans and Reformed against the Papacy, and suffices for even one Student." — Friederich Reichel, Disputatio Theologica de Dicto Rom. V. vers. 18. 19.

"The Most Reverend Bishop of Ypres in Flanders, Cornelius Jansenius, obeying the admonition of Prosper of Aquitaine to Rufinus, devoted his care to learning the disputations of Blessed Augustine, so that in confessing the grace of God he might attain the most pure and salutary understanding of Evangelical and Apostolic doctrine. Scarcely had the laborious work of twenty years (four lustrums) come to light, when it began to be exposed to the implacable envy of certain neighbors, which soon, having broken the barriers of modesty, flared up into the flame of open persecution." — An Reverendissimvs Iansenius in suo Augustino doceat aut renouet articulos in bulla Pij V. et Gregorij XIII. proscriptos [1650, Anon]

"'It is an Adorning much more excellent and valuable than Gold, Pearls, or the most costly Array, much more recommending than all the Bravery of the Daughters of Zion Christian Charity, that Diadem of Beauty, and Ornament of Grace, is an adorning of the Soul, the more noble Part: And verily such as are invested with this Garment of Praise, even Solomon in all his Glory was not arrayed like one of these. This is the great Beauty of our Profession; 'tis an Eternal Excellency; the Excellency of Dignity; and such as are destitute of it are truly clothed with Rags and Shame, altho' they may wear all the external Ensigns of Honor. These without That, are but a Reproach unto Men. Benignity and Beauty are so nearly related and inseparably wedded, that (I find) the very same word which in one place is rendered Kindness, Goodness, Mercifulness, &c. is in another place rendered Goodliness, Glory, or Comeliness: which intimates no less than that Christian Kindness puts a Loveliness on the Soul, makes the Face to shine, and is truly amiable and honorable in all. [...] We must put it on, as our ordinary Attire, which we cannot do without, and which we wear every Day and all the Day long. We must put on Charity as duly as we put on our wearing Cloaths. There must be an habitual fixed disposition to it, and a persevering exercise of it. "We must always appear in it, as in our Cloathing, and never without it"; and reckon ourselves undrest, to our shame, if it be off at any time.—We must put it on as Armor: We must buckle it on regularly and be covered with it entirely, as Soldiers completely Arm'd: and we must daily be proving our Armor, that we may grow skillful and expert in the use of it, and that it maynit be a burden to us.—We must put it on as an Ornament; with as much care and exactness as a Bride puts on her nuptial Attire; with as much Delight and Satisfaction as a Prince elect, His Crown & Robes of State; and with as much Solemnity as the High Priest of old His goodly Minesterial Apparel.—In a Word, Our Charity must be visible, apparent, and shine before others, as Rich and Splendid Raiment upon us doth; and hereby we should appear great and distinguished from others, as a Man by the peculiar Habit of his Office. We should take a Pleasure, and a sort of holy Pride, in wearing of it, as our Glory, Honor and Praise.—Thus the Apostle in our Text calls upon Christians to put on, as the Elect of God, Holy & Beloved, Kindness. [...] It must be shown in Speaking Kindly. Our Language should express our inward Affection, and breath universal Amity. Out of the abundance of the Heart, the Mouth should speak forth the words of truth and soberness, of Love and Kindness. It is part of the Character of a Virtuous Woman, Prov. 31. 29. She openeth her mouth with wisdom, and in her tongue is the law of Kindness. The Law of Love written in the heart, should influence and govern the Tongue, and dictate the most ingratiating, the most endearing Expressions. A kind Spirit will put us upon seeking out acceptable words. A soft Answer and goodly Words are the Dialect of Sincere Charity.—Our Discourse for the Matter of it should be under the direction and restraint of the great Law of Kindness. In Conference with one another we should speak Things benign & grateful weighty, useful and entertaining. We should be careful to let no corrupt communication proceed out of our mouths, but that which is good to the use of edifying: and all Evil-speaking must be put away from us. We must guard against every Thing, that carries in it Malevolence, Pride, Insult or Provocation, must lay aside all hard speeches, grievous words that stir up anger; & all foolish Jesting, which is not convenient; bring no railing accusation, nor evil Imprecations. 'It is for a foul-mouthed Shimei to curse, a blasphemous Rabshakeh to revile, or a bloody Jezebel to insult and threaten. And then in our Talk of others, we must take heed lest we at any time or in any measure incur—that foul Character the Apostle gives of some, (1 Tim. 5. 13.) Tatlers, Busy-bodies, speaking Things which they ought not. We must shun Whispering, Tale-bearing, the fuel of strife, and Backbiting, the quench-coal of Love, and common Plague of the World. When we talk of others, Let it be of the Good Things that may be found in them; which is ever the more human and the more honorable Part. If we give our mouth to evil, and our tongue frame deceit, we trespass upon the common Laws of Equity and Humanity, and forfeit that blessed Character of a Citizen of Zion, which is given in Psal. 15. 3. He backbiteth not with his tongue, nor taketh up a reproach against his Neighbor. —And further, as to the Manner of our speaking, It should be tempered with Goodness, and sweetened with Benignity. Our Speech, both as to the Phrase and Delivery, should be soft, familiar and winning. Indeed we must not wheedle and cajole, fawn and flatter, sooth and complement; having men's Persons in admiration because of advantage. Neither may we on the contrary snap and snarl, or huff and hector, nor yet flout and ridicule. 'It is for a wicked Ishmael to scoff, a churlish Nabal to answer roughly, for the proud Babylonians to bellow as Bulls, for a treacherous Judas to speak with flattering Lips, 'tis for Children to throw dirt and squibbs in each others face, and for Madmen to cast Arrows and Firebrands at one another: and seest thou a man hasty in his words, there is more hope of a Fool than of him. —Our Speech should always be with Grace, seasoned with Salt. (Eph. 4. 6.) Salt, in allusion to its uniting Quality, was among the Hebrews an usual and apt Metaphor for Peace and Friendship. Unto which our Savior very plainly alludes, Mar. 9. 50. Have Salt in yourselves and Peace one with another.—Our Lips should speak Peace, and our Conversation savour of a well-disposed and good Nature. We should be affable, communicative and use an honest freedom, and also be respectful and courteous, avoiding all harsh Sounds, all jarring Notes, and grating Accents. 'Twas Naphtali's famous Character,—That, Gen. 49. 21. He giveth goodly words: And this must be our endeavor if we would approve ourselves the Peaceable in Israel. The sincere Love of the Heart should flow out at the Lips. Upon all occasions our Speech both as to matter and manner should be kind. Thus In administering Reproofs; in doing this we must not cast Stones and shoot Arrows at our Brother, nor give hard and biting Language, as the manner of some is. Our Hearts should be steeled with Courage, and yet the Admonition be tempered with Compassion, which will be an excellent oil that will not break the Head, but will tend to soften the Heart and heal the wounds of Sin. Even when the Case requires us to be somewhat warm and sanguine, and to rebuke sharply, yet, then Brotherly kindness should bridle our Tongue, indite and order our Speech, so as that our Rebukes may not sound like the cutting Revilings of a wrathful Enemy, but the compassionate Chidings of a displeased Friend. We must not dress our Reproofs in Satyr, not launch out into undue vexatious Comments & Invectives. We must exercise a godly jealousy over ourselves lest at any time there be out breakings of vicious wrath, and we deceive ourselves by palliating it with the fair, but false, pretence of pious Zeal. To offer close convincing Expostulations, allayed with the Correctives of humble loving Expressions, is the method of a wise Reprover. A soft tongue breaketh the Bones. —So in managing our Contests and Disputes with one another we should put away all bitterness and wrath and clamour and evil speaking. We should speak the truth in Love, even when we contend earnestly for the Faith. We should endeavor fairly to state, and mildly to debate matters in difference, with easy words and unruled passions. 'It is prescribed particularly as the Duty of a Minister (who by Office is set for the defense of the Truth,) that He must be apt to teach, no striker, but patient, not a Brawler. (1 Tim. 3. 2, 3.) But this Rule is of equal Obligation upon All; none have a Licence to smite with the Tongue, the Tongue of Deceit, nor the Tongue of Calumny. There should be no Noise of Axes and Hammers in the House of God. The Servant of the Lord must not strive, or be contentious, but gentle unto all men, in meekness instructing those that oppose, endeavoring to convince them by sound Doctrine, and sound Speech that cannot be condemned. We should for bear all Personal Reflections, & blakning Contumelies, all needless Gainsayings and perverse Disputings, all intemperate Heat, Eagerness, & Impatience of Contradiction. And we should represent the Adversaries Opinion and Arguments candidly, and not go about to aggravate them by strained Innuendo's and forced Insinuations, to put false colors upon 'em and fasten to them all the ill consequences, which a critical Eye may think it discerns. We must judge charitably, equitably, (as we would have our Opponent judge of us,) and not dig up mischief as evil men do, nor (as is too much the fashion of an envious captious World) brand every slip or side-step as an Apostasy, call every misapprehension an Heresy nor vote every little Miscariage worthy of Excommunication; or send Men to Hell presently as Reprobates, because they are not in every Punctilio of our mind, or cannot fall in with our measures. We must honor all men, and not trample on any, and set those among the Dogs of our Flock, whom for ought we know Christ hath set with the Lambs of His." — Thomas Foxcroft, A Discourse Concerning Kindness

"Some hold that Adam's sin produced a morbid quality in the flesh/seed, which infects the soul upon union. Against this: 1. I do not understand how that morbid quality causes immoderate pleasure in the act of generation, for these are natural functions. 2. Material flesh cannot directly reach or alter the spiritual soul to produce guilt, nor can it reach original justice. 3. Adam was prior by nature deprived of original justice before he incurred any morbid disposition; therefore the physical condition is not the cause of the lack of original justice, but vice versa. Others (like Thomas Aquinas) argue that all men are considered as "one man" in Adam, and are moved by Adam as members of a body are moved by the will. Against this: 1. The soul has no power over its own generation; it is passive in being generated, so it cannot be held culpable on the grounds of being "moved" like a bodily limb. 2. Bodily limbs moved purely passively by the will bear no guilt in themselves; all guilt is imputed strictly to the will. 3. The will of the infant is not moved by Adam. I say therefore otherwise according to the way of Anselm, that original sin is contracted in this way: God gave and handed over original justice to Adam under such a covenant (pactum) and decree to be preserved, that from then on he would be a debtor of it with his whole posterity. If Adam had kept it, every descendant from him according to the law of carnal propagation would have received it by divine infusion. But if he did not keep it, but lost it, those propagated from him would not have such justice from the instant of their conception, even though they remained debtors to it. By this covenant and decree, every soul of every future descendant of Adam was made a debtor of original justice. Because Adam did not keep original justice, every person propagated from the instant of conception—by the covenant of the divine decree—lacks original justice (God justly not infusing it on account of Adam's demerit) and yet remains a debtor to original justice. Therefore he is a sinner and contracts original guilt. Original sin is not contracted on account of any physical infection of flesh or seed. The seed acts not as physically infected, but as having an order to Adam in whom the offspring was propagated according to active seminal reason." — John Bassolis, Commentarius in libros Sententiarum, Liber 2, Distinctio 30, Quaestio 1

"R[eformed]. I ask you (Doubter) not whether you are a sinner; For so are all men. But whether you are a truly Penitent, Converted sinner; and whether yet you are true to your Baptismal Vow and Covenant? Can your Conscience say, that you Love, and Trust and obey God, and your Redeemer, before all the world; and that you love not Pleasure, Riches and Honor, more than God and Holiness and Heaven? and that it is more of the care and business of your life, to Know and Love and serve God better, and to make sure of your salvation, than to please your flesh, or prosper in the world? In a word; Do you heartily and in your practice, take God for your God, even for your All, and Christ, for your Teacher, King and Savior, and the Holy Ghost for your Sanctifier, turning in heart and life, from the Devil, the world, and the sinful pleasures of the flesh? This is the question which I desire you to answer. But I will prevent your answer lest you mistake my purpose, and think I make myself your Confessor, and I will tell you why I ask the question. Either you have thus Kept your Baptismal Vow, by a Godly life, or else you have broken it by worldliness and sensuality, &c. If you have kept it, and are a truly Godly person, you have resolved your own doubt, and absolutely confuted Popery already. For no honest man and true Christian can possibly turn Papist without gross contradiction." — Baxter, Full and Easy Satisfaction, I.1

"Whoever desires to be instructed in the sacred truths concerning religion should not rush through this work with a headlong step. Let his pace be tortoise-like; let him possess the keen scent of the hunting dog, the eyes of a lynx, and the wisdom of Pallas. Let him weigh the great meanings contained in a small book, read it through carefully, and gather countless fruits from it. Whatever ambiguity might arise concerning the decrees of the Pisan Council is removed. Now let it be made clear, by the gracious strength of divine law, how its foundations are laid, its heights raised, its roof constructed, and its steps arranged. A kindly discourse is present, and the greatest modesty of speech; the learned page flees reproaches and quarrels. It gives weighty sayings without the ornaments of words, and brings forth truths without the train of empty trifles." — Zacharias Ferreri, Apologia sacri Pisani consilii

"Before, I supposed myself profound through Aristotelian dogmas and argumentation with men of limitless shallowness, when You touched me at my core with Your heavenly truth, dazzling me with Your scripture, scattering the clouds of my error, showing me how I was croaking with the frogs and toads in the swamps." — Richard FitzRalph, Summa de Questionibus Armenorum

"For my part, I think he that would not fain know the truth if he could, when it is so lovely, and his salvation lieth at the slake, is worse then a mad man: And if I could find that Popery is the way of God, I can boldly say, I would quickly own it, whatever it cost me, (by the help of grace.) But having searched into their writings and courses many a year, I am more and more confident, that for us to turn to Popery, is to turn from the will of God, from truth to error, from the way of the Churches unity, to a sect, from safety to exceeding danger, and from the way of duty to the way of sin. And of this I am now to give you my reasons: wherein I will promise you as before the Lord to whom I am even going to give an account, that I will not speak against my conscience, nor write anything but what I would write, if this were the last day I had to live, as for ought I know, it may be; nor will I charge anything on them falsely, but undertake before any man breathing, to prove out of their own writings or doings, that it is theirs; though they dare not own it all to the ignorant." — Richard Baxter, A winding-sheet for Popery

That which has been is what will be, That which is done is what will be done, And there is nothing new under the sun. "Among all the sects that have troubled the Church of Christ, there is none that have heaped up such a multitude of errors, and made such a vexatious stir for them in the world, by subtlety, importunity, flames and blood-shed, as the Papists have done. Where they dare do it, they cruelly torment, and bloodily murder those that are not of their erroneous mind: Yea, its part of their Religion to force all Christian Princes to destroy us; and if they will not, to absolve their subjects from their allegiance, and deliver up their Countries to a Papist that will destroy us. For this is the Decree of one of their undoubted Councils, Later. sub Innoc. 3. Can. 3. And where they cannot or dare not do this, they are busy day and night to deceive; turning themselves into the shape of various Sects, and creeping in among both rich and poor, but specially insinuating into Rulers and Commanders, that may do them the greatest service when they are seduced. And their ordinary way is to seek first to unsettle men, and make them doubt of their former profession, and bring them into dislike with their Teachers, and so to win them over to themselves. To which end, their common cry is, that we are of a new Religion, that we are Heretics, that we are a small Party, and divided all to pieces among ourselves, and that we are but lost in wandering and confusion, and all because we have left the Church of Rome, which is the true Catholic Apostolic Church, and which all our forefathers lived and died in, and which is the Center and Head of unity, and the only judge of controversies, for want of whose infallible decision, every man interpreting Scriptures as he please, and being a Pope to himself, we are so many men, so many minds, and all out of the way, and shall never be right till we return to the Pope. Here's a fair and plausible tale, that may catch the simple, that know not what the Church or Religion is, and may shake those that never built upon the Rock." — Richard Baxter, A winding-sheet for Popery

"A mere man cannot satisfy God except by virtue of the merit of Christ. This proposition is gathered from the third part, question 1, article 2, whose opposite is maintained by Scotus, Durandus, and Aureolus. They strive to prove that God, by absolute power, can accept some act of a penitent as a just satisfaction for sin even when not joined to the merit of Christ’s passion. Their principal reason is that it is not impossible for the Son of God not to have been incarnated, and consequently not to have suffered; and yet it is possible that God could have justly produced a person predestined to beatitude, without, however, excluding mercy. Therefore, it would have been possible in this way for a penitent to make satisfaction for himself, because He cannot justly beatify a sinner without satisfaction. They also confirm this through St. Augustine, who says, "There was indeed another possible mode of our redemption than, namely, through the incarnation and passion, but none more suitable for healing our misery." Therefore, our fall could have been healed by another way than through the incarnation and passion of Christ. But these Doctors did not consider that, supposing that case, such a predestined penitent could not have satisfied God speaking of satisfaction properly so called, which requires an equality of thing to thing. He could, however, have satisfied improperly, imperfectly, and interpretatively, which requires only an equality of amends to the offense according to divine acceptance. For in this way it would not be impossible to satisfy God, and thus also the saying of Augustine does not help them. Because, although the fall of man could have been healed otherwise than through the passion of Christ, then he would not have been healed through condign satisfaction, as he is now. For perfect satisfaction for sin requires an adequation of satisfaction to the offense, but such and so great a satisfaction a mere man cannot exhibit unless it is joined to the merit of Christ's passion. Therefore, the assumed proposition is true." — Matthias Aquarius, Controversiae Inter D. Thomam Et Coeteros Theologos, Ac Philosophos, p. 117, B.

"Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom meet in one, and those commoner natures who pursue either to the exclusion of the other are compelled to stand aside, cities will never have rest from their evils, --nor the human race, as I believe, --and then only will this our State have a possibility of life and behold the light of day." — Plato, Republic V, 473c–e (trans. Jowett)

"In the same way, one must also speak about the damned, insofar as 'to love out of charity' is taken properly. But if 'to love out of charity' is taken broadly, insofar as the act of loving proceeds from charity as commanding it, then demons are in one way to be loved and in one way to be hated: they are to be hated by reason of their guilt, because they are unlike God; they are to be loved by reason of their nature. For the image of the highest King, considered according to its nature, is, so far as it is in itself, beautiful and well-formed, and lovable by a natural affection on the part of a like nature. Nevertheless, because one who has charity greatly detests their guilt, and because their guilt totally and inseparably possesses their nature, hence it is that charity moves the natural affection more toward loving irrational creatures than toward loving demons. Therefore, the arguments showing that demons are not to be loved out of charity must be granted." — Bonaventure, III, D. 28, A. 1, Q. 2

"I say that those objects are many, as can be seen in the common writings; nevertheless, among them are said to be neighbor, friend, and enemy. And I say that all these, for the state of the way and as existing in the state of the way, one who has charity ought, according to time and place, to love both in affection and in effect, especially in time of necessity and when he can do so effectively. And I say that by neighbor is understood every human wayfarer, and everyone dying in grace, or who has died having something purgable, on account of which he is detained in purgatory. And likewise all the saints and elect of God, whether human beings or angels, all of whom are ordered to God, or can be ordered, so that they may communicate in the divine good, which is God, and the divine object under the aspect of deity, which is posited as the formal objective reason of charity. But concerning the damned, I do not think that they are to be loved by one who has charity, at least as such. Hence Origen, on that text, 'And you shall hate your enemy,' takes 'enemy' to mean the devil. And similarly it can be taken of any damned person. Yet if they are to be loved in some way, this is according to their nature, by which they are made in the image of God and are naturally ordered to God as their ultimate end, under the proper aspect of deity." — John Bassolis, Commentarius in libros Sententiarum, Liber 3, Distinctiones 28-30, Quaestio 1

"Objection. But the doctrine of heaven is supernatural, and therefore does not agree with natural reason, however sound it may be. Response. Revealed doctrine in the Gospel indeed exceeds the grasp and comprehension of human and natural reason; nevertheless it is not contrary to sound natural reason. For the grace of God does not take away or destroy nature, but perfects it. Natural reason neither grasps nor can discern spiritual things unless it is illuminated by the Spirit of God; and even when illuminated, it does not comprehend them perfectly, but only as with dim eyes. Yet if natural man uses his reason, by that very reason he can judge that nothing in the Gospel is inconsistent with sound reason. For if human and natural reason judges that the doctrine which is from God and leads us to God ought to agree with the wisdom, power, goodness, justice, truth, and honor of God; and that every doctrine which fights against God’s wisdom, power, goodness, justice, truth, and honor is not divine but human and condemnable—this is the judgment of natural reason and of human conscience (Heb. 11:6). Therefore, if by intellect and reason one examines the word of God and searches and tests those things which are revealed in Scripture, while at the same time seeking illumination of reason from the Holy Spirit, through natural reason itself one will judge that the doctrine of Scripture and the Gospel not only does not conflict with the wisdom, power, goodness, justice, truth, and honor of God, but also agrees with them as is fitting; and further, that it is useful for justification, sanctification, and consolation in life and in death. Therefore it is not true that the heavenly and supernatural doctrine of the Gospel fights against human and natural reason; rather it agrees with sound reason and sound understanding." — Caspar Streso, Commentarius Practicus in Actorum Apostolicorum per Lucam Evangelistam Descriptorum, vol. 2, p. 491.

"II. Problem. Whether the damned after the day of judgment, and the souls of the same as well as of the blessed separated after death, are neighbors of the living, and therefore the object of our love. Answer. First Conclusion. Concerning the blessed after the last day, there is no doubt whatsoever. For glorification and heavenly glory do not remove nature, but perfect it; consequently they do not remove the identity of nature and [the relation of] neighborliness — no more than regenerating grace in this life removes the truth of human nature, and the neighborliness among men founded upon it. II. Probl. An damnati post diem iudicii, & animae corrundem ut & beatorum separatae post mortem, sint proximi viventium, atque adeo dilectionis nostrae objectum. Resp. I. Concl. de beatis post diem novissimum minime dubium est. Glorificatio enim & gloria coelestis non tollit naturam, sed perficit; consequenter non tollit naturae identitatem ac proximitatem: non magis quam gratia regenerans in hac vita naturae humanae veritatem, & in ea fundatam hominum inter se proximitatem." — Gisbertus Voetius, SD IV, 115.