To understand these and similar passages rightly and to explain at the same time how it was possible for Baius and Jansenius to bolster their heretical systems with quotations from the writings of St. Augustine and his disciples, it is necessary to observe that the quondam rhetorician and Platonic idealist of Hippo delights in applying to the genus the designation which belongs to its highest species, and _vice versa_.(163) Thus, in speaking of liberty, he often means the perfect liberty enjoyed by our first parents in Paradise;(164) in using the term “children of God” he designates those who persevere in righteousness;(165) and in employing the phrase “a good work” he means one supernaturally meritorious. Or, _vice versa_, he designates the slightest good impulse of the will as “_caritas_,” as it were by anticipation, and brands every unmeritorious work (_opus informe s. sterile_) as false virtue (_falsa virtus_), nay sin (_peccatum_). To interpret St. Augustine correctly, therefore, allowance must be made for his peculiar idealism and a careful distinction drawn between the real and the metaphorical sense of the terms which he employs. Baius neglected this precaution and furthermore paid no attention to the controversial attitude of the holy Doctor. Augustine’s peculiar task was not to maintain the possibility of naturally good works without faith and grace, but to defend against Pelagius and Julian the impossibility of performing supernaturally good and meritorious works without the aid of grace. It is this essential difference in their respective points of view that explains how St. Augustine and Baius were able to employ identical or similar terms to express radically different ideas.(166) c) It can easily be demonstrated on theological grounds that fallen man is able, of his own initiative, _i.e._ without the aid of grace, to perform morally good works, and that Baius erred in asserting that this is impossible without theological faith.