In conclusion we will quote a famous passage from St. Augustine which reads like a protest against the distortions of Baius and Jansenius. “Love,” he says, “is either divine or human; human love is either licit or illicit.... I speak first of licit human love, which is free from censure; then, of illicit human love, which is damnable; and in the third place, of divine love, which leads us to Heaven.... You, therefore, have that love which is licit; it is human, but, as I have said, licit, so much so that, if it were lacking, [the want of] it would be censured. You are permitted with human love to love your spouse, your children, your friends and fellow-citizens. But, as you see, the ungodly, too, have this love, _e.g._ pagans, Jews, heretics. Who among them does not love his wife, his children, his brethren, his neighbors, his relations and friends? This, therefore, is human love. If any one would be so unfeeling as to lose even human love, not loving his own children, ... we should no longer regard him as a human being.”(247) Tepe pertinently observes(248) that St. Augustine in this passage asserts not only the possibility but the actual existence of naturally good though unmeritorious works (_opera steriliter __ bona_), and that the theory of Ripalda(249) is untenable for this reason, if for no other, that the quoted passage is cited in Pius VI’s Bull “_Auctorem fidei_.”(250) Article 2. The Necessity Of Actual Grace For All Salutary Acts Salutary acts (_actus salutares_) are those directed to the attainment of sanctifying grace and the supernatural end of man. According to this double purpose, salutary acts may be divided into two classes: (1) those that prepare for justification (_actus simpliciter salutares_), and (2) those which, following justification, gain merits for Heaven (_actus meritorii_). In consequence of the supernatural character of the acts which they comprise, both these categories are diametrically opposed to that class of acts which are good only in a natural way,(251) and hence must be carefully distinguished from the latter. The Fathers did not, of course, employ the technical terms of modern theology; they had their own peculiar phrases for designating what we call salutary acts, _e.g._ _agere sicut oportet vel expedit, agere ad salutem, agere ad iustificationem, agere ad vitam aeternam_, etc.(252) 1. PELAGIANISM.—Pelagianism started as a reaction against Manichaeism, but fell into the opposite extreme of exaggerating the capacity of human nature at the expense of grace. It denied original sin(253) and grace. As the necessity of grace for all salutary acts is a fundamental dogma of the Christian religion, the Church proceeded with unusual severity against Pelagian naturalism and condemned its vagaries through the mouth of many councils.