There is no proportion between the natural and the supernatural, and it would be a contradiction to say that mere nature can span the chasm separating the two orders. To assume the existence of a strict _meritum naturae_ for it, would be to deny the gratuity as well as the supernatural character of grace. To deny these would be to deny grace itself and with it the whole supernatural order that forms the groundwork of Christianity. We know, on the other hand,(428) that grace is absolutely indispensable for the performance of salutary acts. Hence, to deny the gratuity of grace would be to credit nature with the ability to perform salutary acts by its own power, or at least to merit grace by the performance of naturally good deeds. In the first hypothesis grace would no longer be necessary for salvation; in the second, it would be proportionate to natural goodness, and therefore no grace at all. Consequently, the gratuity of grace cannot be consistently denied without at the same time denying its necessity.(429) *Thesis II: There is no naturally good work by which unaided nature could acquire even so much as an equitable claim to supernatural grace.* This proposition may be technically qualified as _fidei proxima saltem_. Proof. The Semipelagians held that, though nature cannot merit grace in strict justice, it can merit it at least congruously, _i.e._ as a matter of fitness or equity.(430) This contention was rejected by the Second Council of Orange (A. D. 529), which defined that “God works many good things in man that man does not work, but man works no good deeds that God does not give him the strength to do.”(431) And again: “[God] Himself inspires us with faith and charity without any preceding [natural] merits [on our part].”(432) The phrase “without any preceding merits” (_nullis praecedentibus meritis_) excludes both the _meritum de condigno_ and the _meritum de congruo_. a) The Scriptural argument given above for thesis I also covers this thesis.