October 23, 1656
REVEREND FATHERS,
If I had merely to reply to the three remaining charges on the subject of homicide, there would be no need for a long discourse2, and you will see them refuted presently in a few words; but as I think it of much more importance to inspire the public with a horror at your opinions on this subject than to justify3 the fidelity4 of my quotations5, I shall be obliged to devote the greater part of this letter to the refutation of your maxims7, to show you how far you have departed from the sentiments of the Church and even of nature itself. The permissions of murder, which you have granted in such a variety of cases, render it very apparent, that you have so far forgotten the law of God, and quenched8 the light of nature, as to require to be remanded to the simplest principles of religion and of common sense.
What can be a plainer dictate9 of nature than that “no private individual has a right to take away the life of another”? “So well are we taught this of ourselves,” says St. Chrysostom, “that God, in giving the commandment not to kill, did not add as a reason that homicide was an evil; because,” says that father, “the law supposes that nature has taught us that truth already.” Accordingly, this commandment has been binding10 on men in all ages. The Gospel has confirmed the requirement of the law; and the Decalogue only renewed the command which man had received from God before the law, in the person of Noah, from whom all men are descended11. On that renovation12 of the world, God said to the patriarch: “At the hand of man, and at the hand of every man’s brother, will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for man is made in the image of God.” (Gen. ix. 5, 6.) This general prohibition14 deprives man of all power over the life of man. And so exclusively has the Almighty15 reserved this prerogative16 in His own hand that, in accordance with Christianity, which is at utter variance18 with the false maxims of Paganism, man has no power even over his own life. But, as it has seemed good to His providence19 to take human society under His protection, and to punish the evil-doers that give it disturbance20, He has Himself established laws for depriving criminals of life; and thus those executions which, without this sanction, would be punishable outrages21, become, by virtue22 of His authority, which is the rule of justice, praiseworthy penalties. St. Augustine takes an admirable view of this subject. “God,” he says, “has himself qualified24 this general prohibition against manslaughter, both by the laws which He has instituted for the capital punishment of malefactors, and by the special orders which He has sometimes issued to put to death certain individuals. And when death is inflicted25 in such cases, it is not man that kills, but God, of whom man may be considered as only the instrument, in the same way as a sword in the hand of him that wields27 it. But, these instances excepted, whosoever kills incurs28 the guilt29 of murder.”
It appears, then, fathers, that the right of taking away the life of man is the sole prerogative of God, and that, having ordained30 laws for executing death on criminals, He has deputed kings or commonwealths32 as the depositaries of that power — a truth which St. Paul teaches us, when, speaking of the right which sovereigns possess over the lives of their subjects, he deduces it from Heaven in these words: “He beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister of God to execute wrath33 upon him that doeth evil.” (Rom. 13. 4.) But as it is God who has put this power into their hands, so He requires them to exercise it in the same manner as He does himself; in other words, with perfect justice; according to what St. Paul observes in the same passage: “Rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt34 thou, then, not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: for he is the minister of God to thee for good.” And this restriction35, so far from lowering their prerogative, exalts36 it, on the contrary, more than ever; for it is thus assimilated to that of God who has no power to do evil, but is all-powerful to do good; and it is thus distinguished37 from that of devils, who are impotent in that which is good, and powerful only for evil. There is this difference only to be observed betwixt the King of Heaven and earthly sovereigns, that God, being justice and wisdom itself, may inflict26 death instantaneously on whomsoever and in whatsoever38 manner He pleases; for, besides His being the sovereign Lord of human life, it certain that He never takes it away either without cause or without judgement, because He is as incapable39 of injustice40 as He is of error. Earthly potentates41, however, are not at liberty to act in this manner; for, though the ministers of God, still they are but men, and not gods. They may be misguided by evil counsels, irritated by false suspicions, transported by passion, and hence they find themselves obliged to have recourse, in their turn also, to human agency, and appoint magistrates42 in their dominions44, to whom they delegate their power, that the authority which God has bestowed46 on them may be employed solely47 for the purpose for which they received it.
I hope you understand, then, fathers, that, to avoid the crime of murder, we must act at once by the authority of God, and according to the justice of God; and that, when these two conditions are not united, sin is contracted; whether it be by taking away life with his authority, but without his justice; or by taking it away with justice, but without his authority. From this indispensable connection it follows, according to St. Augustine, “that he who, without proper authority, kills a criminal, becomes a criminal himself, chiefly for this reason, that he usurps49 an authority which God has not given him”; and on the other hand, magistrates, though they possess this authority, are nevertheless chargeable with murder, if, contrary to the laws which they are bound to follow, they inflict death on an innocent man.
Such are the principles of public safety and tranquillity50 which have been admitted at all times and in all places, and on the basis of which all legislators, sacred and profane51, from the beginning of the world, have founded their laws. Even Heathens have never ventured to make an exception to this rule, unless in cases where there was no other way of escaping the loss of chastity or life, when they conceived, as Cicero tells us, “that the law itself seemed to put its weapons into the hands of those who were placed in such an emergency.”
But with this single exception, which has nothing to do with my present purpose, that such a law was ever enacted52, authorizing53 or tolerating, as you have done, the practice of putting a man to death, to atone54 for an insult, or to avoid the loss of honour or property, where life is not in danger at the same time; that, fathers, is what I deny was ever done, even by infidels. They have, on the contrary, most expressly forbidden the practice. The law of the Twelve Tables of Rome bore, “that it is unlawful to kill a robber in the daytime, when he does not defend himself with arms”; which, indeed, had been prohibited long before in the 22d chapter of Exodus56. And the law Furem, in the Lex Cornelia, which is borrowed from Ulpian, forbids the killing57 of robbers even by night, if they do not put us in danger of our lives.
Tell us now, fathers, what authority you have to permit what all laws, human as well as divine, have forbidden; and who gave Lessius a right to use the following language? “The book of Exodus forbids the killing of thieves by day, when they do not employ arms in their defence; and in a court of justice, punishment is inflicted on those who kill under these circumstances. In conscience, however, no blame can be attached to this practice, when a person is not sure of being able otherwise to recover his stolen goods, or entertains a doubt on the subject, as Sotus expresses it; for he is not obliged to run the risk of losing any part of his property merely to save the life of a robber. The same privilege extends even to clergymen.” Such extraordinary assurance! The law of Moses punishes those who kill a thief when he does not threaten our lives, and the law of the Gospel, according to you, will absolve58 them! What, fathers! has Jesus Christ come to destroy the law, and not to fulfil it? “The civil judge,” says Lessius, “would inflict punishment on those who should kill under such circumstances; but no blame can be attached to the deed in conscience.” Must we conclude, then, that the morality of Jesus Christ is more sanguinary, and less the enemy of murder, than that of Pagans, from whom our judges have borrowed their civil laws which condemn59 that crime? Do Christians60 make more account of the good things of this earth, and less account of human life, than infidels and idolaters? On what principle do you proceed, fathers? Assuredly not upon any law that ever was enacted either by God or man — on nothing, indeed, but this extraordinary reasoning: “The laws,” say you, “permit us to defend ourselves against robbers, and to repel62 force by force; self-defence, therefore, being permitted, it follows that murder, without which self-defence is often impracticable, may be considered as permitted also.”
It is false, fathers, that, because self-defence is allowed, murder may be allowed also. This barbarous method of self-vindication63 lies at the root of all your errors, and has been justly stigmatized64 by the Faculty65 of Louvain, in their censure66 of the doctrine67 of your friend Father Lamy, as “a murderous defence — defensio occisiva.” I maintain that the laws recognize such a wide difference between murder and self-defence that, in those very cases in which the latter is sanctioned, they have made a provision against murder, when the person is in no danger of his life. Read the words, fathers, as they run in the same passage of Cujas: “It is lawful55 to repulse68 the person who comes to invade our property; but we are not permitted to kill him.” And again: “If any should threaten to strike us, and not to deprive us of life, it is quite allowable to repulse him; but it is against all law to put him to death.”
Who, then, has given you a right to say, as Molina, Reginald, Filiutius, Escobar, Lessius, and others among you, have said, “that it is lawful to kill the man who offers to strike us a blow”? or, “that it is lawful to take the life of one who means to insult us, by the common consent of all the casuists,” as Lessius says. By what authority do you, who are mere1 private individuals, confer upon other private individuals, not excepting clergymen, this right of killing and slaying69? And how dare you usurp48 the power of life and death, which belongs essentially70 to none but God, and which is the most glorious mark of sovereign authority? These are the points that demand explanation; and yet you conceive that you have furnished a triumphant71 reply to the whole, by simply remarking, in your thirteenth Imposture72, “that the value for which Molina permits us to kill a thief, who flies without having done us any violence, is not so small as I have said, and that it must be a much larger sum than six ducats!” How extremely silly! Pray, fathers, where would you have the price to be fixed73? At fifteen or sixteen ducats? Do not suppose that this will produce any abatement74 in my accusations75. At all events, you cannot make it exceed the value of a horse; for Lessius is clearly of opinion, “that we may lawfully76 kill the thief that runs off with our horse.” But I must tell you, moreover, that I was perfectly77 correct when I said that Molina estimates the value of the thief’s life at six ducats; and, if you will not take it upon my word, we shall refer it to an umpire to whom you cannot object. The person whom I fix upon for this office is your own Father Reginald, who, in his explanation of the same passage of Molina (l.28, n. 68), declares that “Molina there determines the sum for which it is not allowable to kill at three, or four, or five ducats.” And thus, fathers, I shall have Reginald, in addition to Molina, to bear me out.
It will be equally easy for me to refute your fourteenth Imposture, touching79 Molina’s permission to “kill a thief who offers to rob us of a crown.” This palpable fact is attested80 by Escobar, who tells us “that Molina has regularly determined81 the sum for which it is lawful to take away life, at one crown.” And all you have to lay to my charge in the fourteenth Imposture is, that I have suppressed the last words of this passage, namely, “that in this matter every one ought to study the moderation of a just self-defence.” Why do you not complain that Escobar has also omitted to mention these words? But how little tact82 you have about you! You imagine that nobody understands what you mean by self-defence. Don’t we know that it is to employ “a murderous defence”? You would persuade us that Molina meant to say that if a person, in defending his crown, finds himself in danger of his life, he is then at liberty to kill his assailant, in self-preservation83. If that were true, fathers, why should Molina say in the same place that “in this matter he was of a contrary judgement from Carrer and Bald,” who give permission to kill in self-preservation? I repeat, therefore, that his plain meaning is that, provided the person can save his crown without killing the thief, he ought not to kill him; but that, if he cannot secure his object without shedding blood, even though he should run no risk of his own life, as in the case of the robber being unarmed, he is permitted to take up arms and kill the man, in order to save his crown; and in so doing, according to him, the person does not transgress84 “the moderation of a just defence.” To show you that I am in the right, just allow him to explain himself: “One does not exceed the moderation of a just defence,” says he, “when he takes up arms against a thief who has none, or employs weapons which give him the advantage over his assailant. I know there are some who are of a contrary judgement; but I do not approve of their opinion, even in the external tribunal.”
Thus, fathers, it is unquestionable that your authors have given permission to kill in defence of property and honour, though life should be perfectly free from danger. And it is upon the same principle that they authorize85 duelling, as I have shown by a great variety of passages from their writings, to which you have made no reply. You have animadverted in your writings only on a single passage taken from Father Layman86, who sanctions the above practice, “when otherwise a person would be in danger of sacrificing his fortune or his honour”; and here you accuse me with having suppressed what he adds, “that such a case happens very rarely.” You astonish me, fathers: these are really curious impostures you charge me withal. You talk as if the question were whether that is a rare case? when the real question is if, in such a case, duelling is lawful? These are two very different questions. Layman, in the quality of a casuist, ought to judge whether duelling is lawful in the case supposed; and he declares that it is. We can judge without his assistance whether the case be a rare one; and we can tell him that it is a very ordinary one. Or, if you prefer the testimony87 of your good friend Diana, he will tell you that “the case is exceedingly common.” But, be it rare or not, and let it be granted that Layman follows in this the example of Navarre, a circumstance on which you lay so much stress, is it not shameful88 that he should consent to such an opinion as that, to preserve a false honour, it is lawful in conscience to accept of a challenge, in the face of the edicts of all Christian17 states, and of all the canons of the Church, while in support of these diabolical89 maxims you can produce neither laws, nor canons, nor authorities from Scripture90, or from the fathers, nor the example of a single saint, nor, in short, anything but the following impious synogism: “Honour is more than life; it is allowable to kill in defence of life; therefore it is allowable to kill in defence of honour!” What, fathers! because the depravity of men disposes them to prefer that factitious honour before the life which God hath given them to be devoted91 to his service, must they be permitted to murder one another for its preservation? To love that honour more than life is in itself a heinous92 evil; and yet this vicious passion, which, when proposed as the end of our conduct, is enough to tarnish93 the holiest of actions, is considered by you capable of sanctifying the most criminal of them!
What a subversion94 of all principle is here, fathers! And who does not see to what atrocious excesses it may lead? It is obvious, indeed, that it will ultimately lead to the commission of murder for the most trifling95 things imaginable, when one’s honour is considered to be staked for their preservation — murder, I venture to say, even for an apple! You might complain of me, fathers, for drawing sanguinary inferences from your doctrine with a malicious96 intent, were I not fortunately supported by the authority of the grave Lessius, who makes the following observation, in number 68: “It is not allowable to take life for an article of small value, such as for a crown or for an apple — aut pro13 pomo — unless it would be deemed dishonourable to lose it. In this case, one may recover the article, and even, if necessary, kill the aggressor, for this is not so much defending one’s property as retrieving97 one’s honour.” This is plain speaking, fathers; and, just to crown your doctrine with a maxim6 which includes all the rest, allow me to quote the following from Father Hereau, who has taken it from Lessius: “The right of self-defence extends to whatever is necessary to protect ourselves from all injury.”
What strange consequences does this inhuman98 principle involve! and how imperative99 is the obligation laid upon all, and especially upon those in public stations, to set their face against it! Not the general good alone, but their own personal interest should engage them to see well to it; for the casuists of your school whom I have cited in my letters extend their permissions to kill far enough to reach even them. Factious100 men, who dread101 the punishment of their outrages, which never appear to them in a criminal light, easily persuade themselves that they are the victims of violent oppression, and will be led to believe at the same time, “that the right of self-defence extends to whatever is necessary to protect themselves from all injury.” And thus, relieved from contending against the checks of conscience, which stifle102 the greater number of crimes at their birth, their only anxiety will be to surmount103 external obstacles.
I shall say no more on this subject, fathers; nor shall I dwell on the other murders, still more odious104 and important to governments, which you sanction, and of which Lessius, in common with many others of your authors, treats in the most unreserved manner. It was to be wished that these horrible maxims had never found their way out of hell; and that the devil, who is their original author, had never discovered men sufficiently105 devoted to his will to publish them among Christians.
From all that I have hitherto said, it is easy to judge what a contrariety there is betwixt the licentiousness106 of your opinions and the severity of civil laws, not even excepting those of Heathens. How much more apparent must the contrast be with ecclesiastical laws, which must be incomparably more holy than any other, since it is the Church alone that knows and possesses the true holiness! Accordingly, this chaste107 spouse108 of the Son of God, who, in imitation of her heavenly husband, can shed her own blood for others, but never the blood of others for herself, entertains a horror at the crime of murder altogether singular, and proportioned to the peculiar109 illumination which God has vouchsafed110 to bestow45 upon her. She views man, not simply as man, but as the image of the God whom she adores. She feels for every one of the race a holy respect, which imparts to him, in her eyes, a venerable character, as redeemed111 by an infinite price, to be made the temple of the living God. And therefore she considers the death of a man, slain112 without the authority of his Maker113, not as murder only, but as sacrilege, by which she is deprived of one of her members; for, whether he be a believer or an unbeliever, she uniformly looks upon him, if not as one, at least as capable of becoming one, of her own children.
Such, fathers, are the holy reasons which, ever since the time that God became man for the redemption of men, have rendered their condition an object of such consequence to the Church that she uniformly punishes the crime of homicide, not only as destructive to them, but as one of the grossest outrages that can possibly be perpetrated against God. In proof of this I shall quote some examples, not from the idea that all the severities to which I refer ought to be kept up (for I am aware that the Church may alter the arrangement of such exterior114 discipline), but to demonstrate her immutable116 spirit upon this subject. The penances118 which she ordains119 for murder may differ according to the diversity of the times, but no change of time can ever effect an alteration120 of the horror with which she regards the crime itself.
For a long time the Church refused to be reconciled, till the very hour of death, to those who had been guilty of wilful121 murder, as those are to whom you give your sanction. The celebrated122 Council of Ancyra adjudged them to penance117 during their whole lifetime; and, subsequently, the Church deemed it an act of sufficient indulgence to reduce that term to a great many years. But, still more effectually to deter78 Christians from wilful murder, she has visited with most severe punishment even those acts which have been committed through inadvertence, as may be seen in St. Basil, in St. Gregory of Nyssen, and in the decretals of Popes Zachary and Alexander II. The canons quoted by Isaac, bishop123 of Langres (tr. 2. 13), “ordain31 seven years of penance for having killed another in self-defence.” And we find St. Hildebert, bishop of Mans, replying to Yves de Chartres, “that he was right in interdicting124 for life a priest who had, in self-defence, killed a robber with a stone.”
After this, you cannot have the assurance to persist in saying that your decisions are agreeable to the spirit or the canons of the Church. I defy you to show one of them that permits us to kill solely in defence of our property (for I speak not of cases in which one may be called upon to defend his life — se suaquae liberando); your own authors, and, among the rest, Father Lamy, confess that no such canon can be found. “There is no authority,” he says, “human or divine, which gives an express permission to kill a robber who makes no resistance.” And yet this is what you permit most expressly. I defy you to show one of them that permits us to kill in vindication of honour, for a buffet125, for an affront126, or for a slander127. I defy you to show one of them that permits the killing of witnesses, judges, or magistrates, whatever injustice we may apprehend128 from them. The spirit of the church is diametrically opposite to these seditious maxims, opening the door to insurrections to which the mob is naturally prone129 enough already. She has invariably taught her children that they ought not to render evil for evil; that they ought to give place unto wrath; to make no resistance to violence; to give unto every one his due — honour, tribute, submission130; to obey magistrates and superiors, even though they should be unjust, because we ought always to respect in them the power of that God who has placed them over us. She forbids them, still more strongly than is done by the civil law, to take justice into their own hands; and it is in her spirit that Christian kings decline doing so in cases of high treason, and remit131 the criminals charged with this grave offence into the hands of the judges, that they may be punished according to the laws and the forms of justice, which in this matter exhibit a contrast to your mode of management so striking and complete that it may well make you blush for shame.
As my discourse has taken this turn, I beg you to follow the comparison which I shall now draw between the style in which you would dispose of your enemies, and that in which the judges of the land dispose of criminals. Everybody knows, fathers, that no private individual has a right to demand the death of another individual; and that though a man should have ruined us, maimed our body, burnt our house, murdered our father, and was prepared, moreover, to assassinate132 ourselves, or ruin our character, our private demand for the death of that person would not be listened to in a court of justice. Public officers have been appointed for that purpose, who make the demand in the name of the king, or rather, I would say, in the name of God. Now, do you conceive, fathers, that Christian legislators have established this regulation out of mere show and grimace133? Is it not evident that their object was to harmonize the laws of the state with those of the Church, and thus prevent the external practice of justice from clashing with the sentiments which all Christians are bound to cherish in their hearts? It is easy to see how this, which forms the commencement of a civil process, must stagger you; its subsequent procedure absolutely overwhelms you.
Suppose then, fathers, that these official persons have demanded the death of the man who has committed all the above-mentioned crimes, what is to be done next? Will they instantly plunge134 a dagger135 in his breast? No, fathers; the life of man is too important to be thus disposed of; they go to work with more decency136; the laws have committed it, not to all sorts of persons, but exclusively to the judges, whose probity137 and competency have been duly tried. And is one judge sufficient to condemn a man to death? No; it requires seven at the very least; and of these seven there must not be one who has been injured by the criminal, lest his judgement should be warped138 or corrupted139 by passion. You are aware also, fathers, that, the more effectually to secure the purity of their minds, they devote the hours of the morning to these functions. Such is the care taken to prepare them for the solemn action of devoting a fellow-creature to death; in performing which they occupy the place of God, whose ministers they are, appointed to condemn such only as have incurred140 his condemnation141.
For the same reason, to act as faithful administrators142 of the divine power of taking away human life, they are bound to form their judgement solely according to the depositions143 of the witnesses, and according to all the other forms prescribed to them; after which they can pronounce conscientiously145 only according to law, and can judge worthy23 of death those only whom the law condemns146 to that penalty. And then, fathers, if the command of God obliges them to deliver over to punishment the bodies of the unhappy culprits, the same divine statute147 binds148 them to look after the interests of their guilty souls, and binds them the more to this just because they are guilty; so that they are not delivered up to execution till after they have been afforded the means of providing for their consciences. All this is quite fair and innocent; and yet, such is the abhorrence149 of the Church to blood that she judges those to be incapable of ministering at her altars who have borne any share in passing or executing a sentence of death, accompanied though it be with these religious circumstances; from which we may easily conceive what idea the Church entertains of murder.
Such, then, being the manner in which human life is disposed of by the legal forms of justice, let us now see how you dispose of it. According to your modern system of legislation, there is but one judge, and that judge is no other than the offended party. He is at once the judge, the party, and the executioner. He himself demands from himself the death of his enemy; he condemns him, he executes him on the spot; and, without the least respect either for the soul or the body of his brother, he murders and damns him for whom Jesus Christ died; and all this for the sake of avoiding a blow on the cheek, or a slander, or an offensive word, or some other offence of a similar nature, for which, if a magistrate43, in the exercise of legitimate150 authority, were condemning151 any to die, he would himself be impeached152; for, in such cases, the laws are very far indeed from condemning any to death. In one word, to crown the whole of this extravagance, the person who kills his neighbour in this style, without authority and in the face of all law, contracts no sin and commits no disorder153, though he should be religious and even a priest! Where are we, fathers? Are these really religious, and priests, who talk in this manner? Are they Christians? are they Turks? are they men? or are they demons115? And are these “the mysteries revealed by the Lamb to his Society”? or are they not rather abominations suggested by the Dragon to those who take part with him?
To come to the point, with you, fathers, whom do you wish to be taken for? — for the children of the Gospel, or for the enemies of the Gospel? You must be ranged either on the one side or on the other; for there is no medium here. “He that is not with Jesus Christ is against him.” Into these two classes all mankind are divided. There are, according to St. Augustine, two peoples and two worlds, scattered154 abroad over the earth. There is the world of the children of God, who form one body, of which Jesus Christ is the king and the head; and there is the world at enmity with God, of which the devil is the king and the head. Hence Jesus Christ is called the King and God of the world, because he has everywhere his subjects and worshippers; and hence the devil is also termed in Scripture the prince of this world, and the god of this world, because he has everywhere his agents and his slaves. Jesus Christ has imposed upon the Church, which is his empire, such laws as he, in his eternal wisdom, was pleased to ordain; and the devil has imposed on the world, which is his kingdom, such laws as he chose to establish. Jesus Christ has associated honour with suffering; the devil with not suffering. Jesus Christ has told those who are smitten155 on the one cheek to turn the other also; and the devil has told those who are threatened with a buffet to kill the man that would do them such an injury. Jesus Christ pronounces those happy who share in his reproach; and the devil declares those to be unhappy who lie under ignominy. Jesus Christ says: Woe156 unto you when men shall speak well of you! and the devil says: Woe unto those of whom the world does not speak with esteem157!
Judge, then, fathers, to which of these kingdoms you belong. You have heard the language of the city of peace, the mystical Jerusalem; and you have heard the language of the city of confusion, which Scripture terms “the spiritual Sodom.” Which of these two languages do you understand? which of them do you speak? Those who are on the side of Jesus Christ have, as St. Paul teaches us, the same mind which was also in him; and those who are the children of the devil — ex patre diabolo — who has been a murderer from the beginning, according to the saying of Jesus Christ, follow the maxims of the devil. Let us hear, therefore, the language of your school. I put this question to your doctors: When a person has given me a blow on the cheek, ought I rather to submit to the injury than kill the offender158? or may I not kill the man in order to escape the affront? Kill him by all means — it is quite lawful! exclaim, in one breath, Lessius, Molina, Escobar, Reginald, Filiutius, Baldelle, and other Jesuits. Is that the language of Jesus Christ? One question more: Would I lose my honour by tolerating a box on the ear, without killing the person that gave it? “Can there be a doubt,” cries Escobar, “that so long as a man suffers another to live who has given him a buffet, that man remains159 without honour?” Yes, fathers, without that honour which the devil transfuses160, from his own proud spirit into that of his proud children. This is the honour which has ever been the idol61 of worldly-minded men. For the preservation of this false glory, of which the god of this world is the appropriate dispenser, they sacrifice their lives by yielding to the madness of duelling; their honour, by exposing themselves to ignominious161 punishments; and their salvation162, by involving themselves in the peril163 of damnation — a peril which, according to the canons of the Church, deprives them even of Christian burial. We have reason to thank God, however, for having enlightened the mind of our monarch164 with ideas much purer than those of your theology. His edicts bearing so severely165 on this subject, have not made duelling a crime — they only punish the crime which is inseparable from duelling. He has checked, by the dread of his rigid166 justice, those who were not restrained by the fear of the justice of God; and his piety167 has taught him that the honour of Christians consists in their observance of the mandates168 of Heaven and the rules of Christianity, and not in the pursuit of that phantom169 which, airy and unsubstantial as it is, you hold to be a legitimate apology for murder. Your murderous decisions being thus universally detested170, it is highly advisable that you should now change your sentiments, if not from religious principle, at least from motives171 of policy. Prevent, fathers, by a spontaneous condemnation of these inhuman dogmas, the melancholy172 consequences which may result from them, and for which you will be responsible. And to impress your minds with a deeper horror at homicide, remember that the first crime of fallen man was a murder, committed on the person of the first holy man; that the greatest crime was a murder, perpetrated on the person of the King of saints; and that, of all crimes, murder is the only one which involves in a common destruction the Church and the state, nature and religion.
I have just seen the answer of your apologist to my Thirteenth Letter, but if he has nothing better to produce in the shape of a reply to that letter, which obviates173 the greater part of his objections, he will not deserve a rejoinder. I am sorry to see him perpetually digressing from his subject, to indulge in rancorous abuse both of the living and the dead. But, in order to gain some credit to the stories with which you have furnished him, you should not have made him publicly disavow a fact so notorious as that of the buffet of Compiegne. Certain it is, fathers, from the deposition144 of the injured party, that he received upon his cheek a blow from the hand of a Jesuit; and all that your friends have been able to do for you has been to raise a doubt whether he received the blow with the back or the palm of the hand, and to discuss the question whether a stroke on the cheek with the back of the hand can be properly denominated a buffet. I know not to what tribunal it belongs to decide this point; but shall content myself, in the meantime, with believing that it was, to say the very least, a probable buffet. This gets me off with a safe conscience.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
discourse
|
|
| n.论文，演说；谈话；话语；vi.讲述，著述 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
justify
|
|
| vt.证明…正当(或有理)，为…辩护 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
fidelity
|
|
| n.忠诚，忠实；精确 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
quotations
|
|
| n.引用( quotation的名词复数 )；[商业]行情（报告）；（货物或股票的）市价；时价 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
maxim
|
|
| n.格言，箴言 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
maxims
|
|
| n.格言，座右铭( maxim的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
quenched
|
|
| 解（渴）( quench的过去式和过去分词 )； 终止（某事物）； （用水）扑灭（火焰等）； 将（热物体）放入水中急速冷却 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
dictate
|
|
| v.口授；(使)听写；指令，指示，命令 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
binding
|
|
| 有约束力的，有效的，应遵守的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
descended
|
|
| a.为...后裔的，出身于...的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
renovation
|
|
| n.革新，整修 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
pro
|
|
| n.赞成，赞成的意见，赞成者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
prohibition
|
|
| n.禁止；禁令，禁律 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
almighty
|
|
| adj.全能的，万能的；很大的，很强的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
prerogative
|
|
| n.特权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
Christian
|
|
| adj.基督教徒的；n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
variance
|
|
| n.矛盾，不同 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
providence
|
|
| n.深谋远虑，天道，天意；远见；节约；上帝 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
disturbance
|
|
| n.动乱，骚动；打扰，干扰；(身心)失调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
outrages
|
|
| 引起…的义愤，激怒( outrage的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
virtue
|
|
| n.德行，美德；贞操；优点；功效，效力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
worthy
|
|
| adj.(of)值得的，配得上的；有价值的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
qualified
|
|
| adj.合格的，有资格的，胜任的，有限制的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
inflicted
|
|
| 把…强加给，使承受，遭受( inflict的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
inflict
|
|
| vt.(on)把…强加给，使遭受，使承担 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
wields
|
|
| 手持着使用（武器、工具等）( wield的第三人称单数 )； 具有； 运用（权力）； 施加（影响） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
incurs
|
|
| 遭受，招致，引起( incur的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
guilt
|
|
| n.犯罪；内疚；过失，罪责 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
ordained
|
|
| v.任命（某人）为牧师( ordain的过去式和过去分词 )；授予（某人）圣职；（上帝、法律等）命令；判定 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
ordain
|
|
| vi.颁发命令；vt.命令，授以圣职，注定，任命 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
commonwealths
|
|
| n.共和国( commonwealth的名词复数 )；联邦；团体；协会 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
33
wrath
|
|
| n.愤怒，愤慨，暴怒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
wilt
|
|
| v.(使)植物凋谢或枯萎；(指人)疲倦，衰弱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
restriction
|
|
| n.限制，约束 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
exalts
|
|
| 赞扬( exalt的第三人称单数 )； 歌颂； 提升； 提拔 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
distinguished
|
|
| adj.卓越的，杰出的，著名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
whatsoever
|
|
| adv.（用于否定句中以加强语气）任何；pron.无论什么 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
incapable
|
|
| adj.无能力的，不能做某事的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
injustice
|
|
| n.非正义，不公正，不公平，侵犯（别人的）权利 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
potentates
|
|
| n.君主，统治者( potentate的名词复数 )；有权势的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
magistrates
|
|
| 地方法官，治安官( magistrate的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
magistrate
|
|
| n.地方行政官，地方法官，治安官 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
dominions
|
|
| 统治权( dominion的名词复数 )； 领土； 疆土； 版图 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
bestow
|
|
| v.把…赠与，把…授予；花费 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
bestowed
|
|
| 赠给，授予( bestow的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
solely
|
|
| adv.仅仅，唯一地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
usurp
|
|
| vt.篡夺，霸占；vi.篡位 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
usurps
|
|
| 篡夺，霸占( usurp的第三人称单数 )； 盗用； 篡夺，篡权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
tranquillity
|
|
| n. 平静, 安静 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
profane
|
|
| adj.亵神的，亵渎的；vt.亵渎，玷污 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
enacted
|
|
| 制定（法律），通过（法案）( enact的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
authorizing
|
|
| 授权，批准，委托( authorize的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
atone
|
|
| v.赎罪，补偿 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
lawful
|
|
| adj.法律许可的，守法的，合法的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
exodus
|
|
| v.大批离去，成群外出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
killing
|
|
| n.巨额利润；突然赚大钱，发大财 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
absolve
|
|
| v.赦免，解除（责任等） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
condemn
|
|
| vt.谴责，指责；宣判(罪犯)，判刑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
Christians
|
|
| n.基督教徒( Christian的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
idol
|
|
| n.偶像，红人，宠儿 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
repel
|
|
| v.击退，抵制，拒绝，排斥 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
vindication
|
|
| n.洗冤，证实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
stigmatized
|
|
| v.使受耻辱，指责，污辱( stigmatize的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
faculty
|
|
| n.才能；学院，系；(学院或系的)全体教学人员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
censure
|
|
| v./n.责备；非难；责难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
repulse
|
|
| n.击退，拒绝；vt.逐退，击退，拒绝 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
slaying
|
|
| 杀戮。 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
essentially
|
|
| adv.本质上，实质上，基本上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
triumphant
|
|
| adj.胜利的，成功的；狂欢的，喜悦的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
imposture
|
|
| n.冒名顶替，欺骗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
fixed
|
|
| adj.固定的，不变的，准备好的；(计算机)固定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
abatement
|
|
| n.减(免)税，打折扣，冲销 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
accusations
|
|
| n.指责( accusation的名词复数 )；指控；控告；（被告发、控告的）罪名 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
lawfully
|
|
| adv.守法地，合法地；合理地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
perfectly
|
|
| adv.完美地，无可非议地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
deter
|
|
| vt.阻止，使不敢，吓住 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
touching
|
|
| adj.动人的，使人感伤的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
attested
|
|
| adj.经检验证明无病的，经检验证明无菌的v.证明( attest的过去式和过去分词 )；证实；声称…属实；使宣誓 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
determined
|
|
| adj.坚定的；有决心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
tact
|
|
| n.机敏，圆滑，得体 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
preservation
|
|
| n.保护，维护，保存，保留，保持 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
transgress
|
|
| vt.违反，逾越 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
authorize
|
|
| v.授权，委任；批准，认可 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
layman
|
|
| n.俗人，门外汉，凡人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
testimony
|
|
| n.证词；见证，证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
shameful
|
|
| adj.可耻的，不道德的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
diabolical
|
|
| adj.恶魔似的，凶暴的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
scripture
|
|
| n.经文，圣书，手稿；Scripture:(常用复数)《圣经》，《圣经》中的一段 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
devoted
|
|
| adj.忠诚的，忠实的，热心的，献身于...的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
heinous
|
|
| adj.可憎的，十恶不赦的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
tarnish
|
|
| n.晦暗，污点；vt.使失去光泽；玷污 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
subversion
|
|
| n.颠覆，破坏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
trifling
|
|
| adj.微不足道的；没什么价值的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
malicious
|
|
| adj.有恶意的，心怀恶意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
retrieving
|
|
| n.检索（过程），取还v.取回( retrieve的现在分词 )；恢复；寻回；检索（储存的信息） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
inhuman
|
|
| adj.残忍的，不人道的，无人性的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
imperative
|
|
| n.命令，需要；规则；祈使语气；adj.强制的；紧急的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
factious
|
|
| adj.好搞宗派活动的，派系的，好争论的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
dread
|
|
| vt.担忧，忧虑；惧怕，不敢；n.担忧，畏惧 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
stifle
|
|
| vt.使窒息；闷死；扼杀；抑止，阻止 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
surmount
|
|
| vt.克服；置于…顶上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
odious
|
|
| adj.可憎的，讨厌的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
sufficiently
|
|
| adv.足够地，充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
licentiousness
|
|
| n.放肆，无法无天 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
chaste
|
|
| adj.贞洁的；有道德的；善良的；简朴的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
spouse
|
|
| n.配偶(指夫或妻) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
peculiar
|
|
| adj.古怪的，异常的；特殊的，特有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
vouchsafed
|
|
| v.给予，赐予( vouchsafe的过去式和过去分词 )；允诺 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
redeemed
|
|
| adj. 可赎回的，可救赎的 动词redeem的过去式和过去分词形式 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
slain
|
|
| 杀死，宰杀，杀戮( slay的过去分词 )； (slay的过去分词) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
maker
|
|
| n.制造者，制造商 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
exterior
|
|
| adj.外部的，外在的；表面的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
demons
|
|
| n.恶人( demon的名词复数 )；恶魔；精力过人的人；邪念 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
immutable
|
|
| adj.不可改变的，永恒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
penance
|
|
| n.（赎罪的）惩罪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
penances
|
|
| n.（赎罪的）苦行，苦修( penance的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
ordains
|
|
| v.任命（某人）为牧师( ordain的第三人称单数 )；授予（某人）圣职；（上帝、法律等）命令；判定 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
alteration
|
|
| n.变更，改变；蚀变 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
wilful
|
|
| adj.任性的，故意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
celebrated
|
|
| adj.有名的，声誉卓著的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
bishop
|
|
| n.主教，（国际象棋）象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
interdicting
|
|
| v.禁止（行动）( interdict的现在分词 )；禁用；限制 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
125
buffet
|
|
| n.自助餐；饮食柜台；餐台 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
affront
|
|
| n./v.侮辱，触怒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
slander
|
|
| n./v.诽谤，污蔑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
apprehend
|
|
| vt.理解，领悟，逮捕，拘捕，忧虑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
prone
|
|
| adj.(to)易于…的，很可能…的；俯卧的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
submission
|
|
| n.服从，投降；温顺，谦虚；提出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
remit
|
|
| v.汇款，汇寄；豁免（债务），免除（处罚等） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
assassinate
|
|
| vt.暗杀，行刺，中伤 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
grimace
|
|
| v.做鬼脸，面部歪扭 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
plunge
|
|
| v.跳入，(使)投入，(使)陷入；猛冲 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
dagger
|
|
| n.匕首，短剑，剑号 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
decency
|
|
| n.体面，得体，合宜，正派，庄重 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
probity
|
|
| n.刚直；廉洁，正直 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
warped
|
|
| adj.反常的；乖戾的；（变）弯曲的；变形的v.弄弯，变歪( warp的过去式和过去分词 )；使（行为等）不合情理，使乖戾， | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
corrupted
|
|
| （使）败坏( corrupt的过去式和过去分词 )； （使）腐化； 引起（计算机文件等的）错误； 破坏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
incurred
|
|
| [医]招致的，遭受的； incur的过去式 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
condemnation
|
|
| n.谴责; 定罪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
administrators
|
|
| n.管理者( administrator的名词复数 )；有管理（或行政）才能的人；（由遗嘱检验法庭指定的）遗产管理人；奉派暂管主教教区的牧师 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
depositions
|
|
| 沉积（物）( deposition的名词复数 )； （在法庭上的）宣誓作证； 处置； 罢免 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
deposition
|
|
| n.免职，罢官；作证；沉淀；沉淀物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
conscientiously
|
|
| adv.凭良心地；认真地，负责尽职地；老老实实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
146
condemns
|
|
| v.（通常因道义上的原因而）谴责( condemn的第三人称单数 )；宣判；宣布…不能使用；迫使…陷于不幸的境地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
147
statute
|
|
| n.成文法，法令，法规；章程，规则，条例 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
148
binds
|
|
| v.约束( bind的第三人称单数 )；装订；捆绑；（用长布条）缠绕 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
149
abhorrence
|
|
| n.憎恶；可憎恶的事 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
150
legitimate
|
|
| adj.合法的，合理的，合乎逻辑的；v.使合法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
151
condemning
|
|
| v.（通常因道义上的原因而）谴责( condemn的现在分词 )；宣判；宣布…不能使用；迫使…陷于不幸的境地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
152
impeached
|
|
| v.控告（某人）犯罪( impeach的过去式和过去分词 )；弹劾；对（某事物）怀疑；提出异议 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
153
disorder
|
|
| n.紊乱，混乱；骚动，骚乱；疾病，失调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
154
scattered
|
|
| adj.分散的，稀疏的；散步的；疏疏落落的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
155
smitten
|
|
| 猛打，重击，打击( smite的过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
156
woe
|
|
| n.悲哀，苦痛，不幸，困难；int.用来表达悲伤或惊慌 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
157
esteem
|
|
| n.尊敬，尊重；vt.尊重，敬重；把…看作 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
158
offender
|
|
| n.冒犯者，违反者，犯罪者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
159
remains
|
|
| n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
160
transfuses
|
|
| v.输（血或别的液体）( transfuse的第三人称单数 )；渗透；使…被灌输或传达 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
161
ignominious
|
|
| adj.可鄙的，不光彩的，耻辱的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
162
salvation
|
|
| n.（尤指基督）救世，超度，拯救，解困 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
163
peril
|
|
| n.(严重的)危险；危险的事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
164
monarch
|
|
| n.帝王，君主，最高统治者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
165
severely
|
|
| adv.严格地；严厉地；非常恶劣地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
166
rigid
|
|
| adj.严格的，死板的；刚硬的，僵硬的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
167
piety
|
|
| n.虔诚，虔敬 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
168
mandates
|
|
| 托管（mandate的第三人称单数形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
169
phantom
|
|
| n.幻影，虚位，幽灵；adj.错觉的，幻影的，幽灵的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
170
detested
|
|
| v.憎恶，嫌恶，痛恨( detest的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
171
motives
|
|
| n.动机，目的( motive的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
172
melancholy
|
|
| n.忧郁，愁思；adj.令人感伤（沮丧）的，忧郁的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
173
obviates
|
|
| v.避免，消除（贫困、不方便等）( obviate的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |