December 4, 1656
REVEREND FATHERS,
I now come to consider the rest of your calumnies1, and shall begin with those contained in your advertisements, which remain to be noticed. As all your other writings, however, are equally well stocked with slander2, they will furnish me with abundant materials for entertaining you on this topic as long as I may judge expedient3. In the first place, then, with regard to the fable4 which you have propagated in all your writings against the Bishop5 of Ypres, I beg leave to say, in one word, that you have maliciously7 wrested8 the meaning of some ambiguous expressions in one of his letters which, being capable of a good sense, ought, according to the spirit of the Gospel, to have been taken in good part, and could only be taken otherwise according to the spirit of your Society. For example, when he says to a friend, “Give yourself no concern about your nephew; I will furnish him with what he requires from the money that lies in my hands,” what reason have you to interpret this to mean that he would take that money without restoring it, and not that he merely advanced it with the purpose of replacing it? And how extremely imprudent was it for you to furnish a refutation of your own lie, by printing the other letters of the Bishop of Ypres, which clearly show that, in point of fact, it was merely advanced money, which he was bound to refund10. This appears, to your confusion, from the following terms in the letter, to which you give the date of July 30, 1619: “Be not uneasy about the money advanced; he shall want for nothing so long as he is here”; and likewise from another, dated January 6, 1620, where he says: “You are in too great haste; when the account shall become due, I have no fear but that the little credit which I have in this place will bring me as much money as I require.”
If you are convicted slanderers on this subject, you are no less so in regard to the ridiculous story about the charity-box of St. Merri. What advantage, pray, can you hope to derive12 from the accusation13 which one of your worthy14 friends has trumped15 up against that ecclesiastic16? Are we to conclude that a man is guilty, because he is accused? No, fathers. Men of piety18, like him, may expect to be perpetually accused, so long as the world contains calumniators like you. We must judge of him, therefore, not from the accusation, but from the sentence; and the sentence pronounced on the case (February 23, 1656) justifies19 him completely. Moreover, the person who had the temerity20 to involve himself in that iniquitous21 process, was disavowed by his colleagues, and himself compelled to retract22 his charge. And as to what you allege23, in the same place, about “that famous director, who pocketed at once nine hundred thousand livres,” I need only refer you to Messieurs the cures of St. Roch and St. Paul, who will bear witness, before the whole city of Paris, to his perfect disinterestedness24 in the affair, and to your inexcusable malice25 in that piece of imposition.
Enough, however, for such paltry26 falsities. These are but the first raw attempts of your novices27, and not the master-strokes of your “grand professed28.” To these do I now come, fathers; I come to a calumny30 which is certainly one of the basest that ever issued from the spirit of your Society. I refer to the insufferable audacity31 with which you have imputed32 to holy nuns34, and to their directors, the charge of “disbelieving the mystery of transubstantiation and the real presence of Jesus Christ in the eucharist.” Here, fathers, is a slander worthy of yourselves. Here is a crime which God alone is capable of punishing, as you alone were capable of committing it. To endure it with patience would require an humility35 as great as that of these calumniated37 ladies; to give it credit would demand a degree of wickedness equal to that of their wretched defamers. I propose not, therefore, to vindicate39 them; they are beyond suspicion. Had they stood in need of defence, they might have commanded abler advocates than me. My object in what I say here is to show, not their innocence40, but your malignity41. I merely intend to make you ashamed of yourselves, and to let the whole world understand that, after this, there is nothing of which you are not capable.
You will not fail, I am certain, notwithstanding all this, to say that I belong to Port-Royal; for this is the first thing you say to every one who combats your errors: as if it were only at Port-Royal that persons could be found possessed42 of sufficient zeal43 to defend, against your attacks, the purity of Christian44 morality. I know, fathers, the work of the pious45 recluses46 who have retired47 to that monastery48, and how much the Church is indebted to their truly solid and edifying49 labours. I know the excellence50 of their piety and their learning. For, though I have never had the honour to belong to their establishment, as you, without knowing who or what I am, would fain have it believed, nevertheless, I do know some of them, and honour the virtue51 of them all. But God has not confined within the precincts of that society all whom he means to raise up in opposition52 to your corruptions53. I hope, with his assistance, fathers, to make you feel this; and if he vouchsafe54 to sustain me in the design he has led me to form, of employing in his service all the resources I have received from him, I shall speak to you in such a strain as will, perhaps, give you reason to regret that you have not had to do with a man of Port-Royal. And to convince you of this, fathers, I must tell you that, while those whom you have abused with this notorious slander content themselves with lifting up their groans55 to Heaven to obtain your forgiveness for the outrage56, I feel myself obliged, not being in the least affected57 by your slander, to make you blush in the face of the whole Church, and so bring you to that wholesome58 shame of which the Scripture59 speaks, and which is almost the only remedy for a hardness of heart like yours: “Imple facies eorum ignominia, et quaerent nomen tuum, Domine — Fill their faces with shame, that they may seek thy name, O Lord.”
A stop must be put to this insolence60, which does not spare the most sacred retreats. For who can be safe after a calumny of this nature? For shame, fathers! to publish in Paris such a scandalous book, with the name of your Father Meynier on its front, and under this infamous61 title, Port-Royal and Geneva in concert against the most holy Sacrament of the Altar, in which you accuse of this apostasy62, not only Monsieur the abbe of St. Cyran, and M. Arnauld, but also Mother Agnes, his sister, and all the nuns of that monastery, alleging63 that “their faith, in regard to the eucharist, is as suspicious as that of M. Arnauld,” whom you maintain to be “a down-right Calvinist.” I here ask the whole world if there be any class of persons within the pale of the Church, on whom you could have advanced such an abominable64 charge with less semblance65 of truth. For tell me, fathers, if these nuns and their directors had been “in concert with Geneva against the most holy sacrament of the altar” (the very thought of which is shocking), how they should have come to select as the principal object of their piety that very sacrament which they held in abomination? How should they have assumed the habit of the holy sacrament? taken the name of the Daughters of the Holy Sacrament? called their church the Church of the Holy Sacrament? How should they have requested and obtained from Rome the confirmation66 of that institution, and the right of saying every Thursday the office of the holy sacrament, in which the faith of the Church is so perfectly67 expressed, if they had conspired68 with Geneva to banish69 that faith from the Church? Why would they have bound themselves, by a particular devotion, also sanctioned by the Pope, to have some of their sisterhood, night and day without intermission, in presence of the sacred host, to compensate70, by their perpetual adorations towards that perpetual sacrifice, for the impiety72 of the heresy73 that aims at its annihilation? Tell me, fathers, if you can, why, of all the mysteries of our religion, they should have passed by those in which they believed, to fix upon that in which they believed not? and how they should have devoted74 themselves, so fully75 and entirely76, to that mystery of our faith, if they took it, as the heretics do, for the mystery of iniquity77? And what answer do you give to these clear evidences, embodied78 not in words only, but in actions; and not in some particular actions, but in the whole tenor79 of a life expressly dedicated80 to the adoration71 of Jesus Christ, dwelling81 on our altars? What answer, again, do you give to the books which you ascribe to Port-Royal, all of which are full of the most precise terms employed by the fathers and the councils to mark the essence of that mystery? It is at once ridiculous and disgusting to hear you replying to these as you have done throughout your libel. M. Arnauld, say you, talks very well about transubstantiation; but he understands, perhaps, only “a significative transubstantiation.” True, he professes82 to believe in “the real presence”; who can tell, however, but he means nothing more than “a true and real figure”? How now, fathers! whom, pray, will you not make pass for a Calvinist whenever you please, if you are to allowed the liberty of perverting83 the most canonical84 and sacred expressions by the wicked subtleties85 of your modern equivocations? Who ever thought of using any other terms than those in question, especially in simple discourses86 of devotion, where no controversies87 are handled? And yet the love and the reverence88 in which they hold this sacred mystery have induced them to give it such a prominence89 in all their writings that I defy you, fathers, with all your cunning, to detect in them either the least appearance of ambiguity90, or the slightest correspondence with the sentiments of Geneva.
Everybody knows, fathers, that the essence of the Genevan heresy consists, as it does according to your own showing, in their believing that Jesus Christ is not contained in this sacrament; that it is impossible he can be in many places at once; that he is, properly speaking, only in heaven, and that it is as there alone that he ought to be adored, and not on the altar; that the substance of the bread remains91; that the body of Jesus Christ does not enter into the mouth or the stomach; that he can only be eaten by faith, and accordingly wicked men do not eat him at all; and that the mass is not a sacrifice, but an abomination. Let us now hear, then, in what way “Port-Royal is in concert with Geneva.” In the writings of the former we read, to your confusion, the following statement: That “the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ are contained under the species of bread and wine”; that “the Holy of Holies is present in the sanctuary92, and that there he ought to be adored”; that “Jesus Christ dwells in the sinners who communicate, by the real and veritable presence of his body in their stomach, although not by the presence of his Spirit in their hearts”; that “the dead ashes of the bodies of the saints derive their principal dignity from that seed of life which they retain from the touch of the immortal93 and vivifying flesh of Jesus Christ”; that “it is not owing to any natural power, but to the almighty94 power of God, to whom nothing is impossible, that the body of Jesus Christ is comprehended under the host, and under the smallest portion of every host”; that “the divine virtue is present to produce the effect which the words of consecration96 signify”; that “Jesus Christ, while be is lowered and hidden upon the altar, is, at the same time, elevated in his glory; that he subsists97, of himself and by his own ordinary power, in divers99 places at the same time — in the midst of the Church triumphant100, and in the midst of the Church militant101 and travelling”; that “the sacramental species remain suspended, and subsist98 extraordinarily102, without being upheld by any subject; and that the body of Jesus Christ is also suspended under the species, and that it does not depend upon these, as substances depend upon accidents”; that “the substance of the bread is changed, the immutable103 accidents remaining the same”; that “Jesus Christ reposes104 in the eucharist with the same glory that he has in heaven”; that “his glorious humanity resides in the tabernacles of the Church, under the species of bread, which forms its visible covering; and that, knowing the grossness of our natures, he conducts us to the adoration of his divinity, which is present in all places, by the adoring of his humanity, which is present in a particular place”; that “we receive the body of Jesus Christ upon the tongue, which is sanctified by its divine touch”; “that it enters into the mouth of the priest”; that “although Jesus Christ has made himself accessible in the holy sacrament, by an act of his love and graciousness, he preserves, nevertheless, in that ordinance105, his inaccessibility106, as an inseparable condition of his divine nature; because, although the body alone and the blood alone are there, by virtue of the words — vi verborum, as the schoolmen say — his whole divinity may, notwithstanding, be there also, as well as his whole humanity, by a necessary conjunction.” In fine, that “the eucharist is at the same time sacrament and sacrifice”; and that “although this sacrifice is a commemoration of that of the cross, yet there is this difference between them, that the sacrifice of the mass is offered for the Church only, and for the faithful in her communion; whereas that of the cross has been offered for all the world, as the Scripture testifies.”
I have quoted enough, fathers, to make it evident that there was never, perhaps, a more imprudent thing attempted than what you have done. But I will go a step farther, and make you pronounce this sentence against yourselves. For what do you require from a man, in order to remove all suspicion of his being in concert and correspondence with Geneva? “If M. Arnauld,” says your Father Meynier, p.93, “had said that, in this adorable mystery, there is no substance of the bread under the species, but only the flesh and the blood of Jesus Christ, I should have confessed that he had declared himself absolutely against Geneva.” Confess it, then, ye revilers! and make him a public apology. How often have you seen this declaration made in the passages I have just cited? Besides this, however, the Familiar Theology of M. de St. Cyran having been approved by M. Arnauld, it contains the sentiments of both. Read, then, the whole of lesson 15th, and particularly article 2d, and you will there find the words you desiderate, even more formally stated than you have done yourselves. “Is there any bread in the host, or any wine in the chalice108? No: for all the substance of the bread and the wine is taken away, to give place to that of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, the which substance alone remains therein, covered by the qualities and species of bread and wine.”
How now, fathers! will you still say that Port-Royal teaches “nothing that Geneva does not receive,” and that M. Arnauld has said nothing in his second letter “which might not have been said by a minister of Charenton”? See if you can persuade Mestrezat to speak as M. Arnauld does in that letter, on page 237. Make him say that it is an infamous calumny to accuse him of denying transubstantiation; that he takes for the fundamental principle of his writings the truth of the real presence of the Son of God, in opposition to the heresy of the Calvinists; and that he accounts himself happy for living in a place where the Holy of Holies is continually adored in the sanctuary”— a sentiment which is still more opposed to the belief of the Calvinists than the real presence itself; for, as Cardinal109 Richelieu observes in his Controversies (p. 536): “The new ministers of France having agreed with the Lutherans, who believe the real presence of Jesus Christ in the eucharist; they have declared that they remain in a state of separation from the Church on the point of this mystery, only on account of the adoration which Catholics render to the eucharist.” Get all the passages which I have extracted from the books of Port-Royal subscribed110 at Geneva, and not the isolated111 passages merely, but the entire treatises112 regarding this mystery, such as the Book of Frequent Communion, the Explication of the Ceremonies of the Mass, the Exercise during Mass, the Reasons of the Suspension of the Holy Sacrament, the Translation of the Hymns113 in the Hours of Port-Royal, &c.; in one word, prevail upon them to establish at Charenton that holy institution of adoring, without intermission, Jesus Christ contained in the eucharist, as is done at Port-Royal, and it will be the most signal service which you could render to the Church; for in this case it will turn out, not that Port-Royal is in concert with Geneva, but that Geneva is in concert with Port-Royal and with the whole Church.
Certainly, fathers, you could not have been more unfortunate than in selecting Port-Royal as the object of attack for not believing in the eucharist; but I will show what led you to fix upon it. You know I have picked up some small acquaintance with your policy; in this instance you have acted upon its maxims114 to admiration116. If Monsieur the abbe of St. Cyran, and M. Arnauld, had only spoken of what ought to be believed with great respect to this mystery, and said nothing about what ought to be done in the way of preparation for its reception, they might have been the best Catholics alive; and no equivocations would have been discovered in their use of the terms real presence and transubstantiation. But, since all who combat your licentious117 principles must needs be heretics, and heretics, too, in the very point in which they condemn118 your laxity, how could M. Arnauld escape falling under this charge on the subject of the eucharist, after having published a book expressly against your profanations of that sacrament? What! must he be allowed to say, with impunity119, that “the body of Jesus Christ ought not to be given to those who habitually120 lapse121 into the same crimes, and who have no prospect122 of amendment123; and that such persons ought to be excluded, for some time, from the altar, to purify themselves by sincere penitence124, that they may approach it afterwards with benefit”? Suffer no one to talk in this strain, fathers, or you will find that fewer people will come to your confessionals. Father Brisacier says that “were you to adopt this course, you would never apply the blood of Jesus Christ to a single individual.” It would be infinitely126 more for your interest were every one to adopt the views of your Society, as set forth127 by your Father Mascarenhas, in a book approved by your doctors, and even by your reverend Father-General, namely: “That persons of every description, and even priests, may receive the body of Jesus Christ on the very day they have polluted themselves with odious128 crimes; that, so far from such communions implying irreverence129, persons who partake of them in this manner act a commendable130 part; that confessors ought not to keep them back from the ordinance, but, on the contrary, ought to advise those who have recently committed such crimes to communicate immediately; because, although the Church has forbidden it, this prohibition132 is annulled133 by the universal practice in all places of the earth.”
See what it is, fathers, to have Jesuits in all places of the earth! Behold134 the universal practice which you have introduced, and which you are anxious everywhere to maintain! It matters nothing that the tables of Jesus Christ are filled with abominations, provided that your churches are crowded with people. Be sure, therefore, cost what it may, to set down all that dare to say a word against your practice as heretics on the holy sacrament. But how can you do this, after the irrefragable testimonies135 which they have given of their faith? Are you not afraid of my coming out with the four grand proofs of their heresy which you have adduced? You ought, at least, to be so, fathers, and I ought not to spare your blushing. Let us, then, proceed to examine proof the first.
“M. de St. Cyran,” says Father Meynier, “consoling one of his friends upon the death of his mother (tom. i., let. 14), says that the most acceptable sacrifice that can be offered up to God, on such occasions, is that of patience; therefore he is a Calvinist.” This is marvellously shrewd reasoning, fathers; and I doubt if anybody will be able to discover the precise point of it. Let us learn it, then, from his own mouth. “Because,” says this mighty95 controversialist, “it is obvious that he does not believe in the sacrifice of the mass; for this is, of all other sacrifices, the most acceptable unto God.” Who will venture to say now that the do not know how to reason? Why, they know the art to such perfection that they will extract heresy out of anything you choose to mention, not even excepting the Holy Scripture itself! For example, might it not be heretical to say, with the wise man in Ecclesiasticus, “There is nothing worse than to love money”; as if adultery, murder, or idolatry, were not far greater crimes? Where is the man who is not in the habit of using similar expressions every day? May we not say, for instance, that the most acceptable of all sacrifices in the eyes of God is that of a contrite136 and humbled137 heart; just because, in discourses of this nature, we simply mean to compare certain internal virtues138 with one another, and not with the sacrifice of the mass, which is of a totally different order, and infinitely more exalted139? Is this not enough to make you ridiculous, fathers? And is it necessary, to complete your discomfiture140, that I should quote the passages of that letter in which M. de St. Cyran speaks of the sacrifice of the mass as “the most excellent” of all others, in the following terms? “Let there be presented to God, daily and in all places, the sacrifice of the body of his Son, who could not find a more excellent way than that by which he might honour his Father.” And afterwards: “Jesus Christ has enjoined141 us to take, when we are dying, his sacrificed body, to render more acceptable to God the sacrifice of our own, and to join himself with us at the hour of dissolution; to the end that he may strengthen us for the struggle, sanctifying, by his presence, the last sacrifice which we make to God of our life and our body”? Pretend to take no notice of all this, fathers, and persist in maintaining, as you do in page 39, that he refused to take the communion on his death-bed, and that he did not believe in the sacrifice of the mass. Nothing can be too gross for calumniators by profession.
Your second proof furnishes an excellent illustration of this. To make a Calvinist of M. de St. Cyran, to whom you ascribe the book of Petrus Aurelius, you take advantage of a passage (page 80) in which Aurelius explains in what manner the Church acts towards priests, and even bishops142, whom she wishes to degrade or depose143. “The Church,” he says, “being incapable144 of depriving them of the power of the order, the character of which is indelible, she does all that she can do: she banishes145 from her memory the character which she cannot banish from the souls of the individuals who have been once invested with it; she regards them in the same light as if they were not bishops or priests; so that, according to the ordinary language of the Church, it may be said they are no longer such, although they always remain such, in as far as the character is concerned — ob indelebilitatem characteris.” You perceive, fathers, that this author, who has been approved by three general assemblies of the clergy146 of France, plainly declares that the character of the priesthood is indelible; and yet you make him say, on the contrary, in the very same passage, that “the character of the priesthood is not indelible.” This is what I would call a notorious slander; in other words, according to your nomenclature, a small venial147 sin. And the reason is, this book has done you some harm by refuting the heresies148 of your brethren in England touching149 the Episcopal authority. But the folly150 of the charge is equally remarkable151; for, after having taken it for granted, without any foundation, that M. de St. Cyran holds the priestly character to be not indelible, you conclude from this that he does not believe in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the eucharist.
Do not expect me to answer this, fathers. If you have got no common sense, I am not able to furnish you with it. All who possess any share of it will enjoy a hearty152 laugh at your expense. Nor will they treat with greater respect your third proof, which rests upon the following words, taken from the Book of Frequent Communion: “In the eucharist God vouchsafes153 us the same food that He bestows154 on the saints in heaven, with this difference only, that here He withholds155 from us its sensible sight and taste, reserving both of these for the heavenly world.” These words express the sense of the Church so distinctly that I am constantly forgetting what reason you have for picking a quarrel with them, in order to turn them to a bad use; for I can see nothing more in them than what the Council of Trent teaches (sess. xiii, c. 8), namely, that there is no difference between Jesus Christ in the eucharist and Jesus Christ in heaven, except that here he is veiled, and there he is not. M. Arnauld does not say that there is no difference in the manner of receiving Jesus Christ, but only that there is no difference in Jesus Christ who is received. And yet you would, in the face of all reason, interpret his language in this passage to mean that Jesus Christ is no more eaten with the mouth in this world than he is in heaven; upon which you ground the charge of heresy against him.
You really make me sorry for you, fathers. Must we explain this further to you? Why do you confound that divine nourishment156 with the manner of receiving it? There is but one point of difference, as I have just observed, betwixt that nourishment upon earth and in heaven, which is that here it is hidden under veils which deprive us of its sensible sight and taste; but there are various points of dissimilarity in the manner of receiving it here and there, the principal of which is, as M. Arnauld expresses it (p.3, ch.16), “that here it enters into the mouth and the breast both of the good and of the wicked,” which is not the case in heaven.
And, if you require to be told the reason of this diversity, I may inform you, fathers, that the cause of God’s ordaining158 these different modes of receiving the same food is the difference that exists betwixt the state of Christians159 in this life and that of the blessed in heaven. The state of the Christian, as Cardinal Perron observes after the fathers, holds a middle place between the state of the blessed and the state of the Jews. The spirits in bliss160 possess Jesus Christ really, without veil or figure. The Jews possessed Jesus Christ only in figures and veils, such as the manna and the paschal lamb. And Christians possess Jesus Christ in the eucharist really and truly, although still concealed161 under veils. “God,” says St. Eucher, “has made three tabernacles: the synagogue, which had the shadows only, without the truth; the Church, which has the truth and shadows together; and heaven, where there is no shadow, but the truth alone.” It would be a departure from our present state, which is the state of faith, opposed by St. Paul alike to the law and to open vision, did we possess the figures only, without Jesus Christ; for it is the property of the law to have the mere9 figure, and not the substance of things. And it would be equally a departure from our present state if we possessed him visibly; because faith, according to the same apostle, deals not with things that are seen. And thus the eucharist, from its including Jesus Christ truly, though under a veil, is in perfect accordance with our state of faith. It follows that this state would be destroyed, if, as the heretics maintain, Jesus Christ were not really under the species of bread and wine; and it would be equally destroyed if we received him openly, as they do in heaven: since, on these suppositions, our state would be confounded, either with the state of Judaism or with that of glory.
Such, fathers, is the mysterious and divine reason of this most divine mystery. This it is that fills us with abhorrence162 at the Calvinists, who would reduce us to the condition of the Jews; and this it is that makes us aspire163 to the glory of the beatified, where we shall be introduced to the full and eternal enjoyment164 of Jesus Christ. From hence you must see that there are several points of difference between the manner in which he communicates himself to Christians and to the blessed; and that, amongst others, he is in this world received by the mouth, and not so in heaven; but that they all depend solely165 on the distinction between our state of faith and their state of immediate131 vision. And this is precisely166, fathers, what M. Arnauld has expressed, with great plainness, in the following terms: “There can be no other difference between the purity of those who receive Jesus Christ in the eucharist and that of the blessed, than what exists between faith and the open vision of God, upon which alone depends the different manner in which he is eaten upon earth and in heaven.” You were bound in duty, fathers, to have revered167 in these words the sacred truths they express, instead of wresting168 them for the purpose of detecting an heretical meaning which they never contained, nor could possibly contain, namely, that Jesus Christ is eaten by faith only, and not by the mouth; the malicious6 perversion169 of your Fathers Annat and Meynier, which forms the capital count of their indictment170.
Conscious, however, of the wretched deficiency of your proofs, you have had recourse to a new artifice171, which is nothing less than to falsify the Council of Trent, in order to convict M. Arnauld of nonconformity with it; so vast is your store of methods for making people heretics. This feat173 has been achieved by Father Meynier, in fifty different places of his book, and about eight or ten times in the space of a single page (the 54th), wherein he insists that to speak like a true Catholic it is not enough to say, “I believe that Jesus Christ is really present in the eucharist,” but we must say, “I believe, with the council, that he is present by a true local presence, or locally.” And, in proof of this, he cites the council, session xiii, canon 3d, canon 4th, and canon 6th. Who would not suppose, upon seeing the term local presence quoted from three canons of a universal council, that the phrase was actually to be found in them? This might have served your turn very well, before the appearance of my Fifteenth Letter; but, as matters now stand, fathers, the trick has become too stale for us. We go our way and consult the council, and discover only that you are falsifiers. Such terms as local presence, locally, and locality, never existed in the passages to which you refer; and let me tell you further, they are not to be found in any other canon of that council, nor in any other previous council, not in any father of the Church. Allow me, then, to ask you, fathers, if you mean to cast the suspicion of Calvinism upon all that have not made use of that peculiar174 phrase? If this be the case, the Council of Trent must be suspected of heresy, and all the holy fathers without exception. Have you no other way of making M. Arnauld heretical, without abusing so many other people who never did you any harm, and, among the rest, St. Thomas, who is one of the greatest champions of the eucharist, and who, so far from employing that term, has expressly rejected it —“Nullo modo corpus Christi est in hoc sacramento localiter. — By no means is the body of Christ in this sacrament locally”? Who are you, then, fathers, to pretend, on your authority, to impose new terms, and ordain157 them to be used by all for rightly expressing their faith; as if the profession of the faith, drawn175 up by the popes according to the plan of the council, in which this term has no place, were defective176, and left an ambiguity in the creed177 of the faithful which you had the sole merit of discovering? Such a piece of arrogance178, to prescribe these terms, even to learned doctors! such a piece of forgery179, to attribute them to general councils! and such ignorance, not to know the objections which the most enlightened saints have made to their reception! “Be ashamed of the error of your ignorance,” as the Scripture says of ignorant impostors like you, “De mendacio ineruditionis tuae confundere.”
Give up all further attempts, then, to act the masters; you have neither character nor capacity for the part. If, however, you would bring forward your propositions with a little more modesty180, they might obtain a hearing. For, although this phrase, local presence, has been rejected, as you have seen, by St. Thomas, on the ground that the body of Jesus Christ is not in the eucharist, in the ordinary extension of bodies in their places, the expression has, nevertheless, been adopted by some modern controversial writers, who understand it simply to mean that the body of Jesus Christ is truly under the species, which being in a particular place, the body of Jesus Christ is there also. And in this sense M. Arnauld will make no scruple181 to admit the term, as M. de St. Cyran and he have repeatedly declared that Jesus Christ in the eucharist is truly in a particular place, and miraculously182 in many places at the same time. Thus all your subtleties fall to the ground; and you have failed to give the slightest semblance of plausibility183 to an accusation which ought not to have been allowed to show its face without being supported by the most unanswerable proofs.
But what avails it, fathers, to oppose their innocence to your calumnies? You impute33 these errors to them, not in the belief that they maintain heresy, but from the idea that they have done you injury. That is enough, according to your theology, to warrant you to calumniate36 them without criminality; and you can, without either penance184 or confession125, say mass, at the very time that you charge priests, who say it every day, with holding it to be pure idolatry; which, were it true, would amount to sacrilege no less revolting than that of your own Father Jarrige, whom you yourselves ordered to be hanged in effigy185, for having said mass “at the time he was in agreement with Geneva.”
What surprises me, therefore, is not the little scrupulosity186 with which you load them with crimes of the foulest187 and falsest description, but the little prudence188 you display, by fixing on them charges so destitute189 of plausibility. You dispose of sins, it is true, at your pleasure; but do you mean to dispose of men’s beliefs too? Verily, fathers, if the suspicion of Calvinism must needs fall either on them or on you, you would stand, I fear, on very ticklish190 ground. Their language is as Catholic as yours; but their conduct confirms their faith, and your conduct belies191 it. For if you believe, as well as they do, that the bread is really changed into the body of Jesus Christ, why do you not require, as they do, from those whom you advise to approach the altar, that the heart of stone and ice should be sincerely changed into a heart of flesh and of love? If you believe that Jesus Christ is in that sacrament in a state of death, teaching those that approach it to die to the world, to sin, and to themselves, why do you suffer those to profane192 it in whose breasts evil passions continue to reign193 in all their life and vigour194? And how do you come to judge those worthy to eat the bread of heaven, who are not worthy to eat that of earth?
Precious votaries195, truly, whose zeal is expended196 in persecuting197 those who honour this sacred mystery by so many holy communions, and in flattering those who dishonour198 it by so many sacrilegious desecrations! How comely199 is it, in these champions of a sacrifice so pure and so venerable, to collect around the table of Jesus Christ a crowd of hardened profligates, reeking200 from their debauchcries; and to plant in the midst of them a priest, whom his own confessor has hurried from his obscenities to the altar; there, in the place of Jesus Christ, to offer up that most holy victim to the God of holiness, and convey it, with his polluted hands, into mouths as thoroughly201 polluted as his own! How well does it become those who pursue this course “in all parts of the world,” in conformity172 with maxims sanctioned by their own general to impute to the author of Frequent Communion, and to the Sisters of the Holy Sacrament, the crime of not believing in that sacrament!
Even this, however, does not satisfy them. Nothing less will satiate their rage than to accuse their opponents of having renounced202 Jesus Christ and their baptism. This is no air-built fable, like those of your invention; it is a fact, and denotes a delirious203 frenzy204 which marks the fatal consummation of your calumnies. Such a notorious falsehood as this would not have been in hands worthy to support it, had it remained in those of your good friend Filleau, through whom you ushered205 it into the world: your Society has openly adopted it; and your Father Meynier maintained it the other day to be “a certain truth” that Port-Royal has, for the space of thirty-five years, been forming a secret plot, of which M. de St. Cyran and M. d’Ypres have been the ringleaders, “to ruin the mystery of the incarnation — to make the Gospel pass for an apocryphal206 fable — to exterminate207 the Christian religion, and to erect208 Deism upon the ruins of Christianity.” Is this enough, fathers? Will you be satisfied if all this be believed of the objects of your hate? Would your animosity be glutted209 at length, if you could but succeed in making them odious, not only to all within the Church, by the charge of “consenting with Geneva, of which you accuse them, but even to all who believe in Jesus Christ, though beyond the pale of the Church, by the imputation210 of Deism?
But whom do you expect to convince, upon your simple asseveration, without the slightest shadow of proof, and in the face of every imaginable contradiction, that priests who preach nothing but the grace of Jesus Christ, the purity of the Gospel, and the obligations of baptism, have renounced at once their baptism, the Gospel, and Jesus Christ? Who will believe it, fathers? Wretched as you are, do you believe it yourselves? What a sad predicament is yours, when you must either prove that they do not believe in Jesus Christ, or must pass for the most abandoned calumniators. Prove it, then, fathers. Name that “worthy clergyman” who, you say, attended that assembly at Bourg-Fontaine in 1621, and discovered to Brother Filleau the design there concerted of overturning the Christian religion. Name those six persons whom you allege to have formed that conspiracy211. Name the individual who is designated by the letters A. A., who you say “was not Antony Arnauld” (because he convinced you that he was at that time only nine years of age), “but another person, who you say is still in life, but too good a friend of M. Arnauld not to be known to him.” You know him, then, fathers; and consequently, if you are not destitute of religion yourselves, you are bound to delate that impious wretch38 to the king and parliament, that he may be punished according to his deserts. You must speak out, fathers; you must name the person, or submit to the disgrace of being henceforth regarded in no other light than as common liars212, unworthy of being ever credited again. Good Father Valerien has taught us that this is the way in which such characters should be “put to the rack” and brought to their senses. Your silence upon the present challenge will furnish a full and satisfactory confirmation of this diabolical213 calumny. Your blindest admirers will be constrained214 to admit that it will be “the result, not of your goodness, but your impotency”; and to wonder how you could be so wicked as to extend your hatred215 even to the nuns of Port-Royal, and to say, as you do in page 14, that The Secret Chaplet of the Holy Sacrament, composed by one of their number, was the first fruit of that conspiracy against Jesus Christ; or, as in page 95, that “they have imbibed216 all the detestable principles of that work”; which is, according to your account, a lesson in Deism.” Your falsehoods regarding that book have already been triumphantly217 refuted, in the defence of the censure218 of the late Archbishop of Paris against Father Brisacier. That publication you are incapable of answering; and yet you do not scruple to abuse it in a more shameful219 manner than ever, for the purpose of charging women, whose piety is universally known, with the vilest220 blasphemy221.
Cruel, cowardly persecutors! Must, then, the most retired cloisters222 afford no retreat from your calumnies? While these consecrated223 virgins224 are employed, night and day, according to their institution, in adoring Jesus Christ in the holy sacrament, you cease not, night nor day, to publish abroad that they do not believe that he is either in the eucharist or even at the right hand of his Father; and you are publicly excommunicating them from the Church, at the very time when they are in secret praying for the whole Church, and for you! You blacken with your slanders225 those who have neither ears to hear nor mouths to answer you! But Jesus Christ, in whom they are now hidden, not to appear till one day together with him, hears you, and answers for them. At the moment I am now writing, that holy and terrible voice is heard which confounds nature and consoles the Church. And I fear, fathers, that those who now harden their hearts, and refuse with obstinacy226 to hear him, while he speaks in the character of God, will one day be compelled to hear him with terror, when he speaks to them in the character of a judge. What account, indeed, fathers, will you be able to render to him of the many calumnies you have uttered, seeing that he will examine them, in that day, not according to the fantasies of Fathers Dicastille, Gans, and Pennalossa, who justify227 them, but according to the eternal laws of truth, and the sacred ordinances228 of his own Church, which, so far from attempting to vindicate that crime, abhors229 it to such a degree that she visits it with the same penalty as wilfull murder? By the first and second councils of Arles she has decided230 that the communion shall be denied to slanderers as well as murderers, till the approach of death. The Council of Lateran has judged those unworthy of admission into the ecclesiastical state who have been convicted of the crime, even though they may have reformed. The popes have even threatened to deprive of the communion at death those who have calumniated bishops, priests, or deacons. And the authors of a defamatory libel, who fail to prove what they have advanced, are condemned231 by Pope Adrian to be whipped — yes, reverend fathers, flagellentur is the word. So strong has been the repugnance232 of the Church at all times to the errors of your Society — a Society so thoroughly depraved as to invent excuses for the grossest of crimes, such as calumny, chiefly that it may enjoy the greater freedom in perpetrating them itself. There can be no doubt, fathers, that you would be capable of producing abundance of mischief233 in this way, had God not permitted you to furnish with your own hands the means of preventing the evil, and of rendering234 your slanders perfectly innocuous; for, to deprive you of all credibility, it was quite enough to publish the strange maxim115 that it is no crime to calumniate. Calumny is nothing, if not associated with a high reputation for honesty. The defamer can make no impression, unless he has the character of one that abhors defamation235 as a crime of which he is incapable. And thus, fathers, you are betrayed by your own principle. You establish the doctrine236 to secure yourselves a safe conscience, that you might slander without risk of damnation, and be ranked with those “pious and holy calumniators” of whom St. Athanasius speaks. To save yourselves from hell, you have embraced a maxim which promises you this security on the faith of your doctors; but this same maxim, while it guarantees you, according to their idea, against the evils you dread237 in the future world, deprives you of all the advantage you may have expected to reap from it in the present; so that, in attempting to escape the guilt17, you have lost the benefit of calumny. Such is the self-contrariety of evil, and so completely does it confound and destroy itself by its own intrinsic malignity.
You might have slandered238, therefore, much more advantageously for yourselves, had you professed to hold, with St. Paul, that evil speakers are not worthy to see God; for in this case, though you would indeed have been condemning239 yourselves, your slanders would at least have stood a better chance of being believed. But, by maintaining, as you have done, that calumny against your enemies is no crime, your slanders will be discredited240, and you yourselves damned into the bargain; for two things are certain, fathers: first, That it will never be in the power of your grave doctors to annihilate241 the justice of God; and, secondly242, That you could not give more certain evidence that you are not of the Truth than by your resorting to falsehood. If the Truth were on your side, she would fight for you — she would conquer for you; and whatever enemies you might have to encounter, “the Truth would set you free” from them, according to her promise. But you have had recourse to falsehood, for no other design than to support the errors with which you flatter the sinful children of this world, and to bolster243 up the calumnies with which you persecute244 every man of piety who sets his face against these delusions245. The truth being diametrically opposed to your ends, it behooved246 you, to use the language of the prophet, “to put your confidence in lies.” You have said: “The scourges247 which afflict248 mankind shall not come nigh unto us; for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves.” But what says the prophet in reply to such? “Forasmuch,” says he, “as ye have put your trust in calumny and tumult249 — sperastis in calumnia et in tumultu — this iniquity and your ruin shall be like that of a high wall whose breaking cometh suddenly at an instant. And he shall break it as the breaking of the potter’s vessel250 that is shivered in pieces”— with such violence that “there shall not be found in the bursting of it a shred251 to take fire from the hearth252, or to take water withal out of the pit.” “Because,” as another prophet says, “ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and ye have flattered and strengthened the malice of the wicked; I will therefore deliver my people out of your hands, and ye shall know that I am their Lord and yours.”
Yes, fathers, it is to be hoped that if you do not repent253, God will deliver out of your hands those whom you have so long deluded254, either by flattering them in their evil courses with your licentious maxims, or by poisoning their minds with your slanders. He will convince the former that the false rules of your casuists will not screen them from His indignation; and He will impress on the minds of the latter the just dread of losing their souls by listening and yielding credit to your slanders, as you lose yours by hatching these slanders and disseminating255 them through the world. Let no man be deceived; God is not mocked; none may violate with impunity the commandment which He has given us in the Gospel, not to condemn our neighbour without being well assured of his guilt. And, consequently, what profession soever of piety those may make who lend a willing ear to your lying devices, and under what pretence256 soever of devotion they may entertain them, they have reason to apprehend257 exclusion258 from the kingdom of God, solely for having imputed crimes of such a dark complexion259 as heresy and schism260 to Catholic priests and holy nuns, upon no better evidence than such vile107 fabrications as yours. “The devil,” says M. de Geneve, “is on the tongue of him that slanders, and in the ear of him that listens to the slanderer11.” “And evil speaking,” says St. Bernard, “is a poison that extinguishes charity in both of the parties; so that a single calumny may prove mortal to an infinite numbers of souls, killing261 not only those who publish it, but all those besides by whom it is not repudiated262.”
Reverend fathers, my letters were not wont263 either to be so prolix264, or to follow so closely on one another. Want of time must plead my excuse for both of these faults. The present letter is a very long one, simply because I had no leisure to make it shorter. You know the reason of this haste better than I do. You have been unlucky in your answers. You have done well, therefore, to change your plan; but I am afraid that you will get no credit for it, and that people will say it was done for fear of the Benedictines.
I have just come to learn that the person who was generally reported to be the author of your Apologies, disclaims265 them, and is annoyed at their having been ascribed to him. He has good reason, and I was wrong to have suspected him of any such thing; for, in spite of the assurances which I received, I ought to have considered that he was a man of too much good sense to believe your accusations266, and of too much honour to publish them if he did not believe them. There are few people in the world capable of your extravagances; they are peculiar to yourselves, and mark your character too plainly to admit of any excuse for having failed to recognize your hand in their concoction267. I was led away by the common report; but this apology, which would be too good for you, is not sufficient for me, who profess29 to advance nothing without certain proof. In no other instance have I been guilty of departing from this rule. I am sorry for what I said. I retract it; and I only wish that you may profit by my example.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
calumnies
|
|
| n.诬蔑，诽谤，中伤（的话）( calumny的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
slander
|
|
| n./v.诽谤，污蔑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
expedient
|
|
| adj.有用的，有利的；n.紧急的办法，权宜之计 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
fable
|
|
| n.寓言；童话；神话 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
bishop
|
|
| n.主教，（国际象棋）象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
malicious
|
|
| adj.有恶意的，心怀恶意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
maliciously
|
|
| adv.有敌意地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
wrested
|
|
| （用力）拧( wrest的过去式和过去分词 )； 费力取得； （从…）攫取； （ 从… ） 强行取去… | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
refund
|
|
| v.退还，偿还；n.归还，偿还额，退款 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
slanderer
|
|
| 造谣中伤者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
derive
|
|
| v.取得；导出；引申；来自；源自；出自 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
accusation
|
|
| n.控告，指责，谴责 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
worthy
|
|
| adj.(of)值得的，配得上的；有价值的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
trumped
|
|
| v.（牌戏）出王牌赢（一牌或一墩）( trump的过去分词 )；吹号公告，吹号庆祝；吹喇叭；捏造 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
ecclesiastic
|
|
| n.教士，基督教会；adj.神职者的，牧师的，教会的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
guilt
|
|
| n.犯罪；内疚；过失，罪责 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
piety
|
|
| n.虔诚，虔敬 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
justifies
|
|
| 证明…有理( justify的第三人称单数 )； 为…辩护； 对…作出解释； 为…辩解（或辩护） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
temerity
|
|
| n.鲁莽，冒失 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
iniquitous
|
|
| adj.不公正的；邪恶的；高得出奇的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
retract
|
|
| vt.缩回，撤回收回，取消 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
allege
|
|
| vt.宣称，申述，主张，断言 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
disinterestedness
|
|
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
malice
|
|
| n.恶意，怨恨，蓄意；[律]预谋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
paltry
|
|
| adj.无价值的，微不足道的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
novices
|
|
| n.新手( novice的名词复数 )；初学修士（或修女）；（修会等的）初学生；尚未赢过大赛的赛马 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
professed
|
|
| 公开声称的，伪称的，已立誓信教的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
profess
|
|
| v.声称，冒称，以...为业，正式接受入教，表明信仰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
calumny
|
|
| n.诽谤，污蔑，中伤 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
audacity
|
|
| n.大胆，卤莽，无礼 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
imputed
|
|
| v.把（错误等）归咎于( impute的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
impute
|
|
| v.归咎于 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
nuns
|
|
| n.（通常指基督教的）修女， （佛教的）尼姑( nun的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
humility
|
|
| n.谦逊，谦恭 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
calumniate
|
|
| v.诬蔑，中伤 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
calumniated
|
|
| v.诽谤，中伤( calumniate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
wretch
|
|
| n.可怜的人，不幸的人；卑鄙的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
vindicate
|
|
| v.为…辩护或辩解，辩明；证明…正确 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
innocence
|
|
| n.无罪；天真；无害 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
malignity
|
|
| n.极度的恶意，恶毒；（病的）恶性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
possessed
|
|
| adj.疯狂的；拥有的，占有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
zeal
|
|
| n.热心，热情，热忱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
Christian
|
|
| adj.基督教徒的；n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
pious
|
|
| adj.虔诚的；道貌岸然的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
recluses
|
|
| n.隐居者，遁世者，隐士( recluse的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
retired
|
|
| adj.隐退的，退休的，退役的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
monastery
|
|
| n.修道院，僧院，寺院 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
edifying
|
|
| adj.有教训意味的，教训性的，有益的v.开导，启发( edify的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
excellence
|
|
| n.优秀，杰出，(pl.)优点，美德 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
virtue
|
|
| n.德行，美德；贞操；优点；功效，效力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
opposition
|
|
| n.反对，敌对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
corruptions
|
|
| n.堕落( corruption的名词复数 )；腐化；腐败；贿赂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
vouchsafe
|
|
| v.惠予，准许 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
groans
|
|
| n.呻吟，叹息( groan的名词复数 )；呻吟般的声音v.呻吟( groan的第三人称单数 )；发牢骚；抱怨；受苦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
outrage
|
|
| n.暴行，侮辱，愤怒；vt.凌辱，激怒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
affected
|
|
| adj.不自然的，假装的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
wholesome
|
|
| adj.适合；卫生的；有益健康的；显示身心健康的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
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： |
|
|
|
|
60
insolence
|
|
| n.傲慢；无礼；厚颜；傲慢的态度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
infamous
|
|
| adj.声名狼藉的，臭名昭著的，邪恶的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
apostasy
|
|
| n.背教，脱党 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
alleging
|
|
| 断言，宣称，辩解( allege的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
abominable
|
|
| adj.可厌的，令人憎恶的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
semblance
|
|
| n.外貌，外表 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
confirmation
|
|
| n.证实，确认，批准 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
perfectly
|
|
| adv.完美地，无可非议地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
conspired
|
|
| 密谋( conspire的过去式和过去分词 )； 搞阴谋； （事件等）巧合； 共同导致 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
banish
|
|
| vt.放逐，驱逐；消除，排除 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
compensate
|
|
| vt.补偿，赔偿；酬报 vi.弥补；补偿；抵消 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
adoration
|
|
| n.爱慕，崇拜 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
impiety
|
|
| n.不敬；不孝 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
heresy
|
|
| n.异端邪说；异教 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
devoted
|
|
| adj.忠诚的，忠实的，热心的，献身于...的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
fully
|
|
| adv.完全地，全部地，彻底地；充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
iniquity
|
|
| n.邪恶；不公正 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
embodied
|
|
| v.表现( embody的过去式和过去分词 )；象征；包括；包含 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
tenor
|
|
| n.男高音（歌手），次中音（乐器），要旨，大意 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
dedicated
|
|
| adj.一心一意的；献身的；热诚的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
dwelling
|
|
| n.住宅，住所，寓所 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
professes
|
|
| 声称( profess的第三人称单数 )； 宣称； 公开表明； 信奉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
perverting
|
|
| v.滥用( pervert的现在分词 )；腐蚀；败坏；使堕落 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
canonical
|
|
| n.权威的；典型的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
subtleties
|
|
| 细微( subtlety的名词复数 )； 精细； 巧妙； 细微的差别等 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
discourses
|
|
| 论文( discourse的名词复数 )； 演说； 讲道； 话语 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
controversies
|
|
| 争论 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
reverence
|
|
| n.敬畏，尊敬，尊严；Reverence:对某些基督教神职人员的尊称；v.尊敬，敬畏，崇敬 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
prominence
|
|
| n.突出；显著；杰出；重要 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
ambiguity
|
|
| n.模棱两可；意义不明确 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
remains
|
|
| n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
sanctuary
|
|
| n.圣所，圣堂，寺庙；禁猎区，保护区 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
immortal
|
|
| adj.不朽的；永生的，不死的；神的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
almighty
|
|
| adj.全能的，万能的；很大的，很强的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
mighty
|
|
| adj.强有力的；巨大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
consecration
|
|
| n.供献，奉献，献祭仪式 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
subsists
|
|
| v.（靠很少的钱或食物）维持生活，生存下去( subsist的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
subsist
|
|
| vi.生存，存在，供养 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
divers
|
|
| adj.不同的；种种的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
triumphant
|
|
| adj.胜利的，成功的；狂欢的，喜悦的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
militant
|
|
| adj.激进的，好斗的；n.激进分子，斗士 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
extraordinarily
|
|
| adv.格外地；极端地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
immutable
|
|
| adj.不可改变的，永恒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
reposes
|
|
| v.将（手臂等）靠在某人（某物）上( repose的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
ordinance
|
|
| n.法令；条令；条例 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
inaccessibility
|
|
| n. 难接近, 难达到, 难达成 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
vile
|
|
| adj.卑鄙的，可耻的，邪恶的；坏透的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
chalice
|
|
| n.圣餐杯；金杯毒酒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
cardinal
|
|
| n.(天主教的)红衣主教；adj.首要的，基本的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
subscribed
|
|
| v.捐助( subscribe的过去式和过去分词 )；签署，题词；订阅；同意 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
isolated
|
|
| adj.与世隔绝的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
treatises
|
|
| n.专题著作，专题论文，专著( treatise的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
hymns
|
|
| n.赞美诗，圣歌，颂歌( hymn的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
maxims
|
|
| n.格言，座右铭( maxim的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
maxim
|
|
| n.格言，箴言 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
admiration
|
|
| n.钦佩，赞美，羡慕 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
licentious
|
|
| adj.放纵的，淫乱的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
condemn
|
|
| vt.谴责，指责；宣判(罪犯)，判刑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
impunity
|
|
| n.(惩罚、损失、伤害等的)免除 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
habitually
|
|
| ad.习惯地，通常地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
lapse
|
|
| n.过失，流逝，失效，抛弃信仰，间隔；vi.堕落，停止，失效，流逝；vt.使失效 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
prospect
|
|
| n.前景，前途；景色，视野 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
amendment
|
|
| n.改正，修正，改善，修正案 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
penitence
|
|
| n.忏悔，赎罪；悔过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
confession
|
|
| n.自白，供认，承认 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
infinitely
|
|
| adv.无限地，无穷地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
odious
|
|
| adj.可憎的，讨厌的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
irreverence
|
|
| n.不尊敬 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
commendable
|
|
| adj.值得称赞的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
immediate
|
|
| adj.立即的；直接的，最接近的；紧靠的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
prohibition
|
|
| n.禁止；禁令，禁律 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
annulled
|
|
| v.宣告无效( annul的过去式和过去分词 )；取消；使消失；抹去 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
behold
|
|
| v.看，注视，看到 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
testimonies
|
|
| （法庭上证人的）证词( testimony的名词复数 )； 证明，证据 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
contrite
|
|
| adj.悔悟了的，后悔的，痛悔的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
humbled
|
|
| adj. 卑下的，谦逊的，粗陋的 vt. 使 ... 卑下，贬低 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
virtues
|
|
| 美德( virtue的名词复数 )； 德行； 优点； 长处 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
exalted
|
|
| adj.(地位等)高的，崇高的；尊贵的，高尚的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
discomfiture
|
|
| n.崩溃；大败；挫败；困惑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
enjoined
|
|
| v.命令( enjoin的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
bishops
|
|
| （基督教某些教派管辖大教区的）主教( bishop的名词复数 )； （国际象棋的）象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
depose
|
|
| vt.免职；宣誓作证 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
incapable
|
|
| adj.无能力的，不能做某事的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
banishes
|
|
| v.放逐，驱逐( banish的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
146
clergy
|
|
| n.[总称]牧师，神职人员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
147
venial
|
|
| adj.可宽恕的；轻微的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
148
heresies
|
|
| n.异端邪说，异教( heresy的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
149
touching
|
|
| adj.动人的，使人感伤的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
150
folly
|
|
| n.愚笨，愚蠢，蠢事，蠢行，傻话 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
151
remarkable
|
|
| adj.显著的，异常的，非凡的，值得注意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
152
hearty
|
|
| adj.热情友好的；衷心的；尽情的，纵情的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
153
vouchsafes
|
|
| v.给予，赐予( vouchsafe的第三人称单数 )；允诺 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
154
bestows
|
|
| 赠给，授予( bestow的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
155
withholds
|
|
| v.扣留( withhold的第三人称单数 )；拒绝给予；抑制（某事物）；制止 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
156
nourishment
|
|
| n.食物，营养品；营养情况 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
157
ordain
|
|
| vi.颁发命令；vt.命令，授以圣职，注定，任命 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
158
ordaining
|
|
| v.任命（某人）为牧师( ordain的现在分词 )；授予（某人）圣职；（上帝、法律等）命令；判定 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
159
Christians
|
|
| n.基督教徒( Christian的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
160
bliss
|
|
| n.狂喜，福佑，天赐的福 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
161
concealed
|
|
| a.隐藏的，隐蔽的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
162
abhorrence
|
|
| n.憎恶；可憎恶的事 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
163
aspire
|
|
| vi.(to，after)渴望，追求，有志于 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
164
enjoyment
|
|
| n.乐趣；享有；享用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
165
solely
|
|
| adv.仅仅，唯一地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
166
precisely
|
|
| adv.恰好，正好，精确地，细致地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
167
revered
|
|
| v.崇敬，尊崇，敬畏( revere的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
168
wresting
|
|
| 动词wrest的现在进行式 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
169
perversion
|
|
| n.曲解；堕落；反常 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
170
indictment
|
|
| n.起诉；诉状 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
171
artifice
|
|
| n.妙计，高明的手段；狡诈，诡计 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
172
conformity
|
|
| n.一致，遵从，顺从 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
173
feat
|
|
| n.功绩；武艺，技艺；adj.灵巧的，漂亮的，合适的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
174
peculiar
|
|
| adj.古怪的，异常的；特殊的，特有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
175
drawn
|
|
| v.拖，拉，拔出；adj.憔悴的，紧张的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
176
defective
|
|
| adj.有毛病的，有问题的，有瑕疵的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
177
creed
|
|
| n.信条；信念，纲领 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
178
arrogance
|
|
| n.傲慢，自大 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
179
forgery
|
|
| n.伪造的文件等，赝品，伪造（行为） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
180
modesty
|
|
| n.谦逊，虚心，端庄，稳重，羞怯，朴素 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
181
scruple
|
|
| n./v.顾忌，迟疑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
182
miraculously
|
|
| ad.奇迹般地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
183
plausibility
|
|
| n. 似有道理, 能言善辩 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
184
penance
|
|
| n.（赎罪的）惩罪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
185
effigy
|
|
| n.肖像 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
186
scrupulosity
|
|
| n.顾虑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
187
foulest
|
|
| adj.恶劣的( foul的最高级 )；邪恶的；难闻的；下流的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
188
prudence
|
|
| n.谨慎，精明，节俭 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
189
destitute
|
|
| adj.缺乏的；穷困的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
190
ticklish
|
|
| adj.怕痒的；问题棘手的；adv.怕痒地；n.怕痒，小心处理 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
191
belies
|
|
| v.掩饰( belie的第三人称单数 )；证明（或显示）…为虚假；辜负；就…扯谎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
192
profane
|
|
| adj.亵神的，亵渎的；vt.亵渎，玷污 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
193
reign
|
|
| n.统治时期，统治，支配，盛行；v.占优势 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
194
vigour
|
|
| （=vigor）n.智力，体力，精力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
195
votaries
|
|
| n.信徒( votary的名词复数 )；追随者；（天主教）修士；修女 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
196
expended
|
|
| v.花费( expend的过去式和过去分词 )；使用（钱等）做某事；用光；耗尽 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
197
persecuting
|
|
| （尤指宗教或政治信仰的）迫害(~sb. for sth.)( persecute的现在分词 )； 烦扰，困扰或骚扰某人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
198
dishonour
|
|
| n./vt.拒付（支票、汇票、票据等）；vt.凌辱，使丢脸；n.不名誉，耻辱，不光彩 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
199
comely
|
|
| adj.漂亮的，合宜的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
200
reeking
|
|
| v.发出浓烈的臭气( reek的现在分词 )；散发臭气；发出难闻的气味 (of sth)；明显带有（令人不快或生疑的跡象） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
201
thoroughly
|
|
| adv.完全地，彻底地，十足地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
202
renounced
|
|
| v.声明放弃( renounce的过去式和过去分词 )；宣布放弃；宣布与…决裂；宣布摒弃 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
203
delirious
|
|
| adj.不省人事的，神智昏迷的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
204
frenzy
|
|
| n.疯狂，狂热，极度的激动 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
205
ushered
|
|
| v.引，领，陪同( usher的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
206
apocryphal
|
|
| adj.假冒的，虚假的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
207
exterminate
|
|
| v.扑灭，消灭，根绝 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
208
erect
|
|
| n./v.树立，建立，使竖立；adj.直立的，垂直的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
209
glutted
|
|
| v.吃得过多( glut的过去式和过去分词 )；（对胃口、欲望等）纵情满足；使厌腻；塞满 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
210
imputation
|
|
| n.归罪，责难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
211
conspiracy
|
|
| n.阴谋，密谋，共谋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
212
liars
|
|
| 说谎者( liar的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
213
diabolical
|
|
| adj.恶魔似的，凶暴的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
214
constrained
|
|
| adj.束缚的,节制的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
215
hatred
|
|
| n.憎恶，憎恨，仇恨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
216
imbibed
|
|
| v.吸收( imbibe的过去式和过去分词 )；喝；吸取；吸气 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
217
triumphantly
|
|
| ad.得意洋洋地；得胜地；成功地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
218
censure
|
|
| v./n.责备；非难；责难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
219
shameful
|
|
| adj.可耻的，不道德的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
220
vilest
|
|
| adj.卑鄙的( vile的最高级 )；可耻的；极坏的；非常讨厌的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
221
blasphemy
|
|
| n.亵渎，渎神 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
222
cloisters
|
|
| n.（学院、修道院、教堂等建筑的）走廊( cloister的名词复数 )；回廊；修道院的生活；隐居v.隐退，使与世隔绝( cloister的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
223
consecrated
|
|
| adj.神圣的，被视为神圣的v.把…奉为神圣，给…祝圣( consecrate的过去式和过去分词 )；奉献 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
224
virgins
|
|
| 处女，童男( virgin的名词复数 )； 童贞玛利亚（耶稣之母） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
225
slanders
|
|
| 诽谤，诋毁( slander的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
226
obstinacy
|
|
| n.顽固；（病痛等）难治 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
227
justify
|
|
| vt.证明…正当(或有理)，为…辩护 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
228
ordinances
|
|
| n.条例，法令( ordinance的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
229
abhors
|
|
| v.憎恶( abhor的第三人称单数 )；（厌恶地）回避；拒绝；淘汰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
230
decided
|
|
| adj.决定了的，坚决的；明显的，明确的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
231
condemned
|
|
| adj. 被责难的, 被宣告有罪的 动词condemn的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
232
repugnance
|
|
| n.嫌恶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
233
mischief
|
|
| n.损害，伤害，危害；恶作剧，捣蛋，胡闹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
234
rendering
|
|
| n.表现，描写 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
235
defamation
|
|
| n.诽谤；中伤 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
236
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
237
dread
|
|
| vt.担忧，忧虑；惧怕，不敢；n.担忧，畏惧 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
238
slandered
|
|
| 造谣中伤( slander的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
239
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： |
|
|
|
|
240
discredited
|
|
| 不足信的，不名誉的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
241
annihilate
|
|
| v.使无效；毁灭；取消 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
242
secondly
|
|
| adv.第二，其次 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
243
bolster
|
|
| n.枕垫；v.支持，鼓励 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
244
persecute
|
|
| vt.迫害，虐待；纠缠，骚扰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
245
delusions
|
|
| n.欺骗( delusion的名词复数 )；谬见；错觉；妄想 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
246
behooved
|
|
| v.适宜( behoove的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
247
scourges
|
|
| 带来灾难的人或东西，祸害( scourge的名词复数 )； 鞭子 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
248
afflict
|
|
| vt.使身体或精神受痛苦，折磨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
249
tumult
|
|
| n.喧哗；激动，混乱；吵闹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
250
vessel
|
|
| n.船舶；容器，器皿；管，导管，血管 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
251
shred
|
|
| v.撕成碎片，变成碎片；n.碎布条，细片，些少 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
252
hearth
|
|
| n.壁炉炉床，壁炉地面 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
253
repent
|
|
| v.悔悟，悔改，忏悔，后悔 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
254
deluded
|
|
| v.欺骗，哄骗( delude的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
255
disseminating
|
|
| 散布，传播( disseminate的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
256
pretence
|
|
| n.假装，作假；借口，口实；虚伪；虚饰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
257
apprehend
|
|
| vt.理解，领悟，逮捕，拘捕，忧虑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
258
exclusion
|
|
| n.拒绝，排除，排斥，远足，远途旅行 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
259
complexion
|
|
| n.肤色；情况，局面；气质，性格 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
260
schism
|
|
| n.分派，派系，分裂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
261
killing
|
|
| n.巨额利润；突然赚大钱，发大财 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
262
repudiated
|
|
| v.（正式地）否认( repudiate的过去式和过去分词 )；拒绝接受；拒绝与…往来；拒不履行（法律义务） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
263
wont
|
|
| adj.习惯于；v.习惯；n.习惯 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
264
prolix
|
|
| adj.罗嗦的；冗长的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
265
disclaims
|
|
| v.否认( disclaim的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
266
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： |
|
|
|
|
267
concoction
|
|
| n.调配(物)；谎言 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |