January 23, 1657
REVEREND FATHER,
Your former behaviour had induced me to believe that you were anxious for a truce1 in our hostilities2, and I was quite disposed to agree that it should be so. Of late, however, you have poured forth3 such a volley of pamphlets, in such rapid succession, as to make it apparent that peace rests on a very precarious4 footing when it depends on the silence of Jesuits. I know not if this rupture5 will prove very advantageous6 to you; but, for my part, I am far from regretting the opportunity which it affords me of rebutting7 that stale charge of heresy8 with which your writings abound9.
It is full time, indeed, that I should, once for all, put a stop to the liberty you have taken to treat me as a heretic — a piece of gratuitous10 impertinence which seems to increase by indulgence, and which is exhibited in your last book in a style of such intolerable assurance that, were I not to answer the charge as it deserves, I might lay myself open to the suspicion of being actually guilty. So long as the insult was confined to your associates I despised it, as I did a thousand others with which they interlarded their productions. To these my Fifteenth Letter was a sufficient reply. But you now repeat the charge with a different air: you make it the main point of your vindication12. It is, in fact, almost the only thing in the shape of argument that you employ. You say that, “as a complete answer to my fifteen letters, it is enough to say fifteen times that I am a heretic; and, having been pronounced such, I deserve no credit.” In short, you make no question of my apostasy13, but assume it as a settled point, on which you may build with all confidence. You are serious then, father, it would seem, in deeming me a heretic. I shall be equally serious in replying to the charge.
You are well aware, sir, that heresy is a charge of grave a character that it is an act of high presumption14 to advance, without being prepared to substantiate15 it. I now demand your proofs. When was I seen at Charenton? When did I fail in my presence at mass, or in my Christian16 duty to my parish church? What act of union with heretics, or of schism17 with the Church, can you lay to my charge? What council have I contradicted? What papal constitution have I violated? You must answer, father, else — You know what I mean. And what do you answer? I beseech18 all to observe it: First of all, you assume “that the author of the letters is a Port-Royalist”; then you tell us “that Port-Royal is declared to be heretical”; and, therefore, you conclude, “the author of letters must be a heretic.” It is not on me, then, father, that the weight of this indictment19 falls, but on Port-Royal; and I am only involved in the crime because you suppose me to belong to that establishment; so that it will be no difficult matter for me to exculpate20 myself from the charge. I have no more to say than that I am not a member of that community; and to refer you to my letters, in which I have declared that “I am a private individual”; and again in so many words, that “I am not of Port-Royal, as I said in my Sixteenth Letter, which preceded your publication.
You must fall on some other way, then, to prove me heretic, otherwise the whole world will be convinced that it is beyond your power to make good your accusation21. Prove from my writings that I do not receive the constitution. My letters are not very voluminous — there are but sixteen of them — and I defy you or anybody else to detect in them the slightest foundation for such a charge. I shall, however, with your permission, produce something out of them to prove the reverse. When, for example, I say in the Fourteenth that, “by killing22 our brethren in mortal sin, according to your maxims23, we are damning those for whom Jesus Christ died, do I not plainly acknowledge that Jesus Christ died for those who may be damned, and, consequently, declare it to be false “that he died only for the predestinated,” which is the error condemned26 in the fifth proposition? Certain it is, father, that I have not said a word in behalf of these impious propositions, which I detest27 with all my heart. And even though Port-Royal should hold them, I protest against your drawing any conclusion from this against me, as, thank God, I have no sort of connection with any community except the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church, in the bosom28 of which I desire to live and die, in communion with the Pope, the head of the Church, and beyond the pale of which I am persuaded there is no salvation29.
How are you to get at a person who talks in this way, father? On what quarter will you assail30 me, since neither my words nor my writings afford the slightest handle to your accusations31, and the obscurity in which my person is enveloped32 forms my protection against your threatenings? You feel yourselves smitten33 by an invisible hand — a hand, however, which makes your delinquencies visible to all the earth; and in vain do you endeavour to attack me in the person of those with whom you suppose me to be associated. I fear you not, either on my own account or on that of any other, being bound by no tie either to a community or to any individual whatsoever34. All the influence which your Society possesses can be of no avail in my case. From this world I have nothing to hope, nothing to dread35, nothing to desire. Through the goodness of God, I have no need of any man’s money or any man’s patronage36. Thus, my father, I elude37 all your attempts to lay hold of me. You may touch Port-Royal, if you choose, but you shall not touch me. You may turn people out of the Sorbonne, but that will not turn me out of my domicile. You may contrive38 plots against priests and doctors, but not against me, for I am neither the one nor the other. And thus, father, you never perhaps had to do, in the whole course of your experience, with a person so completely beyond your reach, and therefore so admirably qualified39 for dealing40 with your errors — one perfectly41 free — one without engagement, entanglement42, relationship, or business of any kind — one, too, who is pretty well versed43 in your maxims, and determined44, as God shall give him light, to discuss them, without permitting any earthly consideration to arrest or slacken his endeavours.
Since, then, you can do nothing against me, what good purpose can it serve to publish so many calumnies45, as you and your brethren are doing, against a class of persons who are in no way implicated46 in our disputes? You shall not escape under these subterfuges47: you shall be made to feel the force of the truth in spite of them. How does the case stand? I tell you that you are ruining Christian morality by divorcing it from the love of God, and dispensing48 with its obligation; and you talk about “the death of Father Mester”— a person whom I never saw in my life. I tell you that your authors permit a man to kill another for the sake of an apple, when it would be dishonourable to lose it; and you reply by informing me that somebody “has broken into the poor-box at St. Merri!” Again, what can you possibly mean by mixing me up perpetually with the book On the Holy Virginity, written by some father of the Oratory49, whom I never saw any more than his book? It is rather extraordinary, father, that you should thus regard all that are opposed to you as if they were one person. Your hatred50 would grasp them all at once, and would hold them as a body of reprobates51, every one of whom is responsible for all the rest.
There is a vast difference between Jesuits and all their opponents. There can be no doubt that you compose one body, united under one head; and your regulations, as I have shown, prohibit you from printing anything without the approbation52 of your superiors, who are responsible for all the errors of individual writers, and who “cannot excuse themselves by saying that they did not observe the errors in any publication, for they ought to have observed them.” So say your ordinances53, and so say the letters of your generals, Aquaviva, Vitelleschi, &c. We have good reason, therefore, for charging upon you the errors of your associates, when we find they are sanctioned by your superiors and the divines of your Society. With me, however, father, the case stands otherwise. I have not subscribed54 to the book of the Holy Virginity. All the alms-boxes in Paris may be broken into, and yet I am not the less a good Catholic for all that. In short, I beg to inform you, in the plainest terms, that nobody is responsible for my letters but myself, and that I am responsible for nothing but my letters.
Here, father, I might fairly enough have brought our dispute to an issue, without saying a word about those other persons whom you stigmatize56 as heretics, in order to comprehend me under the condemnation57. But, as I have been the occasion of their ill treatment, I consider myself bound in some sort to improve the occasion, and I shall take advantage of it in three particulars. One advantage, not inconsiderable in its way, is that it will enable me to vindicate58 the innocence59 of so many calumniated60 individuals. Another, not inappropriate to my subject, will be to disclose, at the same time, the artifices61 of your policy in this accusation. But the advantage which I prize most of all is that it affords me an opportunity of apprising62 the world of the falsehood of that scandalous report which you have been so busily disseminating63, namely, “that the Church is divided by a new heresy.” And as you are deceiving multitudes into the belief that the points on which you are raising such a storm are essential to the faith, I consider it of the last importance to quash these unfounded impressions, and distinctly to explain here what these points are, so as to show that, in point of fact, there are no heretics in the Church.
I presume, then, that were the question to be asked: Wherein consists the heresy of those called Jansenists? the immediate64 reply would be, “These people hold that the commandments of God are impracticable to men, that grace is irresistible65, that we have not free will to do either good or evil, that Jesus Christ did not die for all men, but only for the elect; in short, they maintain the five propositions condemned by the Pope.” Do you not give it out to all that this is the ground on which you persecute66 your opponents? Have you not said as much in your books, in your conversations, in your catechisms? A specimen67 of this you gave at the late Christmas festival at St. Louis. One of your little shepherdesses was questioned thus:
“For whom did Jesus Christ come into the world, my dear?”
“For all men, father.”
“Indeed, my child; so you are not one of those new heretics who say that he came only for the elect?”
Thus children are led to believe you, and many others besides children; for you entertain people with the same stuff in your sermons as Father Crasset did at Orleans, before he was laid under an interdict68. And I frankly69 own that, at one time, I believed you myself. You had given me precisely70 the same idea of these good people; so that, when you pressed them on these propositions, I narrowly watched their answer, determined never to see them more, if they did not renounce71 them as palpable impieties72.
This, however, they have done in the most unequivocal way. M. de Sainte-Beuve, king’s professor in the Sorbonne, censured73 these propositions in his published writings long before the Pope; and other Augustinian doctors, in various publications, and, among others, in a work On Victorious75 Grace, reject the same articles as both heretical and strange doctrines77. In the preface to that work they say that these propositions are “heretical and Lutheran, forged and fabricated at pleasure, and are neither to be found in Jansenius, nor in his defenders78. “ They complain of being charged with such sentiments, and address you in the words of St. Prosper79, the first disciple80 of St. Augustine their master, to whom the semi-Pelagians of France had ascribed similar opinions, with the view of bringing him into disgrace: “There are persons who denounce us, so blinded by passion that they have adopted means for doing so which ruin their own reputation. They have, for this purpose, fabricated propositions of the most impious and blasphemous81 character, which they industriously82 circulate, to make people believe that we maintain them in the wicked sense which they are pleased to attach to them. But our reply will show at once our innocence, and the malignity83 of these persons who have ascribed to us a set of impious tenets, of which they are themselves the sole inventors.”
Truly, father, when I found that they had spoken in this way before the appearance of the papal constitution — when I saw that they afterwards received that decree with all possible respect, that they offered to subscribe55 it, and that M. Arnauld had declared all this in his second letter, in stronger terms than I can report him, I should have considered it a sin to doubt their soundness in the faith. And, in fact, those who were formerly84 disposed to refuse absolution to M. Arnauld’s friends, have since declared that, after his explicit85 disclaimer of the errors imputed86 to him, there was no reason left for cutting off either him or them from the communion of the Church. Your associates, however, have acted very differently; and it was this that made me begin to suspect that you were actuated by prejudice.
You threatened first to compel them to sign that constitution, so long as you thought they would resist it; but no sooner did you see them quite ready of their own accord to submit to it than we heard no more about this. Still however, though one might suppose this ought to have satisfied you, you persisted in calling them heretics, “because,” said you, “their heart belies87 their hand; they are Catholics outwardly, but inwardly they are heretics.”
This, father, struck me as very strange reasoning; for where is the person of whom as much may not be said at any time? And what endless trouble and confusion would ensue, were it allowed to go on! “If,” says Pope St. Gregory, “we refuse to believe a confession88 of faith made in conformity89 to the sentiments of the Church, we cast a doubt over the faith of all Catholics whatsoever.” I am afraid, father, to use the words of the same pontiff when speaking of a similar dispute this time, “that your object is to make these persons heretics in spite of themselves; because to refuse to credit those who testify by their confession that they are in the true faith, is not to purge90 heresy, but to create it — hoc non est haeresim purgare, sed facere.” But what confirmed me in my persuasion91 that there was, indeed, no heretic in the Church, was finding that our so-called heretics had vindicated92 themselves so successfully that you were unable to accuse them of a single error in the faith, and that you were reduced to the necessity of assailing93 them on questions of fact only, touching94 Jansenius, which could not possibly be construed95 into heresy. You insist, it now appears, on their being compelled to acknowledge “that these propositions are contained in Jansenius, word for word, every one of them, in so many terms,” or, as you express it, “Singulares, individuae, totidem verbis apud Jansenium contentae.”
Thenceforth your dispute became, in my eyes, perfectly indifferent. So long as I believed that you were debating the truth or falsehood of the propositions, I was all attention, for that quarrel touched the faith; but when I discovered that the bone of contention96 was whether they were to be found word for word in Jansenius or not, as religion ceased to be interested in the controversy97, I ceased to be interested in it also. Not but that there was some presumption that you were speaking the truth; because to say that such and such expressions are to be found word for word in an author, is a matter in which there can be no mistake. I do not wonder, therefore, that so many people, both in France and at Rome, should have been led to believe, on the authority of a phrase so little liable to suspicion, that Jansenius has actually taught these obnoxious98 tenets. And, for the same reason, I was not a little surprised to learn that this same point of fact, which you had propounded99 as so certain and so important, was false; and that, after being challenged to quote the pages of Jansenius in which you had found these propositions “word for word,” you have not been able to point them out to this day.
I am the more particular in giving this statement, because, in my opinion, it discovers, in a very striking light, the spirit of your Society in the whole of this affair; and because some people will be astonished to find that, notwithstanding all the facts above mentioned, you have not ceased to publish that they are heretics still. But you have only altered the heresy to suit the time; for no sooner had they freed themselves from one charge than your fathers, determined that they should never want an accusation, substituted another in its place. Thus, in 1653, their heresy lay in the quality of the propositions; then came the word for word heresy; after that we had the heart heresy. And now we hear nothing of any of these, and they must be heretics, forsooth, unless they sign a declaration to the effect “that the sense of the doctrine76 of Jansenius is contained in the sense of the five propositions.”
Such is your present dispute. It is not enough for you that they condemn25 the five propositions, and everything in Jansenius that bears any resemblance to them, or is contrary to St. Augustine; for all that they have done already. The point at issue is not, for example, if Jesus Christ died for the elect only — they condemn that as much as you do; but, is Jansenius of that opinion, or not? And here I declare, more strongly than ever, that your quarrel affects me as little as it affects the Church. For although I am no doctor, any more than you, father, I can easily see, nevertheless, that it has no connection with the faith. The only question is to ascertain100 what is the sense of Jansenius. Did they believe that his doctrine corresponded to the proper and literal sense of these propositions, they would condemn it; and they refuse to do so, because they are convinced it is quite the reverse; so that, although they should misunderstand it, still they would not be heretics, seeing they understand it only in a Catholic sense.
To illustrate101 this by an example, I may refer to the conflicting sentiments of St. Basil and St. Athanasius, regarding the writings of St. Denis of Alexandria, which St. Basil, conceiving that he found in them the sense of Arius against the equality of the Father and the Son, condemned as heretical, but which St. Athanasius, on the other hand, judging them to contain the genuine sense of the Church, maintained to be perfectly orthodox. Think you, then, father, that St. Basil, who held these writings to be Arian, had a right to brand St. Athanasius as a heretic because he defended them? And what ground would he have had for so doing, seeing that it was not Arianism that his brother defended, but the true faith which he considered these writings to contain? Had these two saints agreed about the true sense of these writings, and had both recognized this heresy in them, unquestionably St. Athanasius could not have approved of them without being guilty of heresy; but as they were at variance102 respecting the sense of the passage, St. Athanasius was orthodox in vindicating103 them, even though he may have understood them wrong; because in that case it would have been merely an error in a matter of fact, and because what he defended was really the Catholic faith, which he supposed to be contained in these writings.
I apply this to you, father. Suppose you were agreed upon the sense of Jansenius, and your adversaries104 were ready to admit with you that he held, for example, that grace cannot be resisted, those who refused to condemn him would be heretical. But as your dispute turns upon the meaning of that author, and they believe that, according to this doctrine, grace may be resisted, whatever heresy you may be pleased to attribute to him, you have no ground to brand them as heretics, seeing they condemn the sense which you put on Jansenius, and you dare not condemn the sense which they put on him. If, therefore, you mean to convict them, show that the sense which they ascribe to Jansenius is heretical; for then they will be heretical themselves. But how could you accomplish this, since it is certain, according to your own showing, that the meaning which they give to his language has never been condemned?
To elucidate105 the point still further, I shall assume as a principle what you yourselves acknowledge — that the doctrine of efficacious grace has never been condemned, and that the pope has not touched it by his constitution. And, in fact, when he proposed to pass judgement on the five propositions, the question of efficacious grace was protected against all censure74. This is perfectly evident from the judgements of the consulters to whom the Pope committed them for examination. These judgements I have in my possession, in common with many other persons in Paris, and, among the rest, the Bishop106 of Montpelier, who brought them from Rome. It appears from this document that they were divided in their sentiments; that the chief persons among them, such as the Master of the Sacred Palace, the commissary of the Holy Office, the General of the Augustinians, and others, conceiving that these propositions might be understood in the sense of efficacious grace, were of opinion that they ought not to be censured; whereas the rest, while they agreed that the propositions would not have merited condemnation had they borne that sense, judged that they ought to be censured, because, as they contended, this was very far from being their proper and natural sense. The Pope, accordingly, condemned them; and all parties have acquiesced107 in his judgement.
It is certain, then, father, that efficacious grace has not been condemned. Indeed, it is so powerfully supported by St. Augustine, by St. Thomas, and all his school, by a great many popes and councils, and by all tradition, that to tax it with heresy would be an act of impiety108. Now, all those whom you condemn as heretics declare that they find nothing in Jansenius, but this doctrine of efficacious grace. And this was the only point which they maintained at Rome. You have acknowledged this yourself when you declare that “when pleading before the pope, they did not say a single word about the propositions, but occupied the whole time in talking about efficacious grace.” So that, whether they be right or wrong in this supposition, it is undeniable, at least, that what they suppose to be the sense is not heretical sense; and that, consequently, they are no heretics; for, to state the matter in two words, either Jansenius has merely taught the doctrine of efficacious grace, and in this case he has no errors; or he has taught some other thing, and in this case he has no defenders. The whole question turns on ascertaining109 whether Jansenius has actually maintained something different from efficacious grace; and, should it be found that he has, you will have the honour of having better understood him, but they will not have the misfortune of having erred110 from the faith.
It is matter of thankfulness to God, then, father, that there is in reality no heresy in the Church. The question relates entirely111 to a point of fact, of which no heresy can be made; for the Church, with divine authority, decides the points of faith, and cuts off from her body all who refuse to receive them. But she does not act in the same manner in regard to matters of fact. And the reason is that our salvation is attached to the faith which has been revealed to us, and which is preserved in the Church by tradition, but that it has no dependence112 on facts which have not been revealed by God. Thus we are bound to believe that the commandments of God are not impracticable; but we are under no obligation to know what Jansenius has said upon that subject. In the determination of points of faith, God guides the Church by the aid of His unerring Spirit; whereas in matters of fact He leaves her to the direction of reason and the senses, which are the natural judges of such matters. None but God was able to instruct the Church in the faith; but to learn whether this or that proposition is contained in Jansenius, all we require to do is to read his book. And from hence it follows that, while it is heresy to resist the decisions of the faith, because this amounts to an opposing of our own spirit to the Spirit of God, it is no heresy, though it may be an act of presumption, to disbelieve certain particular facts, because this is no more than opposing reason — it may be enlightened reason — to an authority which is great indeed, but in this matter not infailible.
What I have now advanced is admitted by all theologians, as appears from the following axiom of Cardinal113 Bellarmine, a member of your Society: “General and lawful114 councils are incapable115 of error in defining the dogmas of faith; but they may err24 in questions of fact.” In another place he says: “The pope, as pope, and even as the head of a universal council, may err in particular controversies116 of fact, which depend principally on the information and testimony117 of men.” Cardinal Baronius speaks in the same manner: “Implicit submission118 is due to the decisions of councils in points of faith; but, in so far as persons and their writings are concerned, the censures119 which have been pronounced against them have not been so rigourously observed, because there is none who may not chance to be deceived in such matters.” I may add that, to prove this point, the Archbishop of Toulouse has deduced the following rule from the letters of two great popes — St. Leon and Pelagius II: “That the proper object of councils is the faith; and whatsoever is determined by them, independently of the faith, may be reviewed and examined anew: whereas nothing ought to be re-examined that has been decided120 in a matter of faith; because, as Tertullian observes, the rule of faith alone is immovable and irrevocable.”
Hence it has been seen that, while general and lawful councils have never contradicted one another in points of faith, because, as M. de Toulouse has said, “it is not allowable to examine de novo decisions in matters of faith”; several instances have occurred in which these same councils have disagreed in points of fact, where the discussion turned upon the sense of an author; because, as the same prelate observes, quoting the popes as his authorities, “everything determined in councils, not referring to the faith, may be reviewed and examined de novo.” An example of this contrariety was furnished by the fourth and fifth councils, which differed in their interpretation121 of the same authors. The same thing happened in the case of two popes, about a proposition maintained by certain monks122 of Scythia. Pope Hormisdas, understanding it in a bad sense, had condemned it; but Pope John II, his successor, upon re-examining the doctrine understood it in a good sense, approved it, and pronounced it to be orthodox. Would you say that for this reason one of these popes was a heretic? And must you not consequently acknowledge that, provided a person condemn the heretical sense which a pope may have ascribed to a book, he is no heretic because he declines condemning123 that book, while he understands it in a sense which it is certain the pope has not condemned? If this cannot be admitted, one of these popes must have fallen into error.
I have been anxious to familiarize you with these discrepancies124 among Catholics regarding questions of fact, which involve the understanding of the sense of a writer, showing you father against father, pope against pope, and council against council, to lead you from these to other examples of opposition125, similar in their nature, but somewhat more disproportioned in respect of the parties concerned. For, in the instances I am now to adduce, you will see councils and popes ranged on one side, and Jesuits on the other; and yet you have never charged your brethren for this opposition even with presumption, much less with heresy.
You are well aware, father, that the writings of Origen were condemned by a great many popes and councils, and particularly by the fifth general council, as chargeable with certain heresies126, and, among others, that of the reconciliation127 of the devils at the day of judgement. Do you suppose that, after this, it became absolutely imperative128, as a test of Catholicism, to confess that Origen actually maintained these errors, and that it is not enough to condemn them, without attributing them to him? If this were true, what would become of your worthy129 Father Halloix, who has asserted the purity of Origen’s faith, as well as many other Catholics who have attempted the same thing, such as Pico Mirandola, and Genebrard, doctor of the Sorbonne? Is it not, moreover, a certain fact, that the same fifth general council condemned the writings of Theodoret against St. Cyril, describing them as impious, “contrary to the true faith, and tainted130 with the Nestorian heresy”? And yet this has not prevented Father Sirmond, a Jesuit, from defending him, or from saying, in his life of that father, that “his writings are entirely free from the heresy of Nestorius.”
It is evident, therefore, that as the Church, in condemning a book, assumes that the error which she condemns131 is contained in that book, it is a point of faith to hold that error as condemned; but it is not a point of faith to hold that the book, in fact, contains the error which the Church supposes it does. Enough has been said, I think, to prove this; I shall, therefore, conclude my examples by referring to that of Pope Honorius, the history of which is so well known. At the commencement of the seventh century, the Church being troubled by the heresy of the Monothelites, that pope, with the view of terminating the controversy, passed a decree which seemed favourable132 to these heretics, at which many took offence. The affair, nevertheless, passed over without making much disturbance133 during his pontificate; but fifty years after, the Church being assembled in the sixth general council, in which Pope Agathon presided by his legates, this decree was impeached134, and, after being read and examined, was condemned as containing the heresy of the Monothelites, and under that character burnt, in open court, along with the other writings of these heretics. Such was the respect paid to this decision, and such the unanimity135 with which it was received throughout the whole Church, that it was afterwards ratified136 by two other general councils, and likewise by two popes, Leo II and Adrian II, the latter of whom lived two hundred years after it had passed; and this universal and harmonious137 agreement remained undisturbed for seven or eight centuries. Of late years, however, some authors, and among the rest Cardinal Bellarmine, without seeming to dread the imputation138 of heresy, have stoutly139 maintained, against all this array of popes and councils, that the writings of Honorius are free from the error which had been ascribed to them; “because,” says the cardinal, “general councils being liable to err in questions of fact, we have the best grounds for asserting the sixth council was mistaken with regard to the fact now under consideration; and that, misconceiving the sense of the Letters of Honorius, it has placed this pope most unjustly in the rank of heretics.” Observe, then, I pray you, father, that a man is not heretical for saying that Pope Honorius was not a heretic; even though a great many popes and councils, after examining his writings, should have declared that he was so.
I now come to the question before us, and shall allow you to state your case as favourably140 as you can. What will you then say, father, in order to stamp your opponents as heretics? That “Pope Innocent X has declared that the error of the five propositions is to be found in Jansenius?” I grant you that; what inference do you draw from it? That “it is heretical to deny that the error of the five propositions is to be found in Jansenius?” How so, father? Have we not here a question of fact exactly similar to the preceding examples? The Pope has declared that the error of the five propositions is contained in Jansenius, in the same way as his predecessors141 decided that the errors of the Nestorians and the Monothelites polluted the pages of Theodoret and Honorius. In the latter case, your writers hesitate not to say that, while they condemn the heresies, they do not allow that these authors actually maintained them; and, in like manner, your opponents now say that they condemn the five propositions, but cannot admit that Jansenius has taught them. Truly, the two cases are as like as they could well be; and, if there be any disparity between them, it is easy to see how far it must go in favour of the present question, by a comparison of many particular circumstances, which as they are self-evident, I do not specify142. How comes it to pass, then, that when placed in precisely the same predicament, your friends are Catholics and your opponents heretics? On what strange principle of exception do you deprive the latter of a liberty which you freely award to all the rest of the faithful? What answer will you make to this, father? Will you say, “The pope has confirmed his constitution by a brief.” To this I would reply, that two general councils and two popes confirmed the condemnation of the letters of Honorius. But what argument do you found upon the language of that brief, in which all that the Pope says is that “he has condemned the doctrine of Jansenius in these five propositions”? What does that add to the constitution, or what more can you infer from it? Nothing, certainly, except that as the sixth council condemned the doctrine of Honorius, in the belief that it was the same with that of the Monothelites, so the Pope has said that he has condemned the doctrine of Jansenius in these five propositions, because he was led to suppose it was the same with that of the five propositions. And how could he do otherwise than suppose it? Your Society published nothing else; and you yourself, father, who have asserted that the said propositions were in that author “word for word,” happened to be in Rome (for I know all your motions) at the time when the censure was passed. Was he to distrust the sincerity143 or the competence144 of so many grave ministers of religion? And how could he help being convinced of the fact, after the assurance which you had given him that the propositions were in that author “word for word”? It is evident, therefore, that in the event of its being found that Jansenius has not supported these doctrines, it would be wrong to say, as your writers have done in the cases before mentioned, that the Pope has deceived himself in this point of fact, which it is painful and offensive to publish at any time; the proper phrase is that you have deceived the Pope, which, as you are now pretty well known, will create no scandal.
Determined, however, to have a heresy made out, let it cost what it may, you have attempted, by the following manoeuvre145, to shift the question from the point of fact, and make it bear upon a point of faith. “The Pope,” say you, “declares that he has condemned the doctrine of Jansenius in these five propositions; therefore it is essential to the faith to hold that the doctrine of Jansenius touching these five propositions is heretical, let it be what it may.” Here is a strange point of faith, that a doctrine is heretical be what it may. What! if Jansenius should happen to maintain that “we are capable of resisting internal grace” and that “it is false to say that Jesus Christ died for the elect only,” would this doctrine be condemned just because it is his doctrine? Will the proposition, that “man has a freedom of will to do good or evil,” be true when found in the Pope’s constitution, and false when discovered in Jansenius? By what fatality146 must he be reduced to such a predicament, that truth, when admitted into his book, becomes heresy? You must confess, then, that he is only heretical on the supposition that he is friendly to the errors condemned, seeing that the constitution of the Pope is the rule which we must apply to Jansenius, to judge if his character answer the description there given of him; and, accordingly, the question, “Is his doctrine heretical?” must be resolved by another question of fact, “Does it correspond to the natural sense of these propositions?” as it must necessarily be heretical if it does correspond to that sense, and must necessarily be orthodox if it be of an opposite character. For, in one word, since, according to the Pope and the bishops147, “the propositions are condemned in their proper and natural sense,” they cannot possibly be condemned in the sense of Jansenius, except on the understanding that the sense of Jansenius is the same with the proper and natural sense of these propositions; and this I maintain to be purely148 a question of fact.
The question, then, still rests upon the point of fact, and cannot possibly be tortured into one affecting the faith. But though incapable of twisting it into a matter of heresy, you have it in your power to make it a pretext149 for persecution150, and might, perhaps, succeed in this, were there not good reason to hope that nobody will be found so blindly devoted151 to your interests as to countenance152 such a disgraceful proceeding153, or inclined to compel people, as you wish to do, to sign a declaration that they condemn these propositions in the sense of Jansenius, without explaining what the sense of Jansenius is. Few people are disposed to sign a blank confession of faith. Now this would really be to sign one of that description, leaving you to fill up the blank afterwards with whatsoever you pleased, as you would be at liberty to interpret according to your own taste the unexplained sense of Jansenius. Let it be explained, then, beforehand, otherwise we shall have, I fear, another version of your proximate power, without any sense at all — abstrahendo ab omni sensu. This mode of proceeding, you must be aware, does not take with the world. Men in general detest all ambiguity154, especially in the matter of religion, where it is highly reasonable that one should know at least what one is asked to condemn. And how is it possible for doctors, who are persuaded that Jansenius can bear no other sense than that of efficacious grace, to consent to declare that they condemn his doctrine without explaining it, since, with their present convictions, which no means are used to alter, this would be neither more nor less than to condemn efficacious grace, which cannot be condemned without sin? Would it not, therefore, be a piece of monstrous155 tyranny to place them in such an unhappy dilemma156 that they must either bring guilt11 upon their souls in the sight of God, by signing that condemnation against their consciences, or be denounced as heretics for refusing to sign it?
But there is a mystery under all this. You Jesuits cannot move a step without a stratagem157. It remains158 for me to explain why you do not explain the sense of Jansenius. The sole purpose of my writing is to discover your designs, and, by discovering, to frustrate159 them. I must, therefore, inform those who are not already aware of the fact that your great concern in this dispute being to uphold the sufficient grace of your Molina, you could not effect this without destroying the efficacious grace which stands directly opposed to it. Perceiving, however, that the latter was now sanctioned at Rome and by all the learned in the Church, and unable to combat the doctrine on its own merits, you resolved to attack it in a clandestine160 way, under the name of the doctrine of Jansenius. You were resolved, accordingly, to get Jansenius condemned without explanation; and, to gain your purpose, gave out that his doctrine was not that of efficacious grace, so that every one might think he was at liberty to condemn the one without denying the other. Hence your efforts, in the present day, to impress this idea upon the minds of such as have no acquaintance with that author; an object which you yourself, father, have attempted, by means of the following ingenious syllogism161: “The pope has condemned the doctrine of Jansenius; but the pope has not condemned efficacious grace: therefore, the doctrine of efficacious grace must be different from that of Jansenius.” If this mode of reasoning were conclusive162, it might be demonstrated in the same way that Honorius and all his defenders are heretics of the same kind. “The sixth council has condemned the doctrine of Honorius; but the council has not condemned the doctrine of the Church: therefore the doctrine of Honorius is different from that of the Church; and therefore, all who defend him are heretics.” It is obvious that no conclusion can be drawn163 from this; for the Pope has done no more than condemn the doctrine of the five propositions, which was represented to him as the doctrine of Jansenius.
But it matters not; you have no intention to make use of this logic164 for any length of time. Poor as it is, it will last sufficiently165 long to serve your present turn. All that you wish to effect by it, in the meantime, is to induce those who are unwilling166 to condemn efficacious grace to condemn Jansenius with less scruple167. When this object has been accomplished168, your argument will soon be forgotten, and their signatures, remaining as an eternal testimony in condemnation of Jansenius, will furnish you with an occasion to make a direct attack upon efficacious grace by another mode of reasoning much more solid than the former, which shall be forthcoming in proper time. “The doctrine of Jansenius,” you will argue, “has been condemned by the universal subscriptions169 of the Church. Now this doctrine is manifestly that of efficacious grace” (and it will be easy for you to prove that); “therefore the doctrine of efficacious grace is condemned even by the confession of his defenders.”
Behold170 your reason for proposing to sign the condemnation of a doctrine without giving an explanation of it! Behold the advantage you expect to gain from subscriptions thus procured172! Should your opponents, however, refuse to subscribe, you have another trap laid for them. Having dexterously173 combined the question of faith with that of fact, and not allowing them to separate between them, nor to sign the one without the other, the consequence will be that, because they could not subscribe the two together, you will publish it in all directions that they have refused the two together. And thus though, in point of fact, they simply decline acknowledging that Jansenius has maintained the propositions which they condemn, which cannot be called heresy, you will boldly assert that they have refused to condemn the propositions themselves, and that it is this that constitutes their heresy.
Such is the fruit which you expect to reap from their refusal, and which will be no less useful to you than what you might have gained from their consent. So that, in the event of these signatures being exacted, they will fall into your snares174, whether they sign or not, and in both cases you will gain your point; such is your dexterity175 in uniformly putting matters into a train for your own advantage, whatever bias176 they may happen to take in their course!
How well I know you, father! and how grieved am I to see that God has abandoned you so far as to allow you such happy success in such an unhappy course! Your good fortune deserves commiseration177, and can excite envy only in the breasts of those who know not what truly good fortune is. It is an act of charity to thwart178 the success you aim at in the whole of this proceeding, seeing that you can only reach it by the aid of falsehood, and by procuring179 credit to one of two lies either that the Church has condemned efficacious grace, or that those who defend that doctrine maintain the five condemned errors.
The world must, therefore, be apprised180 of two facts: first, That by your own confession, efficacious grace has not been condemned; and secondly181, That nobody supports these errors. So that it may be known that those who refuse to sign what you are so anxious to exact from them, refuse merely in consideration of the question of fact, and that, being quite ready to subscribe that of faith, they cannot be deemed heretical on that account; because, to repeat it once more, though it be matter of faith to believe these propositions to be heretical, it will never be matter of faith to hold that they are to be found in the pages of Jansenius. They are innocent of all error; that is enough. It may be that they interpret Jansenius too favourably; but it may be also that you do not interpret him favourably enough. I do not enter upon this question. All that I know is that, according to your maxims, you believe that you may, without sin, publish him to be a heretic contrary to your own knowledge; whereas, according to their maxims, they cannot, without sin, declare him to be a Catholic, unless they are persuaded that he is one. They are, therefore, more honest than you, father; they have examined Jansenius more faithfully than you; they are no less intelligent than you; they are, therefore, no less credible182 witnesses than you. But come what may of this point of fact, they are certainly Catholics; for, in order to be so, it is not necessary to declare that another man is not a Catholic; it is enough, in all conscience, if a person, without charging error upon anybody else, succeed in discharging himself.
Reverend Father, if you have found any difficulty in deciphering this letter, which is certainly not printed in the best possible type, blame nobody but yourself. Privileges are not so easily granted to me as they are to you. You can procure171 them even for the purpose of combating miracles; I cannot have them even to defend myself. The printing-houses are perpetually haunted. In such circumstances, you yourself would not advise me to write you any more letters, for it is really a sad annoyance183 to be obliged to have recourse to an Osnabruck impression.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
truce
|
|
| n.休战，(争执，烦恼等的)缓和；v.以停战结束 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
hostilities
|
|
| n.战争；敌意(hostility的复数)；敌对状态；战事 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
precarious
|
|
| adj.不安定的，靠不住的；根据不足的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
rupture
|
|
| n.破裂；(关系的)决裂；v.(使)破裂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
advantageous
|
|
| adj.有利的；有帮助的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
rebutting
|
|
| v.反驳，驳回( rebut的现在分词 )；击退 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
heresy
|
|
| n.异端邪说；异教 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
abound
|
|
| vi.大量存在；(in，with)充满，富于 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
gratuitous
|
|
| adj.无偿的，免费的；无缘无故的，不必要的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
guilt
|
|
| n.犯罪；内疚；过失，罪责 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
vindication
|
|
| n.洗冤，证实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
apostasy
|
|
| n.背教，脱党 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
presumption
|
|
| n.推测，可能性，冒昧，放肆，[法律]推定 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
substantiate
|
|
| v.证实；证明...有根据 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
Christian
|
|
| adj.基督教徒的；n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
schism
|
|
| n.分派，派系，分裂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
beseech
|
|
| v.祈求，恳求 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
indictment
|
|
| n.起诉；诉状 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
exculpate
|
|
| v.开脱，使无罪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
accusation
|
|
| n.控告，指责，谴责 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
killing
|
|
| n.巨额利润；突然赚大钱，发大财 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
maxims
|
|
| n.格言，座右铭( maxim的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
err
|
|
| vi.犯错误，出差错 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
condemn
|
|
| vt.谴责，指责；宣判(罪犯)，判刑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
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： |
|
|
|
|
27
detest
|
|
| vt.痛恨，憎恶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
bosom
|
|
| n.胸，胸部；胸怀；内心；adj.亲密的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
salvation
|
|
| n.（尤指基督）救世，超度，拯救，解困 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
assail
|
|
| v.猛烈攻击，抨击，痛斥 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
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： |
|
|
|
|
32
enveloped
|
|
| v.包围，笼罩，包住( envelop的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
smitten
|
|
| 猛打，重击，打击( smite的过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
whatsoever
|
|
| adv.（用于否定句中以加强语气）任何；pron.无论什么 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
dread
|
|
| vt.担忧，忧虑；惧怕，不敢；n.担忧，畏惧 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
patronage
|
|
| n.赞助，支援，援助；光顾，捧场 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
elude
|
|
| v.躲避，困惑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
contrive
|
|
| vt.谋划，策划；设法做到；设计，想出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
qualified
|
|
| adj.合格的，有资格的，胜任的，有限制的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
dealing
|
|
| n.经商方法，待人态度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
perfectly
|
|
| adv.完美地，无可非议地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
entanglement
|
|
| n.纠缠，牵累 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
versed
|
|
| adj. 精通，熟练 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
determined
|
|
| adj.坚定的；有决心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
calumnies
|
|
| n.诬蔑，诽谤，中伤（的话）( calumny的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
implicated
|
|
| adj.密切关联的；牵涉其中的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
subterfuges
|
|
| n.（用说谎或欺骗以逃脱责备、困难等的）花招，遁词( subterfuge的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
48
dispensing
|
|
| v.分配( dispense的现在分词 )；施与；配（药） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
oratory
|
|
| n.演讲术；词藻华丽的言辞 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
hatred
|
|
| n.憎恶，憎恨，仇恨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
reprobates
|
|
| n.道德败坏的人，恶棍( reprobate的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
52
approbation
|
|
| n.称赞；认可 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
ordinances
|
|
| n.条例，法令( ordinance的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
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： |
|
|
|
|
55
subscribe
|
|
| vi.(to)订阅，订购；同意；vt.捐助，赞助 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
stigmatize
|
|
| v.污蔑，玷污 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
condemnation
|
|
| n.谴责; 定罪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
vindicate
|
|
| v.为…辩护或辩解，辩明；证明…正确 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
innocence
|
|
| n.无罪；天真；无害 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
calumniated
|
|
| v.诽谤，中伤( calumniate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
artifices
|
|
| n.灵巧( artifice的名词复数 )；诡计；巧妙办法；虚伪行为 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
apprising
|
|
| v.告知，通知( apprise的现在分词 )；评价 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
63
disseminating
|
|
| 散布，传播( disseminate的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
immediate
|
|
| adj.立即的；直接的，最接近的；紧靠的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
irresistible
|
|
| adj.非常诱人的，无法拒绝的，无法抗拒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
persecute
|
|
| vt.迫害，虐待；纠缠，骚扰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
specimen
|
|
| n.样本，标本 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
interdict
|
|
| v.限制；禁止；n.正式禁止；禁令 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
frankly
|
|
| adv.坦白地，直率地；坦率地说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
precisely
|
|
| adv.恰好，正好，精确地，细致地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
renounce
|
|
| v.放弃；拒绝承认，宣布与…断绝关系 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
impieties
|
|
| n.不敬( impiety的名词复数 )；不孝；不敬的行为；不孝的行为 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
73
censured
|
|
| v.指责，非难，谴责( censure的过去式 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
censure
|
|
| v./n.责备；非难；责难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
victorious
|
|
| adj.胜利的，得胜的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
doctrines
|
|
| n.教条( doctrine的名词复数 )；教义；学说；（政府政策的）正式声明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
defenders
|
|
| n.防御者( defender的名词复数 )；守卫者；保护者；辩护者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
prosper
|
|
| v.成功，兴隆，昌盛；使成功，使昌隆，繁荣 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
disciple
|
|
| n.信徒，门徒，追随者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
blasphemous
|
|
| adj.亵渎神明的，不敬神的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
industriously
|
|
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
malignity
|
|
| n.极度的恶意，恶毒；（病的）恶性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
formerly
|
|
| adv.从前，以前 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
explicit
|
|
| adj.详述的，明确的；坦率的；显然的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
imputed
|
|
| v.把（错误等）归咎于( impute的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
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： |
|
|
|
|
88
confession
|
|
| n.自白，供认，承认 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
conformity
|
|
| n.一致，遵从，顺从 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
purge
|
|
| n.整肃，清除，泻药，净化；vt.净化，清除，摆脱；vi.清除，通便，腹泻，变得清洁 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
persuasion
|
|
| n.劝说；说服；持有某种信仰的宗派 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
vindicated
|
|
| v.澄清（某人/某事物）受到的责难或嫌疑( vindicate的过去式和过去分词 )；表明或证明（所争辩的事物）属实、正当、有效等；维护 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
assailing
|
|
| v.攻击( assail的现在分词 )；困扰；质问；毅然应对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
touching
|
|
| adj.动人的，使人感伤的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
construed
|
|
| v.解释（陈述、行为等）( construe的过去式和过去分词 )；翻译，作句法分析 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
contention
|
|
| n.争论，争辩，论战；论点，主张 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
controversy
|
|
| n.争论，辩论，争吵 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
obnoxious
|
|
| adj.极恼人的，讨人厌的，可憎的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
propounded
|
|
| v.提出（问题、计划等）供考虑[讨论]，提议( propound的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
ascertain
|
|
| vt.发现，确定，查明，弄清 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
illustrate
|
|
| v.举例说明，阐明；图解，加插图 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
variance
|
|
| n.矛盾，不同 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
vindicating
|
|
| v.澄清（某人/某事物）受到的责难或嫌疑( vindicate的现在分词 )；表明或证明（所争辩的事物）属实、正当、有效等；维护 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
adversaries
|
|
| n.对手，敌手( adversary的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
elucidate
|
|
| v.阐明，说明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
bishop
|
|
| n.主教，（国际象棋）象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
acquiesced
|
|
| v.默认，默许( acquiesce的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
impiety
|
|
| n.不敬；不孝 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
ascertaining
|
|
| v.弄清，确定，查明( ascertain的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
erred
|
|
| 犯错误，做错事( err的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
dependence
|
|
| n.依靠，依赖；信任，信赖；隶属 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
cardinal
|
|
| n.(天主教的)红衣主教；adj.首要的，基本的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
lawful
|
|
| adj.法律许可的，守法的，合法的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
incapable
|
|
| adj.无能力的，不能做某事的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
controversies
|
|
| 争论 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
testimony
|
|
| n.证词；见证，证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
submission
|
|
| n.服从，投降；温顺，谦虚；提出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
censures
|
|
| v.指责，非难，谴责( censure的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
decided
|
|
| adj.决定了的，坚决的；明显的，明确的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
interpretation
|
|
| n.解释，说明，描述；艺术处理 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
monks
|
|
| n.修道士，僧侣( monk的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
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： |
|
|
|
|
124
discrepancies
|
|
| n.差异，不符合（之处），不一致（之处）( discrepancy的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
opposition
|
|
| n.反对，敌对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
heresies
|
|
| n.异端邪说，异教( heresy的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
reconciliation
|
|
| n.和解，和谐，一致 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
imperative
|
|
| n.命令，需要；规则；祈使语气；adj.强制的；紧急的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
worthy
|
|
| adj.(of)值得的，配得上的；有价值的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
tainted
|
|
| adj.腐坏的；污染的；沾污的；感染的v.使变质( taint的过去式和过去分词 )；使污染；败坏；被污染，腐坏，败坏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
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： |
|
|
|
|
132
favourable
|
|
| adj.赞成的，称赞的，有利的，良好的，顺利的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
disturbance
|
|
| n.动乱，骚动；打扰，干扰；(身心)失调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
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： |
|
|
|
|
135
unanimity
|
|
| n.全体一致，一致同意 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
ratified
|
|
| v.批准，签认（合约等）( ratify的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
harmonious
|
|
| adj.和睦的，调和的，和谐的，协调的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
imputation
|
|
| n.归罪，责难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
stoutly
|
|
| adv.牢固地，粗壮的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
favourably
|
|
| adv. 善意地，赞成地 =favorably | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
predecessors
|
|
| n.前任( predecessor的名词复数 )；前辈；（被取代的）原有事物；前身 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
specify
|
|
| vt.指定，详细说明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
sincerity
|
|
| n.真诚，诚意；真实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
competence
|
|
| n.能力，胜任，称职 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
manoeuvre
|
|
| n.策略，调动；v.用策略，调动 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
146
fatality
|
|
| n.不幸，灾祸，天命 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
147
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： |
|
|
|
|
148
purely
|
|
| adv.纯粹地，完全地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
149
pretext
|
|
| n.借口，托词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
150
persecution
|
|
| n. 迫害,烦扰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
151
devoted
|
|
| adj.忠诚的，忠实的，热心的，献身于...的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
152
countenance
|
|
| n.脸色，面容；面部表情；vt.支持，赞同 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
153
proceeding
|
|
| n.行动，进行，(pl.)会议录，学报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
154
ambiguity
|
|
| n.模棱两可；意义不明确 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
155
monstrous
|
|
| adj.巨大的；恐怖的；可耻的，丢脸的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
156
dilemma
|
|
| n.困境，进退两难的局面 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
157
stratagem
|
|
| n.诡计，计谋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
158
remains
|
|
| n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
159
frustrate
|
|
| v.使失望；使沮丧；使厌烦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
160
clandestine
|
|
| adj.秘密的，暗中从事的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
161
syllogism
|
|
| n.演绎法，三段论法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
162
conclusive
|
|
| adj.最后的，结论的；确凿的，消除怀疑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
163
drawn
|
|
| v.拖，拉，拔出；adj.憔悴的，紧张的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
164
logic
|
|
| n.逻辑(学)；逻辑性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
165
sufficiently
|
|
| adv.足够地，充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
166
unwilling
|
|
| adj.不情愿的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
167
scruple
|
|
| n./v.顾忌，迟疑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
168
accomplished
|
|
| adj.有才艺的；有造诣的；达到了的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
169
subscriptions
|
|
| n.（报刊等的）订阅费( subscription的名词复数 )；捐款；（俱乐部的）会员费；捐助 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
170
behold
|
|
| v.看，注视，看到 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
171
procure
|
|
| vt.获得，取得，促成；vi.拉皮条 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
172
procured
|
|
| v.（努力）取得， （设法）获得( procure的过去式和过去分词 )；拉皮条 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
173
dexterously
|
|
| adv.巧妙地，敏捷地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
174
snares
|
|
| n.陷阱( snare的名词复数 )；圈套；诱人遭受失败（丢脸、损失等）的东西；诱惑物v.用罗网捕捉，诱陷，陷害( snare的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
175
dexterity
|
|
| n.(手的)灵巧，灵活 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
176
bias
|
|
| n.偏见，偏心，偏袒；vt.使有偏见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
177
commiseration
|
|
| n.怜悯，同情 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
178
thwart
|
|
| v.阻挠，妨碍，反对；adj.横(断的) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
179
procuring
|
|
| v.（努力）取得， （设法）获得( procure的现在分词 )；拉皮条 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
180
apprised
|
|
| v.告知，通知( apprise的过去式和过去分词 )；评价 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
181
secondly
|
|
| adv.第二，其次 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
182
credible
|
|
| adj.可信任的，可靠的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
183
annoyance
|
|
| n.恼怒，生气，烦恼 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |