March 24, 1657
REVEREND FATHER,
Long have you laboured to discover some error in the creed1 or conduct of your opponents; but I rather think you will have to confess, in the end, that it is a more difficult task than you imagined to make heretics of people who, are not only no heretics, but who hate nothing in the world so much as heresy2. In my last letter I succeeded in showing that you accuse them of one heresy after another, without being able to stand by one of the charges for any length of time; so that all that remained for you was to fix on their refusal to condemn3 “the sense of Jansenius,” which you insist on their doing without explanation. You must have been sadly in want of heresies4 to brand them with, when you were reduced to this. For who ever heard of a heresy which nobody could explain? The answer was ready, therefore, that if Jansenius has no errors, it is wrong to condemn him; and if he has, you were bound to point them out, that we might know at least what we were condemning5. This, however, you have never yet been pleased to do; but you have attempted to fortify6 your position by decrees, which made nothing in your favour, as they gave no sort of explanation of the sense of Jansenius, said to have been condemned7 in the five propositions. This was not the way to terminate the dispute. Had you mutually agreed as to the genuine sense of Jansenius, and had the only difference between you been as to whether that sense was heretical or not, in that case the decisions which might pronounce it to be heretical would have touched the real question in dispute. But the great dispute being about the sense of Jansenius, the one party saying that they could see nothing in it inconsistent with the sense of St. Augustine and St. Thomas, and the other party asserting that they saw in it an heretical sense which they would not express. It is clear that a constitution which does not say a word about this difference of opinion, and which only condemns8 in general and without explanation the sense of Jansenius, leaves the point in dispute quite undecided.
You have accordingly been repeatedly told that as your discussion turns on a matter of fact, you would never be able to bring it to a conclusion without declaring what you understand by the sense of Jansenius. But, as you continued obstinate9 in your refusal to make this explanation, I endeavored, as a last resource, to extort10 it from you, by hinting in my last letter that there was some mystery under the efforts you were making to procure11 the condemnation12 of this sense without explaining it, and that your design was to make this indefinite censure13 recoil14 some day or other upon the doctrine15 of efficacious grace, by showing, as you could easily do, that this was exactly the doctrine of Jansenius. This has reduced you to the necessity of making a reply; for, had you pertinaciously16 refused, after such an insinuation, to explain your views of that sense, it would have been apparent to persons of the smallest penetration17 that you condemned it in the sense of efficacious grace — a conclusion which, considering the veneration18 in which the Church holds holy doctrine, would have overwhelmed you with disgrace.
You have, therefore, been forced to speak out your mind; and we find it expressed in your reply to that part of letter in which I remarked, that “if Jansenius was capable of any other sense than that of efficacious grace, he had no defenders19; but if his writings bore no other sense, he had no errors to defend.” You found it impossible to deny this position, father; but you have attempted to parry it by the following distinction: “It is not sufficient,” say you, “for the vindication20 of Jansenius, to allege21 that he merely holds the doctrine of efficacious grace, for that may be held in two ways — the one heretical, according to Calvin, which consists in maintaining that the will, when under the influence of grace, has not the power of resisting it; the other orthodox, according to the Thomists and the Sorbonists, which is founded on the principles established by the councils, and which is, that efficacious grace of itself governs the will in such a way that it still has the power of resisting it.”
All this we grant, father; but you conclude by adding: “Jansenius would be orthodox, if he defended efficacious grace in the sense of the Thomists; but he is heretical, because he opposes the Thomists, and joins issue with Calvin, who denies the power of resisting grace.” I do not here enter upon the question of fact, whether Jansenius really agrees with Calvin. It is enough for my purpose that you assert that he does, and that you now inform me that by the sense of Jansenius you have all along understood nothing more than the sense of Calvin. Was this all you meant, then, father? Was it only the error of Calvin that you were so anxious to get condemned, under the name of “the sense of Jansenius?” Why did you not tell us this sooner? You might have saved yourself a world of trouble; for we were all ready, without the aid of bulls or briefs, to join with you in condemning that error. What urgent necessity there was for such an explanation! What a host of difficulties has it removed! We were quite at a loss, my dear father, to know what error the popes and bishops24 meant to condemn, under the name of “the sense of Jansenius.” The whole Church was in the utmost perplexity about it, and not a soul would relieve us by an explanation. This, however, has now been done by you, father — you, whom the whole of your party regard as the chief and prime mover of all their councils, and who are acquainted with the whole secret of this proceeding25. You, then, have told us that the sense of Jansenius is neither more nor less than the sense of Calvin, which has been condemned by the council. Why, this explains everything. We know now that the error which they intended to condemn, under these terms — the sense of Jansenius — is neither more nor less than the sense of Calvin; and that, consequently, we, by joining with them in the condemnation of Calvin’s doctrine, have yielded all due obedience26 to these decrees. We are no longer surprised at the zeal27 which the popes and some bishops manifested against “the sense of Jansenius.” How, indeed, could they be otherwise than zealous28 against it, believing, as they did, the declarations of those who publicly affirmed that it was identically the same with that of Calvin?
I must maintain, then, father, that you have no further reason to quarrel with your adversaries29; for they detest30 that doctrine as heartily31 as you do. I am only astonished to see that you are ignorant of this fact, and that you have such an imperfect acquaintance with their sentiments on this point, which they have so repeatedly expressed in their published works. I flatter myself that, were you more intimate with these writings, you would deeply regret your not having made yourself acquainted sooner, in the spirit of peace, with a doctrine which is in every respect so holy and so Christian32, but which passion, in the absence of knowledge, now prompts you to oppose. You would find, father, that they not only hold that an effective resistance may be made to those feebler graces which go under the name of exciting or inefficacious, from their not terminating in the good with which they inspire us; but that they are, moreover, as firm in maintaining, in opposition33 to Calvin, the power which the will has to resist even efficacious and victorious34 grace, as they are in contending against Molina for the power of this grace over the will, and fully35 as jealous for the one of these truths as they are for the other. They know too well that man, of his own nature, has always the power of sinning and of resisting grace; and that, since he became corrupt36, he unhappily carries in his breast a fount of concupiscence which infinitely37 augments38 that power; but that, notwithstanding this, when it pleases God to visit him with His mercy, He makes the soul do what He wills, and in the manner He wills it to be done, while, at the same time, the infallibility of the divine operation does not in any way destroy the natural liberty of man, in consequence of the secret and wonderful ways by which God operates this change. This has been most admirably explained by St. Augustine, in such a way as to dissipate all those imaginary inconsistencies which the opponents of efficacious grace suppose to exist between the sovereign power of grace over the free-will and the power which the free-will has to resist grace. For, according to this great saint, whom the popes and the Church have held to be a standard authority on this subject, God transforms the heart of man, by shedding abroad in it a heavenly sweetness, which surmounting39 the delights of the flesh, and inducing him to feel, on the one hand, his own mortality and nothingness, and to discover, on the other hand, the majesty40 and eternity41 of God, makes him conceive a distaste for the pleasures of sin which interpose between him and incorruptible happiness. Finding his chiefest joy in the God who charms him, his soul is drawn42 towards Him infallibly, but of its own accord, by a motion perfectly43 free, spontaneous, love-impelled; so that it would be its torment44 and punishment to be separated from Him. Not but that the person has always the power of forsaking45 his God, and that he may not actually forsake46 Him, provided he choose to do it. But how could he choose such a course, seeing that the will always inclines to that which is most agreeable to it, and that, in the case we now suppose, nothing can be more agreeable than the possession of that one good, which comprises in itself all other good things? “Quod enim (says St. Augustine) amplius nos delectat, secundum operemur necesse est — Our actions are necessarily determined47 by that which affords us the greatest pleasure.”
Such is the manner in which God regulates the free will of man without encroaching on its freedom, and in which the free will, which always may, but never will, resist His grace, turns to God with a movement as voluntary as it is irresistible48, whensoever He is pleased to draw it to Himself by the sweet constraint49 of His efficacious inspirations.
These, father, are the divine principles of St. Augustine and St. Thomas, according to which it is equally true that we have the power of resisting grace, contrary to Calvin’s opinion, and that, nevertheless, to employ the language of Pope Clement50 VIII in his paper addressed to the Congregation de Auxiliis, “God forms within us the motion of our will, and effectually disposes of our hearts, by virtue51 of that empire which His supreme52 majesty has over the volitions of men, as well as over the other creatures under heaven, according to St. Augustine.”
On the same principle, it follows that we act of ourselves, and thus, in opposition to another error of Calvin, that we have merits which are truly and properly ours; and yet, as God is the first principle of our actions, and as, in the language of St. Paul, He “worketh in us that which is pleasing in his sight”; “our merits are the gifts of God,” as the Council of Trent says.
By means of this distinction we demolish53 the profane54 sentiment of Luther, condemned by that Council, namely, that “we co-operate in no way whatever towards our salvation55 any more than inanimate things”; and, by the same mode of reasoning, we overthrow56 the equally profane sentiment of the school of Molina, who will not allow that it is by the strength of divine grace that we are enabled to cooperate with it in the work of our salvation, and who thereby57 comes into hostile collision with that principle of faith established by St. Paul: “That it is God who worketh in us both to will and to do.”
In fine, in this way we reconcile all those passages of Scripture58 which seem quite inconsistent with each other such as the following: “Turn ye unto God”—“Turn thou us, and we shall be turned”—“Cast away iniquity59 from you”—“It is God who taketh away iniquity from His people”—“Bring forth60 works meet for repentance”—“Lord, thou hast wrought61 all our works in us”—“Make ye a new heart and a new spirit”—“A new spirit will I give you, and a new heart will I create within you,” &c.
The only way of reconciling these apparent contrarieties, which ascribe our good actions at one time to God and at another time to ourselves, is to keep in view the distinction, as stated by St. Augustine, that “our actions are ours in respect of the free will which produces them; but that they are also of God, in respect of His grace which enables our free will to produce them”; and that, as the same writer elsewhere remarks, “God enables us to do what is pleasing in his sight, by making us will to do even what we might have been unwilling62 to do.”
It thus appears, father, that your opponents are perfectly at one with the modern Thomists, for the Thomists hold with them both the power of resisting grace, and the infallibility of the effect of grace; of which latter doctrine they profess63 themselves the most strenuous64 advocates, if we may judge from a common maxim65 of their theology, which Alvarez, one of the leading men among them, repeats so often in his book, and expresses in the following terms (disp. 72, n. 4): “When efficacious grace moves the free will, it infallibly consents; because the effect of grace is such, that, although the will has the power of withholding66 its consent, it nevertheless consents in effect.” He corroborates67 this by a quotation68 from his master, St. Thomas: “The will of God cannot fail to be accomplished69; and, accordingly, when it is his pleasure that a man should consent to the influence of grace, he consents infallibly, and even necessarily, not by an absolute necessity, but by a necessity of infallibility.” In effecting this, divine grace does not trench70 upon “the power which man has to resist it, if he wishes to do so”; it merely prevents him from wishing to resist it. This has been acknowledged by your Father Petau, in the following passage (Book i, p.602):. “The grace of Jesus Christ insures infallible perseverance71 in piety72, though not by necessity; for a person may refuse to yield his consent to grace, if he be so inclined, as the council states; but that same grace provides that he shall never be so inclined.”
This, father, is the uniform doctrine of St. Augustine, of St. Prosper73, of the fathers who followed them, of the councils, of St. Thomas, and of all the Thomists in general. It is likewise, whatever you may think of it, the doctrine of your opponents. And, let me add, it is the doctrine which you yourself have lately sealed with your approbation74. I shall quote your own words: “The doctrine of efficacious grace, which admits that we have a power of resisting it, is orthodox, founded on the councils, and supported by the Thomists and Sorbonists.” Now, tell us the plain truth, father; if you had known that your opponents really held this doctrine, the interests of your Society might perhaps have made you scruple75 before pronouncing this public approval of it; but, acting76 on the supposition that they were hostile to the doctrine, the same powerful motive77 has induced you to authorize78 sentiments which you know in your heart to be contrary to those of your Society; and by this blunder, in your anxiety to ruin their principles, you have yourself completely confirmed them. So that, by a kind of prodigy79, we now behold80 the advocates of efficacious grace vindicated81 by the advocates of Molina — an admirable instance of the wisdom of God in making all things concur82 to advance the glory of the truth.
Let the whole world observe, then, that, by your own admission, the truth of this efficacious grace, which is so essential to all the acts of piety, which is so dear to the Church, and which is the purchase of her Saviour’s blood, is so indisputably Catholic that there is not a single Catholic, not even among the Jesuits, who would not acknowledge its orthodoxy. And let it be noticed, at the same time, that, according to your own confession83, not the slightest suspicion of error can fall on those whom you have so often stigmatized84 with it. For so long as you charged them with clandestine85 heresies, without choosing to specify86 them by name, it was as difficult for them to defend themselves as it was easy for you to bring such accusations87. But now, when you have come to declare that the error which constrains88 you to oppose them, is the heresy of Calvin which you supposed them to hold, it must be apparent to every one that they are innocent of all error; for so decidedly hostile are they to this, the only error you charge upon them, that they protest, by their discourses89, by their books, by every mode, in short, in which they can testify their sentiments, that they condemn that heresy with their whole heart, and in the same manner as it has been condemned by the Thomists, whom you acknowledge, without scruple, to be Catholics, and who have never been suspected to be anything else.
What will you say against them now, father? Will you say that they are heretics still, because, although they do not adopt the sense of Calvin, they will not allow that the sense of Jansenius is the same with that of Calvin? Will you presume to say that this is matter of heresy? Is it not a pure question of fact, with which heresy has nothing to do? It would be heretical to say that we have not the power, of resisting efficacious grace; but would it be so to doubt that Jansenius held that doctrine? Is this a revealed truth? Is it an article of faith which must be believed, on pain of damnation? Or is it not, in spite of you, a point of fact, on account of which it would be ridiculous to hold that there were heretics in the Church?
drop this epithet90, then, father, and give them some other name, more suited to the nature of your dispute. Tell them, they are ignorant and stupid — that they misunderstand Jansenius. These would be charges in keeping with your controversy91; but it is quite irrelevant92 to call them heretics. As this, however, is the only charge from which I am anxious to defend them, I shall not give myself much trouble to show that they rightly understand Jansenius. All I shall say on the point, father, is that it appears to me that, were he to be judged according to your own rules, it would be difficult to prove him not to be a good Catholic. We shall try him by the test you have proposed. “To know,” say you, “whether Jansenius is sound or not, we must inquire whether he defends efficacious grace in the manner of Calvin, who denies that man has the power of resisting it — in which case he would be heretical; or in the manner of the Thomists, who admit that it may be resisted — for then he would be Catholic.” judge, then, father, whether he holds that grace may be resisted when he says: “That we have always a power to resist grace, according to the council; that free will may always act or not act, will or not will, consent or not consent, do good or do evil; and that man, in this life, has always these two liberties, which may be called by some contradictions.” Judge. likewise, if he be not opposed to the error of Calvin, as you have described it, when he occupies a whole chapter (21st) in showing “that the Church has condemned that heretic who denies that efficacious grace acts on the free will in the manner which has been so long believed in the Church, so as to leave it in the power of free will to consent or not to consent; whereas, according to St. Augustine and the council, we have always the power of withholding our consent if we choose; and according to St. Prosper, God bestows93 even upon his elect the will to persevere94, in such a way as not to deprive them of the power to will the contrary.” And, in one word, judge if he does not agree with the Thomists, from the following declaration in chapter 4th: “That all that the Thomists have written with the view of reconciling the efficaciousness of grace with the power of resisting it, so entirely95 coincides with his judgement that to ascertain96 his sentiments on this subject we have only to consult their writings.”
Such being the language he holds on these heads my opinion is that he believes in the power of resisting grace; that he differs from Calvin and agrees with the Thomists, because he has said so; and that he is, therefore, according to your own showing, a Catholic. If you have any means of knowing the sense of an author otherwise than by his expressions; and if, without quoting any of his passages, you are disposed to maintain, in direct opposition to his own words, that he denies this power of resistance, and that he is for Calvin and against the Thomists, do not be afraid, father, that I will accuse you of heresy for that. I shall only say that you do not seem properly to understand Jansenius; but we shall not be the less on that account children of the same Church.
How comes it, then, father, that you manage this dispute in such a passionate97 spirit, and that you treat as your most cruel enemies, and as the most pestilent of heretics, a class of persons whom you cannot accuse of any error, nor of anything whatever, except that they do not understand Jansenius as you do? For what else in the world do you dispute about, except the sense of that author? You would have them to condemn it. They ask what you mean them to condemn. You reply that you mean the error of Calvin. They rejoin that they condemn that error; and with this acknowledgement (unless it is syllables98 you wish to condemn, and not the thing which they signify), you ought to rest satisfied. If they refuse to say that they condemn the sense of Jansenius, it is because they believe it to be that of St. Thomas, and thus this unhappy phrase has a very equivocal meaning betwixt you. In your mouth it signifies the sense of Calvin; in theirs the sense of St. Thomas. Your dissensions arise entirely from the different ideas which you attach to the same term. Were I made umpire in the quarrel, I would interdict99 the use of the word Jansenius, on both sides; and thus, by obliging you merely to express what you understand by it, it would be seen that you ask nothing more than the condemnation of Calvin, to which they willingly agree; and that they ask nothing more than the vindication of the sense of St. Augustine and St. Thomas, in which you again perfectly coincide.
I declare, then, father, that for my part I shall continue to regard them as good Catholics, whether they condemn Jansenius, on finding him erroneous, or refuse to condemn him, from finding that he maintains nothing more than what you yourself acknowledge to be orthodox; and that I shall say to them what St. Jerome said to John, bishop23 of Jerusalem, who was accused of holding the eight propositions of Origen: “Either condemn Origen, if you acknowledge that he has maintained these errors, or else deny that he has maintained them — Aut nega hoc dixisse eum qui arguitur; aut si locutus est talia, eum damna qui dixerit.”
See, father, how these persons acted, whose sole concern was with principles, and not with persons; whereas you who aim at persons more than principles, consider it a matter of no consequence to condemn errors, unless you procure the condemnation of the individuals to whom you choose to impute100 them.
How ridiculously violent your conduct is, father! and how ill calculated to insure success! I told you before, and I repeat it, violence and verity101 can make no impression on each other. Never were your accusations more outrageous102, and never was the innocence103 of your opponents more discernible: never has efficacious grace been attacked with greater subtility, and never has it been more triumphantly104 established. You have made the most desperate efforts to convince people that your disputes involved points of faith; and never was it more apparent that the whole controversy turned upon a mere22 point of fact. In fine, you have moved heaven and earth to make it appear that this point of fact is founded on truth; and never were people more disposed to call it in question. And the obvious reason of this is that you do not take the natural course to make them believe a point of fact, which is to convince their senses and point out to them in a book the words which you allege are to be found in it. The means you have adopted are so far removed from this straightforward105 course that the most obtuse106 minds are unavoidably struck by observing it. Why did you not take the plan which I followed in bringing to light the wicked maxims107 of your authors — which was to cite faithfully the passages of their writings from which they were extracted? This was the mode followed by the cures of Paris, and it never fails to produce conviction. But, when you were charged by them with holding, for example, the proposition of Father Lamy, that a “monk may kill a person who threatens to publish calumnies108 against himself or his order, when he cannot otherwise prevent the publication,” what would you have thought, and what would the public have said, if they had not quoted the place where that sentiment is literally109 to be found? or if, after having been repeatedly demanded to quote their authority, they still obstinately110 refused to do it? or if, instead of acceding111 to this, they had gone off to Rome and procured112 a bull, ordaining113 all men to acknowledge the truth of their statement? Would it not be undoubtedly115 concluded that they had surprised the Pope, and that they would never have had recourse to this extraordinary method, but for want of the natural means of substantiating116 the truth, which matters of fact furnish to all who undertake to prove them? Accordingly, they had no more to do than to tell us that Father Lamy teaches this doctrine in Book 5, disp.36, n.118, page 544. of the Douay edition; and by this means everybody who wished to see it found it out, and nobody could doubt about it any longer. This appears to be a very easy and prompt way of putting an end to controversies117 of fact, when one has got the right side of the question.
How comes it, then, father, that you do not follow this plan? You said, in your book, that the five propositions are in Jansenius, word for word, in the identical terms — iisdem verbis. You were told they were not. What had you to do after this, but either to cite the page, if you had really found the words, or to acknowledge that you were mistaken. But you have done neither the one nor the other. In place of this, on finding that all the passages from Jansenius, which you sometimes adduce for the purpose of hoodwinking the people, are not “the condemned propositions in their individual identity,” as you had engaged to show us, you present us with Constitutions from Rome, which, without specifying118 any particular place, declare that the propositions have been extracted from his book.
I am sensible, father, of the respect which Christians119 owe to the Holy See, and your antagonists120 give sufficient evidence of their resolution ever to abide121 by its decisions. Do not imagine that it implied any deficiency in this due deference122 on their part that they represented to the pope, with all the submission123 which children owe to their father, and members to their head, that it was possible he might be deceived on this point of fact — that he had not caused it to be investigated during his pontificate; and that his predecessor124, Innocent X, had merely examined into the heretical character of the propositions, and not into the fact of their connection with Jansenius. This they stated to the commissary of the Holy Office, one of the principal examiners, stating that they could not be censured125 according to the sense of any author, because they had been presented for examination on their own merits; and without considering to what author they might belong: further, that upwards126 of sixty doctors, and a vast number of other persons of learning and piety, had read that book carefully over, without ever having encountered the proscribed127 propositions, and that they have found some of a quite opposite description: that those who had produced that impression on the mind of the Pope might be reasonably presumed to have abused the confidence he reposed128 in them, inasmuch as they had an interest in decrying129 that author, who has convicted Molina of upwards of fifty errors: that what renders this supposition still more probable is that they have a certain maxim among them, one of the best authenticated130 in their whole system of theology, which is, “that they may, without criminality, calumniate131 those by whom they conceive themselves to be unjustly attacked”; and that, accordingly, their testimony132 being so suspicious, and the testimony of the other party so respectable, they had some ground for supplicating133 his holiness, with the most profound humility134, that he would ordain114 an investigation135 to be made into this fact, in the presence of doctors belonging to both parties, in order that a solemn and regular decision might be formed on the point in dispute. “Let there be a convocation of able judges (says St. Basil on a similar occasion, Epistle 75); let each of them be left at perfect freedom; let them examine my writings; let them judge if they contain errors against the faith; let them read the objections and the replies; that so a judgement may be given in due form and with proper knowledge of the case, and not a defamatory libel without examination.”
It is quite vain for you, father, to represent those who would act in the manner I have now supposed as deficient136 in proper subjection to the Holy See. The popes are very far from being disposed to treat Christians with that imperiousness which some would fain exercise under their name. “The Church,” says Pope St. Gregory, “which has been trained in the school of humility, does not command with authority, but persuades by reason, her children whom she believes to be in error, to obey what she has taught them.” And so far from deeming it a disgrace to review a judgement into which they may have been surprised, we have the testimony of St. Bernard for saying that they glory in acknowledging the mistake. “The Apostolic See (he says, Epistle 180) can boast of this recommendation, that it never stands on the point of honour, but willingly revokes137 a decision that has been gained from it by surprise; indeed, it is highly just to prevent any from profiting by an act of injustice138, and more especially before the Holy See.”
Such, father, are the proper sentiments with which the popes ought to be inspired; for all divines are agreed that they may be surprised, and that their supreme character, so far from warranting them against mistakes, exposes them the more readily to fall into them, on account of the vast number of cares which claim their attention. This is what the same St. Gregory says to some persons who were astonished at the circumstance of another pope having suffered himself to be deluded139: “Why do you wonder,” says he, “that we should be deceived, we who are but men? Have you not read that David, a king who had the spirit of prophecy, was induced, by giving credit to the falsehoods of Ziba, to pronounce an unjust judgement against the son of Jonathan? Who will think it strange, then, that we, who are not prophets, should sometimes be imposed upon by deceivers? A multiplicity of affairs presses on us, and our minds, which, by being obliged to attend to so many things at once, apply themselves less closely to each in particular, are the more easily liable to be imposed upon in individual cases.” Truly, father, I should suppose that the popes know better than you whether they may be deceived or not. They themselves tell us that popes, as well as the greatest princes, are more exposed to deception140 than individuals who are less occupied with important avocations141. This must be believed on their testimony. And it is easy to imagine by what means they come to be thus overreached. St. Bernard, in the letter which he wrote to Innocent II, gives us the following description of the process: “It is no wonder, and no novelty, that the human mind may be deceived, and is deceived. You are surrounded by monks142 who come to you in the spirit of lying and deceit. They have filled your ears with stories against a bishop, whose life has been most exemplary, but who is the object of their hatred143. These persons bite like dogs, and strive to make good appear evil. Meanwhile, most holy father, you put yourself into a rage against your own son. Why have you afforded matter of joy to his enemies? Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they be of God. I trust that, when you have ascertained144 the truth, all this delusion145, which rests on a false report, will be dissipated. I pray the spirit of truth to grant you the grace to separate light from darkness, and to favour the good by rejecting the evil.” You see, then, father, that the eminent146 rank of the popes does not exempt147 them from the influence of delusion; and I may now add, that it only serves to render their mistakes more dangerous and important than those of other men. This is the light in which St. Bernard represents them to Pope Eugenius: “There is another fault, so common among the great of this world that I never met one of them who was free from it; and that is, holy father, an excessive credulity, the source of numerous disorders148. From this proceed violent persecutions against the innocent, unfounded prejudices against the absent, and tremendous storms about nothing (pro nihilo). This, holy father, is a universal evil, from the influence of which, if you are exempt, I shall only say you are the only individual among all your compeers who can boast of that privilege.”
I imagine, father, that the proofs I have brought are beginning to convince you that the popes are liable to be surprised. But, to complete your conversion149, I shall merely remind you of some examples, which you yourself have quoted in your book, of popes and emperors whom heretics have actually deceived. You will remember, then, that you have told us that Apollinarius surprised Pope Damasius, in the same way that Celestius surprised Zozimus. You inform us, besides, that one called Athanasius deceived the Emperor Heraclius, and prevailed on him to persecute150 the Catholics. And lastly, that Sergius obtained from Honorius that infamous151 decretal which was burned at the sixth council, “by playing the busybody,” as you say, “about the person of that pope.”
It appears, then, father, by your own confession, that those who act this part about the persons of kings and popes do sometimes artfully entice152 them to persecute the faithful defenders of the truth, under the persuasion153 that they are persecuting154 heretics. And hence the popes, who hold nothing in greater horror than these surprisals, have, by a letter of Alexander III, enacted155 an ecclesiastical statute156, which is inserted in the canonical157 law, to permit the suspension of the execution of their bulls and decretals, when there is ground to suspect that they have been imposed upon. “If,” says that pope to the Archbishop of Ravenna, “we sometimes send decretals to your fraternity which are opposed to your sentiments, give yourselves no distress158 on that account. We shall expect you eitherto carry them respectfully into execution, or to send us the reason why you conceive they ought not to be executed; for we deem it right that you should not execute a decree which may have been procured from us by artifice159 and surprise.” Such has been the course pursued by the popes, whose sole object is to settle the disputes of Christians, and not to follow the passionate counsels of those who strive to involve them in trouble and perplexity. Following the advice of St. Peter and St. Paul, who in this followed the commandment of Jesus Christ, they avoid domination. The spirit which appears in their whole conduct is that of peace and truth. In this spirit they ordinarily insert in their letters this clause, which is tacitly understood in them all: “Si ita est; si preces veritate nitantur — If it be so as we have heard it; if the facts be true.” It is quite clear, if the popes themselves give no force to their bulls, except in so far as they are founded on genuine facts, that it is not the bulls alone that prove the truth of the facts, but that, on the contrary, even according to the canonists, it is the truth of the facts which renders the bulls lawfully160 admissible.
In what way, then, are we to learn the truth of facts? It must be by the eyes, father, which are the legitimate161 judges of such matters, as reason is the proper judge of things natural and intelligible162, and faith of things supernatural and revealed. For, since you will force me into this discussion, you must allow me to tell you that, according to the sentiments of the two greatest doctors of the Church, St. Augustine and St. Thomas, these three principles of our knowledge, the senses, reason, and faith, have each their separate objects and their own degrees of certainty. And as God has been pleased to employ the intervention163 of the senses to give entrance to faith (for “faith cometh by hearing”), it follows, that so far from faith destroying the certainty of the senses, to call in question the faithful report of the senses would lead to the destruction of faith. It is on this principle that St. Thomas explicitly164 states that God has been pleased that the sensible accidents should subsist165 in the eucharist, in order that the senses, which judge only of these accidents, might not be deceived.
We conclude, therefore, from this, that whatever the proposition may be that is submitted to our examination, we must first determine its nature, to ascertain to which of those three principles it ought to be referred. If it relate to a supernatural truth, we must judge of it neither by the senses nor by reason, but by Scripture and the decisions of the Church. Should it concern an unrevealed truth and something within the reach of natural reason, reason must be its proper judge. And if it embrace a point of fact, we must yield to the testimony of the senses, to which it naturally belongs to take cognizance of such matters.
So general is this rule that, according to St. Augustine and St. Thomas, when we meet with a passage even in the Scripture, the literal meaning of which, at first sight, appears contrary to what the senses or reason are certainly persuaded of, we must not attempt to reject their testimony in this case, and yield them up to the authority of that apparent sense of the Scripture, but we must interpret the Scripture, and seek out therein another sense agreeable to that sensible truth; because, the Word of God being infallible in the facts which it records, and the information of the senses and of reason, acting in their sphere, being certain also, it follows that there must be an agreement between these two sources of knowledge. And as Scripture may be interpreted in different ways, whereas the testimony of the senses is uniform, we must in these matters adopt as the true interpretation166 of Scripture that view which corresponds with the faithful report of the senses. “Two things,” says St. Thomas, “must be observed, according to the doctrine of St. Augustine: first, That Scripture has always one true sense; and secondly167, That as it may receive various senses, when we have discovered one which reason plainly teaches to be false, we must not persist in maintaining that this is the natural sense, but search out another with which reason will agree.
St. Thomas explains his meaning by the example of a passage in Genesis where it is written that “God created two great lights, the sun and the moon, and also the stars,” in which the Scriptures168 appear to say that the moon is greater than all the stars; but as it is evident, from unquestionable demonstration169, that this is false, it is not our duty, says that saint, obstinately to defend the literal sense of that passage; another meaning must be sought, consistent with the truth of the fact, such as the following, “That the phrase great light, as applied170 to the moon, denotes the greatness of that luminary171 merely as it appears in our eyes, and not the magnitude of its body considered in itself.”
An opposite mode of treatment, so far from procuring172 respect to the Scripture, would only expose it to the contempt of infidels; because, as St. Augustine says, “when they found that we believed, on the authority of Scripture, in things which they assuredly knew to be false, they would laugh at our credulity with regard to its more recondite173 truths, such as the resurrection of the dead and eternal life.” “And by this means,” adds St. Thomas, “we should render our religion contemptible174 in their eyes, and shut up its entrance into their minds.
And let me add, father, that it would in the same manner be the likeliest means to shut up the entrance of Scripture into the minds of heretics, and to render the pope’s authority contemptible in their eyes, to refuse all those the name of Catholics who would not believe that certain words were in a certain book, where they are not to be found, merely because a pope by mistake has declared that they are. It is only by examining a book that we can ascertain what words it contains. Matters of fact can only be proved by the senses. If the position which you maintain be true, show it, or else ask no man to believe it — that would be to no purpose. Not all the powers on earth can, by the force of authority, persuade us of a point of fact, any more than they can alter it; for nothing can make that to be not which really is.
It was to no purpose, for example, that the monks of Ratisbon procured from Pope St. Leo IX a solemn decree, by which he declared that the body of St. Denis, the first bishop of Paris, who is generally held to have been the Areopagite, had been transported out of France and conveyed into the chapel175 of their monastery176. It is not the less true, for all this, that the body of that saint always lay, and lies to this hour, in the celebrated177 abbey which bears his name, and within the walls of which you would find it no easy matter to obtain a cordial reception to this bull, although the pope has therein assured us that he has examined the affair “with all possible diligence (diligentissime), and with the advice of many bishops and prelates; so that he strictly178 enjoins179 all the French (districte praecipientes) to own and confess that these holy relics180 are no longer in their country.” The French, however, who knew that fact to be untrue, by the evidence of their own eyes, and who, upon opening the shrine181, found all those relics entire, as the historians of that period inform us, believed then, as they have always believed since, the reverse of what that holy pope had enjoined182 them to believe, well knowing that even saints and prophets are liable to be imposed upon.
It was to equally little purpose that you obtained against Galileo a decree from Rome condemning his opinion respecting the motion of the earth. It will never be proved by such an argument as this that the earth remains183 stationary184; and if it can be demonstrated by sure observation that it is the earth and not the sun that revolves185, the efforts and arguments of all mankind put together will not hinder our planet from revolving186, nor hinder themselves from revolving along with her.
Again, you must not imagine that the letters of Pope Zachary, excommunicating St. Virgilius for maintaining the existence of the antipodes, have annihilated187 the New World; nor must you suppose that, although he declared that opinion to be a most dangerous heresy, the King of Spain was wrong in giving more credence188 to Christopher Columbus, who came from the place, than to the judgement of the pope, who had never been there, or that the Church has not derived189 a vast benefit from the discovery, inasmuch as it has brought the knowledge of the Gospel to a great multitude of souls who might otherwise have perished in their infidelity.
You see, then, father, what is the nature of matters of fact, and on what principles they are to be determined; from all which, to recur190 to our subject, it is easy to conclude that, if the five propositions are not in Jansenius, it is impossible that they can have been extracted from him; and that the only way to form a judgement on the matter, and to produce universal conviction, is to examine that book in a regular conference, as you have been desired to do long ago. Until that be done, you have no right to charge your opponents with contumacy; for they are as blameless in regard to the point of fact as they are of errors in point of faith — Catholics in doctrine, reasonable in fact, and innocent in both.
Who can help feeling astonishment191, then, father, to see on the one side a vindication so complete, and on the other accusations so outrageous! Who would suppose that the only question between you relates to a single fact of no importance, which the one party wishes the other to believe without showing it to them! And who would ever imagine that such a noise should have been made in the Church for nothing (pro nihilo), as good St. Bernard says! But this is just one of the principal tricks of your policy, to make people believe that everything is at stake, when, in reality, there is nothing at stake; and to represent to those influential192 persons who listen to you that the most pernicious errors of Calvin, and the most vital principles of the faith, are involved in your disputes, with the view of inducing them, under this conviction, to employ all their zeal and all their authority against your opponents, as if the safety of the Catholic religion depended upon it; Whereas, if they came to know that the whole dispute was about this paltry193 point of fact, they would give themselves no concern about it, but would, on the contrary, regret extremely that, to gratify your private passions, they had made such exertions194 in an affair of no consequence to the Church. For, in fine, to take the worst view of the matter, even though it should be true that Jansenius maintained these propositions, what great misfortune would accrue195 from some persons doubting of the fact, provided they detested196 the propositions, as they have publicly declared that they do? Is it not enough that they are condemned by everybody, without exception, and that, too, in the sense in which you have explained that you wish them to be condemned? Would they be more severely197 censured by saying that Jansenius maintained them? What purpose, then, would be served by exacting198 this acknowledgment, except that of disgracing a doctor and bishop, who died in the communion of the Church? I cannot see how that should be accounted so great a blessing199 as to deserve to be purchased at the expense of so many disturbances200. What interest has the state, or the pope, or bishops, or doctors, or the Church at large, in this conclusion? It does not affect them in any way whatever, father; it can affect none but your Society, which would certainly enjoy some pleasure from the defamation201 of an author who has done you some little injury. Meanwhile everything is in confusion, because you have made people believe that everything is in danger. This is the secret spring giving impulse to all those mighty202 commotions203, which would cease immediately were the real state of the controversy once known. And therefore, as the peace of the Church depended on this explanation, it was, I conceive, of the utmost importance that it should be given that, by exposing all your disguises, it might be manifest to the whole world that your accusations were without foundation, your opponents without error, and the Church without heresy.
Such, father, is the end which it has been my desire to accomplish; an end which appears to me, in every point of view, so deeply important to religion that I am at a loss to conceive how those to whom you furnish so much occasion for speaking can contrive204 to remain in silence. Granting that they are not affected205 with the personal wrongs which you have committed against them, those which the Church suffers ought, in my opinion, to have forced them to complain. Besides, I am not altogether sure if ecclesiastics206 ought to make a sacrifice of their reputation to calumny207, especially in the matter of religion. They allow, you, nevertheless, to say whatever you please; so that, had it not been for the opportunity which, by mere accident, you afforded me of taking their part, the scandalous impressions which you are circulating against them in all quarters would, in all probability, have gone forth without contradiction. Their patience, I confess, astonishes me; and the more so that I cannot suspect it of proceeding either from timidity or from incapacity, being well assured that they want neither arguments for their own vindication, nor zeal for the truth. And yet I see them religiously bent208 on silence, to a degree which appears to me altogether unjustifiable. For my part, father, I do not believe that I can possibly follow their example. Leave the Church in peace, and I shall leave you as you are, with all my heart; but so long as you make it your sole business to keep her in confusion, doubt not but that there shall always be found within her bosom209 children of peace who will consider themselves bound to employ all their endeavours to preserve her tranquillity210.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
creed
|
|
| n.信条；信念，纲领 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
heresy
|
|
| n.异端邪说；异教 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
condemn
|
|
| vt.谴责，指责；宣判(罪犯)，判刑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
heresies
|
|
| n.异端邪说，异教( heresy的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
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： |
|
|
|
|
6
fortify
|
|
| v.强化防御，为…设防；加强，强化 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
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： |
|
|
|
|
8
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： |
|
|
|
|
9
obstinate
|
|
| adj.顽固的，倔强的，不易屈服的，较难治愈的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
extort
|
|
| v.勒索，敲诈，强要 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
procure
|
|
| vt.获得，取得，促成；vi.拉皮条 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
condemnation
|
|
| n.谴责; 定罪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
censure
|
|
| v./n.责备；非难；责难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
recoil
|
|
| vi.退却，退缩，畏缩 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
pertinaciously
|
|
| adv.坚持地；固执地；坚决地；执拗地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
penetration
|
|
| n.穿透，穿人，渗透 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
veneration
|
|
| n.尊敬，崇拜 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
defenders
|
|
| n.防御者( defender的名词复数 )；守卫者；保护者；辩护者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
vindication
|
|
| n.洗冤，证实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
allege
|
|
| vt.宣称，申述，主张，断言 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
bishop
|
|
| n.主教，（国际象棋）象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
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： |
|
|
|
|
25
proceeding
|
|
| n.行动，进行，(pl.)会议录，学报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
obedience
|
|
| n.服从，顺从 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
zeal
|
|
| n.热心，热情，热忱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
zealous
|
|
| adj.狂热的，热心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
adversaries
|
|
| n.对手，敌手( adversary的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
detest
|
|
| vt.痛恨，憎恶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
heartily
|
|
| adv.衷心地，诚恳地，十分，很 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
Christian
|
|
| adj.基督教徒的；n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
opposition
|
|
| n.反对，敌对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
victorious
|
|
| adj.胜利的，得胜的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
fully
|
|
| adv.完全地，全部地，彻底地；充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
corrupt
|
|
| v.贿赂，收买；adj.腐败的，贪污的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
infinitely
|
|
| adv.无限地，无穷地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
augments
|
|
| 增加，提高，扩大( augment的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
surmounting
|
|
| 战胜( surmount的现在分词 )； 克服（困难）； 居于…之上； 在…顶上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
majesty
|
|
| n.雄伟，壮丽，庄严，威严；最高权威，王权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
eternity
|
|
| n.不朽，来世；永恒，无穷 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
drawn
|
|
| v.拖，拉，拔出；adj.憔悴的，紧张的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
perfectly
|
|
| adv.完美地，无可非议地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
torment
|
|
| n.折磨；令人痛苦的东西(人)；vt.折磨；纠缠 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
forsaking
|
|
| 放弃( forsake的现在分词 )； 弃绝； 抛弃； 摒弃 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
forsake
|
|
| vt.遗弃，抛弃；舍弃，放弃 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
determined
|
|
| adj.坚定的；有决心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
irresistible
|
|
| adj.非常诱人的，无法拒绝的，无法抗拒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
constraint
|
|
| n.(on)约束，限制；限制(或约束)性的事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
clement
|
|
| adj.仁慈的；温和的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
virtue
|
|
| n.德行，美德；贞操；优点；功效，效力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
supreme
|
|
| adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
demolish
|
|
| v.拆毁(建筑物等)，推翻(计划、制度等) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
profane
|
|
| adj.亵神的，亵渎的；vt.亵渎，玷污 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
salvation
|
|
| n.（尤指基督）救世，超度，拯救，解困 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
overthrow
|
|
| v.推翻，打倒，颠覆；n.推翻，瓦解，颠覆 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
thereby
|
|
| adv.因此，从而 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
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： |
|
|
|
|
59
iniquity
|
|
| n.邪恶；不公正 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
wrought
|
|
| v.引起；以…原料制作；运转；adj.制造的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
unwilling
|
|
| adj.不情愿的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
profess
|
|
| v.声称，冒称，以...为业，正式接受入教，表明信仰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
strenuous
|
|
| adj.奋发的，使劲的；紧张的；热烈的，狂热的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
maxim
|
|
| n.格言，箴言 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
withholding
|
|
| 扣缴税款 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
corroborates
|
|
| v.证实，支持（某种说法、信仰、理论等）( corroborate的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
quotation
|
|
| n.引文，引语，语录；报价，牌价，行情 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
accomplished
|
|
| adj.有才艺的；有造诣的；达到了的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
trench
|
|
| n./v.(挖)沟，(挖)战壕 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
perseverance
|
|
| n.坚持不懈，不屈不挠 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
piety
|
|
| n.虔诚，虔敬 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
prosper
|
|
| v.成功，兴隆，昌盛；使成功，使昌隆，繁荣 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
approbation
|
|
| n.称赞；认可 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
scruple
|
|
| n./v.顾忌，迟疑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
acting
|
|
| n.演戏，行为，假装；adj.代理的，临时的，演出用的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
motive
|
|
| n.动机，目的；adv.发动的，运动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
authorize
|
|
| v.授权，委任；批准，认可 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
prodigy
|
|
| n.惊人的事物，奇迹，神童，天才，预兆 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
behold
|
|
| v.看，注视，看到 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
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： |
|
|
|
|
82
concur
|
|
| v.同意，意见一致，互助，同时发生 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
confession
|
|
| n.自白，供认，承认 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
stigmatized
|
|
| v.使受耻辱，指责，污辱( stigmatize的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
clandestine
|
|
| adj.秘密的，暗中从事的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
specify
|
|
| vt.指定，详细说明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
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： |
|
|
|
|
88
constrains
|
|
| 强迫( constrain的第三人称单数 )； 强使； 限制； 约束 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
discourses
|
|
| 论文( discourse的名词复数 )； 演说； 讲道； 话语 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
epithet
|
|
| n.（用于褒贬人物等的）表述形容词，修饰语 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
controversy
|
|
| n.争论，辩论，争吵 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
irrelevant
|
|
| adj.不恰当的，无关系的，不相干的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
bestows
|
|
| 赠给，授予( bestow的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
persevere
|
|
| v.坚持，坚忍，不屈不挠 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
ascertain
|
|
| vt.发现，确定，查明，弄清 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
passionate
|
|
| adj.热情的，热烈的，激昂的，易动情的，易怒的，性情暴躁的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
syllables
|
|
| n.音节( syllable的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
interdict
|
|
| v.限制；禁止；n.正式禁止；禁令 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
impute
|
|
| v.归咎于 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
verity
|
|
| n.真实性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
outrageous
|
|
| adj.无理的，令人不能容忍的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
innocence
|
|
| n.无罪；天真；无害 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
triumphantly
|
|
| ad.得意洋洋地；得胜地；成功地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
straightforward
|
|
| adj.正直的，坦率的；易懂的，简单的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
obtuse
|
|
| adj.钝的；愚钝的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
maxims
|
|
| n.格言，座右铭( maxim的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
calumnies
|
|
| n.诬蔑，诽谤，中伤（的话）( calumny的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
literally
|
|
| adv.照字面意义，逐字地；确实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
obstinately
|
|
| ad.固执地，顽固地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
acceding
|
|
| v.（正式）加入( accede的现在分词 )；答应；（通过财产的添附而）增加；开始任职 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
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： |
|
|
|
|
113
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： |
|
|
|
|
|
114
ordain
|
|
| vi.颁发命令；vt.命令，授以圣职，注定，任命 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
undoubtedly
|
|
| adv.确实地，无疑地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
substantiating
|
|
| v.用事实支持（某主张、说法等），证明，证实( substantiate的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
controversies
|
|
| 争论 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
specifying
|
|
| v.指定( specify的现在分词 )；详述；提出…的条件；使具有特性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
Christians
|
|
| n.基督教徒( Christian的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
antagonists
|
|
| 对立[对抗] 者，对手，敌手( antagonist的名词复数 )； 对抗肌； 对抗药 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
abide
|
|
| vi.遵守；坚持；vt.忍受 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
deference
|
|
| n.尊重，顺从；敬意 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
submission
|
|
| n.服从，投降；温顺，谦虚；提出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
predecessor
|
|
| n.前辈，前任 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
censured
|
|
| v.指责，非难，谴责( censure的过去式 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
upwards
|
|
| adv.向上，在更高处...以上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
proscribed
|
|
| v.正式宣布（某事物）有危险或被禁止( proscribe的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
reposed
|
|
| v.将（手臂等）靠在某人（某物）上( repose的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
decrying
|
|
| v.公开反对，谴责( decry的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
authenticated
|
|
| v.证明是真实的、可靠的或有效的( authenticate的过去式和过去分词 )；鉴定，使生效 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
calumniate
|
|
| v.诬蔑，中伤 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
testimony
|
|
| n.证词；见证，证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
supplicating
|
|
| v.祈求，哀求，恳求( supplicate的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
humility
|
|
| n.谦逊，谦恭 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
investigation
|
|
| n.调查，调查研究 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
deficient
|
|
| adj.不足的，不充份的，有缺陷的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
revokes
|
|
| v.撤销，取消，废除( revoke的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
injustice
|
|
| n.非正义，不公正，不公平，侵犯（别人的）权利 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
deluded
|
|
| v.欺骗，哄骗( delude的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
deception
|
|
| n.欺骗，欺诈；骗局，诡计 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
avocations
|
|
| n.业余爱好，嗜好( avocation的名词复数 )；职业 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
monks
|
|
| n.修道士，僧侣( monk的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
hatred
|
|
| n.憎恶，憎恨，仇恨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
ascertained
|
|
| v.弄清，确定，查明( ascertain的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
delusion
|
|
| n.谬见，欺骗，幻觉，迷惑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
146
eminent
|
|
| adj.显赫的，杰出的，有名的，优良的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
147
exempt
|
|
| adj.免除的；v.使免除；n.免税者，被免除义务者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
148
disorders
|
|
| n.混乱( disorder的名词复数 )；凌乱；骚乱；（身心、机能）失调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
149
conversion
|
|
| n.转化，转换，转变 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
150
persecute
|
|
| vt.迫害，虐待；纠缠，骚扰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
151
infamous
|
|
| adj.声名狼藉的，臭名昭著的，邪恶的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
152
entice
|
|
| v.诱骗，引诱，怂恿 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
153
persuasion
|
|
| n.劝说；说服；持有某种信仰的宗派 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
154
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： |
|
|
|
|
155
enacted
|
|
| 制定（法律），通过（法案）( enact的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
156
statute
|
|
| n.成文法，法令，法规；章程，规则，条例 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
157
canonical
|
|
| n.权威的；典型的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
158
distress
|
|
| n.苦恼，痛苦，不舒适；不幸；vt.使悲痛 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
159
artifice
|
|
| n.妙计，高明的手段；狡诈，诡计 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
160
lawfully
|
|
| adv.守法地，合法地；合理地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
161
legitimate
|
|
| adj.合法的，合理的，合乎逻辑的；v.使合法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
162
intelligible
|
|
| adj.可理解的，明白易懂的，清楚的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
163
intervention
|
|
| n.介入，干涉，干预 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
164
explicitly
|
|
| ad.明确地，显然地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
165
subsist
|
|
| vi.生存，存在，供养 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
166
interpretation
|
|
| n.解释，说明，描述；艺术处理 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
167
secondly
|
|
| adv.第二，其次 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
168
scriptures
|
|
| 经文，圣典( scripture的名词复数 )； 经典 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
169
demonstration
|
|
| n.表明，示范，论证，示威 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
170
applied
|
|
| adj.应用的；v.应用，适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
171
luminary
|
|
| n.名人，天体 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
172
procuring
|
|
| v.（努力）取得， （设法）获得( procure的现在分词 )；拉皮条 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
173
recondite
|
|
| adj.深奥的，难解的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
174
contemptible
|
|
| adj.可鄙的，可轻视的，卑劣的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
175
chapel
|
|
| n.小教堂，殡仪馆 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
176
monastery
|
|
| n.修道院，僧院，寺院 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
177
celebrated
|
|
| adj.有名的，声誉卓著的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
178
strictly
|
|
| adv.严厉地，严格地；严密地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
179
enjoins
|
|
| v.命令( enjoin的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
180
relics
|
|
| [pl.］n.遗物，遗迹，遗产；遗体，尸骸 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
181
shrine
|
|
| n.圣地，神龛，庙；v.将...置于神龛内，把...奉为神圣 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
182
enjoined
|
|
| v.命令( enjoin的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
183
remains
|
|
| n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
184
stationary
|
|
| adj.固定的，静止不动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
185
revolves
|
|
| v.（使）旋转( revolve的第三人称单数 )；细想 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
186
revolving
|
|
| adj.旋转的，轮转式的；循环的v.（使）旋转( revolve的现在分词 )；细想 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
187
annihilated
|
|
| v.（彻底）消灭( annihilate的过去式和过去分词 )；使无效；废止；彻底击溃 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
188
credence
|
|
| n.信用，祭器台，供桌，凭证 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
189
derived
|
|
| vi.起源；由来；衍生；导出v.得到( derive的过去式和过去分词 )；（从…中）得到获得；源于；（从…中）提取 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
190
recur
|
|
| vi.复发，重现，再发生 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
191
astonishment
|
|
| n.惊奇，惊异 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
192
influential
|
|
| adj.有影响的，有权势的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
193
paltry
|
|
| adj.无价值的，微不足道的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
194
exertions
|
|
| n.努力( exertion的名词复数 )；费力；（能力、权力等的）运用；行使 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
195
accrue
|
|
| v.(利息等)增大，增多 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
196
detested
|
|
| v.憎恶，嫌恶，痛恨( detest的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
197
severely
|
|
| adv.严格地；严厉地；非常恶劣地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
198
exacting
|
|
| adj.苛求的，要求严格的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
199
blessing
|
|
| n.祈神赐福；祷告；祝福，祝愿 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
200
disturbances
|
|
| n.骚乱( disturbance的名词复数 )；打扰；困扰；障碍 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
201
defamation
|
|
| n.诽谤；中伤 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
202
mighty
|
|
| adj.强有力的；巨大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
203
commotions
|
|
| n.混乱，喧闹，骚动( commotion的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
204
contrive
|
|
| vt.谋划，策划；设法做到；设计，想出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
205
affected
|
|
| adj.不自然的，假装的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
206
ecclesiastics
|
|
| n.神职者，教会，牧师( ecclesiastic的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
207
calumny
|
|
| n.诽谤，污蔑，中伤 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
208
bent
|
|
| n.爱好，癖好；adj.弯的；决心的，一心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
209
bosom
|
|
| n.胸，胸部；胸怀；内心；adj.亲密的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
210
tranquillity
|
|
| n. 平静, 安静 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |