For，intheinstancesIamnowtoadduce，youwillseecouncilsandpopesrangedononeside，andJesuitsontheother；andyetyouhaveneverchargedyourbrethrenforthisoppositionevenwithpresumption，muchlesswithheresy。Youarewellaware，father，thatthewritingsofOrigenwerecondemnedbyagreatmanypopesandcouncils，andparticularlybythefifthgeneralcouncil，aschargeablewithcertainheresies，and，amongothers，thatofthereconciliationofthedevilsatthedayofjudgement。Doyousupposethat，afterthis，itbecameabsolutelyimperative，asatestofCatholicism，toconfessthatOrigenactuallymaintainedtheseerrors，andthatitisnotenoughtocondemnthem，withoutattributingthemtohim？Ifthisweretrue，whatwouldbecomeofyourworthyFatherHalloix，whohasassertedthepurityofOrigen’sfaith，aswellasmanyotherCatholicswhohaveattemptedthesamething，suchasPicoMirandola，andGenebrard，doctoroftheSorbonne？Isitnot，moreover，acertainfact，thatthesamefifthgeneralcouncilcondemnedthewritingsofTheodoretagainstSt。Cyril，describingthemasimpious，"contrarytothetruefaith，andtaintedwiththeNestorianheresy"？AndyetthishasnotpreventedFatherSirmond，aJesuit，fromdefendinghim，orfromsaying，inhislifeofthatfather，that"hiswritingsareentirelyfreefromtheheresyofNestorius。"Itisevident，therefore，thatastheChurch，incondemningabook，assumesthattheerrorwhichshecondemnsiscontainedinthatbook，itisapointoffaithtoholdthaterrorascondemned；butitisnotapointoffaithtoholdthatthebook，infact，containstheerrorwhichtheChurchsupposesitdoes。Enoughhasbeensaid，Ithink，toprovethis；Ishall，therefore，concludemyexamplesbyreferringtothatofPopeHonorius，thehistoryofwhichissowellknown。Atthecommencementoftheseventhcentury，theChurchbeingtroubledbytheheresyoftheMonothelites，thatpope，withtheviewofterminatingthecontroversy，passedadecreewhichseemedfavourabletotheseheretics，atwhichmanytookoffence。Theaffair，nevertheless，passedoverwithoutmakingmuchdisturbanceduringhispontificate；butfiftyyearsafter，theChurchbeingassembledinthesixthgeneralcouncil，inwhichPopeAgathonpresidedbyhislegates，thisdecreewasimpeached，and，afterbeingreadandexamined，wascondemnedascontainingtheheresyoftheMonothelites，andunderthatcharacterburnt，inopencourt，alongwiththeotherwritingsoftheseheretics。Suchwastherespectpaidtothisdecision，andsuchtheunanimitywithwhichitwasreceivedthroughoutthewholeChurch，thatitwasafterwardsratifiedbytwoothergeneralcouncils，andlikewisebytwopopes，LeoIIandAdrianII，thelatterofwhomlivedtwohundredyearsafterithadpassed；andthisuniversalandharmoniousagreementremainedundisturbedforsevenoreightcenturies。
　　Oflateyears，however，someauthors，andamongtherestCardinalBellarmine，withoutseemingtodreadtheimputationofheresy，havestoutlymaintained，againstallthisarrayofpopesandcouncils，thatthewritingsofHonoriusarefreefromtheerrorwhichhadbeenascribedtothem；"because，"saysthecardinal，"generalcouncilsbeingliabletoerrinquestionsoffact，wehavethebestgroundsforassertingthesixthcouncilwasmistakenwithregardtothefactnowunderconsideration；andthat，misconceivingthesenseoftheLettersofHonorius，ithasplacedthispopemostunjustlyintherankofheretics。"Observe，then，Iprayyou，father，thatamanisnothereticalforsayingthatPopeHonoriuswasnotaheretic；eventhoughagreatmanypopesandcouncils，afterexamininghiswritings，shouldhavedeclaredthathewasso。Inowcometothequestionbeforeus，andshallallowyoutostateyourcaseasfavourablyasyoucan。Whatwillyouthensay，father，inordertostampyouropponentsasheretics？That"PopeInnocentXhasdeclaredthattheerrorofthefivepropositionsistobefoundinJansenius？"Igrantyouthat；whatinferencedoyoudrawfromit？That"itishereticaltodenythattheerrorofthefivepropositionsistobefoundinJansenius？"Howso，father？Havewenothereaquestionoffactexactlysimilartotheprecedingexamples？ThePopehasdeclaredthattheerrorofthefivepropositionsiscontainedinJansenius，inthesamewayashispredecessorsdecidedthattheerrorsoftheNestoriansandtheMonothelitespollutedthepagesofTheodoretandHonorius。Inthelattercase，yourwritershesitatenottosaythat，whiletheycondemntheheresies，theydonotallowthattheseauthorsactuallymaintainedthem；and，inlikemanner，youropponentsnowsaythattheycondemnthefivepropositions，butcannotadmitthatJanseniushastaughtthem。Truly，thetwocasesareaslikeastheycouldwellbe；and，iftherebeanydisparitybetweenthem，itiseasytoseehowfaritmustgoinfavourofthepresentquestion，byacomparisonofmanyparticularcircumstances，whichastheyareself—evident，Idonotspecify。Howcomesittopass，then，thatwhenplacedinpreciselythesamepredicament，yourfriendsareCatholicsandyouropponentsheretics？Onwhatstrangeprincipleofexceptiondoyoudeprivethelatterofalibertywhichyoufreelyawardtoalltherestofthefaithful？Whatanswerwillyoumaketothis，father？Willyousay，"Thepopehasconfirmedhisconstitutionbyabrief。"TothisIwouldreply，thattwogeneralcouncilsandtwopopesconfirmedthecondemnationofthelettersofHonorius。Butwhatargumentdoyoufounduponthelanguageofthatbrief，inwhichallthatthePopesaysisthat"hehascondemnedthedoctrineofJanseniusinthesefivepropositions"？Whatdoesthataddtotheconstitution，orwhatmorecanyouinferfromit？Nothing，certainly，exceptthatasthesixthcouncilcondemnedthedoctrineofHonorius，inthebeliefthatitwasthesamewiththatoftheMonothelites，sothePopehassaidthathehascondemnedthedoctrineofJanseniusinthesefivepropositions，becausehewasledtosupposeitwasthesamewiththatofthefivepropositions。Andhowcouldhedootherwisethansupposeit？YourSocietypublishednothingelse；andyouyourself，father，whohaveassertedthatthesaidpropositionswereinthatauthor"wordforword，"happenedtobeinRome（forIknowallyourmotions）atthetimewhenthecensurewaspassed。Washetodistrustthesincerityorthecompetenceofsomanygraveministersofreligion？Andhowcouldhehelpbeingconvincedofthefact，aftertheassurancewhichyouhadgivenhimthatthepropositionswereinthatauthor"wordforword"？Itisevident，therefore，thatintheeventofitsbeingfoundthatJanseniushasnotsupportedthesedoctrines，itwouldbewrongtosay，asyourwritershavedoneinthecasesbeforementioned，thatthePopehasdeceivedhimselfinthispointoffact，whichitispainfulandoffensivetopublishatanytime；theproperphraseisthatyouhavedeceivedthePope，which，asyouarenowprettywellknown，willcreatenoscandal。Determined，however，tohaveaheresymadeout，letitcostwhatitmay，youhaveattempted，bythefollowingmanoeuvre，toshiftthequestionfromthepointoffact，andmakeitbearuponapointoffaith。"ThePope，"sayyou，"declaresthathehascondemnedthedoctrineofJanseniusinthesefivepropositions；thereforeitisessentialtothefaithtoholdthatthedoctrineofJanseniustouchingthesefivepropositionsisheretical，letitbewhatitmay。"Hereisastrangepointoffaith，thatadoctrineishereticalbewhatitmay。What！ifJanseniusshouldhappentomaintainthat"wearecapableofresistinginternalgrace"andthat"itisfalsetosaythatJesusChristdiedfortheelectonly，"wouldthisdoctrinebecondemnedjustbecauseitishisdoctrine？Willtheproposition，that"manhasafreedomofwilltodogoodorevil，"betruewhenfoundinthePope’sconstitution，andfalsewhendiscoveredinJansenius？Bywhatfatalitymusthebereducedtosuchapredicament，thattruth，whenadmittedintohisbook，becomesheresy？Youmustconfess，then，thatheisonlyhereticalonthesuppositionthatheisfriendlytotheerrorscondemned，seeingthattheconstitutionofthePopeistherulewhichwemustapplytoJansenius，tojudgeifhischaracteranswerthedescriptiontheregivenofhim；and，accordingly，thequestion，"Ishisdoctrineheretical？"
　　mustberesolvedbyanotherquestionoffact，"Doesitcorrespondtothenaturalsenseofthesepropositions？"asitmustnecessarilybehereticalifitdoescorrespondtothatsense，andmustnecessarilybeorthodoxifitbeofanoppositecharacter。For，inoneword，since，accordingtothePopeandthebishops，"thepropositionsarecondemnedintheirproperandnaturalsense，"theycannotpossiblybecondemnedinthesenseofJansenius，exceptontheunderstandingthatthesenseofJanseniusisthesamewiththeproperandnaturalsenseofthesepropositions；andthisImaintaintobepurelyaquestionoffact。Thequestion，then，stillrestsuponthepointoffact，andcannotpossiblybetorturedintooneaffectingthefaith。
　　Butthoughincapableoftwistingitintoamatterofheresy，youhaveitinyourpowertomakeitapretextforpersecution，andmight，perhaps，succeedinthis，weretherenotgoodreasontohopethatnobodywillbefoundsoblindlydevotedtoyourinterestsastocountenancesuchadisgracefulproceeding，orinclinedtocompelpeople，asyouwishtodo，tosignadeclarationthattheycondemnthesepropositionsinthesenseofJansenius，withoutexplainingwhatthesenseofJanseniusis。Fewpeoplearedisposedtosignablankconfessionoffaith。Nowthiswouldreallybetosignoneofthatdescription，leavingyoutofilluptheblankafterwardswithwhatsoeveryoupleased，asyouwouldbeatlibertytointerpretaccordingtoyourowntastetheunexplainedsenseofJansenius。Letitbeexplained，then，beforehand，otherwiseweshallhave，Ifear，anotherversionofyourproximatepower，withoutanysenseatall—abstrahendoabomnisensu。Thismodeofproceeding，youmustbeaware，doesnottakewiththeworld。Meningeneraldetestallambiguity，especiallyinthematterofreligion，whereitishighlyreasonablethatoneshouldknowatleastwhatoneisaskedtocondemn。
　　Andhowisitpossiblefordoctors，whoarepersuadedthatJanseniuscanbearnoothersensethanthatofefficaciousgrace，toconsenttodeclarethattheycondemnhisdoctrinewithoutexplainingit，since，withtheirpresentconvictions，whichnomeansareusedtoalter，thiswouldbeneithermorenorlessthantocondemnefficaciousgrace，whichcannotbecondemnedwithoutsin？Woulditnot，therefore，beapieceofmonstroustyrannytoplacetheminsuchanunhappydilemmathattheymusteitherbringguiltupontheirsoulsinthesightofGod，bysigningthatcondemnationagainsttheirconsciences，orbedenouncedashereticsforrefusingtosignit？
　　Butthereisamysteryunderallthis。YouJesuitscannotmoveastepwithoutastratagem。ItremainsformetoexplainwhyyoudonotexplainthesenseofJansenius。Thesolepurposeofmywritingistodiscoveryourdesigns，and，bydiscovering，tofrustratethem。Imust，therefore，informthosewhoarenotalreadyawareofthefactthatyourgreatconcerninthisdisputebeingtoupholdthesufficientgraceofyourMolina，youcouldnoteffectthiswithoutdestroyingtheefficaciousgracewhichstandsdirectlyopposedtoit。Perceiving，however，thatthelatterwasnowsanctionedatRomeandbyallthelearnedintheChurch，andunabletocombatthedoctrineonitsownmerits，youresolvedtoattackitinaclandestineway，underthenameofthedoctrineofJansenius。Youwereresolved，accordingly，togetJanseniuscondemnedwithoutexplanation；and，togainyourpurpose，gaveoutthathisdoctrinewasnotthatofefficaciousgrace，sothateveryonemightthinkhewasatlibertytocondemntheonewithoutdenyingtheother。Henceyourefforts，inthepresentday，toimpressthisideauponthemindsofsuchashavenoacquaintancewiththatauthor；anobjectwhichyouyourself，father，haveattempted，bymeansofthefollowingingenioussyllogism："ThepopehascondemnedthedoctrineofJansenius；butthepopehasnotcondemnedefficaciousgrace：therefore，thedoctrineofefficaciousgracemustbedifferentfromthatofJansenius。"Ifthismodeofreasoningwereconclusive，itmightbedemonstratedinthesamewaythatHonoriusandallhisdefendersarehereticsofthesamekind。"ThesixthcouncilhascondemnedthedoctrineofHonorius；butthecouncilhasnotcondemnedthedoctrineoftheChurch：thereforethedoctrineofHonoriusisdifferentfromthatoftheChurch；andtherefore，allwhodefendhimareheretics。"
　　Itisobviousthatnoconclusioncanbedrawnfromthis；forthePopehasdonenomorethancondemnthedoctrineofthefivepropositions，whichwasrepresentedtohimasthedoctrineofJansenius。Butitmattersnot；
　　youhavenointentiontomakeuseofthislogicforanylengthoftime。
　　Poorasitis，itwilllastsufficientlylongtoserveyourpresentturn。
　　Allthatyouwishtoeffectbyit，inthemeantime，istoinducethosewhoareunwillingtocondemnefficaciousgracetocondemnJanseniuswithlessscruple。Whenthisobjecthasbeenaccomplished，yourargumentwillsoonbeforgotten，andtheirsignatures，remainingasaneternaltestimonyincondemnationofJansenius，willfurnishyouwithanoccasiontomakeadirectattackuponefficaciousgracebyanothermodeofreasoningmuchmoresolidthantheformer，whichshallbeforthcominginpropertime。
　　"ThedoctrineofJansenius，"youwillargue，"hasbeencondemnedbytheuniversalsubscriptionsoftheChurch。Nowthisdoctrineismanifestlythatofefficaciousgrace"（anditwillbeeasyforyoutoprovethat）；
　　"thereforethedoctrineofefficaciousgraceiscondemnedevenbytheconfessionofhisdefenders。"Beholdyourreasonforproposingtosignthecondemnationofadoctrinewithoutgivinganexplanationofit！Beholdtheadvantageyouexpecttogainfromsubscriptionsthusprocured！Shouldyouropponents，however，refusetosubscribe，youhaveanothertraplaidforthem。Havingdexterouslycombinedthequestionoffaithwiththatoffact，andnotallowingthemtoseparatebetweenthem，nortosigntheonewithouttheother，theconsequencewillbethat，becausetheycouldnotsubscribethetwotogether，youwillpublishitinalldirectionsthattheyhaverefusedthetwotogether。
　　Andthusthough，inpointoffact，theysimplydeclineacknowledgingthatJanseniushasmaintainedthepropositionswhichtheycondemn，whichcannotbecalledheresy，youwillboldlyassertthattheyhaverefusedtocondemnthepropositionsthemselves，andthatitisthisthatconstitutestheirheresy。Suchisthefruitwhichyouexpecttoreapfromtheirrefusal，andwhichwillbenolessusefultoyouthanwhatyoumighthavegainedfromtheirconsent。Sothat，intheeventofthesesignaturesbeingexacted，theywillfallintoyoursnares，whethertheysignornot，andinbothcasesyouwillgainyourpoint；suchisyourdexterityinuniformlyputtingmattersintoatrainforyourownadvantage，whateverbiastheymayhappentotakeintheircourse！HowwellIknowyou，father！andhowgrievedamItoseethatGodhasabandonedyousofarastoallowyousuchhappysuccessinsuchanunhappycourse！Yourgoodfortunedeservescommiseration，andcanexciteenvyonlyinthebreastsofthosewhoknownotwhattrulygoodfortuneis。Itisanactofcharitytothwartthesuccessyouaimatinthewholeofthisproceeding，seeingthatyoucanonlyreachitbytheaidoffalsehood，andbyprocuringcredittooneoftwolieseitherthattheChurchhascondemnedefficaciousgrace，orthatthosewhodefendthatdoctrinemaintainthefivecondemnederrors。Theworldmust，therefore，beapprisedoftwofacts：first，Thatbyyourownconfession，efficaciousgracehasnotbeencondemned；andsecondly，Thatnobodysupportstheseerrors。Sothatitmaybeknownthatthosewhorefusetosignwhatyouaresoanxioustoexactfromthem，refusemerelyinconsiderationofthequestionoffact，andthat，beingquitereadytosubscribethatoffaith，theycannotbedeemedhereticalonthataccount；because，torepeatitoncemore，thoughitbematteroffaithtobelievethesepropositionstobeheretical，itwillneverbematteroffaithtoholdthattheyaretobefoundinthepagesofJansenius。Theyareinnocentofallerror；thatisenough。ItmaybethattheyinterpretJanseniustoofavourably；butitmaybealsothatyoudonotinterprethimfavourablyenough。Idonotenteruponthisquestion。AllthatIknowisthat，accordingtoyourmaxims，youbelievethatyoumay，withoutsin，publishhimtobeahereticcontrarytoyourownknowledge；whereas，accordingtotheirmaxims，theycannot，withoutsin，declarehimtobeaCatholic，unlesstheyarepersuadedthatheisone。Theyare，therefore，morehonestthanyou，father；theyhaveexaminedJanseniusmorefaithfullythanyou；theyarenolessintelligentthanyou；theyare，therefore，nolesscrediblewitnessesthanyou。Butcomewhatmayofthispointoffact，theyarecertainlyCatholics；for，inordertobeso，itisnotnecessarytodeclarethatanothermanisnotaCatholic；itisenough，inallconscience，ifaperson，withoutchargingerroruponanybodyelse，succeedindischarginghimself。ReverendFather，ifyouhavefoundanydifficultyindecipheringthisletter，whichiscertainlynotprintedinthebestpossibletype，blamenobodybutyourself。Privilegesarenotsoeasilygrantedtomeastheyaretoyou。Youcanprocurethemevenforthepurposeofcombatingmiracles；Icannothavethemeventodefendmyself。Theprinting—housesareperpetuallyhaunted。Insuchcircumstances，youyourselfwouldnotadvisemetowriteyouanymoreletters，foritisreallyasadannoyancetobeobligedtohaverecoursetoanOsnabruckimpression。LETTERXVIII
　　TOTHEREVERENDFATHERANNAT，JESUITMarch24，1657REVERENDFATHER，Longhaveyoulabouredtodiscoversomeerrorinthecreedorconductofyouropponents；butIratherthinkyouwillhavetoconfess，intheend，thatitisamoredifficulttaskthanyouimaginedtomakehereticsofpeoplewho，arenotonlynoheretics，butwhohatenothingintheworldsomuchasheresy。InmylastletterIsucceededinshowingthatyouaccusethemofoneheresyafteranother，withoutbeingabletostandbyoneofthechargesforanylengthoftime；sothatallthatremainedforyouwastofixontheirrefusaltocondemn"thesenseofJansenius，"whichyouinsistontheirdoingwithoutexplanation。Youmusthavebeensadlyinwantofheresiestobrandthemwith，whenyouwerereducedtothis。Forwhoeverheardofaheresywhichnobodycouldexplain？Theanswerwasready，therefore，thatifJanseniushasnoerrors，itiswrongtocondemnhim；andifhehas，youwereboundtopointthemout，thatwemightknowatleastwhatwewerecondemning。
　　This，however，youhaveneveryetbeenpleasedtodo；butyouhaveattemptedtofortifyyourpositionbydecrees，whichmadenothinginyourfavour，astheygavenosortofexplanationofthesenseofJansenius，saidtohavebeencondemnedinthefivepropositions。Thiswasnotthewaytoterminatethedispute。HadyoumutuallyagreedastothegenuinesenseofJansenius，andhadtheonlydifferencebetweenyoubeenastowhetherthatsensewashereticalornot，inthatcasethedecisionswhichmightpronounceittobehereticalwouldhavetouchedtherealquestionindispute。ButthegreatdisputebeingaboutthesenseofJansenius，theonepartysayingthattheycouldseenothinginitinconsistentwiththesenseofSt。AugustineandSt。Thomas，andtheotherpartyassertingthattheysawinitanhereticalsensewhichtheywouldnotexpress。Itisclearthataconstitutionwhichdoesnotsayawordaboutthisdifferenceofopinion，andwhichonlycondemnsingeneralandwithoutexplanationthesenseofJansenius，leavesthepointindisputequiteundecided。Youhaveaccordinglybeenrepeatedlytoldthatasyourdiscussionturnsonamatteroffact，youwouldneverbeabletobringittoaconclusionwithoutdeclaringwhatyouunderstandbythesenseofJansenius。But，asyoucontinuedobstinateinyourrefusaltomakethisexplanation，Iendeavored，asalastresource，toextortitfromyou，byhintinginmylastletterthattherewassomemysteryundertheeffortsyouweremakingtoprocurethecondemnationofthissensewithoutexplainingit，andthatyourdesignwastomakethisindefinitecensurerecoilsomedayorotheruponthedoctrineofefficaciousgrace，byshowing，asyoucouldeasilydo，thatthiswasexactlythedoctrineofJansenius。Thishasreducedyoutothenecessityofmakingareply；for，hadyoupertinaciouslyrefused，aftersuchaninsinuation，toexplainyourviewsofthatsense，itwouldhavebeenapparenttopersonsofthesmallestpenetrationthatyoucondemneditinthesenseofefficaciousgrace—aconclusionwhich，consideringthevenerationinwhichtheChurchholdsholydoctrine，wouldhaveoverwhelmedyouwithdisgrace。Youhave，therefore，beenforcedtospeakoutyourmind；andwefinditexpressedinyourreplytothatpartofletterinwhichIremarked，that"ifJanseniuswascapableofanyothersensethanthatofefficaciousgrace，hehadnodefenders；butifhiswritingsborenoothersense，hehadnoerrorstodefend。"Youfounditimpossibletodenythisposition，father；butyouhaveattemptedtoparryitbythefollowingdistinction："Itisnotsufficient，"sayyou，"forthevindicationofJansenius，toallegethathemerelyholdsthedoctrineofefficaciousgrace，forthatmaybeheldintwoways—theoneheretical，accordingtoCalvin，whichconsistsinmaintainingthatthewill，whenundertheinfluenceofgrace，hasnotthepowerofresistingit；theotherorthodox，accordingtotheThomistsandtheSorbonists，whichisfoundedontheprinciplesestablishedbythecouncils，andwhichis，thatefficaciousgraceofitselfgovernsthewillinsuchawaythatitstillhasthepowerofresistingit。"Allthiswegrant，father；butyouconcludebyadding："Janseniuswouldbeorthodox，ifhedefendedefficaciousgraceinthesenseoftheThomists；butheisheretical，becauseheopposestheThomists，andjoinsissuewithCalvin，whodeniesthepowerofresistinggrace。"Idonothereenteruponthequestionoffact，whetherJanseniusreallyagreeswithCalvin。
　　Itisenoughformypurposethatyouassertthathedoes，andthatyounowinformmethatbythesenseofJanseniusyouhaveallalongunderstoodnothingmorethanthesenseofCalvin。Wasthisallyoumeant，then，father？
　　WasitonlytheerrorofCalvinthatyouweresoanxioustogetcondemned，underthenameof"thesenseofJansenius？"Whydidyounottellusthissooner？Youmighthavesavedyourselfaworldoftrouble；forwewereallready，withouttheaidofbullsorbriefs，tojoinwithyouincondemningthaterror。Whaturgentnecessitytherewasforsuchanexplanation！Whatahostofdifficultieshasitremoved！Wewerequiteataloss，mydearfather，toknowwhaterrorthepopesandbishopsmeanttocondemn，underthenameof"thesenseofJansenius。"ThewholeChurchwasintheutmostperplexityaboutit，andnotasoulwouldrelieveusbyanexplanation。
　　This，however，hasnowbeendonebyyou，father—you，whomthewholeofyourpartyregardasthechiefandprimemoverofalltheircouncils，andwhoareacquaintedwiththewholesecretofthisproceeding。You，then，havetoldusthatthesenseofJanseniusisneithermorenorlessthanthesenseofCalvin，whichhasbeencondemnedbythecouncil。Why，thisexplainseverything。Weknownowthattheerrorwhichtheyintendedtocondemn，undertheseterms—thesenseofJansenius—isneithermorenorlessthanthesenseofCalvin；andthat，consequently，we，byjoiningwiththeminthecondemnationofCalvin’sdoctrine，haveyieldedalldueobediencetothesedecrees。Wearenolongersurprisedatthezealwhichthepopesandsomebishopsmanifestedagainst"thesenseofJansenius。"How，indeed，couldtheybeotherwisethanzealousagainstit，believing，astheydid，thedeclarationsofthosewhopubliclyaffirmedthatitwasidenticallythesamewiththatofCalvin？Imustmaintain，then，father，thatyouhavenofurtherreasontoquarrelwithyouradversaries；fortheydetestthatdoctrineasheartilyasyoudo。Iamonlyastonishedtoseethatyouareignorantofthisfact，andthatyouhavesuchanimperfectacquaintancewiththeirsentimentsonthispoint，whichtheyhavesorepeatedlyexpressedintheirpublishedworks。Iflattermyselfthat，wereyoumoreintimatewiththesewritings，youwoulddeeplyregretyournothavingmadeyourselfacquaintedsooner，inthespiritofpeace，withadoctrinewhichisineveryrespectsoholyandsoChristian，butwhichpassion，intheabsenceofknowledge，nowpromptsyoutooppose。Youwouldfind，father，thattheynotonlyholdthataneffectiveresistancemaybemadetothosefeeblergraceswhichgounderthenameofexcitingorinefficacious，fromtheirnotterminatinginthegoodwithwhichtheyinspireus；butthattheyare，moreover，asfirminmaintaining，inoppositiontoCalvin，thepowerwhichthewillhastoresistevenefficaciousandvictoriousgrace，astheyareincontendingagainstMolinaforthepowerofthisgraceoverthewill，andfullyasjealousfortheoneofthesetruthsastheyarefortheother。
　　Theyknowtoowellthatman，ofhisownnature，hasalwaysthepowerofsinningandofresistinggrace；andthat，sincehebecamecorrupt，heunhappilycarriesinhisbreastafountofconcupiscencewhichinfinitelyaugmentsthatpower；butthat，notwithstandingthis，whenitpleasesGodtovisithimwithHismercy，HemakesthesouldowhatHewills，andinthemannerHewillsittobedone，while，atthesametime，theinfallibilityofthedivineoperationdoesnotinanywaydestroythenaturallibertyofman，inconsequenceofthesecretandwonderfulwaysbywhichGodoperatesthischange。ThishasbeenmostadmirablyexplainedbySt。Augustine，insuchawayastodissipateallthoseimaginaryinconsistencieswhichtheopponentsofefficaciousgracesupposetoexistbetweenthesovereignpowerofgraceoverthefree—willandthepowerwhichthefree—willhastoresistgrace。
　　For，accordingtothisgreatsaint，whomthepopesandtheChurchhaveheldtobeastandardauthorityonthissubject，Godtransformstheheartofman，bysheddingabroadinitaheavenlysweetness，whichsurmountingthedelightsoftheflesh，andinducinghimtofeel，ontheonehand，hisownmortalityandnothingness，andtodiscover，ontheotherhand，themajestyandeternityofGod，makeshimconceiveadistasteforthepleasuresofsinwhichinterposebetweenhimandincorruptiblehappiness。FindinghischiefestjoyintheGodwhocharmshim，hissoulisdrawntowardsHiminfallibly，butofitsownaccord，byamotionperfectlyfree，spontaneous，love—impelled；sothatitwouldbeitstormentandpunishmenttobeseparatedfromHim。NotbutthatthepersonhasalwaysthepowerofforsakinghisGod，andthathemaynotactuallyforsakeHim，providedhechoosetodoit。Buthowcouldhechoosesuchacourse，seeingthatthewillalwaysinclinestothatwhichismostagreeabletoit，andthat，inthecasewenowsuppose，nothingcanbemoreagreeablethanthepossessionofthatonegood，whichcomprisesinitselfallothergoodthings？"Quodenim（saysSt。Augustine）ampliusnosdelectat，secundumoperemurnecesseest—Ouractionsarenecessarilydeterminedbythatwhichaffordsusthegreatestpleasure。"SuchisthemannerinwhichGodregulatesthefreewillofmanwithoutencroachingonitsfreedom，andinwhichthefreewill，whichalwaysmay，butneverwill，resistHisgrace，turnstoGodwithamovementasvoluntaryasitisirresistible，whensoeverHeispleasedtodrawittoHimselfbythesweetconstraintofHisefficaciousinspirations。These，father，arethedivineprinciplesofSt。