“Capital! So, according to you, the Jansenists are Catholics, and M. le Moine a heretic; for the Jansenists say that the just have the power of praying, but that further efficacious grace is necessary—and this is what you also approve. M. le Moine, however, says that the just may pray without efficacious grace—and this you condemn. ‘Ay,’ they replied, ‘but M. le Moine calls this power _proximate power_.’ ‘But what is this, my father,’ I exclaimed in turn, ‘but to play with words—to say that you agree as to the common terms you employ, while your sense is quite different?’ To this they made no reply; and at this very point the disciple of M. le Moine, with whom I had consulted, arrived by what seemed to me a lucky and extraordinary conjuncture. But I afterwards found that these meetings were not uncommon; that, in fact, they were continually mixing the one with the other. I addressed myself immediately to M. le Moine’s disciple: ‘I know one,’ said I, ‘who maintains that the just have always the power of praying to God, but that nevertheless they never pray without an efficacious grace which determines them, and which is not always given by God to all the just. Is such a one a heretic?’ ‘Wait,’ said my doctor; ‘you take me by surprise. Come, gently. _Distinguo_. If he calls this power _proximate power_, he is a Thomist, and yet a Catholic; if not, he is a Jansenist, and therefore a heretic.’ ‘He calls it,’ said I, ‘neither the one nor the other.’ ‘He is a heretic then,’ said he; ‘ask these good fathers.’ It was unnecessary to appeal to them, for already they had assented by a nod of their heads. But I insisted. ‘He refuses to use the word _proximate_, because no one can explain it to him.’ Whereupon one of the fathers was about to give his definition of the term, when he was interrupted by M. le Moine’s disciple. ‘What!’ said he; ‘do you wish to recommence our quarrels? Have we not agreed never to attempt an explanation of this word _proximate_, but to use it on both sides without saying what it means?’ And to this the Jacobin assented. I saw at once into their plot, and rising to quit them, I said, ‘Of a truth, my fathers, this is nothing, I fear, but a quibble; and whatever may come of your meetings, I venture to predict that when the censure is passed, peace will not be restored. . . Surely it is unworthy, both of the Sorbonne and of theology, to make use of equivocal and captious terms without giving any explanation of them. Tell me, I entreat you, for the last time, fathers, what I must believe in order to be a Catholic?’ ‘You must say,’ they all cried at once, ‘that all the just have the _proximate power_.’ . . . ‘What necessity can there be,’ I argued, ‘for using a word which has neither authority nor definite meaning?’ ‘You are an opinionative