SIR,
I have not come yet to the policy of the Society, but shall first introduce you to one of its leading principles. I refer to the palliatives which they have applied1 to confession2, and which are unquestionably the best of all the schemes they have fallen upon to “attract all and repel3 none.” It is absolutely necessary to know something of this before going any further; and, accordingly, the monk4 judged it expedient5 to give me some instructions on the point, nearly as follows:
“From what I have already stated,” he observed, “you may judge of the success with which our doctors have laboured to discover, in their wisdom, that a great many things, formerly6 regarded as forbidden, are innocent and allowable; but as there are some sins for which one can find no excuse, and for which there is no remedy but confession, it became necessary to alleviate7, by the methods I am now going to mention, the difficulties attending that practice. Thus, having shown you, in our previous conversations, how we relieve people from troublesome scruples8 of conscience by showing them that what they believed to be sinful was indeed quite innocent, I proceed now to illustrate9 our convenient plan for expiating10 what is really sinful, which is effected by making confession as easy a process as it was formerly a painful one.”
“And how do you manage that, father?”
“Why,” said he, “it is by those admirable subtleties11 which are peculiar12 to our Company, and have been styled by our fathers in Flanders, in The Image of the First Century, ‘the pious13 finesse14, the holy artifice15 of devotion — piam et religiosam calliditatem, et pietatis solertiam.’ By the aid of these inventions, as they remark in the same place, ‘crimes may be expiated16 nowadays alacrius — with more zeal18 and alacrity19 than they were committed in former days, and a great many people may be washed from their stains almost as cleverly as they contracted them — plurimi vix citius maculas contrahunt quam eluunt.’”
“Pray, then, father, do teach me some of these most salutary lessons of finesse.”
“We have a good number of them, answered the monk; “for there are a great many irksome things about confession, and for each of these we have devised a palliative. The chief difficulties connected with this ordinance20 are the shame of confessing certain sins, the trouble of specifying21 the circumstances of others, the penance22 exacted for them, the resolution against relapsing into them, the avoidance of the proximate occasions of sins, and the regret for having committed them. I hope to convince you to-day that it is now possible to get over all this with hardly any trouble at all; such is the care we have taken to allay23 the bitterness and nauseousness of this very necessary medicine. For, to begin with the difficulty of confessing certain sins, you are aware it is of importance often to keep in the good graces of one’s confessor; now, must it not be extremely convenient to be permitted, as you are by our doctors, particularly Escobar and Suarez, ‘to have two confessors, one for the mortal sins and another for the venial24, in order to maintain a fair character with your ordinary confessor — uti bonam famam apud ordinarium tueatur — provided you do not take occasion from thence to indulge in mortal sin?’ This is followed by another ingenious contrivance for confessing a sin, even to the ordinary confessor, without his perceiving that it was committed since the last confession, which is, ‘to make a general confession, and huddle25 this last sin in a lump among the rest which we confess.’ And I am sure you will own that the following decision of Father Bauny goes far to alleviate the shame which one must feel in confessing his relapses, namely, ‘that, except in certain cases, which rarely occur, the confessor is not entitled to ask his penitent26 if the sin of which he accuses himself is an habitual27 one, nor is the latter obliged to answer such a question; because the confessor has no right to subject his penitent to the shame of disclosing his frequent relapses.’”
“Indeed, father! I might as well say that a physician has no right to ask his patient if it is long since he had the fever. Do not sins assume quite a different aspect according to circumstances? and should it not be the object of a genuine penitent to discover the whole state of his conscience to his confessor, with the same sincerity28 and open-heartedness as if he were speaking to Jesus Christ himself, whose place the priest occupies? If so, how far is he from realizing such a disposition29 who, by concealing30 the frequency of his relapses, conceals31 the aggravations of his offence!”
I saw that this puzzled the worthy32 monk, for he attempted to elude34 rather than resolve the difficulty by turning my attention to another of their rules, which only goes to establish a fresh abuse, instead of justifying36 in the least the decision of Father Bauny; a decision which, in my opinion, is one of the most pernicious of their maxims37, and calculated to encourage profligate38 men to continue in their evil habits.
“I grant you,” replied the father, “that habit aggravates40 the malignity41 of a sin, but it does not alter its nature; and that is the reason why we do not insist on people confessing it, according to the rule laid down by our fathers, and quoted by Escobar, ‘that one is only obliged to confess the circumstances that alter the species of the sin, and not those that aggravate39 it.’ Proceeding42 on this rule, Father Granados says, ‘that if one has eaten flesh in Lent, all he needs to do is to confess that he has broken the fast, without specifying whether it was by eating flesh, or by taking two fish meals.’ And, according to Reginald, ‘a sorcerer who has employed the diabolical43 art is not obliged to reveal that circumstance; it is enough to say that he has dealt in magic, without expressing whether it was by palmistry or by a paction with the devil.’ Fagundez, again, has decided44 that ‘rape is not a circumstance which one is bound to reveal, if the woman give her consent.’ All this is quoted by Escobar, with many other very curious decisions as to these circumstances, which you may consult at your leisure.”
“These ‘artifices of devotion’ are vastly convenient in their way,” I observed.
“And yet,” said the father, “notwithstanding all that, they would go for nothing, sir, unless we had proceeded to mollify penance, which, more than anything else, deters45 people from confession. Now, however, the most squeamish have nothing to dread46 from it, after what we have advanced in our theses of the College of Clermont, where we hold that, if the confessor imposes a suitable penance, and the penitent be unwilling47 to submit himself to it, the latter may go home, ‘waiving both the penance and the absolution.’ Or, as Escobar says, in giving the Practice of our Society, ‘if the penitent declare his willingness to have his penance remitted48 to the next world, and to suffer in purgatory50 all the pains due to him, the confessor may, for the honour of the sacrament, impose a very light penance on him, particularly if he has reason to believe that this penitent would object to a heavier one.’”
“I really think,” said I, “that, if that is the case, we ought no longer to call confession the sacrament of penance.”
“You are wrong,” he replied; “for we always administer something in the way of penance, for the form’s sake.”
“But, father, do you suppose that a man is worthy of receiving absolution when he will submit to nothing painful to expiate17 his offences? And, in these circumstances, ought you not to retain rather than remit49 their sins? Are you not aware of the extent of your ministry51, and that you have the power of binding52 and loosing? Do you imagine that you are at liberty to give absolution indifferently to all who ask it, and without ascertaining54 beforehand if Jesus Christ looses in heaven those whom you loose on earth?”
“What!” cried the father, “do you suppose that we do not know that ‘the confessor (as one remarks) ought to sit in judgement on the disposition of his penitent, both because he is bound not to dispense55 the sacraments to the unworthy, Jesus Christ having enjoined56 him to be a faithful steward57 and not give that which is holy unto dogs; and because he is a judge, and it is the duty of a judge to give righteous judgement, by loosing the worthy and binding the unworthy, and he ought not to absolve58 those whom Jesus Christ condemns59.’
“Whose words are these, father?”
“They are the words of our father Filiutius,” he replied.
“You astonish me,” said I; “I took them to be a quotation60 from one of the fathers of the Church. At all events, sir, that passage ought to make an impression on the confessors, and render them very circumspect61 in the dispensation of this sacrament, to ascertain53 whether the regret of their penitents62 is sufficient, and whether their promises of future amendment63 are worthy of credit.”
“That is not such a difficult matter,” replied the father; “Filiutius had more sense than to leave confessors in that dilemma64, and accordingly he suggests an easy way of getting out of it, in the words immediately following: ‘The confessor may easily set his mind at rest as to the disposition of his penitent; for, if he fail to give sufficient evidence of sorrow, the confessor has only to ask him if he does not detest65 the sin in his heart, and, if he answers that he does, he is bound to believe it. The same thing may be said of resolutions as to the future, unless the case involves an obligation to restitution66, or to avoid some proximate occasion of sin.’”
“As to that passage, father, I can easily believe that it is Filiutius’ own.”
“You are mistaken though,” said the father, “for he has extracted it, word for word, from Suarez.”
“But, father, that last passage from Filiutius overturns what he had laid down in the former. For confessors can no longer be said to sit as judges on the disposition of their penitents, if they are bound to take it simply upon their word, in the absence of all satisfying signs of contrition67. Are the professions made on such occasions so infallible, that no other sign is needed? I question much if experience has taught your fathers that all who make fair promises are remarkable68 for keeping them; I am mistaken if they have not often found the reverse.”
“No matter,” replied the monk; “confessors are bound to believe them for all that; for Father Bauny, who has probed this question to the bottom, has concluded ‘that at whatever time those who have fallen into frequent relapses, without giving evidence of amendment, present themselves before a confessor, expressing their regret for the past, and a good purpose for the future, he is bound to believe them on their simple averment, although there may be reason to presume that such resolution only came from the teeth outwards69. Nay,’ says he, ‘though they should indulge subsequently to greater excess than ever in the same delinquencies, still, in my opinion, they may receive absolution.’ There now! that, I am sure, should silence you.”
“But, father,” said I, “you impose a great hardship, I think, on the confessors, by thus obliging them to believe the very reverse of what they see.”
“You don’t understand it,” returned he; “all that is meant is that they are obliged to act and absolve as if they believed that their penitents would be true to their engagements, though, in point of fact, they believe no such thing. This is explained, immediately afterwards, by Suarez and Filiutius. After having said that ‘the priest is bound to believe the penitent on his word,’ they add: ‘It is not necessary that the confessor should be convinced that the good resolution of his penitent will be carried into effect, nor even that he should judge it probable; it is enough that he thinks the person has at the time the design in general, though he may very shortly after relapse. Such is the doctrine70 of all our authors — ita docent omnes autores.’ Will you presume to doubt what has been taught by our authors?”
“But, sir, what then becomes of what Father Petau himself is obliged to own, in the preface to his Public Penance, ‘that the holy fathers, doctors, and councils of the Church agree in holding it as a settled point that the penance preparatory to the eucharist must be genuine, constant, resolute71, and not languid and sluggish72, or subject to after-thoughts and relapses?’”
“Don’t you observe,” replied the monk, “that Father Petau is speaking of the ancient Church? But all that is now so little in season, to use a common saying of our doctors, that, according to Father Bauny, the reverse is the only true view of the matter. ‘There are some,’ says he, ‘who maintain that absolution ought to be refused to those who fall frequently into the same sin, more especially if, after being often absolved73, they evince no signs of amendment; and others hold the opposite view. But the only true opinion is that they ought not to be refused absolution; and, though they should be nothing the better of all the advice given them, though they should have broken all their promises to lead new lives, and been at no trouble to purify themselves, still it is of no consequence; whatever may be said to the contrary, the true opinion which ought to be followed is that even in all these cases, they ought to be absolved.’ And again: ‘Absolution ought neither to be denied nor delayed in the case of those who live in habitual sins against the law of God, of nature, and of the Church, although there should be no apparent prospect74 of future amendment — etsi emendationis futurae nulla spes appareat.’”
“But, father, this certainty of always getting absolution may induce sinners —”
“I know what you mean,” interrupted the Jesuit; “but listen to Father Bauny, Q. 15: ‘Absolution may be given even to him who candidly75 avows76 that the hope of being absolved induced him to sin with more freedom than he would otherwise have done.’ And Father Caussin, defending this proposition, says ‘that, were this not true, confession would be interdicted77 to the greater part of mankind; and the only resource left poor sinners would be a branch and a rope.’”
“O father, how these maxims of yours will draw people to your confessionals!”
“Yes, he replied, “you would hardly believe what numbers are in the habit of frequenting them; ‘we are absolutely oppressed and overwhelmed, so to speak, under the crowd of our penitents — penitentium numero obruimur’— as is said in The Image of the First Century.”
“I could suggest a very simple method,” said I, “to escape from this inconvenient78 pressure. You have only to oblige sinners to avoid the proximate occasions of sin; that single expedient would afford you relief at once.”
“We have no wish for such a relief,” rejoined the monk; “quite the reverse; for, as is observed in the same book, ‘the great end of our Society is to labor79 to establish the virtues81, to wage war on the vices82, and to save a great number of souls.’ Now, as there are very few souls inclined to quit the proximate occasions of sin, we have been obliged to define what a proximate occasion is. ‘That cannot be called a proximate occasion,’ says Escobar, ‘where one sins but rarely, or on a sudden transport — say three or four times a year’; or, as Father Bauny has it, once or twice in a month.’ Again, asks this author, ‘what is to be done in the case of masters and servants, or cousins, who, living under the same roof, are by this occasion tempted33 to sin?’”
“They ought to be separated,” said I.
“That is what he says, too, ‘if their relapses be very frequent: but if the parties offend rarely, and cannot be separated without trouble and loss, they may, according to Suarez and other authors, be absolved, provided they promise to sin no more, and are truly sorry for what is past.’”
This required no explanation, for he had already informed me with what sort of evidence of contrition the confessor was bound to rest satisfied.
“And Father Bauny,” continued the monk, “permits those who are involved in the proximate occasions of sin, ‘to remain as they are, when they cannot avoid them without becoming the common talk of the world, or subjecting themselves to inconvenience.’ ‘A priest,’ he remarks in another work, ‘may and ought to absolve a woman who is guilty of living with a paramour, if she cannot put him away honourably84, or has some reason for keeping him — si non potest honeste ejicere, aut habeat aliquam causam retinendi — provided she promises to act more virtuously85 for the future.’”
“Well, father,” cried I, “you have certainly succeeded in relaxing the obligation of avoiding the occasions of sin to a very comfortable extent, by dispensing86 with the duty as soon as it becomes inconvenient; but I should think your fathers will at least allow it be binding when there is no difficulty in the way of its performance?”
“Yes,” said the father, “though even then the rule is not without exceptions. For Father Bauny says, in the same place, ‘that any one may frequent profligate houses, with the view of converting their unfortunate inmates87, though the probability should be that he fall into sin, having often experienced before that he has yielded to their fascinations88. Some doctors do not approve of this opinion, and hold that no man may voluntarily put his salvation89 in peril90 to succour his neighbor; yet I decidedly embrace the opinion which they controvert91.’”
“A novel sort of preachers these, father! But where does Father Bauny find any ground for investing them with such a mission?”
“It is upon one of his own principles,” he replied, “which he announces in the same place after Basil Ponce. I mentioned it to you before, and I presume you have not forgotten it. It is, ‘that one may seek an occasion of sin, directly and expressly — primo et per se — to promote the temporal or spiritual good of himself or his neighbour.’”
On hearing these passages, I felt so horrified92 that I was on the point of breaking out; but, being resolved to hear him to an end, I restrained myself, and merely inquired: “How, father, does this doctrine comport94 with that of the Gospel, which binds95 us to ‘pluck out the right eye,’ and ‘cut off the right hand,’ when they ‘offend,’ or prove prejudicial to salvation? And how can you suppose that the man who wilfully96 indulges in the occasions of sins, sincerely hates sin? Is it not evident, on the contrary, that he has never been properly touched with a sense of it, and that he has not yet experienced that genuine conversion97 of heart, which makes a man love God as much as he formerly loved the creature?”
“Indeed!” cried he, “do you call that genuine contrition? It seems you do not know that, as Father Pintereau says, ‘all our fathers teach, with one accord, that it is an error, and almost a heresy98, to hold that contrition is necessary; or that attrition alone, induced by the sole motive99, the fear of the pains of hell, which excludes a disposition to offend, is not sufficient with the sacrament?’”
“What, father! do you mean to say that it is almost an article of faith that attrition, induced merely by fear of punishment, is sufficient with the sacrament? That idea, I think, is peculiar to your fathers; for those other doctors who hold that attrition is sufficient along with the sacrament, always take care to show that it must be accompanied with some love to God at least. It appears to me, moreover, that even your own authors did not always consider this doctrine of yours so certain. Your Father Suarez, for instance, speaks of it thus: ‘Although it is a probable opinion that attrition is sufficient with the sacrament, yet it is not certain, and it may be false — non est certa, et potest esse falsa. And, if it is false, attrition is not sufficient to save a man; and he that dies knowingly in this state, wilfully exposes himself to the grave peril of eternal damnation. For this opinion is neither very ancient nor very common — nec valde antiqua, nec multum communis.’ Sanchez was not more prepared to hold it as infallible when he said in his Summary that ‘the sick man and his confessor, who content themselves at the hour of death with attrition and the sacrament, are both chargeable with mortal sin, on account of the great risk of damnation to which the penitent would be exposed, if the opinion that attrition is sufficient with the sacrament should not turn out to be true. Comitolus, too, says that ‘we should not be too sure that attrition suffices with the sacrament.’”
Here the worthy father interrupted me. “What!” he cried, “you read our authors then, it seems? That is all very well; but it would be still better were you never to read them without the precaution of having one of us beside you. Do you not see, now, that, from having read them alone, you have concluded, in your simplicity100, that these passages bear hard on those who have more lately supported our doctrine of attrition? Whereas it might be shown that nothing could set them off to greater advantage. Only think what a triumph it is for our fathers of the present day to have succeeded in disseminating101 their opinion in such short time, and to such an extent that, with the exception of theologians, nobody almost would ever suppose but that our modern views on this subject had been the uniform belief of the faithful in all ages! So that, in fact, when you have shown, from our fathers themselves, that, a few years ago, ‘this opinion was not certain,’ you have only succeeded in giving our modern authors the whole merit of its establishment!
“Accordingly,” he continued, “our cordial friend Diana, to gratify us, no doubt, has recounted the various steps by which the opinion reached its present position. ‘In former days, the ancient schoolmen maintained that contrition was necessary as soon as one had committed a mortal sin; since then, however, it has been thought that it is not binding except on festival days; afterwards, only when some great calamity102 threatened the people; others, again, that it ought not to be long delayed at the approach of death. But our fathers, Hurtado and Vasquez, have ably refuted all these opinions and established that one is not bound to contrition unless he cannot be absolved in any other way, or at the point of death!’ But, to continue the wonderful progress of this doctrine, I might add, what our fathers, Fagundez, Granados, and Escobar, have decided, ‘that contrition is not necessary even at death; because,’ say they, ‘if attrition with the sacrament did not suffice at death, it would follow that attrition would not be sufficient with the sacrament. And the learned Hurtado, cited by Diana and Escobar, goes still further; for he asks: ‘Is that sorrow for sin which flows solely103 from apprehension104 of its temporal consequences, such as having lost health or money, sufficient? We must distinguish. If the evil is not regarded as sent by the hand of God, such a sorrow does not suffice; but if the evil is viewed as sent by God, as, in fact, all evil, says Diana, except sin, comes from him, that kind of sorrow is sufficient.’ Our Father Lamy holds the same doctrine.”
“You surprise me, father; for I see nothing in all that attrition of which you speak but what is natural; and in this way a sinner may render himself worthy of absolution without supernatural grace at all. Now everybody knows that this is a heresy condemned105 by the Council.”
“I should have thought with you,” he replied; “and yet it seems this must not be the case, for the fathers of our College of Clermont have maintained (in their Theses of the 23rd May and 6th June 1644) ‘that attrition may be holy and sufficient for the sacrament, although it may not be supernatural’; and (in that of August 1643) ‘that attrition, though merely natural, is sufficient for the sacrament, provided it is honest.’ I do not see what more could be said on the subject, unless we choose to subjoin an inference, which may be easily drawn106 from these principles, namely, that contrition, so far from being necessary to the sacrament, is rather prejudicial to it, inasmuch as, by washing away sins of itself, it would leave nothing for the sacrament to do at all. That is, indeed, exactly what the celebrated107 Jesuit Father Valencia remarks. (Book iv, disp.7, q.8, p.4.) ‘Contrition,’ says he, ‘is by no means necessary in order to obtain the principal benefit of the sacrament; on the contrary, it is rather an obstacle in the way of it — imo obstat potius quominus effectus sequatur.’ Nobody could well desire more to be said in commendation of attrition.”
“I believe that, father, said I; “but you must allow me to tell you my opinion, and to show you to what a dreadful length this doctrine leads. When you say that ‘attrition, induced by the mere93 dread of punishment,’ is sufficient, with the sacrament, to justify35 sinners, does it not follow that a person may always expiate his sins in this way, and thus be saved without ever having loved God all his lifetime? Would your fathers venture to hold that?”
“I perceive,” replied the monk, “from the strain of your remarks, that you need some information on the doctrine of our fathers regarding the love of God. This is the last feature of their morality, and the most important of all. You must have learned something of it from the passages about contrition which I have quoted to you. But here are others still more definite on the point of love to God — Don’t interrupt me, now; for it is of importance to notice the connection. Attend to Escobar, who reports the different opinions of our authors, in his Practice of the Love of God according to our Society. The question is: ‘When is one obliged to have an actual affection for God?’ Suarez says it is enough if one loves Him before being articulo mortis — at the point of death — without determining the exact time. Vasquez, that it is sufficient even at the very point of death. Others, when one has received baptism. Others, again, when one is bound to exercise contrition. And others, on festival days. But our father, Castro Palao, combats all these opinions, and with good reason — merito. Hurtado de Mendoza insists that we are obliged to love God once a year; and that we ought to regard it as a great favour that we are not bound to do it oftener. But our Father Coninck thinks that we are bound to it only once in three or four years; Henriquez, once in five years; and Filiutius says that it is probable that we are not strictly108 bound to it even once in five years. How often, then, do you ask? Why, he refers it to the judgement of the judicious109.”
I took no notice of all this badinage110, in which the ingenuity111 of man seems to be sporting, in the height of insolence112, with the love of God.
“But,” pursued the monk, “our Father Antony Sirmond surpasses all on this point, in his admirable book, The Defence of Virtue80, where, as he tells the reader, ‘he speaks French in France,’ as follows: ‘St. Thomas says that we are obliged to love God as soon as we come to the use of reason: that is rather too soon! Scotus says every Sunday; pray, for what reason? Others say when we are sorely tempted: yes, if there be no other way of escaping the temptation. Scotus says when we have received a benefit from God: good, in the way of thanking Him for it. Others say at death: rather late! As little do I think it binding at the reception of any sacrament: attrition in such cases is quite enough, along with confession, if convenient. Suarez says that it is binding at some time or another; but at what time? — he leaves you to judge of that for yourself — he does not know; and what that doctor did not know I know not who should know.’ In short, he concludes that we are not strictly bound to more than to keep the other commandments, without any affection for God, and without giving Him our hearts, provided that we do not hate Him. To prove this is the sole object of his second treatise113. You will find it in every page; more especially where he says: ‘God, in commanding us to love Him, is satisfied with our obeying Him in his other commandments. If God had said: “Whatever obedience114 thou yieldest me, if thy heart is not given to me, I will destroy thee!” would such a motive, think you, be well fitted to promote the end which God must, and only can, have in view? Hence it is said that we shall love God by doing His will, as if we loved Him with affection, as if the motive in this case was real charity. If that is really our motive, so much the better; if not, still we are strictly fulfilling the commandment of love, by having its works, so that (such is the goodness of God!) we are commanded, not so much to love Him, as not to hate Him.’
“Such is the way in which our doctors have discharged men from the painful obligation of actually loving God. And this doctrine is so advantageous115 that our Fathers Annat, Pintereau, Le Moine, and Antony Sirmond himself, have strenuously116 defended it when it has been attacked. You have only to consult their answers to the Moral Theology. That of Father Pintereau, in particular, will enable you to form some idea of the value of this dispensation, from the price which he tells us that it cost, which is no less than the blood of Jesus Christ. This crowns the whole. It appears, that this dispensation from the painful obligation to love God, is the privilege of the Evangelical law, in opposition117 to the Judaical. ‘It was reasonable,’ he says, ‘that, under the law of grace in the New Testament118, God should relieve us from that troublesome and arduous119 obligation which existed under the law of bondage120, to exercise an act of perfect contrition, in order to be justified121; and that the place of this should be supplied by the sacraments, instituted in aid of an easier disposition. Otherwise, indeed, Christians122, who are the children, would have no greater facility in gaining the good graces of their Father than the Jews, who were the slaves, had in obtaining the mercy of their Lord and Master.’”
“O father!” cried I; “no patience can stand this any longer. It is impossible to listen without horror to the sentiments I have just heard.”
“They are not my sentiments,” said the monk.
“I grant it, sir,” said I; “but you feel no aversion to them; and, so far from detesting124 the authors of these maxims, you hold them in esteem125. Are you not afraid that your consent may involve you in a participation126 of their guilt83? and are you not aware that St. Paul judges worthy of death, not only the authors of evil things, but also ‘those who have pleasure in them that do them?’ Was it not enough to have permitted men to indulge in so many forbidden things under the covert127 of your palliations? Was it necessary to go still further and hold out a bribe128 to them to commit even those crimes which you found it impossible to excuse, by offering them an easy and certain absolution; and for this purpose nullifying the power of the priests, and obliging them, more as slaves than as judges, to absolve the most inveterate129 sinners — without any amendment of life, without any sign of contrition except promises a hundred times broken, without penance ‘unless they choose to accept of it’, and without abandoning the occasions of their vices, ‘if they should thereby130 be put to any inconvenience?’
“But your doctors have gone even beyond this; and the license131 which they have assumed to tamper132 with the most holy rules of Christian123 conduct amounts to a total subversion133 of the law of God. They violate ‘the great commandment on which hang all the law and the prophets’; they strike at the very heart of piety134; they rob it of the spirit that giveth life; they hold that to love God is not necessary to salvation; and go so far as to maintain that ‘this dispensation from loving God is the privilege which Jesus Christ has introduced into the world!’ This, sir, is the very climax135 of impiety136. The price of the blood of Jesus Christ paid to obtain us a dispensation from loving Him! Before the incarnation, it seems men were obliged to love God; but since ‘God has so loved the world as to give His only begotten137 Son,’ the world, redeemed138 by him, is released from loving Him! Strange divinity of our days — to dare to take off the ‘anathema’ which St. Paul denounces on those ‘that love not the Lord Jesus!’ To cancel the sentence of St. John: ‘He that loveth not, abideth in death!’ and that of Jesus Christ himself: ‘He that loveth me not keepeth not my precepts139!’ and thus to render those worthy of enjoying God through eternity140 who never loved God all their life! Behold141 the Mystery of Iniquity142 fulfilled! Open your eyes at length, my dear father, and if the other aberrations143 of your casuists have made no impression on you, let these last, by their very extravagance, compel you to abandon them. This is what I desire from the bottom of my heart, for your own sake and for the sake of your doctors; and my prayer to God is that He would vouchsafe144 to convince them how false the light must be that has guided them to such precipices145; and that He would fill their hearts with that love of Himself from which they have dared to give man a dispensation!”
After some remarks of this nature, I took my leave of the monk, and I see no great likelihood of my repeating my visits to him. This, however, need not occasion you any regret; for, should it be necessary to continue these communications on their maxims, I have studied their books sufficiently146 to tell you as much of their morality, and more, perhaps, of their policy, than he could have done himself. I am, &c.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
applied
|
|
| adj.应用的；v.应用，适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
confession
|
|
| n.自白，供认，承认 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
repel
|
|
| v.击退，抵制，拒绝，排斥 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
monk
|
|
| n.和尚，僧侣，修道士 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
expedient
|
|
| adj.有用的，有利的；n.紧急的办法，权宜之计 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
formerly
|
|
| adv.从前，以前 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
alleviate
|
|
| v.减轻，缓和，缓解(痛苦等) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
scruples
|
|
| n.良心上的不安( scruple的名词复数 )；顾虑，顾忌v.感到于心不安，有顾忌( scruple的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
illustrate
|
|
| v.举例说明，阐明；图解，加插图 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
expiating
|
|
| v.为（所犯罪过）接受惩罚，赎（罪）( expiate的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
subtleties
|
|
| 细微( subtlety的名词复数 )； 精细； 巧妙； 细微的差别等 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
peculiar
|
|
| adj.古怪的，异常的；特殊的，特有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
pious
|
|
| adj.虔诚的；道貌岸然的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
finesse
|
|
| n.精密技巧，灵巧，手腕 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
artifice
|
|
| n.妙计，高明的手段；狡诈，诡计 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
expiated
|
|
| v.为（所犯罪过）接受惩罚，赎（罪）( expiate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
expiate
|
|
| v.抵补，赎罪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
zeal
|
|
| n.热心，热情，热忱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
alacrity
|
|
| n.敏捷，轻快，乐意 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
ordinance
|
|
| n.法令；条令；条例 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
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： |
|
|
|
|
22
penance
|
|
| n.（赎罪的）惩罪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
allay
|
|
| v.消除，减轻(恐惧、怀疑等) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
venial
|
|
| adj.可宽恕的；轻微的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
huddle
|
|
| vi.挤作一团；蜷缩；vt.聚集；n.挤在一起的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
penitent
|
|
| adj.后悔的；n.后悔者；忏悔者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
habitual
|
|
| adj.习惯性的；通常的，惯常的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
sincerity
|
|
| n.真诚，诚意；真实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
disposition
|
|
| n.性情，性格；意向，倾向；排列，部署 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
concealing
|
|
| v.隐藏，隐瞒，遮住( conceal的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
conceals
|
|
| v.隐藏，隐瞒，遮住( conceal的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
worthy
|
|
| adj.(of)值得的，配得上的；有价值的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
tempted
|
|
| v.怂恿（某人）干不正当的事；冒…的险（tempt的过去分词） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
elude
|
|
| v.躲避，困惑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
justify
|
|
| vt.证明…正当(或有理)，为…辩护 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
justifying
|
|
| 证明…有理( justify的现在分词 )； 为…辩护； 对…作出解释； 为…辩解（或辩护） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
maxims
|
|
| n.格言，座右铭( maxim的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
profligate
|
|
| adj.行为不检的；n.放荡的人，浪子，肆意挥霍者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
aggravate
|
|
| vt.加重(剧)，使恶化；激怒，使恼火 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
aggravates
|
|
| 使恶化( aggravate的第三人称单数 )； 使更严重； 激怒； 使恼火 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
malignity
|
|
| n.极度的恶意，恶毒；（病的）恶性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
proceeding
|
|
| n.行动，进行，(pl.)会议录，学报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
diabolical
|
|
| adj.恶魔似的，凶暴的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
decided
|
|
| adj.决定了的，坚决的；明显的，明确的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
deters
|
|
| v.阻止，制止( deter的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
dread
|
|
| vt.担忧，忧虑；惧怕，不敢；n.担忧，畏惧 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
unwilling
|
|
| adj.不情愿的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
remitted
|
|
| v.免除（债务），宽恕( remit的过去式和过去分词 )；使某事缓和；寄回，传送 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
remit
|
|
| v.汇款，汇寄；豁免（债务），免除（处罚等） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
purgatory
|
|
| n.炼狱；苦难；adj.净化的，清洗的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
ministry
|
|
| n.(政府的)部；牧师 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
binding
|
|
| 有约束力的，有效的，应遵守的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
ascertain
|
|
| vt.发现，确定，查明，弄清 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
ascertaining
|
|
| v.弄清，确定，查明( ascertain的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
dispense
|
|
| vt.分配，分发；配(药)，发(药)；实施 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
enjoined
|
|
| v.命令( enjoin的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
steward
|
|
| n.乘务员，服务员；看管人；膳食管理员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
absolve
|
|
| v.赦免，解除（责任等） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
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： |
|
|
|
|
60
quotation
|
|
| n.引文，引语，语录；报价，牌价，行情 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
circumspect
|
|
| adj.慎重的，谨慎的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
penitents
|
|
| n.后悔者( penitent的名词复数 )；忏悔者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
63
amendment
|
|
| n.改正，修正，改善，修正案 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
dilemma
|
|
| n.困境，进退两难的局面 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
detest
|
|
| vt.痛恨，憎恶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
restitution
|
|
| n.赔偿；恢复原状 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
contrition
|
|
| n.悔罪，痛悔 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
remarkable
|
|
| adj.显著的，异常的，非凡的，值得注意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
outwards
|
|
| adj.外面的，公开的，向外的；adv.向外；n.外形 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
resolute
|
|
| adj.坚决的，果敢的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
sluggish
|
|
| adj.懒惰的，迟钝的，无精打采的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
absolved
|
|
| 宣告…无罪，赦免…的罪行，宽恕…的罪行( absolve的过去式和过去分词 )； 不受责难，免除责任 [义务] ,开脱（罪责） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
prospect
|
|
| n.前景，前途；景色，视野 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
candidly
|
|
| adv.坦率地，直率而诚恳地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
avows
|
|
| v.公开声明，承认( avow的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
77
interdicted
|
|
| v.禁止（行动）( interdict的过去式和过去分词 )；禁用；限制 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
inconvenient
|
|
| adj.不方便的，令人感到麻烦的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
labor
|
|
| n.劳动，努力，工作，劳工；分娩；vi.劳动，努力，苦干；vt.详细分析；麻烦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
virtue
|
|
| n.德行，美德；贞操；优点；功效，效力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
virtues
|
|
| 美德( virtue的名词复数 )； 德行； 优点； 长处 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
vices
|
|
| 缺陷( vice的名词复数 )； 恶习； 不道德行为； 台钳 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
guilt
|
|
| n.犯罪；内疚；过失，罪责 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
honourably
|
|
| adv.可尊敬地，光荣地，体面地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
virtuously
|
|
| 合乎道德地，善良地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
dispensing
|
|
| v.分配( dispense的现在分词 )；施与；配（药） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
inmates
|
|
| n.囚犯( inmate的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
fascinations
|
|
| n.魅力( fascination的名词复数 )；有魅力的东西；迷恋；陶醉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
salvation
|
|
| n.（尤指基督）救世，超度，拯救，解困 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
peril
|
|
| n.(严重的)危险；危险的事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
controvert
|
|
| v.否定；否认 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
horrified
|
|
| a.(表现出)恐惧的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
comport
|
|
| vi.相称，适合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
binds
|
|
| v.约束( bind的第三人称单数 )；装订；捆绑；（用长布条）缠绕 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
wilfully
|
|
| adv.任性固执地；蓄意地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
conversion
|
|
| n.转化，转换，转变 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
heresy
|
|
| n.异端邪说；异教 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
motive
|
|
| n.动机，目的；adv.发动的，运动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
simplicity
|
|
| n.简单，简易；朴素；直率，单纯 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
disseminating
|
|
| 散布，传播( disseminate的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
calamity
|
|
| n.灾害，祸患，不幸事件 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
solely
|
|
| adv.仅仅，唯一地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
apprehension
|
|
| n.理解，领悟；逮捕，拘捕；忧虑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
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： |
|
|
|
|
106
drawn
|
|
| v.拖，拉，拔出；adj.憔悴的，紧张的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
celebrated
|
|
| adj.有名的，声誉卓著的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
strictly
|
|
| adv.严厉地，严格地；严密地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
judicious
|
|
| adj.明智的，明断的，能作出明智决定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
badinage
|
|
| n.开玩笑，打趣 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
ingenuity
|
|
| n.别出心裁；善于发明创造 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
insolence
|
|
| n.傲慢；无礼；厚颜；傲慢的态度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
treatise
|
|
| n.专著；(专题)论文 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
obedience
|
|
| n.服从，顺从 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
advantageous
|
|
| adj.有利的；有帮助的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
strenuously
|
|
| adv.奋发地，费力地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
opposition
|
|
| n.反对，敌对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
testament
|
|
| n.遗嘱；证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
arduous
|
|
| adj.艰苦的，费力的，陡峭的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
bondage
|
|
| n.奴役，束缚 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
justified
|
|
| a.正当的，有理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
Christians
|
|
| n.基督教徒( Christian的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
Christian
|
|
| adj.基督教徒的；n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
detesting
|
|
| v.憎恶，嫌恶，痛恨( detest的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
esteem
|
|
| n.尊敬，尊重；vt.尊重，敬重；把…看作 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
participation
|
|
| n.参与，参加，分享 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
covert
|
|
| adj.隐藏的；暗地里的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
bribe
|
|
| n.贿赂；v.向…行贿，买通 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
inveterate
|
|
| adj.积习已深的，根深蒂固的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
thereby
|
|
| adv.因此，从而 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
license
|
|
| n.执照，许可证，特许；v.许可，特许 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
tamper
|
|
| v.干预，玩弄，贿赂，窜改，削弱，损害 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
subversion
|
|
| n.颠覆，破坏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
piety
|
|
| n.虔诚，虔敬 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
climax
|
|
| n.顶点；高潮；v.(使)达到顶点 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
impiety
|
|
| n.不敬；不孝 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
begotten
|
|
| v.为…之生父( beget的过去分词 )；产生，引起 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
redeemed
|
|
| adj. 可赎回的，可救赎的 动词redeem的过去式和过去分词形式 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
precepts
|
|
| n.规诫，戒律，箴言( precept的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
eternity
|
|
| n.不朽，来世；永恒，无穷 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
behold
|
|
| v.看，注视，看到 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
iniquity
|
|
| n.邪恶；不公正 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
aberrations
|
|
| n.偏差( aberration的名词复数 )；差错；脱离常规；心理失常 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
vouchsafe
|
|
| v.惠予，准许 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
precipices
|
|
| n.悬崖，峭壁( precipice的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
146
sufficiently
|
|
| adv.足够地，充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |