“Your answer, my dear child, does not surprise me.  It shows me into what depths you have fallen.  That you should think like this is part of the teaching of the man whose object was to undermine your faith; it is part of the teaching of Darwin and Huxley and Spencer.  You were persuaded that to live with a man to whom you were not married differed in no wise from living with your husband.  The result has proved how false is such teaching.  The sacrament of marriage was instituted to save the weak from the danger of temptation, and human nature is essentially weak, and without the protection of the Church it falls.  The doctrine of the Church is our only safeguard.  But that you should have proved unfaithful to this man—­this second sin which shocked you so much, and which I am thankful awakened in you a sense of sin, is not more important than to thwart the design of Nature.  It is important that you should understand this, for an understanding on this point will show you how false, how contradictory, is the teaching of the naturalistic philosophy in which you placed your trust.  These men put aside revealed religion and refer everything to Nature, but they do not hesitate to oppose the designs of Nature when it suits their purpose.  The doctrine of the Church has always been one wife, one husband.  Polygamy and polyandry are relatively sterile.  It is the acknowledged wife and the acknowledged husband that are fruitful; it is the husband and wife who furnish the world with men and heaven with souls, whereas the lover and the mistress fulfil no purpose, they merely encumber the world with their vice, they are useless to Nature, and are hateful in God’s sight; the nations that do not cast them out soon become decrepid.  If we go to the root of things, we find that the law of the Church coincides very closely with the law of Nature, and that the so-called natural sciences are but a nineteenth century figment.  I hope all this is quite clear to you?”

Evelyn acquiesced.  Her natural instinct forbade her the original sin—­what happened after did not appeal to her; she could feel no interest in the question he had raised.  But she was determined to avoid all falsehood—­on that question her instinct was again explicit—­and when he returned again in his irritation at her insubordination to his ideas, and questioned her regarding her belief as to a future life, her answer was so doubtful that after a moment’s hesitation he said—­

“If you are not convinced on so cardinal a point of dogma, it is impossible for me to give you absolution.”

“Do not deny me your absolution.  I cannot face my life without some sign of forgiveness.  I believe—­I think I believe.  You probe too deeply.  Sometimes it seems to me that there must be a future life, sometimes it seems to me—­that it would be too terrible if we were to live again.”

“It would be too terrible indeed, my dear child, if we were to live again unassoiled, unpurified, in all our miserable imperfections.  But these have been removed by the priest’s absolution, by the sinner’s repentance in this world and by purgatory in the next.  Those who have the happiness to live in the sight of God are without stain.”